Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vfiswanadhapalli Mutyalamma, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 14 March, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1514 OF 2010
Between:
Viswanadhapalli Mutyalama,
W/o Raghava Raju, aged 35 years,
R/o Kanagalavaripalem Village,
Repalle Mandal, Guntur District. .... Appellant/Accused.
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Represented by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ... Respondent/complainant.
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 14.03.2023
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of Order may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the
Fair copy of the order? Yes/No
___________________________
A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1514 OF 2010
% 14.03.2023
# Between:
Viswanadhapalli Mutyalama,
W/o Raghava Raju, aged 35 years,
R/o Kanagalavaripalem Village,
Repalle Mandal, Guntur District. .... Appellant/Accused.
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Represented by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ... Respondent/complainant.
! Counsel for the Petitioner :
Sri K.V. Vijaya Kumar, representing
Sri A. Rajendra Babu.
^ Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1977 LawSuit (Patna) 34
1984 LawSuit (Bombay) 153
AIR 2004 Supreme Court 5068
(2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 408
AIR 2015 Supreme Court 3101
(1973) 4 Supreme Court Cases 79
(1964) 7 SCR 361=AIR 1964 SC 1563
This Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1514 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:-
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant, who was the
accused in Sessions Case No.1 of 2010, on the file of XI
Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur District at
Tenali ("the learned Additional Sessions Judge" for short),
challenging the judgment, dated 23.11.2010, where under the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, found the accused not guilty
of the offences under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal
Code ("I.P.C." for short) and acquitted her under Section 235(1)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short), but,
found her guilty of the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. and
convicted her under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. After questioning
the accused about the quantum of sentence, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, sentenced her to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the
offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. Felt aggrieved of the said
conviction and sentence in S.C.No.1 of 2010 as above, the
unsuccessful accused filed the present Criminal Appeal,
challenging the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge.
2) The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter
be referred as described before the trial Court for the sake of
convenience.
3) The Sessions Case No.1 of 2010 arose out of a
committal order passed in P.R.C.No.20 of 2009, on the file of
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, pertaining to Crime No.76
of 2009 of Repalle Police Station under Sections 302, 307, 326
and 324 of I.P.C.
4) The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to
the charge sheet filed in the above said Crime Number by the
Inspector of Police, Repalle, is as follows:
(i) The accused is resident of Kanagalavaripalem Village,
Karakatta. Accused is a woman and she is no other than the
daughter-in-law of one Viswanadhapalli Appalaswamy, S/o
Raghavaiah, aged 60 years (hereinafter will be referred to as
"deceased"). L.W.1-Nadakuditi Rajyalaxmi is the neighbour to
the house of the accused and deceased and distinct relative of
the accused. L.W.6-Nadikuditi Sridevi and L.W.7-Nadikuditi
Nagasudha are the injured. The deceased used to live by fishing
and by coolie works. The kith and kin of the deceased used to
stay by the side of his house in separate houses. All of them
erected their huts in Krishna Karakatta. The accused is no other
than the daughter-in-law of the deceased. The injured girls
L.W.6 and L.W.7 are no other than the brother's daughters of
the accused.
(ii) The marriage of one Devika, who is the elder daughter
of the accused, was fixed to be celebrated in Tirupati on
09.04.2009. The accused disliked the marriage profile of her
would be son-in-law. On 08.04.2009 the husband of the accused
and his other kith and kin went to Tirupati to celebrate the
marriage of Devika by leaving the accused alone at the house.
She got furious about the fact that she was left in the house by
the inmates when the marriage of her elder sister is going to be
performed at Tirupati. She suspected that the deceased, L.W.6
and L.W.7, injured, are responsible in fixing the marriage profile
of her daughter against her will and that they played main role
in leaving her at home without allowing her to attend the
marriage at Tirupati.
(iii) While so, on 09.04.2009 the accused along with
L.W.8-Nadakuditi Nagendramma, the mother of the accused,
slept on one cot inside the house of the accused. The deceased,
who is father-in-law of the accused, slept on a separate cot in
front of the house of the accused under the marriage pendyal.
All of sudden, at 3-30 a.m., accused woke up, came out of the
house, picked up a big Axe and hacked over the throat and
beard portions of the deceased when he slept on the cot five
times with the said Axe and caused his instantaneous death.
