Dismissed

Boya Rangappa, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC9 Jul 2012CRLA/995/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction and death-living-for-life sentence for the murder of the deceased. The Court rejected the appellant's plea of intoxication, finding that his actions, including lurking with a sickle and threatening the victim, proved specific intent to kill. Consequently, the challenge against the Section 302 IPC conviction was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were confirmed.

Boya Rangappa, Vs The State of A.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 995 of 2008

¶3

JUDGMENT: (per Justice N.V. Ramana)

¶4

This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed questioning the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant herein, by judgment dated 27.05.2008 passed in S.C. No. 390 of 2005 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur.

¶5

The appellant-accused was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. According to the prosecution, the marriage of P.W.3 namely Boya Ramanijinamma was performed with the accused about 15 years back, and they were blessed with two children. The accused, having got addicted to alcohol, neglected to maintain his wife and children. He used to harass and beat his wifeP.W.3. Unable to bear his harassment, P.W.3, along with her children, left his company about five months prior to the incident and has been residing at the house of her elder sister namely Alivelamma, the deceased herein, at Nagasamudram Gate. The accused used to visit the house of the deceased and ask P.W.3 to join him, but she used to refuse. The deceased also refused to send P.W.3 with him. Thus, the accused bore grudge against the deceased and he used to threaten her saying that he would see her end, if his wife is not sent with him. On 08.03.2004, at about 9.00 p.m., the accused went to the house of the deceased and asked P.W.3 to come with him, for which she refused. Thereupon, the accused left and went towards eastern side of the house of the deceased. Thereafter, at about 9.30 p.m., the

¶6

deceased along with P.W.2 namely Boya Nagamani, who is the daughter of P.W.3 and the accused, went towards the eastern side of their house to a distance of about 100 feet, to attend calls of nature. At that time, the accused, who was waiting there armed with a sickle, attacked the deceased and dealt a blow on the left side of the neck of the deceased with the sickle, upon which she collapsed raising hue and cry. P.W.2, who witnessed the incident, raised hue and cry, and on hearing the same, P.W.3 and P.W.1, who is the son of the deceased, rushed to the deceased. Thereupon, the accused left the scene and went towards Nagasamudram village tank. P.Ws.1 and 3 shifted the deceased to their house, where she breathed her last. Based on the report lodged by P.W.1, P.W.9-S.I. of Police, C.K. Palli Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.19 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., issued F.I.R., and conducted investigation. P.W.10- Inspector of Police arrested the accused on 12.03.2004 at 11.00 a.m. near Nagasamudram village tank bund and seized the sickle used by him in the commission of offence from his possession under a cover of panchanama in the presence of P.Ws.6 and 7. P.W.8-Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, issued postmortem examination report, opining that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to cervical spine and spinal cord. The RFSL expert also issued report to the effect that human blood was detected on the bloodstained clothes of the deceased, bloodstained earth seized from the scene of offence and also the sickle used in the commission of offence. After completion of investigation, P.W.10 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.

¶7

The Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellantaccused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. The appellant-accused pleaded not guilty for the said charge and claimed to be tried.

¶8

To prove the guilt of the appellant-accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P1 to P8 and M.Os.1 to 8. No evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced by the accused in defence.

¶9

The Sessions Judge, having appreciated the entire evidence available on record, held the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

¶10

Questioning the said conviction and sentence imposed on him, the appellant-accused preferred the present appeal.

¶11

We have heard the counsel for the appellant-accused and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the judgment under appeal and other material available on record.

¶12

The point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the prosecution could establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt?

¶13

P.W.1 is the son of the deceased. P.W.2 is the daughter of the accused and P.W.3. P.W.3 is the wife of the accused. P.W.4 is the husband of the deceased. P.W.5 is the mediator for inquest panchanama. P.Ws.6 and 7 are the mediators for arrest and

¶14

confession of the accused and seizure of M.O.1-sickle used by him in the commission of offence. P.W.8 is the doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P4 postmortem examination report. P.Ws.9 and 10 are the Investigating Officers.

