Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Sugali Vaditya Gopal Naik vs The State Of A .P . on 22 November, 2019
Author: C.Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
Criminal Appeal No. 901 of 2014
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)
1) The sole Accused in Sessions Case No. 726 of 2012 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu, is the Appellant herein. Originally, he was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code [for short 'IPC'] for causing death of one Sugali Nanavath Jayamma Bai [the 'Deceased'] on 28.04.2012 at about 2.00 PM at Narasapuram bus stop. By its Judgment, dated 15.07.2014, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted the Accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. The substantive sentences were directed to be run concurrently.
2) The facts, as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, are as under:
i. PWs. 1 to 3 and PWs. 6 and 7 are residents of Yelagalavanka Thanda, Beluguppa, Mandal. PW1 is the husband of the Deceased, who had three daughters.
ii. The Accused is the husband of one of his daughter, by name, Lalitha Bhai. About 15 years prior to the incident, PW1 and 2 the Deceased performed the marriage of Lalitha Bai [not examined] with the Accused. After begetting the children, the Accused got addicted to bad vices and started harassing Lalitha Bai. It is said that, Lalitha Bai used to question the Accused about his illegal intimacy with a woman of Lathavaram Village, and as such, he used to harass her. Panchayats were conducted several times with regard to the illegal intimacy, but, despite the advice of the panchayat, the Accused failed to discontinue his affair with the said woman. iii. While things stood thus, the husband of the eldest daughter of PW1 and the Deceased, by name Saroja Bai was deserted and her husband contracted second marriage. Since then, PW1 and the Deceased were staying in the house of Saroja Bhai. PW1 owns an extent of 01 Acre 50 cents of land, which he leased out to PW3 and one Hanumanthu Naik [not examined], as PW1 and Deceased were staying at Rayadurg. iv. Few days prior to the incident, the Accused came to Rayadurg and demanded them to give Saroja Bai in marriage to him. When they refused, a quarrel ensued, wherein, the Accused threatened PW1 with dire consequences. About three days prior to the incident, PW3 and Hanumanthu Naik telephoned to PW1 and requested him to come over to Yelagalavanka Thanda to collect Maktha. Accordingly, PW1 and the Deceased left the Thanda and cut the standing crop in their land. On the 3 same day night, the Accused came and threatened them with dire consequences for not giving their eldest daughter to him. On the next day, PW1 and Deceased got loaded Javara crop into the cart and were taking it for trashing on to the Narsapuram road. Before the crop being loaded in the gunny bags, PW1 went to Narsapuram bus stop to go to Rayadurg. Meanwhile, the Accused came there on his TVS moped and started raising cries saying that he will kill the Deceased, so saying, he raised his sickle to attack. When PW3 intervened not to do any harm to the Deceased, the Accused pushed PW3 aside and hacked the Deceased on right hand three fingers, left side of the neck, right side cheek and left side shoulder causing bleeding injuries. PW1 who heard the cries came running to the scene and he along with PW3 shifted the injured in an Auto to government hospital, but, on the way, she succumbed to injuries. Thereafter, he got prepared Ex.P1 report and lodged the same before PW13 -Sub-Inspector of Police on 28.04.2012 at
2.00 PM.
v. Basing on which, a case in Cr. No. 26/2012 came to be registered under Section 302 IPC. Ex. P9 is the FIR. Further investigation, in this matter, was taken up by PW14- the Inspector of Police, Kalyandurg. On receiving a copy of the FIR, he proceeded to the scene of offence and thereafter to the Community Health Center, Kalyandurg, where he found the body of the Deceased kept in the mortuary. He posted a 4 guard at the mortuary. Thereafter, he along with Sub- Inspector visited the scene of offence and also posted a guard at the scene. On the next day, i.e., on 29.04.2012, he visited the hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of the Deceased in the presence of PW10 and PW11. Ex.P5 is the Inquest Report. During inquest, he recorded the statements of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 4 and also seized wearing apparels M.O.1, M.O.2 and M.O.4. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. PW9 -Civil Assistant Surgeon at Community Health Centre, Kalayandurg, conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued Ex.P4 - postmortem certificate. According to him, the Deceased appears to have died due to Hemorrhagic shock, due to grievous injury to neck, causing cut incised injury of great vessels of neck.
