Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. P.Ws.1 and 2 are elder brothers of the first deceased. They deposed that A.1 went to Muscat and returned to India four months back and he performed the marriage of his elder daughter-Malleshwari with one Prashanth and at the time of marriage a cash of Rs.3,00,000/-, two tulas of gold apart from other household articles were presented. Out of which P.W.1 gave Rs.60,000/- for the marriage expenses and in fact he spent Rs.1,00,000/-. Thereafter A.1 started abusing and beating his sister-first deceased with a demand to get an additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on the pretext that he incurred lot of expenditure upon which P.W.1 along with others came to A.1 and requested not to harass their sister on the ground of additional amount. P.Ws.1 and 2 further deposed that after fifteen days, they received a phone call and came to know that A.1 hacked his wife- Padma and daughter. A.1 killed his daughter as he has to perform her marriage by giving dowry. They further deposed that A.2 to A6 harassed their sister and also abetted to kill the deceased. A2 is elder brother of A1, A3 is elder sister, A4 is the husband of A3, A5 is younger sister of A2 and A3 and A6 is the son of A5. In the cross-examination, he admitted that they have not given any complaint when A1 threatened and beat his sister. It was suggested to him that the son of the deceased was not residing at Lambadipalli and he was staying at Potharam and was going to school, but he denied the same. P.W.2 is also deposed on the same lines. But it seems that he has not attended the mediation along with P.W.1. He further deposed that though A2 separated from A1, they are living separately since long time, A3 and A4 resided at Sudddapalli and they came to Lambadipalli for the marriage of Malleshwari. A5 and A6 are residents of Potharam. It was suggested to him that A1 was not in the house at the time of offence and he went to Vemulawada and some unknown thieves entered into the house and committed murder of wife and daughter of A1 but a false complaint was given by P.W.1 and he denied the same.

11. P.W.6 was the ex-sarpanch of Lambadipalli village, but he turned hostile and deposed that when they went to the house of the deceased and found the dead bodies of Padma and Swapna and A.1 was found missing, and there upon he collected the phone number of A.1 and informed him about the death. A.1 stated that he was attending temple at Vemulavada and he also stated that P.W.4 did not disclose anything to him and he was under shock.

12. Perusal of the entire evidence on record shows that all the witnesses, except Sarpanch, are relatives of the deceased. Their main grievance is that accused was harassing the first deceased for additional dowry. As the first accused performed his eldest daughter's marriage, he along with other accused demanded for additional dowry and in that course he hacked the first deceased with a knife and also hacked his daughter aged about 17 years and fled away from the scene of offence. There is no eye witness to the occurrence, except the son of the deceased who was aged about 10 years at that time. The incident occurred on 01.02.2012. Police also filed memo before filing of the charge-sheet for recording the statement of all material witnesses including the son of the deceased under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 28.03.2012 and accordingly the evidence of child witness was also recorded by the Magistrate under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the 164 Cr.P.C. statement also the child witnesses stated that his father hacked his sister, thrown away the knife. He went inside and found his mother dead in the meantime his father changed his dress, took him away on a cycle left him near by the school and threatened him not to reveal anybody and fled away from that place. He informed the same to his maternal uncle and also to others. The trial Court observed that there is no reason for the minor son and elder daughter to depose against her father and relied upon their evidence and convicted A.1 for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Admittedly the panch witness for confessional-cum-seizure panchanama turned hostile and thus the recovery of knife was not established by the prosecution.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that A.1 was residing in Muscat, earning the amount and sending to the family and there is no reason for him to demand additional dowry; the defence of the accused is that he was not in the house and he went to Vemulavada and some thieves might have intruded into the house and killed the deceased. Further, P.W.1 and others tutored the son of the accused and got implicated him and filed a false complaint against him. If at all A.1 has not committed any offence when ex-sarpanch called the accused over phone and informed about the death of his wife and daughter and why he did not turned up immediately, was not explained by the defence and as per the evidence on record the accused was arrested by the Police on 03.02.2012 while A.1 was at Mallial cross roads. P.W.4 stated that his father cut the throat of his sister, thrown away the knife, changed his dress in the meanwhile he went inside and seen his mother with cut injuries in the neck. His father thereupon threatened him to kill if he reveals the same to others and has taken him on a bicycle near the school and he went away. As observed by the trial Court there is no reason for the minor child to depose falsely against his father by implicating him. He clearly stated that his father hacked his sister and found his mother with cut injuries. Moreover, immediately after the offence he fled away from that place and his subsequent conduct immediately after the offence also supports the version of the prosecution. As per the evidence of the other witnesses, there was quarrel between wife and husband; though their marriage took place about 21 years back, when he performed the marriage of his elder daughter, he again demanded dowry and picked up quarrel with his wife and it led to hacking his wife to death and also hacking his daughter aged about 17 years without any reason and fled away from that place. There is no reason for P.Ws.3 and 4 to speak against the accused even at the instance of other relatives. Before the Magistrate P.W.4 clearly stated regarding happening of the events in his own words and it was recorded by the Magistrate in Telugu. The Magistrate and also the trial Court ensured whether P.W.4 was competent to depose before the Court or not by putting preliminary questions and only after satisfying themselves that he is competent to give the statement, they proceeded to record the statement/deposition and as such it cannot be said he was not competent to depose before the Court.

16. No doubt, there is every possibility to tutor the eye witness but in this case immediately after the incident when his father dropped him near the school and fled away, the boy himself revealed about the incident to his maternal aunt and also to A.2, A.3 and A.6 who are the relatives of his father but not to the relatives of his mother. All of them proceeded to the Sarpanch and from there to the house of the deceased and found the dead bodies in the house. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is scope for the relatives of the deceased to tutor the child witness in the interregnum. Even P.W.3 sister of the second deceased ensured the facts from her brother P.W.4 and deposed against her father especially when her father was so responsible and performed her marriage on 04.12.2011 there is no reason for her to depose falsely against her father after two months. A.1 hacked his daughter aged about 17 years without any reason. The trial Court observed that it is a case of Uxoricide and Filicide and very heinous crime and inflicted life imprisonment to A.1 along with compensation. It is a case of double murder, at least there was quarrel between wife and husband before hacking her, but A.1 also hacked his grown up daughter without mercy and any reason. As the testimony of child witness is an eye witness to the incident and inspired the confidence of Court, the trial Court believed the same and his evidence was amply corroborated by the evidence of other witness regarding the quarrel between A.1 and his wife, the trial Court rightly convicted A.1 and it needs no interference.