Dismissed

The State of a.P., v. Inti Narasimha Rao

Telangana HC4 Oct 2012CRLA/1467/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal against the acquittal of an accused regarding murder charges under Section 302 IPC. The court held that mere recovery of poison and documents at the scene proposed a joint suicide plan, and without independent evidence proving administration of poison, the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal filed by the State was dismissed, upholding the acquittal of the accused under Section 302 IPC.

The State of a.P., Vs Inti Narasimha Rao — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

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

¶2

Crl.A.No.1467 of 2008

¶3

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

¶4

This appeal at the instance of the State is directed against the acquittal of the accused for the charges under Sections 302 and 306 IPC in S.C.No.32 of 2001 by the IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tanuku on 22.08.2007.

¶5

The respondent herein is the sole accused and he was prosecuted for the offences under Sections 302 and 309 IPC.

¶6

According to the prosecution the deceased No.1, Inti Kanakadurga was the wife of the accused and she was aged about 28 years and she was married to the accused in the year 1994. The deceased No.2, Inti Akhil is the only son of the accused and he was aged about 5 years at the time of his death. The accused sustained heavy loss in his business since last two years, he had made attempts to get money from his father and also from his father-in-law by selling his lands and the lands of his wife, but they did not agree to do so. However, he insured for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- showing his income exaggerated. As he has no separate source of income, except the profit on the sale proceeds in his business, he was unable to pay back his debts, which he took for higher rate of interest. Under these circumstances, he and his wife, deceased No.1, jointly decided to end their lives and also the life of their only son, deceased No.2. In pursuance of their decision, the accused purchased disposable syringes from the shop of one Grandi Lakshminarayana at Penugonda at about 09.00 p.m. on 17.02.2000. He also purchased a tin containing Democran pesticide, which is poison in nature, from the shop of one Chekka Purushottamarao, at Penugonda at about 09.30 p.m. on the

¶7

same day and went to his house at Kaikaluru. On the same day night, the accused prepared a list showing the names of his creditors and the details of his debts due to him. He also wrote a detailed suicidal note addressed to his parents and parents of his wife, and others narrating the circumstances in which himself and his wife decided not only to end their lives, but also the life of their only son. He also got the signature of his wife on the last page of the said suicidal note. At about 04.00 or 05.00 a.m. on 18.02.2000, he injected Democran pesticide poison in his bedroom by means of disposable syringe into the body of his wife first and later into the body of his son, as a result of which they both became unconscious. Afterwards, he himself injected the democran pesticide poison with another disposable syringe into his body, as a result of which he also became unconscious. On the next day morning his parents found the accused and two deceased lying in their bedroom in unconscious state and shifted the accused only to private nursing home at Penugonda, where the doctor gave first aid and advised to take him to Government Hospital, Tanuku as it was a medico-legal case. Accordingly, he was taken to Government Hospital, Tanuku, but after sometime, he was taken to Swatantra hospital at Rajahmundry for better treatment without joining him in Tanuku hospital. His wife and son on the way to Penugonda for treatment, died and then their dead bodies were taken back to his house at Kaikaluru. The V.A.O., P.W.1, lodged a complaint with P.W.14 and he registered a case in Crime No.14 of 2000 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and took up the investigation. He recorded the statement of V.A.O. in the police station itself and proceeded to the scene of offence, observed the scene of offence in the presence of mediators, seized the suicidal note and other relevant documents, two disposable syringes besides democran pesticide tin. He also prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence, he got the scene of offence photographed, held inquest over the dead body of deceased Nos.1 and 2 and sent the dead bodies to the Government Hospital, Tanuku for postmortem

¶8

examination. On 19.02.2000, S.I of police altered the section of Law to 302 and 309 IPC and issued the altered FIR. On 19.02.2000, P.W.15 took up the investigation, verified the investigation done by P.W.14, arrested the accused on 15.03.2000 at 07.30 a.m. at Swatantra hospital at Rajahmundry after his discharge and brought to the Iragavaram police station and obtained his sample signatures and hand writings in the presence of mediators and sent him to the judicial custody. The doctors, who conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of the deceased, P.Ws.6 and 7 opined that both the deceased died due to organophosphate insecticide poison. P.W.14 has sent all the documents seized to the Forensic Science Laboratory through proper channel along with the viscera preserved by two postmortem doctors to the R.F.S.L, Vijayawada and after receiving the F.S.L report and after completion of the investigation, he has filed the charge sheet against the accused.

