Bandi Devakumar, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp.,
2023 Latest Caselaw 960 AP

      THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.373 of 2011

JUDGMENT:

A convict/accused presented this appeal under Section

374 Cr.P.C. questioning his conviction and sentence. The

judgment impugned is dated 16.09.2010 of learned Sessions

Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada in S.C.No.69 of 2009. After

due trial, this appellant was found guilty for the offence under

Section 307 I.P.C. and therefore, learned Sessions Judge

convicted him and sentenced him to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for four years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a

default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months. It is

that judgment which is under challenge.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal are required to be

recapitulated here:

The victim is a woman and is the wife of the

accused/appellant. It was in the year 1996 they fell in love and

with the consent of elders they got married and begot two

children. One of their two children is a son and he died and the

other child is a daughter who is living with the parents. The

husband has been an auto rickshaw driver. The victim woman

is working in a private hospital nursing the patients and

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.373 of 2011

attending Electrocardiogram work at the hospital. It is stated

that the accused has been in the habit of consuming alcohol.

During the matrimonial life, on certain occasions, certain

disputes arose between the spouses and on two such occasions

the wife had to complain the troubles to the police. On one

occasion she complained about cruelty towards her for the

purpose of dowry. Intervention of elders resulted in a

compromise, but it seems the case was not yet withdrawn. On

another occasion the accused allegedly took away Rs.5,000/-

cash and a mobile phone belonging to the wife. On this

occasion when she complained to police the spouses were sent

to family counseling center where, it is stated, expressing

remorse the accused gave an undertaking that he would look

after his wife's welfare. It is in the backdrop of these facts and

circumstances the offence alleged took place allegedly. The

scene of offence is the very rented house where the spouses are

living. It is stated that on 17.06.2008 at about 8:00 A.M. the

woman was getting ready to attend her job at the hospital and

the husband told her not to go to hospital as his mother and

brother were to come home at about 10:00 A.M. She spoke to

the hospital authorities informing that she could not attend the

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.373 of 2011

duty because of her ill-health. It is about that time the accused

indulged in a debate with his wife and from out of his pocket he

picked up a new blade and got inflicted injuries on both of his

forearms by himself and then he told his wife that she was

complaining to police and he did not like it and he beat her and

felled her down and then sent away his daughter and inflicted,

with blade, injuries on both her wrists and as they were not

oozing blood he told the same and then sat on her chest and

using his both knees pressed her hands to the floor and using

the blade cut her throat. On finding blood coming out he was

satisfied and he got up and went out the house and latched the

door from outside. His daughter went and fetched the sister-in-

law of the victim, who was living in the neighbourhood. She

took her to the hospital. The hospital authorities sent

information to the police who in turn came there and recorded

her statement at 1:30 P.M. on 17.06.2008 itself and registered

Crime No.343 of 2008 for an offence under Section 307 I.P.C.

During the course of investigation, the police recorded the

statements of witnesses, arrested the accused, recovered the

crime weapon/blade/M.O.1 and filed the police report before

the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.373 of 2011

Vijayawada where it was numbered as P.R.C.No.46 of 2008.

Acting upon this police report of Machavaram Police Station, the

learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate secured the presence of

the accused and furnished him with copies of documents on

which the prosecution was intending to rely upon and then

finding it a case of trial to be exclusively conducted by a

Sessions Court it acted in accordance with Section 209 Cr.P.C.

and committed the case to the learned Metropolitan Sessions

Judge who in turn assigned the trial in this case to learned

Sessions Judge, Mahila Court. Cognizance was taken for the

offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and the presence of the

accused was secured and it was recorded that he was defended

by his own learned counsel. A charge under Section 307 I.P.C.

was framed, read over and explained to him to which he entered

a plea of not guilty and thereby further trial followed.

Prosecution, on its behalf examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.7 and exhibited M.Os.1 and 2. Witnesses were

cross-examined by learned defence counsel. The incriminating

evidence available on record was denied as false during Section

313 Cr.P.C. hearing. The accused did not choose to adduce any

oral, documentary or material evidence. On considering the

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.373 of 2011

evidence on record and the arguments advanced on both sides,

the learned Sessions Judge stated that by the evidence of

doctor/PW.5 and Ex.P.2-wound certificate the following injuries

were noticed on the body of the victim woman/PW.1:

1) Cut throat injury is 10 cm transversely present over the level of thyroid cartilage; muscle deep, bleeding present;

2) An incised wound present over the right writ size 2x1x 1 cm reddish in colour;

3) An incised wound present over the left size 5x2x3 cm; muscle deep.

