Criminal appeal by a convicted murderer against conviction and sentencing by the Principal Sessions Judge. The High Court upheld the trial court's judgment on circumstantial evidence, dismissing the appeal and confirming the life imprisonment sentence.
Conviction and life sentence under Section 302 of IPC are confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1471 of 2008
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad)
This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.545 of 2007 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam on 13.05.2008.
The appellant herein is the sole accused and he was prosecuted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
According to the prosecution, the accused is the husband of the deceased Smt.Chittemma and their marriage was performed about six years ago and she was blessed with female children aged 6 and 5 years respectively. About 15 years ago, the accused married one Kaika of Sarvaram village as his first wife and about six years ago due to differences between them the accused left her and later married the deceased and living with her at Kommugudem. He is eking his livelihood by working as servant in the house of PW.7, who is the maternal uncle of the deceased. Both the accused and the deceased were living in the house of PW.6, who is the deceased mother’s sister on rental basis. Since one year, the accused started visiting the house of his first wife at Sarvaram and in that regard quarrels took place between the accused and the deceased. Besides this, when the deceased was moving closely with the son of her maternal aunt by name Guguloth Narsimharao, the accused suspected illegal intimacy in between them and quarreled with the deceased and beat her. In that regard about one month back, PW.5 and others conducted panchayath and admonished the accused not to suspect the deceased and quarrel with the deceased. However, he did not change his behaviour. On
12.05.2007 the accused took Rs.200/- from PW.7 and went to Sarvaram to his first wife and came back in the evening by handing over the said amount to her and when the deceased questioned him about giving money a quarrel took place in between them. In that regard, PW.6 warned them and asked them to vacate the house. On the next day both the accused and the deceased vacated the house and went to the house of the parents of the deceased. On 14.05.2007 at 21.00 hours both the accused and the deceased quarreled with each other on the above issues and the deceased asked the accused to go away and she would not serve meals to him for which the father of the deceased admonished. Upon which the accused developed grudge against the deceased and warned her that he will do away with the life by the night and went away. On 15.05.2007 at 4.00 hours when the deceased was in a deep sleep in front of her parents’ house while PWs.3 and 4 were sleeping on either side of the deceased on the ground, the accused came there and axed on the right side of the neck of the deceased with an axe. At that time PWs.3 and 4 woke up and saw the accused in the light of electric bulb and made hue and cry. On hearing the same PWs.1 and 2, who were sleeping in the house, came out and tried to apprehend the accused by chasing him but in vain. Later the accused thrown away the axe in the premises of Veterinary hospital of Kommugudem and when he fled away through the field he slipped down and sustained injuries on his head and other parts of the body. On the complaint on PW.1, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Julurpad police station has registered the case in Cr.No.64 of 2007 under Section 302 of IPC and thereafter the investigation was taken up by PW.13 and he visited the scene of offence, drafted the scene of offence panchanama and sketch and got the scene of offence photographed and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW.9 and another and collected the blood stained earth, control earth, blood stained blanket and clothes of the deceased and sent the dead body to the Government Area Hospital, Kothagudem for conducting post mortem
examination. PW.12, the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the deceased died due to shock and heamorrhage due to lacerated wound on the neck. On 16.05.2007 at 16.00 hours the accused was arrested and sent to judicial custody, after seizing the axe used in the commission of the offence in the presence of mediators PW.11 and another and after completion of the investigation, PW.13 filed charge sheet against the accused.
The Sessions Judge has framed the charge under Section 302 of IPC against the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charge.
The prosecution in order to establish the said charge, examined PWs.1 to 13, got marked Exs.P1 to P13 and MOs.1 to 7. No oral or documentary evidence was produced on behalf of the accused in defence.
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 undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed.
Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution could able to establish the charge under Section 302 of IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
POINT:
The counsel appearing for the appellant has pleaded that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the circumstantial evidence of PWs.1 to 4 cannot be relied upon as they are interested witnesses and
they have only seen the accused running away from the scene of offence and the identification of the accused by them is doubtful and there is no motive for the accused to commit the offence and as such the conviction and sentence passed against the accused is liable to be set aside.
The Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has pleaded that there are disputes between the deceased and the accused with regard to the accused visiting the house of his first wife and the accused suspecting the deceased having illicit intimacy with one Narsimharao, son of PW.6 and having kept in mind the same, the accused bore grudge against her and hacked her when she was sleeping in the house of her parents on the night of 15.05.2007 and the same was witnessed by PWs.3 and 4, who were sleeping along with the deceased at the time of incident and PWs.2 and 3 came to the spot and chased the accused but they could not catch hold of the accused. She further pleaded that the prosecution could able to establish the identity of the accused at the time of incident and axe was seized at the instance of the accused in the presence of PW.11 and another and as such the evidence produced by the prosecution clearly establishes that the accused caused the death of the deceased by hacking on her neck with an axe.