vi. PW14 who continued with the investigation, visited the scene of offence and in the presence of PW11 and another, prepared a panchanama of scene under Ex.P8. He also got prepared a rough sketch under Ex.P10. At the scene, he seized M.Os. 8, 9, 10 & 11 under Ex.P8. Thereafter, he along with SI proceeded to the house of the Accused but found him absconding. On 30.04.2012 at about 2.30 PM, on credible information about the Accused, he along with SI collected the mediators -PW10 and PW12 and proceeded to Virupapalli cross on Kalyandurg - Beluguppa road. The Accused who was standing by his TVS Moped tried to 5 escape, but, he was apprehended. After confirming his identity, his confession was recorded. The relevant portion of which is marked as Ex.P6. M.O.12 is the Moped, which is said to have been used by him on that day and pursuant to the confession made M.Os. 3, 5, 6 & 7 were discovered from his house. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet came to filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 27 of 2012 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg. vii. On appearance of the Accused, copies of all the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished and later the case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Charge as referred to earlier came to be framed, read over and explained to the Accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
viii. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12, besides marking of M.Os.1 to
12. Out of the 14 witnesses examined, PWs. 4 and 5 did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. After completing the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which he denied, but did not adduce any defence evidence.
6
3) Believing the evidence of PW1 to PW3, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted the Accused. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed.
4) The learned counsel for the Appellant [legal-aid counsel] would contend that, there is any amount of doubt with regard to the presence of PW1 and PW3 at the scene. According to her, since, there is inconsistency in the evidence of PW1 and PW3, a doubt arises as to whether they really witnessed the incident. Apart from that, it is urged that, both these witnesses are interested witnesses and the same cannot be accepted without any independent corroboration. It is further pleaded that when the evidence of PW3 excludes PW1 as witnessing the incident, the sole testimony of PW3, who is an interested witness cannot be made the basis to convict the Accused. More so, when there is delay in lodging the report.
5) On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that, the evidence on record, more particularly, the evidence of PW1 and PW3 is consistent and natural and can be accepted to base a conviction. Apart from that, he also contends that, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 would establish that there is a motive for the Accused to commit the offence. Since, the oral evidence corroborates the medical evidence, in all aspects, pleads that, findings given by the Trial Court requires no interference. 7
6) The point that arises for consideration is whether there is any evidence available on record to convict the Accused under Section 302 IPC?
7) Motive: According to the prosecution case, the motive for killing the wife of PW1, who is none other than the mother-in-law of the accused is that, he was demanding PW1 and Deceased to give their eldest daughter Saroja Bai [PW2], who has taken customary divorce from her husband and working as RTC Conductor, as his second wife, for which PW1 and the Deceased were opposing. The evidence shows that the Deceased was particularly opposing the said proposal having regard to the behavior of the accused. The evidence of PW1 and the evidence of PW2 would amply establish the motive for the accused to commit the crime. PW1 in his evidence categorically deposed about the demand made by the Accused to give their eldest daughter Saroja Bai in marriage to him after she deserted her husband. Though, PW1 was cross-examined at length, but, nothing useful came to be elicited insofar as motive is concerned. Apart from the evidence of PW1, even PW2 and PW3 corroborate the evidence of PW1 with regard to the motive. It is also to be noted that PW6 and PW7 who are the neighbors also speak about the demand made by the Accused to give PW2 in marriage to him as second wife and also the denial by the Deceased. Therefore, without any hesitation, it can be said that, there was a motive for the Accused to do away with the Deceased.
8
8) Coming to the incident proper, the evidence of PWs., 1, 3, 6 and 7 would establish that, about 3 days prior to the date of incident, PW1 and PW2 came to Yelagalavanka Thanda to collect their share of Maktha from the land which was leased out. A day prior to the incident, the Accused met PW1 and Deceased and reiterated his demand for giving their eldest daughter to him as second wife, for which the Deceased bluntly opposed. It is said that the Accused grew wild and left the place threatening the Deceased with dire consequences and also stated that he will not allow them to leave the Thanda without accepting is demand. On the date of incident, they cut java crop and shifting it to in a cart to move the same to Narasapuram road for thrashing. The thrashing was complete by noon time and the grain was filled in to the bags. At that time, PW1 is said to have gone towards Narsapuram bus stop while PW3, Deceased and one Hanumanthu Naik were present at that place. At that point of time, the Accused came there on TVS Moped and raised cries to attack her. When PW3 intervened, he was pushed aside, as a result of which, he fell down on the ground and thereafter he attacked the Deceased with a sickle. The deceased fell down on the ground raising cries.
9) PW1 in his evidence states that, when he heard cries from the Narasapuram road, he went to the said place and saw the accused hacking his wife with sickle and thereafter the Accused left the place. While, PW1 along with others were shifting the injured to Government Hospital, she died on the way. PW1 was cross-examined to show that he did not witness the incident. It 9 was elicited that, the distance between the scene of offence and Narasapuram is 40 or 45 feet. It was further elicited that eight years back, the husband of Saroja Bai deserted her as she refused to resign her post as conductor in RTC. To a suggestion that Accused never quarreled with PW1 or his wife was denied. To a further suggestion that PW1 never witnessed the incident personally and by the time of alleged incident, he was at Rayadurg was denied him.