The opinion of the medical doctor was that the injury on the

throat was grievous in nature while the injuries on both the

writs were found simple in nature. They were found to be fresh

aged within six hours, which matched with the time of offence

alleged by the prosecution. In the opinion of the doctor such

injuries could have been caused by a sharp object and that

matched with the crime weapon M.O.1-blade alleged by the

prosecution. Having noticed such injuries, at the relevant time

on the body of the married woman, the case of the married

woman/PW.1 was considered and the learned Sessions Judge

found the comprehensive narration of events given out by PW.1

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.373 of 2011

about the way in which her very husband inflicted such injuries

on her. PW.2 is the sister-in-law of PW.1 who was fetched by

the daughter of the accused and she stated in her evidence that

by the time she came to the house of the victim she found her

with bleeding injuries and she shifted her to hospital. In the

neighbourhood of this crime scene there is a fancy shop of PW.4

and that witness said that he saw the injured woman being

taken to hospital by PW.2. With such evidence on record, the

learned Sessions Judge found that the accused intended to kill

his wife and in that attempt he caused such grievous injury on

her throat which is a vital part and his conduct in latching the

house from outside further demonstrated his criminal intention

to see his wife dead. It is essentially on these facts and

reasoning the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty

for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and convicted him and

sentenced him accordingly.

3. It is that judgment which is challenged in this appeal. Be

it noted that the appellant has not questioned the judgment of

the trial Court either on the ground of violation of principles of

fair trial or on the ground that he was not given an adequate

opportunity to defend himself or that the charge made against

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.373 of 2011

him is misleading or that the witnesses testified were bent upon

to see his incarceration for any vengeful reasons. Grounds

raised in this memorandum of appeal are to the effect that the

evidence of PW.1 did not find corroboration and the description

of the injuries she suffered did not match with the medical

evidence and an earlier undertaking allegedly given by the

accused at the family counseling center being not produced in

evidence are fatal. Learned counsel further argued that the

facts established, at any rate, do not indicate ingredients of

Section 307 I.P.C. and the reasoning of trial Court is erroneous.

It is for these reasons, the learned counsel argued to upset the

impugned judgment and acquit the accused. It is to be

recorded here that initially this appellant preferred the appeal

by engaging his own learned counsel but during the subsequent

phases he expressed his inability to have a counsel on his own

and in such circumstances, at the intervention of this Court,

Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee afforded

a learned legal aid counsel who ably argued the matter in

defence of the appellant.

4. As against these arguments of the learned legal aid

counsel, the submissions of the learned Special Assistant Public

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.373 of 2011

Prosecutor is that many facts are not in dispute and the

disputed facts were properly established by cogent and

convincing and consistent evidence of prosecution witnesses

supported by necessary documents and the conclusions arrived

at on all the facts of the learned Sessions Judge are in

accordance with law and therefore, no interference is need in

this appeal.

5. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel on both

sides, the point that falls for consideration is:

Whether the evidence on record, beyond reasonable

doubt, show complicity of the appellant for the offence under

Section 307 I.P.C.?