According to the prosecution, the marriage of the deceased with the accused was performed about six years ago and prior to that the accused married one Kaika of Sarvaram village and left her about six years back and later married the deceased and since one year, the accused started visiting the house of his first wife and paid Rs.200/- to her by taking the amount from his master PW.7 and disputes arose between the accused and the deceased in that regard and the accused also suspecting the deceased having illicit intimacy with Narsimharao, who is the son of PW.6, in whose house they are residing as tenants and when the deceased questioned him about payment of money to his
first wife a quarrel took place in between them and the deceased refused to serve meals to him on the night of 14.05.2007 and asked the accused to go away from that place. Thereupon the accused left the place saying that he will see her end and on 15.05.2007 at 4.00 hours when the deceased was in a deep sleep in front of her parents’ house along with PWs.3 and 4, the accused came there and hacked on the neck of the deceased with an axe and she died on the spot.
The investigation was started on the complaint given by PW.1, who is the maternal uncle of the deceased, and according to him, one Kaika is the first wife of the accused and the accused divorced her and married the deceased. One year prior to the date of incident, the accused and deceased migrated to his village Kommugudem in order to eke out their livelihood and the accused was working as a farm servant under PW.7 and they were living in the house of PW.6, who is his sister, as tenants and according to him, disputes arose between the deceased and the accused six months prior to the incident and the deceased alleging that the accused was visiting the house of his first wife and the accused suspecting the fidelity of the deceased as she is having illicit intimacy with Narasimharao, son of PW.6. According to him, on 12.05.2007 the accused took Rs.200/- from PW.7 and went to Kaika and gave it to her and the deceased questioned the same and a in that regard a quarrel took place in between them. Upon which PW.6 asked them to vacate the house and after vacating the house, the accused and the deceased went to the house of the mother of the deceased. On the date of incident at about 9.00 p.m. the accused went to his house in a drunken state and asked his wife to serve food and the deceased refused to serve him food on that a quarrel took place between them and the accused threatened her with dire consequences. On the date of incident, the deceased, her paternal grand mother, Soni and her daughter were slept in tin roof shed in front of the house and at about 4.00 a.m. he heard the cries of Janaki and Soni, he woke up and went to
the house of accused and saw the accused running away armed with an axe and he tried to apprehend and chase the accused but he could not catch him. He returned back to the house of the deceased and saw the deceased with an injury on her neck. On his enquiry, Soni and Janaki informed that the accused hacked the deceased with an axe and escaped. As he could not get bus immediately to go to police station, at about 8.00 a.m. he went to police station and lodged the complaint, which is Ex.P-1. He identified the MO.1 as an axe carried by the accused. In Ex.P-1, which is the complaint said to have been given by PW.1, he has narrated the same facts as mentioned by him in his evidence.
PW.2 is the mother of the deceased and she has supported the version of PW.1 with regard to the accused and the deceased residing in the house of PW.6 as tenants and the deceased working as a farm servant with PW.7 and also taking Rs.200/- from him and gave it to his first wife Kaika and the deceased questioning the same and when a quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased, PW.6 asked them to vacate the house, thereafter the accused and the deceased came to her house. According to her, on the date of incident at about 9.00 p.m. the accused came to their house in a drunken condition and asked his wife to serve food, when she gave roti to the accused he has thrown it, then her husband intervened and requested the accused to eat food or to leave the house and the accused left the house and at about 2.00 a.m. the accused again came to their house and asked them to send his wife along with him, on that they informed that he had no house and requested him to sleep inside the house but the accused went away threatening her and the deceased with dire consequences. The deceased, her mother-in-law, Soni and daughter of the deceased slept in the tin roof shed in front of the house, she along with her husband was slept on a cot under same tin roof at a little distance at about 4.00 a.m. she heard the cries of Soni and she woke up and saw
the accused was escaping with an axe. Then her mother-in-law and Soni informed her that the accused hacked the deceased with an axe. Therefore, PWs.1 and 2 are not the eye witnesses to the incident, but they have seen the accused running away from the scene of offence with an axe.
According to the prosecution, PWs.3 and 4, who were sleeping by the side of the deceased at the time of incident, are the eye witnesses to the incident. PW.3, who is the grand mother of the deceased, has stated that on the date of incident when she along with the deceased, Soni and her daughter were sleeping in front of her house under a tin roof shed, PW.2 and her husband are sleeping at a distance in the same shed, some blood has fallen on her body and she heard the sound of axing and saw the accused was escaping armed with an axe. PW.2 and her husband chased the accused but the accused threatened them with a stone and they returned back and in the cross-examination she has stated that she saw the accused while escaping from the scene of offence after hacking the deceased and she further admitted that she has stated in her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that the blood spilled on her face.
