THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.410 of 2013
JUDGMENT
(per Justice P.Sree Sudha)
1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.04.2013 rendered in Sessions Case No.223 of 2012 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, whereby the appellants-accused are found guilty of the charges under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and Section 506 read with 34 IPC and convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and the appellants-accused are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each for the offence Under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in nut shell is that Chevula Pedda Venkatesh is elder son of P.W.1-Chevula Thammanna and husband of P.W.2-Chevula Santhamma. The appellants- accused are brothers and related to the deceased as cousins. The first accused developed enmity against Chevula Pedda Venkatesh as he suspected that there was illegal intimacy 2 between Chevula Pedda Venkatesh and the wife of the first accused. The first accused along with his brother threatened Chevula Pedda Venkatesh to kill him if he continues his illegal contacts with the wife of the first accused. The community elders intervened and subsided the matter but the accused decided to kill Chevula Pedda Venkatesh and was waiting for an opportunity. On 17.03.2011 early hours accused found Chevula Pedda Venkatesh proceeding alone to attend the nature calls and they followed him with knives and when they reached land of Basi Reddy, both the accused attacked Chevula Pedda Venkatesh and stabbed him. The father of Chevula Pedda Venkatesh was also following the accused and went to rescue his son but the accused pushed him, beat him and stabbed Chevula Pedda Venkatesh on the left side of chest and as a result of which he died on the spot. Accused also threatened P.W.1 with dire consequences but he gave complaint in Crime No.41 of 2011 and it was registered as FIR as Ex.P.6 for the offences under Sections 302, 323 and 506 r/w 34 IPC.
3
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants- accused and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants-accused would contend that the trial Court rests the entire case on the evidence of interested witnesses-P.Ws.1 to 5 and that P.W.1 is a planted witness and there is no occasion for him to witness the incident. Learned counsel would further assert that the deceased was having so many enemies and somebody might have killed him, but the prosecution failed to examine the independent witness-L.W.4 and as such there is no corroboration for the testimony of P.W.1. Moreover, there was enmity between P.W.1 and the accused and hence implication of the accused cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel would also argue that there are several discrepancies in the evidence of eye witnesses and the medical evidence is not corroborated with ocular evidence and thus requested the Court to set aside the judgment of the trial Court and acquit the accused.
4
5. P.W.6 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body. He stated that the death of the deceased is due to cardio respiratory arrest, as a result of hemorrhage and shock due to penetrating injury to heart. Scene of offence panchanama was prepared under Ex.P2 and one broken knife M.O.2 was recovered. Blood stained shirt of P.W.1 was also recovered at the scene of offence. Inquest panchanama was conducted under Ex.P3. When the first accused surrendered before the Police Station with injury to the left hand fingers on 17.03.2011, he admitted the guilt and thereafter he was taken into custody and referred to the Government Hospital, Narayanpet, and his confessional statement was recorded and at his instance M.O.1 knife was recovered from the bushes located in the land of Narsi Reddy and he was arrested on the same day. The second accused was arrested on 24.03.2011 at about 4:00 PM at Narayanpet Bus Stand and as he admitted the guilt he was also remanded to judicial custody. P.W.8 filed charge sheet against accused. Cognizance was taken by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet, against the accused in P.R.C.No.4 of 2012 and it was committed to the Court of 5 Sessions, Mahabubnagar, and the case is assigned S.C.No.223 of 2012. When accused appeared before the Court the charges were read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty.
6. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P10 on its behalf and also marked M.Os.1 to 7. No defence witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused. The trial Court considering the entire evidence on record convicted the accused.
7. The main contention of the appellants herein is that the trial Court relied upon the evidence of P.W.1-father of the deceased, who is an interested testimony. Moreover, there were disputes between the deceased and the accused and as such there is every scope for implication of the accused. The defence of the accused is that the deceased was having number of enemies as he belongs to CPI(ML) group and somebody might have killed him taking advantage of the disputes between the accused and deceased and that the accused were falsely roped in the case. The appellants also contended that Bangari Mogulappa-L.W.4 was an 6 independent witness but he was given up by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them, and therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is doubtful and cannot be relied upon for basing the conviction. Learned counsel for the accused also argued that while deceased was going to attend the nature calls along with tumbler, the accused attacked him but the tumbler was not recovered from the scene of offence and therefore the version of the P.W.1 that the accused killed the deceased while he is going to attend the nature calls was not established. Learned counsel also contended that P.W.1 is a planted witness and he never witnessed the incident.
8. P.W.1 deposed that the accused stabbed his son with knive and he died on the spot and it was supported by the medical evidence P.W.6 and Ex.P5 postmortem report and thus prosecution was able to establish that it is a case of homicide. P.W.1 stated that when the accused was stabbing his son, he intervened and tried to rescue his son but accused stabbed him also and thrown him away and later threatened him with dire consequences. P.W.1 blood stained shirt was also seized as M.O.5 and it clearly proves his presence in the scene of offence. Though the prosecution 7 submitted that there were several enemies to the deceased and there is enmity between the deceased and the accused, no evidence was let in support of their contention. Of course, P.W.1 stated the motive for the offence as the suspicion of first accused against the deceased. The first accused suspected illicit intimacy of his wife with deceased about one year back and threatened to kill him but the elders of the community intervened and subsided the matter. Even then the first accused developed grouse against the deceased and waiting for an opportunity to kill him and on 17.03.2011 when deceased was going alone to attend the nature calls, the first accused along with his brother second accused followed the deceased with knives stabbed him on the left side of the chest as a result he died on the spot.
