HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.647 of 2014
JUDGMENT : (Per G.Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
This appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 20.01.2014
in S.C.No.118 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Sessions,
Nizamabad Division, Nizamabad.
2. The appellant is the accused. A charge sheet is filed against
the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, convicted
the accused under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, and in default,
to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
3. The brief case of the prosecution is that the accused/Sarasani
Venkata Reddy is the 2nd son of the deceased Sarasani Rajavva.
The deceased was blessed with three sons and a daughter. The
elder and younger sons of the deceased are staying at Dubai and
Nizamabad respectively. The accused and the deceased were
2
AVR, J & GAC, J
Crl.A.No.647 of 2014
residing in different portions of the same house at Mittapally
village. It is the further case of the prosecution that 17 years prior
to the date of offence, the accused took three tulas of gold from his
mother/deceased and did not return to her, for which, the deceased
used to demand the accused for return of the said gold. On
19.08.2012 at 2.00 p.m., when the deceased demanded the accused
for return of the gold, the accused became angry, abused her in
filthy language, pushed her, went into the house, brought an axe
and hacked on her throat, as a result, the deceased died on the spot.
Later, the accused ran out, shouting that he killed his mother,
which was heard by PW-2. Basing on the information given by
PW-2 to PW-1 i.e. the daughter of the deceased, she came to the
scene of offence, saw the dead body of the deceased with cut
injuries in a pool of blood and preferred a report i.e. Ex.P-1 to PW-
10/S.I. of Police, Dichpally.
4. Basing on the report/Ex.P-1, the S.I. of Police, Dichpally
registered a case against the accused, for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of IPC, vide Crime No.178 of 2012 and issued
express FIRs. to all the concerned. Later, the CI of Police,
3
AVR, J & GAC, J
Crl.A.No.647 of 2014
Dichpally took up investigation. During the course of
investigation, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the
deceased and also prepared crime detail report in the presence of
panchayatdars, recorded the statements of witnesses and later,
forwarded the dead body of the deceased to the Government
Hospital, Nizamabad for postmortem examination. PW-11/Doctor
conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued
Ex.P-11/ postmortem report, opining that the cause of death of
deceased was due to hemorrhagic shock and due to cut throat
injury. Further, the investigating officer has seized the material
objects, affected arrest of the accused on 13.08.2012 at 3.00 p.m.
and on interrogation, the accused confessed his guilt, for which, a
confession panchanama was recorded in the presence of
panchayatdars. Later, the accused was produced before the Court
for judicial custody and the material objects were forwarded to
RFSL, Nizamabad for chemical analysis. After receiving medical
reports, FSL reports and on completion of investigation, the
investigating officer laid charge sheet against the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
4
AVR, J & GAC, J
Crl.A.No.647 of 2014
5. During the course of trial, charge was framed against the
accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and the same was
denied by the accused and he claimed to be tried. On behalf of the
prosecution, PWs.1 to 12 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-15 and
M.Os.1 to 6 got marked. The accused was examined under Section
313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the incriminating evidence of the
prosecution and pleaded not guilty of the offence charged.
6. As already stated supra, the trial Court, after considering the
entire oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the
accused/appellant.
7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that
there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the entire case is
based only on the circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has
failed to prove the complete chain of circumstances connecting the
events so as to convict the appellant, therefore, the conviction is
bad in the eye of law and accordingly prayed to set aside the
5
AVR, J & GAC, J
Crl.A.No.647 of 2014
judgment of the trial Court; as the prosecution has miserably failed
to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended
that as per the last seen theory, the accused was found coming out
of the house of the deceased with the crime weapon, and therefore,
prayed to confirm the judgment of the trial Court by dismissing the
appeal, as there is no error or irregularity in the judgment of the
Sessions Court.
10. The point for determination in this case is;
Whether the trial Court is proper in convicting the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 302
of IPC and whether the prosecution is able to prove
the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt
for the said offence ?
11. The criminal law was set into motion basing on the
information given by PW-1/G. Vijaya, who is the daughter of the
deceased. The report given by her is Ex.P-1. Her evidence reveal
that on 09.08.2012 at 2.00 p.m., she received telephone call from
PW-2 informing her that the accused hacked her mother with an
axe and on that, she went to the house of the deceased along with
other villagers and found the dead body of the deceased-mother in
6
AVR, J & GAC, J
Crl.A.No.647 of 2014
a pool of blood, with cut injuries on the neck and right ear. Basing
on her report, a case was registered and further her statement was
recorded by the Police.
12. It is pertinent to mention that PW-1 testified that the accused
took three tulas of gold from the deceased about 17 years prior to
the incident, for which, there were quarrels between the accused
and the deceased and further the accused used to beat her
mother/deceased whenever she used to demand for return of the
gold, for which, she tried to persuade the accused not to beat her
mother.
13. PW-1 was cross-examined at length but nothing could be
elicited in favour of the accused. It is important to note that the
evidence of PW-1 will only reveal the motive for the murder of the
deceased as her evidence is a hearsay evidence.