Suddenly, the mother of the accused (L.W.8) woke up from the
sleep and to her dismay found that the accused is not found on
the cot. Hence, she came out of the house and found that the
accused was holding a big Axe in her hand with blood stains
over her person and also found the deceased in a pool of blood
on the cot. Then, she questioned about the act of the accused
and the accused came up on her and tried to scratch her by
caught hold of her throat and due to fear, the mother of the
accused rescued from the clutches of the accused and ran into
the village which is located on the other side of Penumudi canal
behind the house of the accused. Later, the accused dragged
the dead body of the deceased to a distance of about 58 feet
towards Penumudi canal behind the house and thrown away the
dead body of the deceased in the said canal. After that she
went to the house of L.W.2-Nadakuditi Meenakshi, L.W.6 and
L.W.7 which is situated at a distance of about 40 yards just by
the side of her house on South. She forcibly entered into the
house from behind and hacked L.W.6 and L.W.7 and attempted
to kill them with the Axe while they were sleeping. She caused
bleeding injuries over their head portions and hands. Due to
their cries, L.W.1-Nadakuditi Rajyalaxmi and L.W.3-Nagidi Laxmi
rushed there and tried to rescue them. The accused also bite the
right middle finger and below the left elbow of L.W.1 and later
escaped with the weapon. The mother of the accused (L.W.8)
shifted the injured to Government General Hospital, Guntur in
108 Ambulance.
(iv) L.W.1 turned up to the police station and presented a
report to L.W.17-Sub Inspector of Police, Repalle Police Station.
L.W.17 registered it as a case in Crime No.76 of 2009 under
Sections 302, 307 and 324 of I.P.C. on 10.04.2009 at 8-00 a.m.
L.W.18-Inspector of Police, Repalle Circle, took up the
investigation. During the course of investigation, he inspected
the scene of offence in the presence of L.W.10-Bhattiprole
Venkatsubrahmanya Sarma and L.W.11-Nadakuditi Sekharbabu,
the mediators, on 10.04.2009 at 10-00 a.m., and seized blood
stained earth and controlled earth from the scene of offence
under the cover of mahazar. He got the dead body of the
deceased photographed by engaging a private Photographer i.e.,
L.W.9-Karumuri Satyam. He prepared a rough sketch of the
scene of offence. He held inquest over the dead body of the
deceased from 12-00 noon to 2-00 p.m. in the presence of
L.W.10 and L.W.11 and further L.W.12-Saikam Subba Rao.
During inquest, he examined L.W.1 to L.W.5. He sent the dead
body for postmortem examination. He also recorded the
statements of L.W.6 to L.W.9 after inquest. He arrested the
accused on 20.04.2009 at 11-00 a.m., at Penumudi Krishna
river bridge entrance in the presence of mediators i.e., L.W.10,
L.W.13 and basing on her confession, Axe was seized from foot
bridge situated at Kanagalavaripalem village near the house of
the accused under the cover of a separate mahazar attested by
L.W.10 and L.W.13. Later, he forwarded the accused to the
concerned Court for remand. He further forwarded the seized
material objects to RFSL, Guntur and obtained report to the
effect that the material objects contained human blood stains.
(v) L.W.14-the medical officer conducted autopsy over the
dead body of the deceased and opined that the death was due
to asphyxia due to lacerated injury on neck due to Axe and
cardio respiratory failure and fresh water drowning. L.W.15-the
medical officer took X-ray and Scan of L.W.6 and issued report
stating that there are fractures on the body of L.W6. L.W.16-
the medical officer treated L.W.6 and L.W.7 and issued wound
certificates stating that injuries of L.W.6 are grievous and L.W.7
are simple in nature. After completion of the investigation,
L.W.18 filed the charge sheet. The accused brutally murdered
the deceased with an Axe and attempted to kill L.W.6 and L.W.7
in view of the family disputes, as such, she rendered herself for
punishment under Sections 302, 307, 326 and 324 of I.P.C.
Hence, the charge sheet.
