Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chedala Gundana, Visakhapatnam Dt., vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 11 November, 2024
Author: K.Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
APHC010722662017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3486]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
and
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 476/2017
Between:
Chedala Gundana, Visakhapatnam Dt., ...APPELLANT
AND
The State of AP rep PP ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. M BHAGYASRI
2. LEGAL AID
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
Page 2 of 19
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.476 OF 2017
JUDGMENT :
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.51 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short, 'the learned Sessions Judge'), is the appellant herein.
2. Vide judgment dated 27.02.2017 in the aforesaid Sessions Case, the appellant was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
3. The substance of charge as against the accused is that on 18.08.2014 at about 6.00 AM, the accused hacked Chedala Narayana, s/o.Mallanna (hereinafter referred to, as 'deceased No.1') with a knife and on the even date, he hacked Chedala Janakamma, w/o. Gundanna (hereinafter referred to, as 'deceased No.2') at Goppulapalem village, casing death Page 3 of 19 of both the deceased and thereby he committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that deceased No.2 is wife of the accused. Their marriage took place about 13 years prior to the incident. They lived in Goppulapalem village, Hukumpeta mandal. Out of the wedlock, they begot two children. Deceased No.2 developed illicit intimacy with deceased No.1, for which the accused chastised them several times. Both the deceased were caught red-handed three months prior to the incident, when they were in compromising position under a tree nearby the village. On that, the accused beat deceased No.1 and brought his wife back to him. Thereafter also, there was no change in their attitude and deceased No.1 eloped deceased No.2 from the village and kept her at Gorrigudda village in the house of P.W.4. Having vexed with their behaviour, the accused decided to do away with their lives and was waiting for an opportunity. On 18.08.2014, the accused reached the agricultural field of deceased No.1 along with a knife and at about 6.00 AM, found deceased No.1 there and hacked him Page 4 of 19 with the knife. On that, deceased No.1 died on the spot. P.Ws.1, 3 and one K.Arjun witnessed the incident. Thereafter, the accused, armed with the same knife, went to Gorrigudda at about 7.00 AM and found deceased No.2 cleaning utencils beside a well. He hacked her with the same knife and murdered her. P.W.5, 13 and one B.Demudamma witnessed the incident. The accused severed heads of both the deceased from their trunks, returned home, kept the severed heads in separate plastic bags, kept each bag to the terminals of a stick (kavidi) and left home with the knife by holding stick across shoulder towards Thumpada village. Basing on the report lodged by P.W.1, police registered a case in crime No.31 of 2014 of Hukumpeta police station. During the course of investigation, police visited the scenes of occurrence, prepared rough sketch of the scenes of occurrence, got photographed the scenes of occurrence, held inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased Nos. 1 and 2 separately and sent the same to the Area Hospital, Paderu for autopsy. On 18.08.2014, police arrested the accused and pursuant to his confessional statement, police seized blood Page 5 of 19 stained knife, two bags containing head portions of the dead bodies of the deceased under cover of panchanama and prepared rough sketch of the scene where the accused was arrested and got photographed the same and the heads were sent to the Area Hospital, Paderu. On 19.8.2014, police held separate inquests over the separated head portion of deceased Nos. 1 and 2 and sent the same to the Area Hospital for autopsy. Police examined and recorded statements of witnesses, sent the material objects to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Visakhapatnam for analysis. On receipt of relevant documents and completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid.
5. The case was taken cognizance as P.R.C.No.13 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Paderu, and after furnishing copies of documents to the accused, the case was committed to the Court of Session, Visakhapatnam Division since the offence alleged is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. After numbering the case, the case was made over to the learned Sessions Judge for disposal in accordance with law.
Page 6 of 19
6. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. When the same was read over and explained to the accused, he denied the same and claimed to be tried.
7. During trial, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 18 and got marked Exs.P1 to P21, besides case properties M.Os.1 to 16, on its side to substantiate its case. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciation of the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the accused, vide the impugned judgment. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is preferred.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused contended that all the material prosecution witnesses are highly interested persons and there is no corroboration of independent witnesses to substantiate the prosecution case, Page 7 of 19 and hence, it is not safe to place an implicit reliance on their evidence in order to convict the accused; that in the absence of any corroboration to their evidence, the learned Sessons Judge erred in convicting and sentencing the accused, and hence, he prays to set aside the conviction and recorded by the trial Court.
9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State submitted that the evidence of material prosecution witnesses is consistent with regard to commission of the offence by the accused and they are direct witnesses to the incident; that there was motive for the accused to commit the offence as he was suspecting that there was illicit intimacy between deceased Nos. 1 and 2, and that mere interestedness is not a sole ground to discard the consistent evidence of eye-witnesses, and the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge is well reasoned and calls for no interference.