¶15

According to the prosecution, the accused got addicted to alcohol and neglected to maintain his wife and children and used to harass his wife-P.W.3, and as such P.W.3, along with her children, left his company and has been residing at the house of the deceased, who is her elder sister. In spite of the demands of the accused, P.W.3 did not join him and the deceased also refused to send P.W.3 with him. As such, the accused bore grudge against the deceased and threatened the deceased to kill her, if she did not send P.W.3 with him. On 08.03.2004, at 9.00 p.m., he went to the house of the deceased and asked P.W.3 to come with him, and when she refused, he left the house. Thereafter, at about 9.30 p.m., when the deceased and P.W.2, who is the daughter of P.W.3, went towards the eastern side of the house to attend calls of nature, the accused, who was waiting there armed with sickle, attacked the deceased and dealt a blow with the sickle on the left side of her neck, and caused her death.

¶16

The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 reveals that P.W.3 has been residing with the deceased, having left the company of the accused due to his harassment and negligence to maintain her and the children, and the accused used to visit the house of the deceased and demand P.W.3 to join him, and also quarrel with the deceased for not sending P.W.3 with him. P.Ws.1 to 3 have also categorically deposed about the accused visiting the house of the deceased on the date of incident in a drunken state and quarreling with the deceased for not

¶17

sending P.W.3 with him. Thus, the prosecution could establish the motive for the accused to kill the deceased.

¶18

To prove the commission of offence by the accused, the prosecution examined P.W.2, who is the daughter of the accused and P.W.3 and eyewitness to the incident. According to her, on the date of incident, after the accused left the house of the deceased, having quarreled with the deceased for not sending P.W.3 with him and threatened to kill her, she and the deceased went to a distance of 100 yards from their house to attend calls of nature. At that time, the accused, who hid himself there, attacked and hacked the deceased with a sickle on her neck, due to which half portion of the neck of the deceased was cut off and blood oozed. On hearing her hues and cries, P.Ws.1 and 3 came there. The deceased fell down on the spot and when herself, P.Ws.1 and 3 tried to approach the accused, he threatened them and went away with the sickle towards Nagasamudram side. They brought the deceased to their house and laid her down and thereafter she died. She has categorically stated that though it was dark at the time of incident, she could witness the incident in the focus of streetlight. She identified M.O.1 to be the sickle used by the accused in the commission of offence. Nothing adverse was elicited in her cross-examination, to disbelieve her evidence.

¶19

P.Ws.1 and 3 have stated that on the date of incident, after the accused left their house, the deceased and P.W.2 went out to attend calls of nature and thereafter they heard the cries of P.W.2 and immediately rushed to the scene of offence, which is at a distance of 100 yards from the house of the deceased. They found half of the neck of the deceased was cut and blood oozing. They found the accused armed with sickle and he threatened to kill them if they come nearer to

¶20

him and went away towards Nagasamudram cheruvu along with the sickle. They brought the deceased to their house and laid her down, where she breathed her last. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 is corroborating the evidence of P.W.2 that they rushed to the scene of offence immediately after the incident and found the accused with M.O.1-sickle and he left the scene of offence by threatening them. Nothing adverse could be elicited by the defence counsel in their cross-examination, so as to disbelieve their testimony.

¶21

Though the counsel for the accused contended that P.Ws.1 to 3 are closely related to the deceased and no independent witness was examined by the prosecution to corroborate their evidence, the fact remains, as per Ex.P1-report given by P.W.1 to the police read with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, no independent witness was present at the scene of offence at the time of incident. The incident occurred at about 9.30 p.m. when the deceased and P.W.2 went to a distance of 100 yards from their house to attend calls of nature, and except P.Ws.1 and 3 who rushed to the scene of offence on hearing the cries of P.W.2, no other persons gathered there. Thus, the question of the prosecution examining any independent witness to speak about the incident does not arise. Moreover, P.Ws.2 are 3 are none other than the daughter and wife of the accused and merely because there is strained relationship between them and the accused, it cannot be said that they would speak falsehood and attribute the offence of murder to the accused, by concealing the real culprit.