5) The learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalle,
took cognizance of the case under Sections 302, 307, 326 and
324 of I.P.C. against the accused and after appearance of the
accused, furnished copies of documents under Section 207 of
Cr.P.C. Thereafter, as the case appears to be exclusively triable
by the Court of Sessions, by exercising the powers under
Section 209 of Cr.P.C., the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge,
Repalle, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The
Sessions Division, Guntur, after numbering the same, made over
to the Court of XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC),
Tenali.
6) On appearance of the accused, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, framed charges under Sections 302,
307 and 324 of I.P.C., for which she pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
7) In order to bring home the guilt against the accused,
the prosecution, during the course of trial, examined P.W.1 to
P.W.13 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22 and M.O.1 to M.O.5.
After closure of evidence of the prosecution, accused was
examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the
incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by
the prosecution, for which she denied the same and stated that
she has defence witnesses and she did not commit any office.
In furtherance of the defence, accused examined D.W.1 and got
marked Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2.
8) The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on hearing
both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary
evidence, found the accused not guilty of the offences under
Sections 302 and 324 of I.P.C., but found her guilty of the
offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. and accordingly, convicted
and sentenced her as above.
9) Before going to frame the point for consideration,
this Court would like to make it clear that as against the
judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge under
Section 302 of I.P.C., there is no appeal filed by the prosecution.
10) In the light of the conviction imposed against the
appellant before the Court below, now the simple question that
falls for consideration is as to whether the accused on
09.04.2009 at early hours, attempted to kill L.W.6-Nadikuditi
Sridevi and L.W.7-Nadikuditi Nagasudha with an Axe by
attacking them on the vital parts of body and whether the
prosecution has proved the charge under Section 307 of I.P.C.
against the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
POINT:-
11) Sri K.V. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel, representing
Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the appellant, would
contend that according to the case of the prosecution, father-in-
law of the accused by name Appalaswamy was hacked by the
accused. The residences of the accused as well as the injured
were separate. The deceased house was by the side of
Karakatta. The prosecution alleged that P.W.5 and P.W.6 were
the injured witnesses, who were attacked by the accused. Even
according to the case of the prosecution, houses of P.W.5 and
P.W.6 were located one house away from the house of the
accused. The prosecution alleged that the accused committed
murder of the deceased and after that she attacked P.W.5 and
P.W.6 at a different place. The Court below disbelieved the
allegation of murder raised against the accused. But, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge erroneously believed the case
of the prosecution with regard to the injuries received by P.W.5
and P.W.6. P.W.1, the author of Ex.P.1, did not support the
case of the prosecution. She did not testify that she received
any injuries in the hands of accused. The prosecution did not
prove the motive on the part of the accused in attacking P.W.5
and P.W.6. P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 alone supported the case of
the prosecution. They are interested in the case of the
prosecution. The case of the prosecution with regard to the
murder of the deceased and the alleged of attempt made on
P.W.5 and P.W.6 by the accused were interlinked with each
other. In the absence of establishing the case of the prosecution
under Section 302 of I.P.C., the charge under Section 307 of
I.P.C. must fail. P.W.5 and P.W.6, according to the case of the
prosecution, were no other than the daughters of brother of the
accused. The reason set up by the prosecution to cause injuries
to P.W.5 and P.W.6 by the accused is nothing but flimsy. Simply
because, the accused was alleged to have entertained a doubt
that P.W.5 and P.W.6 supported the marriage of elder daughter
of the accused, it cannot be held that the accused developed an
intention to kill P.W.5 and P.W.6. The prosecution did not prove
the motive and intention which are essential factors to prove the
charge under Section 307 of I.P.C. If really the accused had
intention to kill P.W.5 and P.W.6, she would have completed the
task. P.W.7, the mother of the accused, did not support the case
of the prosecution. According to the evidence of P.W.11, the
medical officer, the fracture on the person of P.W.5 could also
be possible by fall. As regards the allegations that the accused
committed murder of the deceased, there was no legally
admissible evidence adduced by the prosecution. With regard to
the allegations that the accused hacked P.W.5 and P.W.6,
prosecution based upon their case on interested testimony of
P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6. None of the independent witnesses
were examined by the prosecution. The investigation was stage
managed by the police. The police used the self-same mediators
with regard to the observation of the scene of offence, inquest
over the dead body of the deceased on 10.04.2009. They used
the self-same mediators even for the arrest of the accused on
20.04.2009. The recovery of M.O.1 in pursuance of the so-called
disclosure statement made by the accused is highly suspicious in
the light of the above. The accused took a plea that during
period of the allegations raised against her, her mental condition
was not proper. She let in evidence by examining D.W.1 and
getting marked Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 without proper reason, the
Court below disbelieved the defence theory. He would contend
that the prosecution on its own failed to prove the case and
even otherwise the accused was suffering with mental disorder
at the time of offence. At any rate, the conviction imposed
against the appellant is not sustainable under law and facts.
