Partly allowed

Namani Sathyam, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC6 Aug 2012CRLA/1116/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal challenging a conviction for murder and cruelty, the High Court partially allowed the appeal. It acquitted the appellant of Section 498-A due to lack of specific harassment instances and downgraded the murder charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part-II IPC), citing absence of intent to kill.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under S. 302 IPC and life sentence modified to S. 304 Part-II IPC and ten years rigorous imprisonment; S. 498-A charge discharged.

Namani Sathyam, Vs The State of A.P. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1116 of 2008

¶3

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad)

¶4

This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.451 of 2007 by the IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar on 01.08.2008.

¶5

The appellant is the sole accused and he was prosecuted for the offence under Sections 498-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”).

¶6

According to the prosecution, the accused Namani Sathyam is originally resident of Marchala village but now he is residing in Gandhinagar, Kalwakurthy in the house of Uppari Narasimhulu as a tenant. The accused habituated in drinking and never cared his wife and children and his wife is taking care of their two children by doing coolie work at cotton mill. The accused used to exert pressure on his wife to provide money for his drinking. Due to mental and physical harassment caused by the accused two months prior to the offence, the deceased consumed poison but unfortunately she was survived. Since then the accused developed heavy nexus against his wife Padma and waiting for a chance to eliminate her as she refused to give money to fulfill his desire. On 09.05.2006 night he went to Marchala and collected knife and came to the house in an intoxicated condition at about 12.30 midnight and woke up his wife Padma and demanded to give money. When she refused, a quarrel took place between them. Due to noise, their son woke up and in the presence of their son, the accused took out a knife and in a fit of rage stabbed his wife Padma and caused bleeding injury below her chest. She was shifted to Government Community Health Centre, Kalwakurthy by PW.4 and another, from there she was shifted to Osmania General

¶7

Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment, where she succumbed to injuries on 10.05.2006 at 3.00 p.m. while undergoing treatment. On the complaint given by PW.1, PW.11 has registered the case in Cr.No.59 of 2006 under Section 302 of IPC and took up the investigation and he examined the witnesses and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body for post mortem examination and the doctor, PW.9, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the deceased died due to complications of penetrating injury to abdomen. On 19.05.2006, PW.10, the Circle Inspector of police, took up the investigation, arrested the accused and seized knife at his instance in the presence of PWs.7 and 8, and sent the same to the RFSL, Hyderabad. After receiving the RFSL report and after completing the investigation, he has filed the charge sheet against the accused.

¶8

The Sessions Judge has framed the charges under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC against the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges.

¶9

The prosecution in order to establish the said charges examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-11 and MOs.1 and 2. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused in defence.

¶10

Taking into consideration of said oral and documentary evidence, the Sessions Judge found the accused guilty for the charge under Section 302 of IPC and convicted and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, he was further convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 45 days.

¶11

Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed.

¶12

Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution could able to establish the charges under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

¶13

POINT:

¶14

The appellant’s counsel has pleaded that the eye witness PW.3, who is the son of the deceased, is an interested witness and he was sleeping at the time of incident and he has not witnessed the incident, as such his evidence cannot be relied upon. Apart from the evidence of PW.3, there is no other evidence to establish that the accused has committed the offence and pleaded for the acquittal of the accused for the above said charges.

¶15

The Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has pleaded that PW.3 is the son of the deceased and he was sleeping along with the deceased in the house and he has witnessed the incident and he has disclosed the same to PWs.1 and 2 and they came on the next day morning to the hospital and PW.3 immediately got shifted the deceased to the hospital at Kalwakurthy, thereafter she was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and basing on the said evidence, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the charges framed against him and the said finding does not warrant any interference by this Court in this appeal.

¶16

According to the prosecution, the accused is addicted to drinking and he is not looking after the deceased and his children and on the other hand, the deceased was working as a coolie in the cotton mill and earning and maintaining the family and the accused also pressurizing her to give money for his drinking and as she was refused to pay the same, he developed intention to kill her and on the date of incident he came to the house at 12.30 midnight in a drunken condition with a knife and demanded for payment of money and when she refused, the accused took out a knife and stabbed her below the chest.

¶17

To establish the said charges, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3. PW.3 is the son of the deceased and eye witness

¶18

to the incident and according to him, on the date of incident, while himself and his mother were sleeping in the house, his father came in intoxicated condition and woke up his mother and demanded for money, for which she refused and his father scolded her in filthy language and stabbed her for not giving money and he raised cries and PWs.4 and another came and shifted his mother to Jyothi hospital nearby the house, from there to the Government Hospital, Kalwakurthy and from there to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. He telephoned to PW.1 and informed about the incident and he came there by 8.00 a.m. Later his mother died at 3.00 p.m. on that day and he further stated that the accused used to beat his mother and also used to scold her for not giving money when he demanded for payment of money for taking alcohol. He identified the knife as used by the accused in the commission of the offence. In the cross-examination he admitted that PW.4 and another came there on hearing his cries and caught hold of the accused and two months prior to the incident his mother consumed ‘jillella palu’ and attempted to commit suicide but no complaint was lodged with regard to the said incident. On the date of incident, he slept with his mother on the same cot.