¶22

Thus, the direct evidence of P.W.2-eyewitness corroborated by the circumstantial evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 clearly establishes the commission of offence by the accused.

¶23

Further, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 that the deceased was hacked on neck resulting in her death, is also supported by the medical evidence of P.W.8-doctor, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P4post mortem report. He stated that he found two external injuries, namely slanting cut lacerated injury on the left side of upper neck extending from middle of front of neck, extending laterally and ending 1” from midline on back, and incised injury ½” below and posterior to the above wound. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to shock and haemorrhage due to injury to cervical spine and spinal cord.

¶24

P.W.9- S.I. of Police, who registered the case based on the statement of P.W.1 and issued F.I.R., deposed about the investigation conducted by him viz., his visiting the scene of offence, drawing rough sketch of the scene, examining the witnesses, conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased, seizing M.Os.2 to 8 and sending the dead body for postmortem examination. P.W.5, who acted as mediator for inquest panchanama, has corroborated the version of P.W.9 as regards his conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased and seizing M.Os.2 to 8 in his presence.

¶25

P.W.10 is the Inspector of Police, who took up further investigation in the case. He deposed that on 12.03.2004 at 11.00 a.m., he along with S.I. of Police and staff, arrested the accused in Nagasamudram Village fields near Gangamma temple and he confessed the commission of offence. He recorded the confession of the accused in the presence of P.Ws.6 and 7 and seized M.O.1-sickle produced by him, under a cover of seizure report. P.Ws.6 and 7, who are the mediators for confession of accused and seizure of M.O.1,

¶26

have categorically deposed about P.W.10 apprehending the accused, recording his confession and seizing M.O.1-sickle produced by the accused in their presence, and thus corroborated the version of P.W.10.

¶27

Thus, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly establishes that the accused hacked the deceased on her neck with M.O.1-sickle and caused her death.

¶28

The counsel for the appellant-accused contends that even according to P.Ws.1 to 3, the accused was in intoxicated condition at the time of incident and he, having been under the influence of liquor, was not in senses and he also did not know the consequences of his acts and there being no intent or knowledge for him, he cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.

¶29

We are not inclined to accept the contention of the counsel for the appellant-accused. As per the provisions of Section 86 I.P.C., in cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will. In the present case, there is no evidence produced by the accused to show that the intoxication of the accused was without his knowledge or against his will. As can be seen from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, the accused, on the date of incident, came to the house of the deceased in intoxicated condition, picked up a quarrel with the deceased and threatened to kill her if she did not send P.W.3 with him. Thereafter, he left the house and in short

¶30

time, when the deceased and P.W.2 went to a distance of 100 yards from their house, to attend calls of nature, the accused, who hid himself there, attacked the deceased with M.O.1-sickle. Thus, the acts of the accused in hiding himself at a distance of 100 yards from the house of the deceased, after quarreling with the deceased at her house and threatening to kill her, prove his intention to kill the deceased. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7-mediators for confession of accused and seizure of M.O.1-sickle, shows that the accused has thrown M.O.1sickle in the tank after the commission of offence, so as to screen the offence, and thus it cannot be said that he was not in senses or did not have the knowledge of the consequences of his act.

¶31

For the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution could establish the guilt of the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge need not be interfered with in appeal.

¶32

In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant, judgment dated 27.05.2008 passed in S.C. No. 390 of 2005 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, is hereby confirmed.

¶33

__________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶34

______________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶35

9^th July, 2012 IBL

Boya Rangappa, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boya Rangappa, 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

Bale Venkatappa, Vs The State of A.P.

V. Ashok Kumar Vs Syndicate Bank

Palivela Manikyam, Vs The State of A.P.

Shaik Rasool, Vs The State of A.P.

Maddirala Rama Swamy, Vs The State of A.P.

A. Venkatamma, Vs The Director General of Police