9. It is for the prosecution to prove the intention of the accused in killing the deceased. In this case the first accused developed grouse against the deceased and planned to kill him and accordingly the first accused along with his brother followed the deceased with knives and also stabbed him on the vital part of the body as a result of which the deceased died on the spot and it clearly shows the gravity of the 8 intention of the first accused on his part to kill the deceased. There was intention, preparation and attempt and the injury caused by him is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the first accused clearly knows that the injury caused by him will cause the death of the deceased. When the incident happened at about 6:00 AM P.W.1 gave complaint at about 8:00 AM immediately after the occurrence of the incident and thus there is no delay in lodging the FIR. There is no scope for P.W.1 to implicate the accused. P.W.2, wife of the deceased, also deposed that her husband went towards the fields for attending the nature calls and her father-in-law also followed her husband. She further stated that on hearing the cries of her father-in-law, she rushed to the spot and found her husband dead and also P.W.1 with injuries. P.W.3 is another chance witness. He came to know about the incident from P.W.1 and he also stated about the motive of the accused to kill the accused. He further stated that there were ill feelings and enmity between the deceased and the first accused prior to the alleged incident. P.W.1 stated before the police that both the accused stabbed his son but when he was examined before the Court after one 9 year he stated that the first accused stabbed his son and the second accused caught hold of his son and when his son collapsed due to injuries, accused left the scene. The argument of the defence counsel is if at all P.W.1 is an eye witness to the incident, there should not have any variation regarding crucial fact that who stabbed the deceased and it is a material variation in the evidence of P.W.1 and hence the benefit of it is to be extended to the accused. But, the trial Court observed that as P.W.1 was father of the deceased he tried to rescue his son and he also sustained injuries, in the meanwhile he was more particular about the safety of his son and as such minor discrepancies in his evidence will not go to the root of the case.
10. Admittedly, the offence was committed in the early of the morning when the deceased was proceeding to attend the nature calls and there is no scope for anyone to witness the incident. As P.W.1 noticed the accused following his son, he also went there and his presence was amply established by the prosecution. P.W.1 made his best efforts to rescue his son and he also sustained injuries. His shirt was recovered by the police which establishes his presence at the scene of offence 10 and he clearly stated that the accused stabbed his son with knives and due to the injuries sustained he collapsed immediately. P.W.1 also gave complaint within two hours at 8:00 AM and as such there is no reason for the Court to disbelieve his testimony.
11. The material object-weapon used in the offence was recovered at the instance of the accused. Accused also sustained injuries to the left hand fingers. The case of the prosecution is that first accused sustained injuries and immediately surrendered before the police on 17.03.2011 itself and he referred to the hospital for treatment and at his instance M.O.1 knife was recovered. P.W.5 in his evidence stated that on the next day of the murder he called to the police station and at that time he enquired the first accused and in pursuance of the confession, M.O.1 knife was recovered under Ex.P4. The learned counsel for the appellants stated that the first accused was surrendered on the day of the incident ie., on 17.03.2011 itself, but P.W.5 stated that he noticed his presence on the next day. But when he was recalled for further chief-examination he stated that on 17.03.2011 Chevula Pedda Venkatesh died and he 11 found A.1 in the police station on the same day at about 3:00 PM. The trial Court observed that the evidence of P.W.5 is consistent with regard to confession leading to recovery of weapon-M.O.1 and it is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It was also observed by the trial Court that the first accused sustained injuries to the left hand fingers at the time of commission of offence and there is no explanation from the side of the defence how he sustained injuries and there no evidence that he sustained injuries in a group rivalry while exercising his right of private defence. The chain of circumstances of date and time of offence, surrender of accused immediately after the incident, his referral to the Government Area Hospital, Narayanpet, for treatment and recording of his confessional statement and recovery of weapon at his instance under Ex.P4 clearly proves his involvement in the offence along with his brother. The trial Court also observed that ocular evidence is corroborating with the medical evidence and there is direct nexus between the injuries sustained in the hands of accused and the death of the deceased and that the injury inflicted by the first accused in the ordinary course of nature is sufficient to cause 12 death. The deceased sustained piercing/penetrating injury to heart as a result he died due to cardio respiratory arrest. The prosecution amply established that the deceased died due to the injuries caused by the accused and the said injuries are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
12. As regards the second accused, in pursuance of common intention he accompanied the first accused along with knife and attacked deceased and stabbed him on the left side of the chest and other parts of the body indiscriminately and also threatened P.W.1 and as such he is also equally guilty along with the first accused. The trial Court rightly considered the entire evidence on record and after appreciating and analyzing the evidence on record, convicted both the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.100/- for an offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 506 r/w Section 34 IPC. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. 13
13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 29.04.2013 in Sessions Case No.223 of 2012 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.
___________________ P.SREE SUDHA, J ____________________ Dr.D.NAGARJUN, J 10th OCTOBER, 2022.
PGS