HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
AND
HON'BLE JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.818 of 2014
JUDGMENT: (per Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha)
1. Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is the judgment
that is rendered by the Court of VIII Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Medak, in S.C.No.452 of 2012, dated
20.02.2014.
2. The appellant, who is arrayed as accused No.1 in the
afore-mentioned Sessions Case, having been found guilty of
the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, was
convicted and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the said
conviction and sentence, he preferred the present Criminal
Appeal.
3. Heard Smt. Nandita Guha, learned counsel for the
appellant, and Sri Khaja Vizarath Ali, the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor who is representing the respondent-
State.
Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J 2 Crl.A.No.818 of 2014
4. The narration of events by the prosecuting agency in charge sheet, in brief, are that the appellant married the deceased-Sujatha @ Bharathi (hereinafter be referred to as "the deceased" for brevity) about six years prior to the date of incident. Out of their wed lock, they were blessed with a son and a daughter. The appellant was wandering idle ignoring his wife and children. Having been addicted to all bad vices, including consumption of alcohol, he was torturing the deceased mentally and physically, demanding to provide money for his bad vices. The deceased used to work as Vidhya volunteer in a Government Primary School and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month. She was also getting Rs.500/- per month towards pension as she was physically challenged. She was maintaining the family through the said amount. On the other hand, the appellant was taking away whatever she was earning and was spending the same for his fancies. The father of the appellant i.e., accused No.2 was also not of good character. Unable to bare the harassment, the deceased left to her parents house and stayed there for eight months. Due to her absence, she lost her job as Vidhya volunteer. She Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J 3 Crl.A.No.818 of 2014 came back to her in-laws house thereafter and joined in DWCRA (Velugu) group. Panchayats were held by the village elders, but there was no change in the attitude of the appellant. One month prior to the date of incident, the gold mangalasutram of the deceased was also taken away by the appellant. On 06.9.2011, the father of the deceased, who came to know about the said fact, approached the deceased to console her. On the same day, the appellant also came to the house, but on coming to know about the presence of his father-in-law at the house, he did not enter into the house. On the next day, after his father-in-law left, i.e., on 07.9.2011, the appellant went into the house and again picked up quarrel with the deceased demanding her to give her gold ear studs for his expenses. The deceased denied. On that, the appellant picked up a hammer which was present at their house and hit the deceased with it on her head indiscriminately. The deceased fell dead. The appellant took away her gold ear studs and left the house locking the same. While he was going away, he was seen by the neighbours i.e., P.Ws.2 and 3. The appellant pledged the gold ear studs and took Rs.5,500/-.
Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J 4 Crl.A.No.818 of 2014
5. Basing on the complaint given, a case was registered and was investigated into. Inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased and the dead body was sent for post- mortem examination. The scene of offence and the seizure panchanamas were drafted. Witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded. On 12.9.2012, the appellant was apprehended at Yeldurthy Village outskirts and he confessed the commission of offence in the presence of independent witnesses. Basing on his confession, the gold ear studs of the deceased were recovered under the cover of seizure report and also the iron hammer which was used for killing the deceased and the blood stained clothes of the appellant were also recovered from his house under the cover of seizure panchanama. The doctor who conducted autopsy opined that the deceased died due to head injury and injury to the left lung.
6. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 12, Exs.P-1 to P-14, Ex.D-1 and M.Os.1 to 13 formed basis for the trial Court to convict the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
7. The points thus emerges for consideration are:-
Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J 5 Crl.A.No.818 of 2014
1. Whether the prosecution established beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant is responsible for the death of his wife i.e., the deceased and he, thereby, committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
2. Whether there exists any justifiable grounds to set aside the judgment under challenge basing on the grounds urged by the appellant.