10. The point that arises for determination is whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the Page 8 of 19 appellant/accused for the charge levelled against him beyond reasonable doubt ?
11. P.Ws.1 and 3 are projected as eye-witnesses to the incident of murder of deceased No.1 by the accused. P.W.1 is son of deceased No.1. The evidence of P.W.1 goes to show that on the fateful day i.e. on 18.08.2014, his father deceased No.1 left house and went to field at 5.45 AM, and five minutes thereafter, himself and P.W.3, who is son of his junior paternal uncle, went to the field. When the deceased No.1 was weeding out the leaves in the field, the accused came there and hacked the deceased No.1 with knife, and as a result, deceased No.1 died on the spot. Accused left towards Gorrigudda village.
It is his further evidence that thereafter he went to the village and informed about the incident to his mother, relatives and villagers, and all of them went to the field and found the dead body of deceased No.1. At 7.00 AM, he found the accused coming by holding head of a person with one hand and wielding a knife with the other hand. The accused severed head of his father from trunk and left the place by Page 9 of 19 holding the head of deceased No.1. The two severed heads were tied to terminal points of a long stick, which was carried by the accused across his shoulder (kavidi).
It is further evidence of P.W.1 that then he went to Gorrigudda village and found trunk of female person near well, without head, and he could identify the trunk as that of deceased No.2. Thereafter, he presented Ex.P1-report to police.
Though P.W.1 was cross-examined at length, nothing material has been elicited to disbelieve his testimony. He gave all descriptive particulars with regard to the scene of offence and the manner of occurrence of the incident. He also deposed about the motive for the accused to commit the murders viz. illicit intimacy of deceased No.1 with deceased No.2, who is wife of the accused. His evidence is in consonance with his earliest version narrated in Ex.P1-report. There is no delay in lodging the report to police. Presence of P.W.1, being son of deceased No.1, at the relevant point of time of the incident is quite natural and probable. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is cogent and convincing. Page 10 of 19
12. Coming to the evidence of P.W.3, he is son of younger brother of deceased No.1. He deposed that on the fateful day i.e. on 18.08.2014, the deceased No.1 left for field at 6.00 AM and when he was weeding out leaves in the field, the accused came and hacked him with a knife; that himself and P.W.1 witnessed the incident; that immediately, being scared of the incident, he went to village and informed the same to villagers. Though P.W.3 was cross-examined at length, nothing material has been elicited to disbelieve his testimony. He corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 on all material aspects. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.3 is cogent and convincing and his presence of P.W.1 is natural and probable at the relevant point of time of the incident.
13. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that P.Ws.1 and 3, being relatives of the deceased No.1, are interested witnesses and in the absence of any corroboration by independent witnesses, their interested testimony cannot be the sole basis to base a conviction. It is settled law that mere relationship with deceased No.1, by itself, is not a ground to discredit their evidence. No doubt, Page 11 of 19 P.W.1 is son of deceased No.1 and P.W.3 is also related to the deceased No.1. A perusal of their evidence goes to show that their evidence is quite convincing and inspires confidence, and nothing has been elicited in their cross- examination to discredit their testimony. They have no grouse or enmity against the accused to implicate him falsely in a case of this nature. Their presence is quite natural at the time of the incident. Mere relationship with the deceased No.1, by itself, is not a ground to discredit their consistent testimony. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is untenable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
14. P.W.2 is wife of deceased No.1. She is not an eye- witness to the incident. She was informed about the incident by her son P.W.1 and she went to the scene of offence and found the dead body. P.W.6 is younger brother of deceased No.1. He is not an eye-witness to the incident. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 6 is not helpful to prove the case of the prosecution.
Page 12 of 19
15. P.W.4 is owner of the house, in which deceased No.1 stayed in Gorrigudda village along with deceased No.2. He deposed that deceased No.1 kept deceased No.2, who is wife of the accused, in his house four days prior to the incident, and on the fateful day i.e. on 18.08.2014, the deceased No.2 left the house between 6.30 AM and 7.00 AM for well to fetch water, and later, he was informed by his wife that the accused murdered her. It is his evidence that by the time he reached the scene of offence, head of deceased No.2 was severed from the trunk and the accused went towards Goppulapalem village by holding the head by wielding the knife. There is some inconsistency in his evidence with regard to this aspect. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that he is not an eye-witness to the incident and he was informed by his wife about the incident. He deposed that as the deceased No.1 cultivated his land on sharing system and he had acquaintance with him, he allowed him to stay in his house along with deceased No.2.