12) In support of the contentions he would rely upon the
decisions in (1) Surju Marandi vs. State of Bihar 1 , (2)
Nivrutti @ Limba Dhondiba Shinde vs. State of
1977 LawSuit (Patna) 34
Maharashtra2, (3) Parsuram Pandey and others vs. State
of Bihar 3 , (4) State of Punjab vs. Hakam Singh 4 and
Fireman Ghulam Mustafa vs. State of Uttaranchal (now
Uttarakhand)5.
13) Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel,
representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that
the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 is consistent with each
other and corroborative with each other. The injuries received
by P.W.5 and P.W.6 were on vital parts of the body.
Unfortunately, as P.W.1 turned hostile to the case of the
prosecution, the prosecution could not prove the offence under
Section 302 of I.P.C. The accused after attacking Appalaswamy,
rushed to the house of P.W.5 and P.W.6 and violently attacked
them. She also caused injuries to P.W.1. The evidence insofar as
the charge under Section 307 of I.P.C. is concerned, is cogent,
trustworthy and believable. The learned Additional Sessions
Judge rightly disbelieved the defence theory. The decisions
cited by the learned counsel for the appellant would not support
his contentions in any way. With the above contentions, Sri
Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned
Public Prosecutor, sought for dismissal of the Criminal Appeal.
1984 LawSuit (Bombay) 153
AIR 2004 Supreme Court 5068
(2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 408
AIR 2015 Supreme Court 3101
14) P.W.1 is no other than the defacto-complainant, who
set the criminal law in motion. According to the case of the
prosecution, P.W.1 also received an injury in the hands of the
accused when the accused bite her on her hands, but it is a fact
that she did not support the case of the prosecution. Her
evidence is that she knows the accused. Sreedevi and
Nagasudha are elder sisters of Meenakshi. The deceased is the
father-in-law of the accused. Her (P.W.1) husband is a
Constable in A.P.S.P. She is living with her husband near
Karakatta in Kangalavaripalem. House of the accused is on the
right side of her house in between another house. Appalaswami
died about one year ago. On the date of occurrence, her
husband was not in the house. When she woke up, she came to
know that Appalaswamy died. She did not see the dead body.
She did not report the murder of Appalaswamy to police. The
Additional Public Prosecutor impeached the testimony of P.W.1
by cross examining her after got her declared as hostile and
during the course of cross examination, she denied that she
gave report under Ex.P.1 and that she is deposing false. She
deposed in cross examination that she studied up to 10th class.
She did not see what was written in Ex.P.1. She is not in the
habit of signing documents without reading. Because of tension
of the death of Appalaswamy, she signed Ex.P.1 without
knowing the contents. It is true that the accused was in the
house along with her in-laws. The other family members went to
Tirupati to attend the marriage of Devika, daughter of the
accused. She knows Nagini Lakshmi, who is aged 50 years and
her neighbor. She denied that Nagini Lakshmi also slept in the
house of her house as she was alone. She further denied the
case of the prosecution and denied that she stated as in Ex.P.2.
15) According to P.W.13, the investigating officer, P.W.1
stated before him as in Ex.P.2. He further testified that P.W.1
came to the police station and gave her statement and Sub
Inspector of Police recorded the same as a case in Crime No.76
of 2009. There is no dispute that P.W.1 for obvious reasons did
not support the case of the prosecution. Apart from this, P.W.3
and P.W.7, the mother of the accused, also did not support the
case of the prosecution. The basis for the learned Additional
Sessions Judge to acquit the accused under Section 302 of I.P.C.
was that of the evidence of P.W.1 and as there was none to
speak that the accused committed the murder of the deceased.