¶9

The learned Sessions Judge has framed the charges under Sections 302 under two counts and 309 IPC against the accused and he pleaded not guilty for the said charges.

¶10

In order to establish the said charges, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.42 and M.Os.1 to 16. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, but Exs.D.1 to D.4 were marked on his behalf in defence.

¶11

Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the Sessions Judge has found the accused not guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 306 IPC and acquitted him, but found him guilty for the offence under Section 309 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for two months and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

¶12

Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal.

¶13

The Sessions Judge has framed the charge under Section 302 IPC for the death of deceased Nos.1 and 2 (two counts) and no charge was framed under Section 306 IPC. Without there being a charge under Section 306 IPC, the State cannot question the acquittal of the accused for the said offence.

¶14

Now, the point that arises for consideration is:

¶15

Whether the prosecution could able to establish the offences under Section 302 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt? P O I N T:

¶16

The Additional Public Prosecutor has pleaded that P.Ws.3 and 4, who are father and brother of deceased No.1, categorically stated about the accused killing the deceased Nos.1 and 2 by administering poison and from the seizure of pesticide poison tin and syringe from the scene of offence and the opinion of the doctors, P.Ws.6 and 7 that both the deceased died due to Organophosphate insecticide poison, the prosecution could able to establish that the accused has administered the said poison to the deceased Nos.1 and 2. She further pleaded that the accused attempting to commit suicide by injecting the said poison into his body is a circumstance to establish that the accused is responsible for the death of deceased Nos.1 and 2.

¶17

The respondent’s counsel on the other hand has pleaded that there is no evidence on record to show that both the deceased were I the company of the accused on that day night or he administered the poison to deceased Nos.1 and 2. He further pleaded that the prosecution has not examined the owners of the shops from where the accused alleged to have purchased the syringes and pesticide poison. Mere recovery of pesticide poison tin from the scene of offence does

¶18

not hold the accused is responsible for the death of deceased Nos.1 and 2. He further pleaded that the suicidal note, which is recovered from the scene of offence, clearly shows that the deceased No.1 and accused decided to commit suicide as they could not repay the debts and also to end the life of their only son, as such the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused for the charge under Section 302 IPC.

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that the accused incurred heavy loss in his business and he could not replay the debts and he insured for an amount of 15,00,000/- and as he as no source of income, he is unable to repay the debts and he attempts to sell away his property and the property of his wife, but he did not do so as his father and his father-in-law did not agree for the same, as such the accused and deceased No.1 decided not only to end their lives by committing suicide, but also end the life of their only son. In pursuance of their plan, the accused purchased disposable syringes and Democran pesticide poison tin and administered the same on deceased Nos.1 and 2 on 18.02.2000 at 05.00 a.m. and also injected the same into his body and on the next day morning as he was taken to the hospital by his parents he survived and deceased Nos.1 and 2 died on the way to hospital.

¶20

The occurrence of the crime was brought to light on the complaint given by P.W.1, who is the V.A.O of Kaikaluru. According to him on 18.02.2000 at about 07.00 or 07.30 a.m. the village servants informed him about the death taking place in the house of the accused, then he went to the house of the accused and found the dead bodies in the house and dead bodies are relating to Kanakadurga and Akil and returned back to his house and prepared the complaint and sent the same to Iragavaram police station through village servant. Ex.P.1 is the report given by him to the police.

¶21

In the complaint, Ex.P.1 also he has mentioned that he came to

¶22

know about the taking of poison by the accused, his wife and their son in the early morning at 05.00 a.m. and in that incident wife and son were died, he heard that the accused took treatment in the hospital of Raju in Penugonda and he also about to die. The suicide is taken place due to monitory problems.

¶23

On the said report, P.W.13 has registered a case in Crime No.14 of 2000 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. According to P.W.13, after registration of the crime, he along with P.W.1 went to the scene of offence, which is at the house of accused situated in Intivari street of Kaikalur village and posted one police constable at the scene of offence and went to Rajugari hospital, Penugonda, where the accused was undergoing treatment and the accused was in unconscious state and he was shifted to Government hospital, Tanuku, he returned back to the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of P.W.1 and another and seized Exs.P.3 to P.12 and M.Os.1 to 7 under cover of panchanama. He also conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased No.1 and examined P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and others and recorded their statements. He got the scene of offence photographed and drawn the rough sketch of the scene of offence. Basing on the opinion of the inquest mediators, he altered the Section of law from 174 Cr.P.C. to Section 309 and 302 IPC and further investigation was taken up by P.W.14.

