Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
G.Sreenivasulu Setty S/O Ramaswamy ... vs State Of A.P., Rep.By Public ... on 14 February, 2014
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy, M.S.K.Jaiswal
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1336 OF 2009 AND batch 14-02-2014 G.Sreenivasulu Setty S/o Ramaswamy Setty..APPELLANT State of A.P., rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Pappu Nageswara Rao Counsel for the Respondent:Publi Prosecutor <Gist: >Head Note: ?Cases referred; Nil COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) These two appeals are filed against the judgment dated 25.01.2008 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool in S.C. No.229 of 2007. The sole accused was alleged to have killed his wife, by name, Lakshmi Krishnaveni, in his house at Gudur of Kurnool District, in the intervening night of 05/06.06.2006 by smothering her. The trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC. Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, was imposed for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC; and life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months; for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC were imposed against the appellant.
2. While Criminal Appeal No.1336 of 2009 is filed with the help of the Legal Services Authority, Criminal Appeal No.691 of 2011 is filed by the accused himself through a private counsel.
3. The case as presented by the prosecution was that the accused was married to the deceased about 15 years back and the couple had two sons, one aged 12 years and the other six years, by 2006. It was alleged that the relationship between the accused and the deceased was not cordial so much so, that about six months prior to the incident, the deceased left the house of the appellant together with children to Pathikonda and started living in the house of her brother PW-2. At the instance of his mother, the accused is said to have gone to Pathikonda and brought the deceased and children to his house ten (10) days prior to the date of incident. On the date of incident, the accused is said to have come to the house in the night after closing the shop at 7.30 p.m. and had dinner by 9.00 p.m. Thereafter, he is said to have gone out and come back by 9.30 p.m. The couple and the two sons are said to have slept in the same room in a serial.
4. PW-4, a neighbour, is stated to have knocked the door of the accused around 6.30 a.m. on finding that the inmates did not come out as usual and thereupon PW-3, the elder son of the accused is said to have opened the door and informed that he found his mother in dead condition. The prosecution stated that the accused was found absconding and PW-2, the brother of the deceased, who came to the spot on receiving information, submitted a complaint Ex.P-1. Based on that, a case in Crime No.15 of 2006 by P.S., Gudur was registered. The scene of offence panchanama was prepared, inquest and post mortem were conducted and investigation was undertaken. Charge sheet was filed alleging offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC. The trial Court found the appellant guilty and imposed the sentence, as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.
5. Sri Pappu Nageswara Rao, learned counsel, representing Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned counsel for the appellant - accused, submits that the entire case rested upon the circumstantial evidence and except the evidence of a juvenile witness, there is no other basis to establish the guilt of the accused. He submits that the version of PW-3 is not consistent in as much as, at one place, he stated that the accused beat the deceased in the preceding night and at another place, he said that all of them slept together. He contends that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of the accused at the scene of offence when the incident took place and unless that is proved, it is not possible to connect the accused to the death of the deceased. It is also submitted that the trial Court has drawn several inferences though the evidence on record does not support the same. He submits that mere differences in the family does not lead to a conclusion that the accused had a motive to kill his wife that too, after leading a harmonious life of 15 years.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the evidence of PW-3 is consistent and cogent and not even a suggestion was made to the witness to the effect that the accused was not present at the place of occurrence on that particular day. She contends that the very fact that the accused absconded from the place for about one week discloses his guilty conscious and the intention to escape. She submits that through the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the prosecution has established that the accused used to harass the deceased and the murder of the deceased was just the logical extension of the ill will.
7. Before the trial Court, PWs.1 to 13 were examined. Out of them, PWs.1 and 2 are the brothers of the deceased, PW-3 is the minor son of the accused and the deceased. PW-4 is the neighbour, who knocked the door on the relevant date. PW-5 is the wife of the brother of the accused. PWs.6 and 7 are the elders, who conducted panchayat between the accused and the deceased. PW-8 is the scribe of the Gift Deed executed by the accused in favour of the deceased and his son. PW-9 is the witness for the inquest panchanama, PW-10 is the witness for recovery of MOs.6 and 7. PW-11 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy, PW-12 is the Station House Officer who received the complaint and PW-13 is the Investigating Officer. Exs.P-1 to P-10 were also taken on record in addition to MOs.1 to 7.
8. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the conviction and sentence ordered by the trail Court against the accused can be sustained in law and on facts?
9. The discussion must start with an observation that there are no eye- witnesses for the incident and the entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. The relationship between the accused and the deceased is not disputed. Their marriage took place about 15 years before the incident and they were blessed with two children, elder of whom is PW-3. The death of the deceased took place right in the house of the accused that too, in a bedroom, where the couple and two sons are said to have slept. The factum of the death of the deceased was noticed by PW-3 when he woke up on hearing the sound made by PW-4 by knocking the door. PW-4 stated that the accused and the deceased used to wake up early in the morning and on finding that the doors were not open even by 6.30 a.m., he knocked the door and PW-3 came out. Obviously, by noticing the death of his mother at that time itself, PW-3 informed the factum to PW-4.
10. The evidence of PW-3 is of utmost importance in this case. By the time he was examined, he was aged 13 years and was studying IX class. The trial Court took the necessary precautions and on finding that the boy is capable of understanding the questions and giving answers, he permitted the prosecution, to examine him. PW-3 stated that his father used to ill treat his mother, the deceased, on several occasions and sometimes, by suspecting her character. It is also stated that unable to bear the harassment, his mother went to Pathikonda to the house of her brother PW-2 so much so, that both their children were admitted in a School at Pathikonda. He stated that the accused came to Pathikonda ten days before the incident and took the deceased and both the children to Gudur stating that his mother became ill and must be taken to Yemmiganur for treatment. Acceding to the request, the deceased and the children came to Gudur. He further stated that on arrival tro Gudur also, the accused beat the deceased once.
11. What becomes important is the happening on the night intervening 5/6.06.2006.
12. PW-3 further stated that the accused came to their house in the night after closing the shop at 7.30 p.m. and by 9.15 p.m. dinner was completed. The accused is said to have gone out and came back by 9.30 p.m., and thereafter, all the four slept in the same room, in a line. He deposed that on hearing the knocking on the door, he woke up at 6.30 in the morning on 06.06.2006 and found his mother dead with blood oozing out from nostrils. He stated that soon thereafter, he gave the information to PW-2, his maternal uncle, and beyond that he did not say anything.
14. Nothing inconsistent is found in the chief examination of PW-3. The accused could have certainly extricated himself, from the incident, if only he proved that he was not present in the room during the entire night. Not even a suggestion was made in the lengthy cross examination of PW-3 to the effect that the deceased was not in the house or the room during that night.
15. Two aspects assume significance in this regard. The first is that being present in the company of his wife, the accused was supposed to know as to how the death occurred. The second is that if the death occurred in any other manner, he was expected to be in the room by the morning. His sudden disappearance from the room and non-availability till he was apprehended, would certainly make the needle of suspicion, to stop by pointing out at him. In case, the relationship between the accused and the deceased was cordial enough, one would hesitate to accuse him of killing his wife particularly, when he had two children and when he is otherwise living comfortably.
16. The record discloses that the accused caused harassment and cruelty to the deceased in several ways. PWs.6 and 7 stated that they conducted panchayat for the disputes between the accused and the deceased, and advised the accused to be harmonious with his wife. It is as the result of the panchayat, that the accused was made to settle certain items of properties in the name of his wife and children. PWs.1 and 2, the brothers of the deceased, have stated that the accused used to harass their sister in several ways and unable to bear that harassment, she came to their house in December 2005 almost as a permanent measure so much so the children were admitted in a School at that place by obtaining transfer certificates from the School at Gudur. PW-3, even a juvenile witness, has stated that his father used to suspect the fidelity of his mother - deceased.
17. From the record what becomes clear is that the accused was not happy with is wife - deceased, suspected her character, harassed her to the extent of driving her from the home and having brought her back to serve his mother who was ailing, committed murder on the intervening night of 05/06.06.2006. His sudden disappearance from the company of his wife and children during the night when the incident occurred, leads one to conclude that he, committed the murder and escaped. No material was placed on his behalf to explain his sudden disappearance and it was not even suggested that he was not in the scene of occurrence, when the incident took place.
18. We find that the trial Court analyzed the evidence on correct lines and arrived at a proper conclusion. We do not find any basis to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court.
19. Accordingly, both the Criminal Appeals are dismissed. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J __________________ M.S.K.JAISWAL, J February 14, 2014.