The basis for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to convict
the accused under Section 307 of I.P.C. was that of the evidence
of P.W.2, direct witness, with regard to the attack made on
P.W.5 and P.W.6 and the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6, the
injured witnesses, coupled with the medical evidence.
16) Turning to the evidence of P.W.2, Meenakshi, her
evidence is that she knows the deceased Appalaswamy. The
accused killed Appalaswamy about one year ago during early
hours at 3-00 to 3-30 a.m. House of the accused was by the
side of her house. She, Sreedevi and Nagasudha were sleeping
in their house. At about 3-00 or 3-30 a.m., accused entered in
their house with an Axe and attacked Sreedevi on the forehead,
above the eyebrows and eye and her hands. The little fingers of
both hands are injured. Sreedevi lost her left eye. The accused
caused injury with an Axe on the head of Nagasudha. Then, she
(P.W.2) shouted for help. Then, P.W.1 and Nagidi Lakshmi came
to their residence. The accused bite on the right hand fingers of
P.W.1 and left elbow. Then, the accused ran away with the Axe.
She (P.W.2) escaped from the hands of the accused. Then, they
came out and Nagendramma, mother of the accused, informed
to them that the accused killed Appalaswamy and dragged the
body into the canal and then attacked them. The family
members of the accused went to Tirupati for marriage of eldest
daughter of the accused. The accused was in the house with her
father-in-law and her mother. On the same day, P.W.1 gave
report to police. She can identify the Axe used by the accused
in the commission of offence. M.O.1 is Axe.
17) According to P.W.3, she did not know as to whether
Appalawamy is alive or not. She did not know why the accused
made appearance in the Court. As P.W.3 did not support the
case of the prosecution, prosecution got declared her as hostile
and during the course of cross examination, she denied that she
stated before the police as in Ex.P.3. P.W.13 also testified that
P.W.3 stated before him as in Ex.P.3.
18) Coming to the evidence of P.W.4, his evidence is
that he came to know that the dead body of Appalaswamy was
in the canal near the house. He went there and saw the dead
body. On the advice of Appalaswamy, S/o Prasad, dead body
was moved on to the ground from the canal. There were
injuries caused by the accused in the person of Appalaswamy.
19) Turning to the evidence of P.W.5, the injured
witness, she deposed that P.W.2 is her elder sister. Nagasudha
is also her younger sister. Nagendramma is her paternal
grandmother. The accused is her paternal aunt. Deceased is her
grandfather by relation. The incident occurred during the
intervening night of 09.04.2009 and 10.04.2009 around 3-30
a.m., on 10.04.2009. She, P.W.2 and Nagasudha slept in their
house. Her parents went to Tirupati to attend the marriage of
Devika, daughter of accused. Appalaswamy did not attend the
marriage. All of sudden, at about 3-30 a.m., the accused
entered into their house forcibly with an Axe. She shouted that
she would kill them. The accused gave her blows with an Axe
on the right side of her forehead. One blow caused injury above
the eyebrow and another injury was caused on the nose
extending into right eye. She blocked third blow with her hands
and sustained injury on both of her hands, near the left wrist,
near left middle finger, left palm, across the area at the foot of
the fingers on the right hand. She lost her right eye and
flexibility of both the hands. The little fingers of both the hands
are not flexible. The accused also hacked Nagasudha on her
head. On hearing shouts for help, P.W.1 and P.W.3 came there.
Then, P.W.1 caught hold of the accused. The accused bite P.W.1
on the left elbow and right middle finger. Then, the accused ran
away with the Axe in her hand. Nagendramma came there.
Then they came to know that Appalaswamy was hacked by the
accused. Nagendramma taken them to the hospital in the
Ambulance, from there, they were taken to Government General
Hospital, Guntur. She was in the hospital for one week. She can
identify the Axe. M.O.1 is the Axe with which the accused
hacked them.
20) P.W.6, another injured, deposed that the incident
occurred on 10.04.2009 in the early hours, at about 3-30 a.m.
