THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Crl.Appeal No.1682 of 2009 10-03-2014 Gandla Shankar... Appellant State of A.P., rep. by its P.P.,High Court of A.P., Hyderabad ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant:Sri Parameswara Rao Counsel for respondent: Public Prosecutor HEAD NOTE: ?.CASES REFERRED : .... HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Criminal Appeal No.1682 of 2009 Dated:
10. 03.2014 JUDGMENT
: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S.K.Jaiswal) The appellant was charged with commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. for having caused the death of his wife - Gandla Gangubai on 28-11-2008 at about 10.00 a.m., in the morning, in Muthyampet village, falling within the limits of P.S.Kowtala., Adilabad District.
2. Through its Judgment, dated 29-09-2009, the learned III-Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Asifabad, found the accused guilty of the charge, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by it, the accused preferred this appeal.
3. The facts are as under:- The accused and the deceased are husband and wife. They had two sons viz., Mukesh and Rakesh (PWs.1 and 2) and one daughter Nagamani. The accused used to harass the deceased suspecting her fidelity. On the intervening night of 27/28-11-2008, when the deceased switched off the light outside their house, the accused started quarrelling with her questioning the act of the deceased. The quarrel was pacified by Bayakka (P.W.3), who is the sister of the accused. In the morning of 28-11-2008, after PWs.1 and 2 went out, the accused again started quarrelling with his wife and taking advantage of her loneliness, he is alleged to have hacked the deceased with an axe, resulting in her instantaneous death. The sons of the accused, PWs.1 and 2, came and found the door closed from inside, and when asked to open the door, the accused refused to do so and stated that he has killed the deceased, and if the door is opened forcibly, he will kill them with the axe in his hand. Several people including the S.I. of Police (PW.10), who was called, gathered there. The accused consumed insecticide/poison and fell down unconscious. He was shifted in an ambulance to the hospital, where he was treated for three days and discharged on 01-12-2008. On the basis of the complaint from P.W.1, a case in Cr.No.75 of 2008 was registered by P.S.Kowtala and during the course of investigation, the scene of offence panchanama and inquest were conducted, the dead body was sent to post- mortem examination and the material objects were also seized. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was laid on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sirpur Town, and after complying with the mandatory requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the case was committed to the Court of Session and charge was framed. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 12 were examined, and Exs.P.1 to P.17 and M.Os.1 to 5 were filed. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He contended that he is the supporter of Telugu Desam Party, that the Sarpanch has instigated his family members to file a false complaint, that the said Sarpanch also created family disputes in the matter of property and that he is falsely implicated. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused.
4. The contention of learned Counsel for the accused is that the evidence on record does not prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that due to internal family disputes and political rivalry, the prosecution witnesses, who are the members of the family of the accused, gave false evidence and that the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective and has erroneously found the accused guilty of the charge.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that not only the two sons but also the sister of the accused have consistently stated about the incident. She contends that the accused was caught red-handed when closeted in the house and was seen by several people immediately after having caused the gruesome murder of his wife and only at the perseverance of the people gathered there, the accused came out of the house and fell down due to the consumption of insecticide poison, which resulted in his hospitalization for three days. It is pleaded that the sons and sister of the accused would not have gone to the extent of implicating the accused with such a serious charge, even if they had any differences. She further submits that the evidence on record clinchingly establishes that it is the accused and the accused alone who has committed the crime and has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Judge.
6. The point for consideration is as to whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt so as to sustain the conviction and sentence, or whether it needs to be set aside, modified or varied?.
7. Point:- The accused and the deceased were married more than quarter of century back and had two sons and daughter, who are aged between 23 to 25 years. A couple, having such grown-up children, who were all married would not, normally suspect each others character. The accused is alleged to have hacked his wife to death in the morning of 28-11-2008 when both of his grown-up sons went out of the house. The immediate provocation for the accused to act in such a beastly manner, is too trivial to be mentioned. It is said that in the night at about 01.00 hours, the deceased wife had switched off the light outside the house, which infuriated the accused, who has raised dispute, alleging that the deceased has switched off the light as a signal to her paramour. At that time, the deceased was in the company of her husband-accused and also their two sons in the house. To what extent, the insenility pervaded on the mind of the accused is evident from that.
8. As noticed in the preceding discussion, the accused was almost caught red- handed in the act. At about 10.00 a.m., on the next day, when the accused and deceased were in the house, continuing his quarrel with the wife, the accused is said to have taken the axe and hacked her, resulting in her instantaneous death. The two sons of the accused, who went out, returned and many people gathered there. A message was sent to the police and the S.I. of Police (P.W.10) immediately reached the house. They all have seen the accused inside the house along with the dead body of the deceased and holding an axe in his hand. When the people and the police asked the accused to come out, he is said to have threatened that he is holding the axe and he will kill all the people. Having realized the folly and helplessness, the accused is said to have consumed insecticide and fell down.