¶19

PW.1, who is the brother of the deceased, has stated that the accused and the deceased lived happily for ten years. Thereafter, the accused addicted to drinking and started harassing his sister. On the date of incident, the accused came in intoxicated condition with a knife and demanded her to give money and on her refusal he stabbed her. She was taken to a private hospital, where first aid was given and from there she was shifted to Government Hospital, Kalwakurthy and from there shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. After seeing his sister and coming to know through her about the incident, he has gone to the police station, Kalwakurthy and lodged the complaint Ex.P-1. In the cross-examination, he has stated that his sister used to inform him about the harassment of the accused. He further stated that when once he went to talk to the accused about the ill-treatment, the accused got wild and beat him.

¶20

PW.2 is the mother of the deceased and according to her, two days

¶21

prior to the incident, she left the house of the deceased and the accused used to harass the deceased for money and on the date of incident the accused stabbed his daughter in the night as she refused to give the amount demanded by him and according to her, PW.1 telephoned and informed about the incident from Hyderabad. Therefore, PWs.1 and 2 are not the eye witnesses to the incident and PW.1 came to know about the incident through the deceased and PW.2 came to know about the incident through PW.1. Even though both of them have stated that the accused used to harass the deceased for money but no specific instance of harassment was stated by the said witnesses. As such the prosecution could not establish that the accused used to harass and treat the deceased cruelty in connection with the money for his drinking purpose. Thus, the charge under Section 498-A of IPC is not proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

¶22

With regard to the offence under Section 302 of IPC, PW.3, who is an eye witness, has categorically stated that while he was sleeping along with his mother in the house on that day, his father came in intoxicated condition and woke up his mother and demanded for money and when she refused to pay, he quarreled with her and stabbed her with a knife on her stomach and the said fact was informed by him to PW.1 immediately on telephone, who in turn informed to PW.2. The said evidence of PW.3 with regard to the accused stabbing the deceased was corroborated by from the evidence of doctor, PW.9, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, as he found surgical sutures over the mid line of abdomen and on the right side and on opening the abdomen, spleen was found removed and there was a sutured hole over the upper part of the left stomach and the deceased died due to complications of penetrating injury to the abdomen involving vital organs.

¶23

PW.4 is the person, who shifted the deceased to the hospital and according to him, on the date of incident, he was returning after watching a second show and he heard the cries of the deceased and he went into the

¶24

house and found the deceased in a pool of blood and on her request he shifted her to Jyothi hospital nearby from there to Kalwakurthy hospital and from there to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and at the instance of PW.3, he informed the same to PW.1 on telephone and in the crossexamination he also stated that the accused accompanied to Hyderabad as they caught hold of him and after PW.3 contacted PW.1, the accused absconded. Therefore, PWs.3 and 4 have stated about catching hold of the accused immediately after the incident but according to PW.1, the accused and his family members refused to give the funeral expenses and asked him to dispose of the body as per his wish and the accused left the place.

¶25

According to the investigating officer, PW.10, he arrested the accused on 19.05.2006 and in pursuance of the confession of the accused he recovered the knife from the house of the accused in the presence of PWs.7 and 8. But, both PWs.7 and 8 have turned hostile to the prosecution. Therefore, the only evidence to establish the recovery of the weapon at the instance of the accused is the evidence of PW.10 and according to PW.10, he sent the MO.1 knife along with blood stained saree of the deceased to the RFSL for analysis and he received the RFSL report, which is marked as

¶26

Ex.P-8. From Ex.P-8, it is evident that a white colour synthetic saree with green and violet colour stripes and flower design with dark brown stains and a knife with brown stains were sent to the RFSL and they examined both the items and found human blood of ‘O’ group detected on item Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the saree, which was seized from the dead body of the deceased, and the knife, which was seized at the instance of the accused from his house, contain the same blood of ‘O’ group. Therefore, from the same, it is established that the knife MO.1 was used in the commission of the offence by the accused. From the above evidence, the prosecution could able to establish that the accused has caused stab injury on the abdomen of the deceased.

¶27

The appellant’s counsel has pleaded that the accused has no

¶28

intention to cause the death of the deceased and due to emotion on her refusing to give money he stabbed her.

¶29

PW.3 has also stated that his father came in an intoxicated condition, demanded her for giving money for which she refused and his father scolded in filthy language and stabbed her for not giving money. Therefore, the accused stabbed her as she refused to give money to him and the medical evidence also shows that the stab injury was found on the mid line of the abdomen and the spleen was found removed and that itself shows that the stab injury caused an injury to the spleen, as such it was removed and the doctor also opined that the deceased died due to complications of penetrating injury to the abdomen. Therefore, from the above, the prosecution could able to establish that the accused stabbed the deceased when she refused to give money and the said act of the accused cannot be said that he has intention to cause the death of the deceased but he caused the said injury to the deceased as she refused to give money as demanded by him. Thus, the act of the accused falls under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and the accused is liable for punishment for the above said offence.

¶30

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.451 of 2007 by the IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar on 01.08.2008, is set aside and the conviction and sentence passed for the offence under Section 302 of IPC is modified to that of Section 304 Part-II of IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life is modified to that of rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo imprisonment for three months.

¶31

__________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

¶32

______________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶33

Date:06-08-2012 MR

¶34

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND

¶35

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶36

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1116 of 2008

¶37

Date:06-08-2012

¶38

Namani Sathyam, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namani Sathyam, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thanda Ramesh, Vs The State of A.P.

Volivoju Suresh Kumar, Vs The Superintendent of Police

Mummana Satyanarayana, Vs The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada, East Godavari

Nakka Babu Rao, Vs The State of A.P.

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Kamatham Manohar

Damarla Lakshmana, Vs Venigalla Ramachandra Rao