8.POINT No.1:-
Strenuously contending that appreciation of evidence by the trial Court is improper, and suspicion however strong may be, cannot take place of proof, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no material whatsoever to connect the appellant with the crime. But, without observing the said fact, the trial Court rendered the impugned judgment which is highly unjustifiable. Learned counsel further submitted that no body knows who killed the deceased and there are no eye witnesses to the incident. But, only because P.W-1, who is the father of the deceased, deposed against the appellant and made other witnesses to give statement against the Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J 6 Crl.A.No.818 of 2014 appellant, the appellant was convicted and indeed, he has not killed the deceased. Learned counsel also submitted that the prosecution failed to establish that the crime weapon is recovered from the possession of the appellant and hence, conviction of the appellant is unsustainable. Learned counsel further stated that as per the version of the prosecution, the crime weapon was found at the house of the appellant and the said house consists of not more than a single room and therefore, Police, who conducted inquest and shifted the dead body of the deceased from the said place, ought to have observed the said weapon in case it was present there and there is no need for the appellant to lead Police to the said house again and show the said weapon, and that itself goes to show that the investigation done is a table investigation.
9. Opposing the said submission, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that it is not the case of the prosecution that the crime weapon i.e., hammer was thrown near the dead body. Police were not aware that the said hammer was used for killing the deceased till the appellant stated so before the independent witnesses.
Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J 7 Crl.A.No.818 of 2014 Thus, Police could not recover the said incriminating material from the scene of offence till the appellant gave his confessional statement regarding the use of the said hammer. Basing on his confessional statement, M.O-2- hammer was recovered and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for appellant in this regard is unsustainable.
10. The whole case of the prosecution is that after killing the deceased, the appellant locked the house and went away and subsequently, the lock was broke open and the dead body of the deceased was shifted. Such being the situation, this Court is in full agreement with the submission of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that Police cannot predict use of a hammer for commission of offence by the appellant and recover the same.
11. The fact that the appellant being addicted to bad vices was torturing the deceased for money is established by the prosecution through all the evidence it has produced. Besides P.W-1, who is the father of the deceased, the other crucial independent witnesses also spoke about the said fact. P.W-2 stated that the appellant Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J 8 Crl.A.No.818 of 2014 was not doing any work and was wandering here and there consuming liquor. The deceased was physically challenged having deformity in leg. His house is visible from the house of the appellant. Once he came to know that the appellant snatched away the pusthalu of the deceased and went away and that, he came to know about the said fact through P.W-1. The evidence of P.W-3 in this regard is that her house is situated beside the house of the appellant. The appellant was not doing any work and there were quarrels between the appellant and his wife. P.W-4 stated that the deceased worked as Teacher. But, due to quarrels between her and her husband, she left for her parents house and stayed there for eight months and on her return, as she lost her job, she joined her to work in Velugu group. P.W-7 also stated that two months prior to the date of incident, she was informed by the deceased that her husband attempted to kill her and snatched away her pusthalu and went away and that, she gave report to Police about it.
12. Thus, from the evidence of the above witnesses, it is abundantly clear that the deceased was maintaining the Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J 9 Crl.A.No.818 of 2014 family by working and that the appellant was subjecting her to cruelty demanding money for his bad vices.
13. The version of the prosecution that within no time after the appellant left the house, the deceased was found dead is also established. The evidence of P.W-2 in this regard is that on the date of incident, at about 1 pm., he saw the appellant going away from his house adjusting his T-shirt and craf. Within five minutes or half-an-hour, he came to know that the deceased died and on that, he went to the house of the appellant and saw the dead body of the deceased in a pool of blood. He further stated that his house is visible from the house of the appellant. The evidence of P.W-3 is that her house is situated beside the house of the appellant and on the date of incident, the deceased came to her and sat with her and at about 12 noon, she left to her house and thereafter, she heard accused No.3 shouting and on that, she went there and noticed the dead body of the deceased. The evidence of P.W-4 is that on the date of incident, at about 9 am., the deceased approached her and both of them, who are working in Velugu group, collected some amounts and Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J 10 Crl.A.No.818 of 2014 distributed the same to their members and the deceased was with her till 11.30 am and after one hour, she noticed the appellant coming out from his house adjusting his shirt. She telephoned to the deceased, but it was found to be switched off and after one hour, she went to the house of the appellant and noticed accused No.3 opening the door and thereafter, they noticed the dead body of the deceased in a pool of blood.
14. The evidence of P.W-6 is that on the date of incident, he visited the house of the appellant and found the dead body of the deceased. He deposed that the people gathered there informed that the appellant just left the house. On that, himself and others searched for the appellant. They noticed accused No.2 standing with his cycle on tank bund and they also noticed the appellant running away.