PW.4, who is the sister of the deceased and was also sleeping at the time of incident by the side of the deceased, has stated that on the date of incident she along with her deceased sister and PW.3 were sleeping in front of their house under a tin roof and at about 8.30 p.m. the accused came to their house and asked the deceased to serve food. Her sister refused to serve food and asked the accused to go away then the accused went away threatening the deceased with dire consequences. Her father also intervened. While they were sleeping at about 2.00 a.m. the accused again came to their house and requested the deceased to accompany him but her sister refused to accompany him. Her mother informed the accused that the deceased would not
accompany him. The daughter of the deceased was slept in between her and the deceased and at about 4.00 a.m. while they were sleeping, the accused stamped her hand and she woke up and saw the accused hacking the deceased with an axe and he escaped from the scene of offence. Her parents also woke up and chased the accused. Her deceased sister died on the spot and she identified the MO.1 as the axe, which was used by the accused in the commission of the offence, but in the cross-examination she has stated that the accused stamped her hand while leaving the scene of offence, then she woke up and saw the accused escaped in the darkness and she saw him while escaping in the darkness and she further admitted that she saw the accused while he was escaping and did not see the accused while axing the deceased. Therefore, even PWs.3 and 4 are not the eye witnesses to the incident. They are also only seen the accused running away from the scene of offence.
With regard to the accused having suspicion against the deceased, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs.5 and 6. PW.5 is a mediator, who held a panchayat in between the accused and the deceased and according to him, in the panchayat it is alleged by the deceased that the accused was visiting the house of his first wife and the accused alleged that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with the son of PW.6 and they advised the accused not to suspect the character of the deceased and also advised the accused not to visit the house of his first wife and both the accused and the deceased were advised to lead amicable life. According to him, two or three days prior to the date of incident, Kousalya, PW.6 asked the deceased and the accused to vacate their house as they used to quarrel with each other alleging that the accused visiting the house of his first wife.
PW.6 is Kousalya in whose house the accused and the deceased resided as tenants and who is the maternal aunt of the deceased, has stated that the accused suspecting the deceased having
illicit intimacy with her son Narasimharao, she asked the deceased and the accused to vacate the house. Two days prior to the date of incident, they vacated the house and went to the house of PW.2 and she came to know that the accused killed the deceased and there is nothing in the cross-examination to disbelieve the said evidence.
Therefore, from the evidence of PWs.5 and 6, the disputes between the accused and the deceased were established i.e. with regard to the accused suspecting the character of the deceased and the deceased quarreling with the accused with regard to his visiting the house of his first wife. According to PWs.2 and 4, after vacating the house of PW.6, the accused and the deceased came to the house of PW.2 and on the night of incident, the accused came in a drunken condition to the house and asked the deceased to serve food for which she refused and asked him to go away and the father of the deceased also asked him to stay in the house or leave the house. Upon which the accused threatened them with dire consequences and left the place. According to PWs.3 and 4 at about 4.00 a.m. on that night, the accused hacked the deceased with an axe on her neck and as admitted by them in their cross-examination, they are not the eye witnesses to the incident and they only saw the accused running away from the scene of offence with an axe. The said version was also supported by PWs.1 and 2, who chased the accused while running away with an axe. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 shows the circumstance that the accused was running away from the scene of offence with an axe. From the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, it is established that the deceased was found dead with an injury on the neck when the accused was leaving the place. As already discussed above, prior to the said incident, quarrels took place between the accused and the deceased and the motive for the accused to commit the offence was established.
According to the doctor, PW.12, who conducted autopsy over the
dead body of the deceased, opined that the deceased died due to lacerated wound on the neck and the said injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course and she has categorically stated that the injury can be caused with a blunt object having sharp edge like axe. Therefore, the death of the deceased is a homicidal death.
According to PW.13, the investigating officer, the accused surrendered in his office on 16.05.2007 at 4.00 p.m. and on interrogation he confessed about the commission of the offence in the presence of PW.11 and another and in pursuance of the confession, he led them to nearby Veterinary hospital and produced the axe, which is MO.1. PW.11, who is the mediator for the said recovery, also supported the version of PW.13 with regard to the confession and recovery of MO.1 at the instance of the accused. Therefore, the axe, which was said to have been used in the commission of the offence, was recovered at the instance of the accused and PWs.1 and 4 identified the said axe, which was carried by the accused from the scene of offence while running away.
Therefore, the circumstantial evidence clearly establishes the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence and there is no suggestion to any of the witnesses that any other third person has got any access to the place of incident on that night for causing the death of the deceased or any other person has got any grievance against the deceased to cause her death. Therefore, in the above circumstances, the trial Court has rightly held that the accused has hacked the deceased with MO.1 and caused her death. Thus, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court does not warrant any interference by this Court in this appeal.
In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.545 of 2007 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam on 13.05.2008 for the offence under Section 302 of
IPC, is hereby confirmed.
__________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA
_______________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD
Dated: 16-10-2012 MR
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1471 of 2008
Dated: 16-10-2012
MR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution could establish the charge under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence?
Whether the circumstantial evidence, including witness testimony and recovery of the axe, establishes the guilt of the appellant without reasonable doubt?
Whether the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court warrant interference by the appellate court?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Accused
State
N.V. Ramana
P. Durga Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