6. Point:

Undisputed facts on record do indicate that the love

marriage between spouses occurred in the year 1996 and the

crime incident allegedly took place in June, 2008. During that

12 years of matrimonial life despite bickerings and despite wife

complaining to police, the spouses have always been living

together. This indicates that the spouses are deeply inclined to

have their life together. They have a girl child, who is with

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.373 of 2011

them. The weapon used in this case is a normal blade. In the

first instance, as per the evidence of PW.1 and her earlier

statement contained in Ex.P.1 which thereafter became

F.I.R/Ex.P.5 consistently show that the accused in the first

instance inflicted injuries on his own body. Thereafter he

inflicted injuries on the writs of his wife. He was challenging

her for complaining to police on earlier occasions and then with

those pent up emotions he further went on to inflict injuries on

his wife. The evidence is that when he slashed on the hands of

his wife they did not result in enough bleeding and that caused

dissatisfaction for the accused and he then inflicted injury on

her throat. Throat is a vital part of the body and the evidence of

PW.5/the doctor is that had it not been attended at an

appropriate time it would have caused fatality. One of the

arguments for the accused was that the injuries on PW.1 were

self-inflicted. Be it noted that there was no argument to the

effect that the victim was the aggressor and she picked up a

blade and then she inflicted injuries on her husband and to

avoid any complications she inflicted injuries for herself on her

own body. A woman who was getting ready to go to her office to

attend her employment had no occasion to change her mind

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.373 of 2011

and took up a blade and create all this havoc only to see that

her husband is put behind bars. The evidence of PW.1 and the

evidence of the medical doctor/PW.5 were properly analysed by

the trial Court. This sworn evidence of PW.1 finds full support

from her Ex.P.1 statement in terms of Section 157 of the Indian

Evidence Act. It is undisputed that victim's sister-in-law lives in

the neighbourhood and she/PW.2 was fetched by the accused's

daughter and she noticed the injuries on PW.1 and she took her

to hospital. Thus, soon after the alleged offence this witness

reached the spot and found consequences of the offence visible

from the body parts of PW.1. This version of PWs.1 and 2 about

injuries on the body of PW.1 found full support from a

neighbouring shopkeeper -PW.4. Therefore, the contention of

the learned counsel for appellant that the evidence of PW.1 did

not find corroboration is a contention without merit and thus

negatived.

7. Hurt and grievous hurt could be caused only with an

intention to cause injuries or could be caused with an intention

to liquidate the life. What was there in the mind of the accused

at the relevant time was known to him and to none else.

However, when he was put on trial and when the evidence is led

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.373 of 2011

against him, it is from the established facts and circumstances

alone a Court of law should deduce the intention of the accused.

In this regard, the learned trial Court observed that if really the

accused did not have the intention to kill his wife he could have

caused hurt and left the place but he left the place while

latching the door from outside preventing his wife to come out of

the house and put her effort to sustain herself. It was this

aspect of the evidence that clinched the decision of the learned

trial Court. On this aspect of the matter it is for the learned

counsel for appellant to demonstrate before this Court that the

conduct of the accused in latching the door from outside

disabling the victim from surviving does not demonstrate his

intention to kill. It shall be recorded that from the evidence on

record nothing plausible to think otherwise is brought to my

notice by way of any argument. It is in these circumstances,

this Court finds that the judgment of the learned Sessions

Judge in finding the accused guilty for the offence under Section

307 I.P.C. has to be sustained.

8. When arguments were advanced on 16.02.2023 by

learned counsel on both sides, it was brought to the attention of

this Court by both sides that the appellant/accused/husband

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.373 of 2011

and the victim/PW.1/wife of the accused physically attended

the Court. Both of them stated that subsequent to the crime

incident they have been living together and living happily and

they stated that the case may be wound up considering their

reunion.

9. Criminal law prescribes punishment with a view to bring

deterrence in the mind of the criminal making him to reform. It

is to bring attitudinal change, punishments are prescribed. In

the case at hand the very victim finds a reformed husband and

was pleading for winding up of the case. Since the offence

established is one that is not compoundable it was not within

the realm of the victim to secure full liberty to her husband.

However, the present pleasant living of the spouses is one factor

that should not be lost sight of by a Court of law. This aspect of

the matter shall be given its due weight in quantifying the

sentence. It is in that view of the matter, the sentence inflicted

by the learned trial Court demands modification in this appeal.

10. The accused was sentenced by the learned trial Court on

16.09.2010 and he was taken to prison and he underwent a

part of his sentence. Thereafter, he preferred this appeal with a

delay of 132 days and by an order dated 30.03.2011 the delay

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.373 of 2011

was condoned and the appeal was admitted. It was thereafter

on 01.04.2011 on his application in Crl.A.M.P.No.687 of 2011

the execution of substantive sentence was suspended and bail

was granted to him. Thus, he served out one year eight months

(642 days) imprisonment.

11. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the

punishment by way of rigorous imprisonment for four years

imposed by the learned trial Court is modified and the

imprisonment the appellant/accused which he underwent so far

is substituted.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

_____________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 20.02.2023 Ivd

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.373 of 2011

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.373 of 2011

Date: 20.02.2023

Ivd