She and her sister slept in their house. Suddenly, the accused
entered into their house through the back door and shouted to
kill them and caused injuries to them. The accused bore grudge
because she suspected that they encouraged Devika for the
marriage. She also bore grudge against Appalaswamy for
supporting marriage of Devika. The accused hacked her sister
above the right eyebrow, across nose and right eye and on her
hands. P.W.5 lost her right eye. When she tried to save P.W.5,
the accused hacked her on her head. On hearing shouts, P.W.1
and P.W.2 came there. P.W.1 caught hold of the accused, but
the accused beat P.W.1 on the left elbow and right middle finger
and escaped with Axe. Nagendramma took them to Government
Hospital, Repalle. After that they were referred to Government
General Hospital, Guntur. M.O.1 is the Axe used by the accused
to hack them.
21) P.W.7, the mother of the accused, did not support
the case of the prosecution. During the cross examination by the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, she deposed that she came
to know that the accused caused injuries to P.W.5 and P.W.6.
She denied that she stated before the police as in Ex.P.4 (161
Cr.P.C. statement).
22) P.W.8 is the Photographer, who took photos at the
house and according to him, Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.7 are the photos
taken by him showing the dead body of a male person and
Ex.P.8 is the C.D. containing the photographs.
23) P.W.9 is no other than the Village Revenue Officer,
who supported the case of the prosecution. He is a mediator to
the observation report, inquest report and the arrest of the
accused and he supported the case of the prosecution. The
substance of his evidence is that on 10.04.2009 at 10-00 a.m.,
he was present at the instance of police at the time of
observation of the scene of offence and Ex.P.9 is the observation
report. He was also present at the time of conducting inquest
over the dead body of the deceased and Ex.P.10 is the inquest
report. He was also present at the time of arrest of the accused
on 20.04.2009 and accused disclosed the place where she
hidden the Axe and in pursuance of the disclosure statement,
the Axe was recovered. Ex.P.11 is the mediatornama.
24) The prosecution examined P.W.10, who conducted
autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and his evidence is
that he noted the injuries on the person of the dead body and
cause of death is due to Asphyxia due to lacerated injury on
neck due to Axe and due to cardio respiratory failure and due to
fresh water drowning. Ex.P.13 is the postmortem report.
25) The prosecution examined P.W.11, the medical
officer, who took X-ray on 10.04.2009 on the person by name
Nagasudha and he also taken X-ray over the person by name
N. Sreedevi. The C.T. Scan reveals the fracture in the nasal
bones and frontal bone. Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.15 are the C.T. Scans
of Nagasudha and N. Sreedevi. The injuries sustained by
Sreedevi are grievous. The fractures are possible when a heavy
Axe is used.
26) P.W.12 is another medical officer, who examined
P.W.5 and P.W.6 and issued wound certificates. According to
her, she found four injuries on the person of P.W.5. They are
(1) a laceration of 4x1 c.m. on the left side of forehead, (2) a
laceration of 2x1 c.m. on right upper arm, (3) a laceration of
2x1 c.m. on right wrist and (4) a laceration of 2x1 c.m. over the
left hand. She further found a laceration of 2x1 c.m. over left
parital region and an abrasion of 1x1 c.m. on the left side of
neck of P.W.6. Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.19 are the wound certificates.
The injuries on two persons are possible with an Axe. The injury
No.1 received by P.W.5 is grievous and rest are simple. The
injuries received by P.W.6 are simple.
27) P.W.13 is the investigating officer and he spoken
about the investigation.
28) For better appreciation, first it becomes necessary to
look into the substance of the case of the prosecution according
to Ex.P.1 report lodged by P.W.1, who was the defacto-
complainant and who turned hostile to the case of the
prosecution.
29) As seen from Ex.P.1, it is the report lodged by P.W.1
on the date of offence i.e., 10.04.2009 at 8-00 A.M. It runs in
substance that on the fateful day she was alone in her house.
In connection with the marriage of elder daughter of the
accused, her husband and other relatives went to Tirupati to
attend the marriage. On 09.04.2009 she (P.W.1) along with her
relative Nagidi Lakshmi slept in her house. At 3-30 a.m., she
heard cries and then she and Lakshmi came out and found the
cries at the house of Kanaka Rao. They rushed there. By then
the accused by holding a big Axe, hacked on the heads of
Nadakuditi Sreedevi and Naga Sudha and then she (P.W.1),
Lakshmamma and one Nadakuditi Meenashamma intervened
and then the accused bite her (P.W.1) middle finger of right
hand and near left elbow and absconded with Axe. Then, they
went to the house of the accused and found the pool of blood
and then searched for Appalaswamy and found his dead body
near the canal. The mother of the accused Nagendramma
informed that the accused killed her father-in-law. This is the
substance of the allegation in Ex.P.1.