15. Thus, it is abundantly clear that within no time of the appellant leaving the house, in a suspicious manner, the deceased was found dead.
16. To connect the appellant with the crime, the prosecuting agency also relied upon the recovery of M.O-1-
Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J 11 Crl.A.No.818 of 2014 gold ear studs from the shop where they were pledged by the appellant. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that M.O-1-gold ear studs were seized from the Pawn Broker's Shop basing on the confessional statement of the appellant and that apart, Ex.P-7-receipt, which was recovered from the possession of the appellant, clearly establishes that the said gold ear studs, which belongs to the deceased, were pledged by the appellant. The incident admittedly occurred on 07.9.2011. Ex.P-7-receipt goes to show that on the same day, M.O-1-gold ear studs were pledged by the appellant. Further, the prosecuting agency by examining the relevant witnesses has established that the said receipt was recovered from the possession of the appellant and thereafter, M.O-1-gold ear studs were seized.
17. Therefore, this Court does not find any grounds whatsoever to suspect the recovery of M.O-1-gold ear studs. P.W-1 clearly deposed that when he noticed the dead body of the deceased, he found gold ear studs missing. He also stated that the plastic supporters of the gold ear studs were found in the pool of blood. He identified M.O-1-gold ear studs.
Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J 12 Crl.A.No.818 of 2014
18. As earlier narrated, the fact that the appellant was subjecting the deceased to cruelty for money is established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. Also, it is established that M.O-1-gold ear studs were found missing from the body of the deceased. The said gold ear studs were recovered basing on the confessional statement of the appellant. Thus, the chain of circumstances undoubtedly connects the appellant with the crime.
19. As per the version of the prosecution, basing on the confessional statement of the appellant, the hammer which is marked as M.O-2 and the apparel of the appellant which he was wearing on the date of the incident were recovered. The prosecution has successfully established the recovery of those material objects.
20. Ex.P-14-Forensic Science Laboratory Report goes to show that blood stains were detected on M.O-3-shirt and also on M.O-2-hammer and that, those blood stains are of human blood. Thus, the recovery of M.Os.2 and 3 and also, the fact that the said recovered objects i.e., M.Os.2 and 3 contained blood stains is also established by the prosecution. Therefore, this Court, though concurs with Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J 13 Crl.A.No.818 of 2014 the submission of the learned counsel for appellant that suspicion however strong may be, cannot take place of proof, is of the view that the said proposition cannot be applied to the facts of the case on hand.
21. The prosecution has placed sufficient proof to connect the appellant with the crime. The conviction of the appellant is not based on mere suspicion, but on substantive piece of evidence that is produced by the prosecution. As rightly contended by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, all the links to the chain of circumstances are well connected, ultimately connecting the appellant with the crime. The prosecution by all the evidence produced by it, has established beyond all reasonable doubt that it is the appellant who had killed his wife i.e., the deceased by hitting her on her vital parts with a hammer. Thus, the point taken up for discussion is answered accordingly.
22.POINT No.2:-
The facts and circumstances of the case were discussed in detail point-wise and definite conclusions were arrived at by the trial Court. The pleas taken by the Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J 14 Crl.A.No.818 of 2014 appellant before the trial Court were also discussed and the trial Court ultimately came to a conclusion that it is the appellant who had killed the deceased and taken away her gold ear studs. This Court, while concurring with the opinion expressed by the trial Court that the prosecution established by strong circumstantial evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant intentionally killed his wife i.e., the deceased causing injuries to her, holds that the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was proved by the prosecuting agency. Therefore, there are no grounds whatsoever to interfere with the well- reasoned judgment of the trial Court. Also, the punishment imposed upon the appellant is proportionate to the crime committed by him.
23. Ultimately, this Court thus holds that the present Criminal Appeal lacks merits.
24. Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment that is rendered by the Court of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak, in S.C.No.452 of 2012, dated 20.02.2014, by which the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J 15 Crl.A.No.818 of 2014 Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-.
25. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA _________________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 28.10.2022 dr