¶24

The mediator, who was present at the time of conducting inquest over the dead body of deceased No.2, was examined as P.W.2 and he opined that the deceased No.2 would appears to have died due to Democran poison.

¶25

P.W.6, doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased No.2, gave final opinion after receiving the RFSL report, Ex.P.21, stating that the deceased boy died of poisoning with Organo phosphate, which is an insecticide poisonous substance.

¶26

P.W.7, doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased No.1, also opined that basing on the F.S.L report that the deceased No.1 died due to Organo phosphate insecticide poison. Therefore, the prosecution could able to establish that both the deceased died due to Organo phosphate insecticide poison.

¶27

P.W.5, who is running Nursing Home at Penugonda, has stated that on 18.02.2000 at about 07.00 a.m. the accused was brought to his Nursing Home by his relatives in an unconscious condition, they informed him that accused injected poison of a nature of pesticide. He found symptoms of Organo Phosphorous pesticide injected into the body of the accused and he gave first aid to the accused and as the condition of the accused was not stable, he was referred to the Government Hospital. He has given certificate to the police about the details of the treatment given to the accused under Ex.P.19. In the cross-examination he admitted that he gave treatment of stomach wash and he did not record the statement of either accused or his relatives.

¶28

P.W.7, doctor, who examined the accused on 18.02.2000 at 12.40 noon on the requisition of Iragavaram police station found the needle marks on left arm, sub-coetaneous hemorrhage and the patient refused admission in the government hospital and left against medical advice. He issued the certificate, Ex.P.25 stating that the general condition is simple. But in the cross-examination he admitted that as accused survived in case of taking poison he described the injury as simple and at the time of his examination of accused he was unconscious and also he was in serious condition.

¶29

P.W.8, doctor, who is working in Swathantra hospital, Rajahmundry, has stated that on 18.02.2000 he examined the accused at their hospital and he was unconscious when he was brought to the

¶30

hospital, he gave treatment and he was discharged from the hospital on 13.03.2000 and the accused was admitted in the hospital on the ground of taking poison. Ex.P.26 is the certificate issued by him. In Ex.P.26 he has stated that the accused alleged to have been injected Democran Organophosphorous compound and the first aid was given in the local hospital and he was unconscious and ventilates under medical specialists from 18.02.2000 to 10.03.2000 and recovered from illness. He gave opinion that the injury is simple nature.

¶31

Now, it has to be examined whether the accused has administered the said poison substance on deceased Nos.1 and 2.

¶32

Admittedly there are no eyewitnesses to the incident. P.W.3, father of the deceased No.1, reached the house of the accused only on receiving information about the death of his daughter and found the dead body of his daughter and grandson in front of the house of father of accused. He expressed his ignorance about the loss sustained by the accused in his business and the accused and his daughter never asked him to sell their lands to meet their debts. He did not even express any doubt on the accused for the death of his daughter and grandson.

¶33

P.W.4, brother of deceased No.1, also came to the house of the accused after coming to know about the death of the deceased. According to him the accused gave injection to his deceased sister and her son. He further stated that he came to know from neighbours that the accused injected pesticide poison to his sister and her son and killed them. In the cross-examination he admitted that he did not enquire the neighbours why accused gave injection of pesticide poison to his sister and her son and he cannot give the particulars of the neighbours who gave the information and he did not inform police that neighbours told him that the accused injected pesticide poison to his sister and her son. He further admitted that his deceased sister and

¶34

the accused lived happily after their marriage. He further admitted that his deceased sister and the accused asked his father to sell the land given to his sister and pay the money. According to him the said request was made 3 months prior to his death. He further admitted that he came to know that the accused was taken to the hospital at Penugonda. Even though P.W.4 has stated that the accused administered the poison on deceased Nos.1 and 2, but he could not say how he came to know about the same and he could not able to disclose the names of neighbours, who said have given the information to him. According to the prosecution, the neighbours have not witnessed the said incident and none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution did not state anything to establish the said fact.