14. Admittedly, the death of deceased was not a natural one. It
is necessary to scrutinize the evidence of the Photographer, Doctor
and inquest panchayatdars in order to know the cause of the death
of the deceased.
7
AVR, J & GAC, J
Crl.A.No.647 of 2014
15. PW.3/Dusa Prabhakar, is the Photographer and his evidence
reveals that at the instance of the Police, he took photographs of the
dead body of the deceased, which are marked as Ex.P-2 (8 photos).
16. The evidence of the Doctor i.e. PW-11 discloses that on
10.08.2012, he received requisition from the Station House Officer,
Dichpally to conduct autopsy over the dead body of the deceased.
Accordingly, he commenced the autopsy at 10.45 a.m. and
concluded at 11.55 a.m. and found three external injuries over the
dead body of the deceased corresponding with internal injuries as
under:
"External injuries:
1.
Laceration and deep punctured wound in front of the neck which was measuring about 10x12x15 cm.
2. Right ear laceration 10x12 cm.
3. Abrasion on arm 2x4 cm.
Internal injuries:
Trachea and Esophagus were totally punctured which is corresponding to external injury No.1."
It is specifically deposed by PW-11 that the cause of death of the deceased was hemorrhagic shock due to cut throat injury resulted from injury No.1 and injuries 1 to 3 are possible with an axe. Ex.P-11 is the postmortem examination report. 8
AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.647 of 2014
17. The evidence of PW-7 clearly discloses that the Police have prepared the scene observation panchanama/Ex.P-4 and the rough sketch/Ex.P-5 at the scene of offence, in his presence and in the presence of LW-12/Bala Suresh and also collected the material objects/M.Os.1 and 2 (blood stained cotton and control cotton). His evidence further disclose that the Police have also conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased and Ex.P-6 is the panchanama. Exs.P-4 to P-6 contain their signatures.
18. Ex.P-6/inquest panchanama reveals that the inquest panchayatdars opined that the second son of the deceased/S.Venkat Reddy (accused) took away the gold of the deceased about 17 years back and did not return the same to the deceased and whenever the deceased used to demand for return of gold, the accused used to abuse and beat her and on 09.08.2012 at 2.00 p.m., when the deceased demanded her second son for return of gold, the accused became wild and with an intention to kill her, hacked the deceased with an axe on her throat on the right side of the ear and ran away from the scene of offence.
9
AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.647 of 2014
19. Basing on the evidence of PWs.7 and 11, it can be construed that the death of the deceased was not a natural one and it is homicide.
20. It is the case of the prosecution that there are direct eyewitnesses to the incident and the said fact has come to the knowledge of the Police during the course of investigation though report was made to the Police through a hearsay witness i.e. PW-1.
21. The evidence of PW-2/Shaik Abdulla discloses that on 09.08.2012, at around 2 p.m., while he was going to get leaves for his goats, he found the accused shouting that he hacked his mother with an axe. On that, he went to the house of the accused and found the dead body of the deceased in a pool of blood with cut injuries on her neck and ear. Thereafter, he collected the mobile number of PW-1 and informed her about the death of the deceased.
22. The evidence of PW-4/K.Ravinder also reveals that he is the neighbour of the accused and about a year back, he found the accused and the deceased quarrelling at around 2.00 to 3.30 p.m. On hearing the quarrel, he came out of his house, along with his 10 AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.647 of 2014 wife and some others, witnessed the dead body of deceased in a pool of blood. Further, he testified that the deceased used to demand the accused for return of gold and they used to quarrel on that issue, many a times and that he found the injuries on the dead body of the deceased caused with an axe.
23. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that on the date of offence, she went to fetch water from the borewell which is beside the house of the accused, and at that time, she heard a galata and saw the accused holding an axe and making sounds while coming out of the house of the accused and further found the deceased in a pool of blood. It is specifically deposed by PW-5 that she was pregnant at that time, got afraid, and further stated that the accused hacked the deceased after the quarrel which is with respect to the gold.
24. The evidence of PW-6 discloses that the accused used to quarrel with the deceased with respect to gold. Further, she witnessed the accused hacking the deceased on her neck with an axe. Her evidence further disclose that the accused threatened her. 11
AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.647 of 2014
25. Thus, the evidence of PWs.4 to 6 clearly reveal that there was a galata between the accused and the deceased, which was heard and seen by the witnesses and further PW-6 witnessing the murder of deceased. All the above said witnesses in one tone, stated about the motive for the offence and also witnessing the death of the deceased caused by the accused, which is corroborated with the evidence of PWs.1 and 2.
26. The rest over witnesses in this case are PWs.8 to 10 and 12. The evidence of PW-8 discloses that he acted as panch witness along with LW-15/K.Madhumathi for seizure of the clothes belonging to the deceased/Rajavva. Ex-P7 is the panchnama. The blood-stained saree and blouse of the deceased are MOs.3 and 4 respectively.