30) P.W.2 is no other than Meenashamma whose
reference was there in Ex.P.1. The names of P.W.5 and P.W.6,
injured, were mentioned in Ex.P.1. The presence of P.W.3 who
did not support the case of the prosecution along with P.W.1
was also mentioned in Ex.P.1. Further the hostility of P.W.3 was
proved through the evidence of P.W.13, investigating officer,
who testified that P.W.3 stated before him as in Ex.P.3. As
evident from Ex.P.20, rough sketch of the scene of offence, the
house of Kanaka Rao i.e., house of P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 is
one house away from the house of the accused and they are
nothing but huts. Even according to the contention of the
appellant, the house of P.W.5 and P.W.6 was located at one
house away from the house of the deceased. As evident from
Ex.P.20, rough sketch, No.3 is the house of Kanaka Rao.
According to the case of the prosecution, the deceased was
murdered at his house. It is altogether a different aspect that
the Court below found not guilty of the accused under Section
302 of I.P.C. So, evidently, according to the case of the
prosecution, the scene of offence for the offence under Section
307 of I.P.C. was in the house of P.W.5 and P.W.6 which was
one house away from the house of the deceased and the scene
of offence for the alleged murder of the deceased was at the
house of the deceased.
31) Now, I proceed to scrutinize the evidence of P.W.2,
P.W.5 and P.W.6. Before going to scrutinize their evidence, I
am of the view that admittedly they are the injured witnesses
and interested witnesses. The evidence of the injured witnesses
cannot be treated on far with the evidence of partitioned
witnesses or inimical witnesses. The offence was said to be
happened in the hut where P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 were
sleeping during the early hours that is in odd hours. At the time
of offence, one cannot expect that independent witnesses should
be present there. Virtually, the time at which the offence was
said to be happened was odd time where the neighbors in the
respective hoses were sleeping. Therefore, in the circumstances,
P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 were the natural witnesses and their
presence in the house of Kanaka Rao i.e., their father cannot be
doubted. Keeping in view, their evidence is to be appreciated.
32) Coming to the evidence of P.W.2, she deposed in
cross examination that their house has two doors. One is
towards the canal and another is towards bund. Their house is a
thatched house with wooden doors. They slept bolting the doors
from inside. The accused got through the door by breaking the
bolt. She stated so before the police. She stated before the
police that the accused forced into their house. Police examined
her on the same day at 12-00 noon. She denied that the
accused did not come to their house, did not cause any injury to
her sisters and that she is deposing false. As evident from the
above cross examination part, it is not the case of the accused
that the evidence of P.W.1 suffered with any omissions,
discrepancies or contradictions. Nothing is elicited from the
mouth of P.W.13, the investigating officer, that P.W.2 improved
the evidence on any aspect.
33) Coming to the evidence of P.W.5, she during cross
examination deposed that there are wooden doors on the back
side and front side of their house. Both the doors were bolted.
The back side door was broken. It was a wooden bolt and it was
broken and fallen on the ground. She denied that she is
deposing false because the accused did not allow them into their
house to see Television. Coming to the cross examination of
P.W.6, she deposed that there are wooden doors in front side
and back side of their house. There is a wooden bolt arranged
to close the doors. Wooden bolt was broken and the accused
forced herself into their house. So, there is any amount of
consistency in view of the answers spoken by P.W.2, P.W.5 and
P.W.6 as to the manner in which the accused gained entry
through the back door by breaking open the same into the hut
of P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6. The defence of the accused before
P.W.5 and P.W.6 is that they are deposing false because the
accused did not allow them into their house to see Television.