9. These are the consistent statements of PWs.1 and 2, the two sons of the accused, and PW.3, sister of the accused. The S.I. of Police (P.W.10) also deposed to these facts. Nothing is pointed out to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 10. They have spoken in one voice about what they have seen. They were elaborately cross-examined but nothing concrete is elicited from them for disbelieving their evidence. The suggestion that is made to PWs.1 and 2 - the sons of the accused, is that they were demanding share in the lands and due to that they have falsely implicated their father. No suggestion is made to them about any political overtones, as claimed by the accused. Though it is too hypothetical to believe that the two sons would have gone to the extent of implicating their own father in the death of their own mother, it is highly difficult, nay impossible, to believe that P.W.3, the sister of the accused, would have gone to the extent of implicating her brother with the crime of having caused the death of the deceased. In the testing times, a sister will support her brother but not the wife of the brother. Absolutely, nothing is attributed to PW.3 to give false evidence against the accused.
10. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 clinchingly establishes the fact that they along with others have seen the accused and the deceased inside the house, close from inside, the deceased was lying dead with bleeding injuries, that the accused was holding an axe and claimed that he has killed the deceased and that when forced to come out. The fact that the accused consumed pesticide poison is evident from the fact that he was shifted to hospital, where he was treated for three days.
11. The other evidence on record comprises of the aspects, touching upon the future course of investigation that followed. P.W.4 is the person in whose presence the scene of offence panchanama was conducted and he is also the person who reached the scene by about 11.00 a.m., and has seen the accused vomiting due to consumption of poison. P.W.5 is another neighbouring resident, who also deposed as to what they have seen in front of the house of the accused on the date of the incident. He stated that they all noticed the deceased lying with injuries, the accused standing near the dead body with an axe, and threatening the people outside that he will kill them if they insisted him to open the door. He further deposed about the arrival of the police and the events that took place thereafter, such as the accused consuming pesticide poison, vomiting and being shifted to the hospital.
12. P.W.6 is the Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body and found as many as six injuries and certified that the cause of death of the deceased was due to haemorrhage and shock consequent to the injuries. P.W.7 is the photographer, who took the photos of the scene of offence and P.W.8 is the person in whose presence the inquest panchanama was conducted.
13. P.W.9 is the Head Constable who registered the case on the basis of the complaint - Ex.P.1 and issued F.I.R., and P.W.10 is the S.I. of Police, who had reached the spot immediately on being alerted, and P.W.11 is the Investigating officer, who took up the investigation, completed the same and laid the charge- sheet.
14. Learned Counsel for the accused submits that there is inordinate delay in sending the F.I.R. to the jurisdictional Magistrate, and it raises doubt about its genuineness. Ex.P.1 - the complaint was registered at 12.30 noon on 28-11- 2008. It is in the evidence of P.W.10 - the S.I. of Police that for sometime before that, they were engaged with controlling the situation, making the accused come out and shifting the accused to the hospital to save his life. After registering the crime at about 12.30 noon, the S.H.O. sent the F.I.R. to the jurisdictional Magistrate and it was received on 29-11-2008 at about 2.10 p.m. Fact is that F.I.R. reached the Magistrate with a delay of 24 hours. However, if one taken into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the aspect of distance, this delay cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the prosecution.
15. We have carefully perused the oral and documentary evidence on record. We find the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to be convincing and inspiring the confidence and it irresistibly leads to the conclusion that it is the accused who has committed the gruesome murder of his wife, due to baseless suspicion. The evidence of prosecution witnesses, and of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 10 in particular, clearly establishes that at about 10.00 a.m., on 28-11-2008 when the accused and deceased were alone in the house, the accused has hacked the deceased with an axe - M.O.1, resulting in her death instantaneously. It is also established that several villagers including the family members of the accused and the Police Officer gathered outside and with lot of persuasion, the accused came out, but not before consuming some poison, with an intention to commit suicide. Rarely one finds direct and consistent evidence of this nature. The learned trial Judge has appreciated the entire material evidence on record in proper perspective and has delivered a finding that it is the accused, who committed the crime and is liable for the consequences. The said finding is based on the legally admissible evidence, which admit of no hypothesis other than the fact that it is the accused who has committed the crime and was caught almost red-handed. The said finding does not warrant any interference. There are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The material objects, if any, shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. __________________ L.Narasimha Reddy,J.
_______________ M.S.K. Jaiswal,J.
Date:
10. 03.2014