27. The evidence of PW-9 discloses that he acted as panch witness along with LW-17/A.Anjaiah for the confession of the accused and for recovery of crime weapon pursuant to the confession. It is testified by PW-9 that the accused confessed his guilt in their presence before the Police and also informed about 12 AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.647 of 2014 the crime weapon as an axe and further stated that accused informed them that he will show the crime weapon and his blood stained shirt, hidden by him. Pursuant to the confession, the accused has led them to the backside of his house and produced the blood-stained axe from the bushes and blood-stained shirt from the pot which are MOs.5 and 6 respectively, and that the same were seized under the confession-cum-seizure panchnama and the relevant portion is Ex-P8.
28. It is relevant to mention that the confession made to Police is hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act but the information given by the accused as to the recovery of any material object pertaining to the crime is relevant and admissible in evidence as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
29. PWs.10 and 12 are Police officials. PW-10 have registered the case on 09.08.2012 at 4 p.m. vide Crime No.178 of 2012 on the file of Dichpally Police Station against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, basing on Ex.P-1/report 13 AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.647 of 2014 given by PW-1 and issued express FIRs to all the concerned and the original FIR is Ex.P-10.
30. PW-12 is the Investigating Officer who took up the entire investigation and laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. His evidence discloses the minute details of his investigation such as, recording the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., preparing crime detail report, conducting inquest panchanama, seizing of material objects in the presence of pachayatdars, forwarding the dead body of the deceased to the Government hospital and further affecting the arrest of the accused, recording the confession of the accused, seizure of the crime weapon, forwarding material objects to FSL, receiving the FSL report, the Postmortem examination report of the deceased and filing charge sheet against the accused after completion of the investigation.
31. It is important to note that on behalf of the accused, DW-1 was examined. DW-1 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon in District Jail, Nizamabad. His evidence discloses that on 04.09.2012, the 14 AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.647 of 2014 accused was found suffering with Seizers (epilepsy) and was referred to Government hospital for treatment. The certificate issued in favour of the accused dated 18.12.2009 is Ex.D-2. In the cross-examination, it is specifically admitted that epilepsy is a neurological problem and it is not psychiatric problem and when a person gets fits upto half-an-hour, he will be in a drowsy condition and will not be capable of observing surroundings for about one hour. Ex.A-1 is the O.P. ticket for consulting the Neuro Physician.
32. Admittedly, the death of the deceased is not a natural death and even as per the evidence of the Doctor i.e. PW-11, the deceased died of hemorrhagic shock due to cut-throat injury. The oral evidence of PWs.1 to 12 coupled with Exs.P-1 to P-15 show that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was the mother of the accused and the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 disclose that there were quarrels between the accused and the deceased and further the accused hacked the deceased on her throat with MO.5/Axe which resulted in the death of the deceased. Inspite of taking general defence under Section 84 of IPC, as unsound mind 15 AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.647 of 2014 and examining DW-1, the accused could not prove that he was suffering with unsound mind as on the date of offence i.e., 09.08.2012. Moreover, the evidence of DW-1 clearly discloses that the deceased was suffering with neurological problem rather than psychological/mental problem. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly given a finding that there is no evidence on record to prove that the accused was suffering from unsoundness of mind and was incapable of knowing the nature of the acts done by him, as to what is wrong or contrary to law.
33. Further, the evidence of PW-1 also discloses that the accused was not suffering from any mental disability. The evidence of PW-2 disclose that he saw the accused at the place of crime, by yelling out words that he killed his mother. The direct eye witnesses in this case are PWs.5 and 6 who testified that the accused hacked the deceased with an axe which was seized by the Police pursuant to the confession of the accused. Therefore, the oral evidence of PWs.4 to 6 as to the crime weapon and seizure of the axe pursuant to the confession, corroborates with each other. It has to be borne in mind that PWs.2 and 4 to 6 are the neighbours of 16 AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.647 of 2014 the accused and the deceased and they cannot be treated as interested witnesses. Moreover, there is not even a single suggestion that these witnesses are speaking falsehood against the accused.
34. Therefore, it can be construed that the evidence of the prosecution on record is un-impeachable, which clearly discloses that the accused took three tulas of gold beads from his mother and whenever she demanded the accused for return of gold, the accused used to quarrel with her, beat her and on the date of offence i.e, 09.08.2012, when the deceased demanded her son for the said gold, the accused hacked his mother with an axe.
35. In a case of homicide, it is for the prosecution to prove the intention, motive and knowledge of the offence committed by the accused. In the present case, as per the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 to 6, the accused had quarrelled with his mother for the purpose of gold which proves the motive and intention to commit the offence. Further, the accused had knowledge that the injuries inflicted with an axe will cause the death of the deceased. Thus, the prosecution 17 AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.647 of 2014 has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no error or irregularity in the judgment passed by the Sessions Court so as to interfere with the same and the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
36. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment passed in S.C.No.118 of 2013, dated 20.01.2014 on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC shall hold good.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY, J ________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 29.10.2022 N.B: Issue C.C. today.
(b/o) ajr/dv