Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iii) While so, on 09.04.2009 the accused along with L.W.8-Nadakuditi Nagendramma, the mother of the accused, slept on one cot inside the house of the accused. The deceased, who is father-in-law of the accused, slept on a separate cot in front of the house of the accused under the marriage pendyal. All of sudden, at 3-30 a.m., accused woke up, came out of the house, picked up a big Axe and hacked over the throat and beard portions of the deceased when he slept on the cot five times with the said Axe and caused his instantaneous death. Suddenly, the mother of the accused (L.W.8) woke up from the sleep and to her dismay found that the accused is not found on the cot. Hence, she came out of the house and found that the accused was holding a big Axe in her hand with blood stains over her person and also found the deceased in a pool of blood on the cot. Then, she questioned about the act of the accused and the accused came up on her and tried to scratch her by caught hold of her throat and due to fear, the mother of the accused rescued from the clutches of the accused and ran into the village which is located on the other side of Penumudi canal behind the house of the accused. Later, the accused dragged the dead body of the deceased to a distance of about 58 feet towards Penumudi canal behind the house and thrown away the dead body of the deceased in the said canal. After that she went to the house of L.W.2-Nadakuditi Meenakshi, L.W.6 and L.W.7 which is situated at a distance of about 40 yards just by the side of her house on South. She forcibly entered into the house from behind and hacked L.W.6 and L.W.7 and attempted to kill them with the Axe while they were sleeping. She caused bleeding injuries over their head portions and hands. Due to their cries, L.W.1-Nadakuditi Rajyalaxmi and L.W.3-Nagidi Laxmi rushed there and tried to rescue them. The accused also bite the right middle finger and below the left elbow of L.W.1 and later escaped with the weapon. The mother of the accused (L.W.8) shifted the injured to Government General Hospital, Guntur in 108 Ambulance.

11) Sri K.V. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that according to the case of the prosecution, father-in-

law of the accused by name Appalaswamy was hacked by the accused. The residences of the accused as well as the injured were separate. The deceased house was by the side of Karakatta. The prosecution alleged that P.W.5 and P.W.6 were the injured witnesses, who were attacked by the accused. Even according to the case of the prosecution, houses of P.W.5 and P.W.6 were located one house away from the house of the accused. The prosecution alleged that the accused committed murder of the deceased and after that she attacked P.W.5 and P.W.6 at a different place. The Court below disbelieved the allegation of murder raised against the accused. But, the learned Additional Sessions Judge erroneously believed the case of the prosecution with regard to the injuries received by P.W.5 and P.W.6. P.W.1, the author of Ex.P.1, did not support the case of the prosecution. She did not testify that she received any injuries in the hands of accused. The prosecution did not prove the motive on the part of the accused in attacking P.W.5 and P.W.6. P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 alone supported the case of the prosecution. They are interested in the case of the prosecution. The case of the prosecution with regard to the murder of the deceased and the alleged of attempt made on P.W.5 and P.W.6 by the accused were interlinked with each other. In the absence of establishing the case of the prosecution under Section 302 of I.P.C., the charge under Section 307 of I.P.C. must fail. P.W.5 and P.W.6, according to the case of the prosecution, were no other than the daughters of brother of the accused. The reason set up by the prosecution to cause injuries to P.W.5 and P.W.6 by the accused is nothing but flimsy. Simply because, the accused was alleged to have entertained a doubt that P.W.5 and P.W.6 supported the marriage of elder daughter of the accused, it cannot be held that the accused developed an intention to kill P.W.5 and P.W.6. The prosecution did not prove the motive and intention which are essential factors to prove the charge under Section 307 of I.P.C. If really the accused had intention to kill P.W.5 and P.W.6, she would have completed the task. P.W.7, the mother of the accused, did not support the case of the prosecution. According to the evidence of P.W.11, the medical officer, the fracture on the person of P.W.5 could also be possible by fall. As regards the allegations that the accused committed murder of the deceased, there was no legally admissible evidence adduced by the prosecution. With regard to the allegations that the accused hacked P.W.5 and P.W.6, prosecution based upon their case on interested testimony of P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6. None of the independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The investigation was stage managed by the police. The police used the self-same mediators with regard to the observation of the scene of offence, inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 10.04.2009. They used the self-same mediators even for the arrest of the accused on 20.04.2009. The recovery of M.O.1 in pursuance of the so-called disclosure statement made by the accused is highly suspicious in the light of the above. The accused took a plea that during period of the allegations raised against her, her mental condition was not proper. She let in evidence by examining D.W.1 and getting marked Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 without proper reason, the Court below disbelieved the defence theory. He would contend that the prosecution on its own failed to prove the case and even otherwise the accused was suffering with mental disorder at the time of offence. At any rate, the conviction imposed against the appellant is not sustainable under law and facts.

19) Turning to the evidence of P.W.5, the injured witness, she deposed that P.W.2 is her elder sister. Nagasudha is also her younger sister. Nagendramma is her paternal grandmother. The accused is her paternal aunt. Deceased is her grandfather by relation. The incident occurred during the intervening night of 09.04.2009 and 10.04.2009 around 3-30 a.m., on 10.04.2009. She, P.W.2 and Nagasudha slept in their house. Her parents went to Tirupati to attend the marriage of Devika, daughter of accused. Appalaswamy did not attend the marriage. All of sudden, at about 3-30 a.m., the accused entered into their house forcibly with an Axe. She shouted that she would kill them. The accused gave her blows with an Axe on the right side of her forehead. One blow caused injury above the eyebrow and another injury was caused on the nose extending into right eye. She blocked third blow with her hands and sustained injury on both of her hands, near the left wrist, near left middle finger, left palm, across the area at the foot of the fingers on the right hand. She lost her right eye and flexibility of both the hands. The little fingers of both the hands are not flexible. The accused also hacked Nagasudha on her head. On hearing shouts for help, P.W.1 and P.W.3 came there. Then, P.W.1 caught hold of the accused. The accused bite P.W.1 on the left elbow and right middle finger. Then, the accused ran away with the Axe in her hand. Nagendramma came there. Then they came to know that Appalaswamy was hacked by the accused. Nagendramma taken them to the hospital in the Ambulance, from there, they were taken to Government General Hospital, Guntur. She was in the hospital for one week. She can identify the Axe. M.O.1 is the Axe with which the accused hacked them.

20) P.W.6, another injured, deposed that the incident occurred on 10.04.2009 in the early hours, at about 3-30 a.m. She and her sister slept in their house. Suddenly, the accused entered into their house through the back door and shouted to kill them and caused injuries to them. The accused bore grudge because she suspected that they encouraged Devika for the marriage. She also bore grudge against Appalaswamy for supporting marriage of Devika. The accused hacked her sister above the right eyebrow, across nose and right eye and on her hands. P.W.5 lost her right eye. When she tried to save P.W.5, the accused hacked her on her head. On hearing shouts, P.W.1 and P.W.2 came there. P.W.1 caught hold of the accused, but the accused beat P.W.1 on the left elbow and right middle finger and escaped with Axe. Nagendramma took them to Government Hospital, Repalle. After that they were referred to Government General Hospital, Guntur. M.O.1 is the Axe used by the accused to hack them.