¶35

The only circumstance pointing out the guilt of the accused is the recovery of the tin containing poisonous substance and documents from the scene of offence by P.W.13 in the presence of P.W.1.

¶36

P.W.1, who is the mediator for the scene of offence, has stated that the scene of offence is the bedroom in the house of accused, and the police seized one letter in the handwriting of accused, two syringes, one pesticide poison tin (M.O.2), two cotton pieces smelling pesticide poison, one door mat suspecting it contained pesticide poison material and broken bangle glass pieces. He further stated that the police also recovered 7 LIC bonds, one exercise note book and the note book contained some writings at some pages, nine books were also seized from the bedroom. The police also seized one ball pen, one letter written on letter pad. The said evidence was supported by the evidence of P.W.13, S.I of police.

¶37

According to P.W.14, he sent material objects to R.F.S.L, Vijayawada under letter of advice. After arresting the accused, he obtained the hand writing of the accused and sent to the hand writing expert, FSL, Hyderabad, for comparison with the documents seized

¶38

from the scene of offence. Exs.P.16 and P.17 contained sample hand writing of the accused.

¶39

According to P.W.13, he conducted the scene of offence panchanama and seized the Exs.P.3 to P.12 and M.Os.1 to 7 under cover of scene of offence observation report in the presence of mediators, P.W.1 and another. Exs.P.3 and P.4 are account books, Ex.P.5 is another book, Ex.P.6 is bind book showing the accounts, Ex.P.7 is account book, Ex.P.8 is bind account book, Ex.P.9 is spiral note book, Exs.P.10 and P.11 are large size account books and Ex.P.12 is the LIC policy copies. M.Os.1 to 7 are broken bangle pieces, Democran pesticide plastic bottle, one syringe with needle, another syringe with needle, cottob swab, bangle pieces and Mat.

¶40

P.W.11, Scientific Officer, who conducted chemical analysis of the case properties and gave the report, Ex.P.21 and he found Organo Phosphate an insecticide poisonous substance on all the items analysed by him.

¶41

P.W.12, Scientific Officer, who compared the hand writing of the accused and deceased No.1, has stated that he examined the signature on Ex.P.9 and P.29 and marked the signatures of the accused as Q.1 to Q.12 and the signatures of accused on Exs.P.16 and P.17 were marked as S.1 to S.5 and they are admitted signatures of the accused. He also marked the signature of deceased No.1 in Ex.P.9 as Q.13, the admitted signature of the deceased No.1 on Ex.P.29 is marked as S.7 and he gave opinion that the person who wrote the red enclosed writings marked S.1 to S.6 also wrote the red enclosed writings marked Q.1 to Q.12 and the person who wrote the red enclosed signature marked S.7 also wrote the red enclosed signature marked Q.13 and he gave opinion Ex.P.30. Therefore, it is clear that signature on Ex.P.9 belongs to the deceased No.1. As per Ex.P.9 both the accused and deceased No.1 decided to end their

¶42

lives. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused has administered poison on the deceased No.1 as the deceased No.1 herself attempted to commit suicide and left the suicidal note. Mere finding of the pesticide poison tin and syringes at the scene of offence could note establish that the accused administered the said poison on the deceased No.2. As per Ex.P.9, both the accused and deceased No.1 decided to end their lives along with their son. Therefore, it is doubtful, who has administered the said poison on deceased No.2. Thus, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt with regard to administering the poison on deceased No.2. Moreover, the prosecution has not examined the owners of shops, from whom the accused has purchased the syringes and pesticide poison. Therefore, in the above circumstances, the trial Court has rightly found the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the said finding recorded by the trial Court does not warrant any interference by this Court in the appeal.

¶43

In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed.

¶44

_______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA.

¶45

_____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶46

Dated:04-10-2012 Ksp

The State of a.P., v. Inti Narasimha Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of a.P., v. Inti Narasimha Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sake Lakshmi Devi, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Chandra Sekhar Ramesh Babu, Vs The State of A.P.

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Chundru Rammohan Rao, (Died)

Yerraguntla Nandini, Vs Y.Tirupalu Yadav

The Vi Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ftc), Vs Bandi Venkateswarlu

Pattan Hussain Khan Vs The Superintendent of Police