16. P.Ws.5 and 13 are projected as eye-witnesses to the incident of the accused murdering deceased No.2. P.W.5 Page 13 of 19 is wife of P.W.4. It is her evidence that on the fateful day, herself, P.W.13, deceased No.2 and one Demudamma together went to well to fetch water, and at that time, the accused came there and hacked deceased No.2 with a knife. On that, deceased No.2 fell down with reeling sensation. P.W.13 took her to the house where she revealed about the incident to her husband.
17. It is the evidence of P.W.13-another eye witness that she was a college student; on 18.08.2014 at 7.00 AM, herself, the deceased No.2, P.W.5 and one Demudamma together went to well to fetch water, and deceased No.2 was cleaning utencils; then the accused came there by wielding a knife and tried to hack deceased No.2, but she escaped and fled away; that the accused stopped her and hacked her with knife on the neck, and on that, deceased No.2 fell down. It is her further evidence that scared of the incident, they went into the village and divulged the incident to the residents of the village; that when the villagers reached the place of the incident, the accused was going away by wielding knife with one hand and severed neck of deceased No.2 on the other Page 14 of 19 hand. P.W.15 identified the accused as the person who killed deceased No.2.
18. P.Ws.5 and 13 were cross-examined by the defence at length. They withstood the test of cross-examination and nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony. Their evidence is consistent and inspires confidence. P.W.5 is wife of owner of the house in which deceased Nos. 1 and 2 were staying. P.W.13 was a college going student. They have no grouse or enmity to implicate the accused falsely in a case of this nature. It is quite common in villages to go to nearby wells for the purpose of cleaning utencils, washing clothes, etc. Presence of P.Ws.5 and 13 is natural at the relevant point of time of the incident. Further, the evidence of P.W.13 with regard going to the village after the accused hacked the deceased No.2 and informing the villagers, is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.7, who is resident of Gorrigudda village. He deposed that on the fateful day, the women folk viz. P.Ws.5, 13 and one Demudamma, were fleeing and coming towards his house by screaming that the accused hacked the deceased No.2; that Page 15 of 19 he along with his wife went to the well where he found the accused severing head of deceased No.2 with knife, and the accused left the place by holding severed head of deceased No.2 with one hand and by wielding the knife with the other hand. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony. From the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 13, coupled with the evidence of P.W.7, establishes presence and participation of the accused in commission of the deceased No.2.
19. P.W.15-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Paderu conducted post-mortem examination on the trunk of deceased No.1 on 19.08.2014 and found a cut injury on the neck of the trunk. The Doctor found no external injury on the trunk of deceased No.1. He opined that the death of deceased No.1 was due to hemorrhage from the cut end of the neck. Ex.P11 is the post- mortem examination report. He also conducted post- mortem on the trunk of deceased No.2 on the same day and found a cut injury on the neck. He opined that death of deceased N o.2 is due to hemorrhage on account of cut end of the neck. Ex.P12 is the post-mortem examination report. Page 16 of 19
20. P.W.16-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Paderu Area Hospital conducted post-mortem examinations on the severed heads of deceased Nos.1 and 2 on 19.08.2014 and opined that cut injury on the neck is the cause of death of both the deceased. Exs.P13 and P14 are the post-mortem examination reports.
21. From the evidence of the investigating officer coupled with the evidence of P.W.12, who is a mediator and working as V.R.O. of Ganneruput panchayat, the two severed heads, one knife and one stick were found in possession of the accused, pursuant to the confession of the accused. It is also established from their evidence that police seized blood- stained shirt, lungi and towel worn by the accused pursuant to the confession of the accused.
22. From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that there was motive for the accused to commit murder of deceased Nos.1 and 2. He was suspecting that there was illicit intimacy between the deceased Nos. 1 and 2. It is also evident from the evidence of P.W.4, who is house owner, that the deceased Nos. 1 and 2 were staying in his house as on the Page 17 of 19 date of the incident. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, and P.Ws.5 and 13 is quite consistent on the respective incidents viz. the accused committing murder of deceased No.1 and the deceased No.2 respectively. Several villagers saw the accused moving in the village by holding a long stick across his shoulder, tying the two severed heads of deceased Nos. 1 and 2 to the terminal points of the stick (kavidi). The medical evidence corroborates the ocular testimony of material prosecution witnesses. The evidence of material prosecution witnesses is cogent, convincing and trustworthy. The learned Sessions Judge, upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. There are no grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
23. The Criminal Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed, confirming judgment dated 27.02.2017 in Sessions Case No.51 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.
Page 18 of 19
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY __________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 11.11.2024 DRK Page 19 of 19 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY JUDGMENT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.476 OF 2017 (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy) 11.11.2024 DRK