10) From the evidence of PW1, it is clear that, after the grain was loaded in the bags, he proceeded towards Narasarapuram bus stop, which was at a distance of 40 to 50 feet. It cannot be said from where he could not have witnessed the incident. Not only PW1 would have heard the cries of the Accused raised by him before attacking, but he would have also heard the commotion at the scene, which must have made him to turn around and witness the assault. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the Appellant that PW1 could not have witnessed the incident is incorrect. It may be true that PW1 has not referred to the presence of PW3 at the scene, but, PW3 in his evidence categorically speaks about his presence and also the presence of PW1 at the scene. He in his evidence deposed that, when the Accused came there and tried to assault the deceased, he intervened but the accused pushed him, as a result of which, he fell down and received injuries. Thereafter, the accused attacked the deceased. It has been elicited in the cross-examination that, by the time the Accused came to the scene of offence, PW3, the Deceased and 10 Hanumanthu Naik was present and PW1 went to Narasapuram bus stop. As stated earlier, in the cross-examination of PW1, it has been elicited that the distance between the scene of offence and Narasapuram bus stop is only 40 to 45 feet. The cross- examination of PW3 further shows that after the attack, the Accused left the place on his TVS Moped with a sickle. Even assuming for the sake of argument that PW1 has not witnessed the incident, but, there are no reasons to disbelieve the evidence of PW3. The version of PW1 to PW3 gets corroboration from the evidence of PW6 and PW7 as well.
11) PW6 in his evidence deposed that Accused used to tell in the village that Deceased was obstructing him to marry PW2 as second wife. According to him, on 28.02.2012 at 1.45 PM, the Accused took the TVS moped of one Lakshmanna of Siripikottala and kept the sickle belong to him in the side bag of the TVS Moped and went towards Narasapuram gate. At about 2.20 PM the Accused returned to the village with blood stained clothes. He is said to have stopped the vehicle at his house and informed his wife Lalitha Bai that he hacked her mother who died. PW6 claims to have heard the statements of the Accused. Immediately, he along with other villages went to Narasapuram gate to verify the truth, but, by then, the Deceased was shifted in an Auto to Government Hospital. They all went to Government Hospital and found the Deceased dead. Though, PW6 was cross-examined, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve his evidence. It may be true that, he is not an eye witness to the incident, but, he saw the Accused going 11 with a sickle towards Narasapuram gate and then returned to the village with blood stained clothes.
12) Similarly, PW7 in his evidence deposed that on 28.04.2012 at about 1.50 PM, he got down from the bus at Narasapuram gate and was walking in his village. On the way, he saw the Accused coming from the village side and going to Narasapuram on TVS Moped with a sickle. He thought that the Accused was going to PW1, the Deceased and PW3 as they were thrashing the java crop. At 2.20 PM, the Accused returned to the village on the TVS moped with blood stained sickle and clothes. He stated to the villagers including PW7 that he hacked his mother-in-law with a sickle and advised them to go and see her immediately. Though, the statement of the Accused to the villagers about the attacking the Deceased and killing her cannot be treated as extra judicial confession, but, the other part of the evidence, namely, seeing the Accused at 1.50 PM going towards Narasarapuram bus stop and returning at 2.20 PM with blood stained clothes can be accepted. Thus the evidence of PW6 and P7 corroborates with the version of PW3. Apart from that, the evidence of the postmortem doctor corroborates the oral evidence in all aspects. Nothing has been suggested to show as to whether injuries are not possible with a weapon like the seized MO.
13) Further, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 not only establishes the motive for the commission of the offence, but, also with regard to the incident proper. Even the argument of the learned Counsel 12 for the appellant that the evidence of PW2 is of no use is accepted, still there remains the evidence of PW3 which is corroborated with the evidence of PW6 and PW7. No motive or enmity with the Accused has been suggested. In the absence of any enmity or motive, for PW3 to speak falsehood against the Accused and when the evidence on record shows that the Accused came to the scene of offence armed with a sickle and attacked the Deceased, it can be said that he has done so only with an intention to cause death of Deceased.
14) Therefore, we feel that the evidence of PW1 and PW3 which gets corroboration from the evidence of PW6 and PW7 can be relied upon to convict the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
15) In the result the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 726 of 2012 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.
16) Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR _______________________________________ JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI Date: 22.11.2019.
SM.
13
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI Criminal Appeal No. 901 of 2014 (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar) Date:22.11.2019 SM.