The part of said defence, in my considered view, is not at all
tenable. They have no need or necessity to depose false against
the accused for the simple reason that the accused did not allow
them to see Television. In fact, P.W.5 during cross examination
testified that since last two years, they are not in talking terms
with the accused and they are not going to the house of the
accused to see the Television. P.W.6 during the cross
examination deposed that they are not in talking terms with the
family members of the accused for the last three years. Hence,
the contention of the accused in this regard is not at all tenable.
34) A close perusal of the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.5 and
P.W.6 goes to show that they stick on to the case of the
prosecution as projected in Ex.P.1. Though P.W.1 did not
support the case of the prosecution, but, the evidence let in by
the prosecution is in tune with Ex.P.1. It is never the defence of
the accused that the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 suffers
with any improvements or contradictions. Under the
circumstances, this Court has no reason to disbelieve the
testimony of P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6.
35) Turning to the contention of the appellant that the
allegations under Section 302 of I.P.C. and the allegations under
Section 307 of I.P.C. were interlinked with each other and in the
absence of establishing the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C.,
the charge under Section 307 of I.P.C. must also fail, this Court
is not persuaded to accept the contention. It is not as though
the accused made attack on the deceased, P.W.5 and P.W.6 at
one and same time and at one and same place and the said
attack was witnessed by P.W.1. In fact, the case of the
prosecution as per Ex.P.1 is that P.W.1 and P.W.3 rushed to the
house of P.W.5 and P.W.6 and found the accused attacking them
and after that only they came to know from P.W.7, the mother
of the accused, that the accused also murdered her father-in-
law. Therefore, the scene of offences are different and even the
time of offences are also different. So, when the places of
incident under Section 302 of I.P.C. and under Section 307 of
I.P.C. are totally different and when the time of incidents are
also totally different, it cannot be held that the charge under
Section 307 of I.P.C. must fail when the prosecution is not able
to establish the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. Hence, I do
not find any merits in the said contention.
36) Turning to the contention of the appellant that the
prosecution did not prove the motive for the offence, there is
evidence of P.W.5 to the effect that the accused did not like the
alliance fixed for her daughter Devika and she suspected that
they (P.W.5 and P.W.6) also supported the alliance of Devika
and that is the reason why she attacked on them. According to
the evidence of P.W.6, the accused bore grudge because she
suspected that they (P.W.5 and P.W.6) encouraged Devika for
the marriage and she also bore grudge against Appalaswamy for
supporting the marriage of Devika. Even it is evident from the
evidence of P.W.7, the mother of the accused, who did not
support the case of the prosecution, that alliance fixed for
Devika was not acceptable either to her or to the accused.
Therefore, in my considered view, the prosecution cogently
established the motive for the offence. Apart from this, it is
settled legal position that in cases only where the prosecution
relied upon the circumstantial evidence, it is bound to prove the
motive for the offence. When the prosecution case is based
upon the direct evidence, there is no need to prove the motive
for the offence. Viewing from any angle, the contention of the
appellant that the prosecution did not prove the motive for the
offence cannot be countenanced.
37) During the cross examination of P.W.5, the learned
defence counsel elicited that the house of Ankineedu is situated
in between their house and the house of the accused. House of
Nadikuditi Venkateswarlu is situated by the side of their house.
All the houses are situated at Karakatta on a slope. She
deposed that there is a possible of slipping into the canal.
Coming to the evidence of P.W.12, the medical officer, she
deposed that the injuries of P.W.5 are possible by fall on blunt
object. In fact, there was no positive suggestion before P.W.5
that she sustained injuries by fall on a blunt object. In fact,
P.W.12 categorically testified in the chief examination that the
injuries on P.W.5 and P.W.6 are possible with an Axe. Hence,
the theory of the defence that there was a possibility for P.W.5
and P.W.6 to receive injuries by fall deserves no merits.
38) Coming to the recovery of M.O.1 at the instance of
the accused pursuant to her disclosure statement, prosecution
examined P.W.9, the Village Revenue Officer. At the outset, this
Court would like to make it clear that P.W.9 was the mediator to
the observation report of the scene of offence, inquest that was
held on the dead body of the deceased and further to the arrest
mahazar and the mahazar for recovery of M.O.1. The contention
of the appellant that P.W.9 was deliberately used as a mahazar
witness to all episodes as above cannot be accepted for the
reason that P.W.9 being a Village Revenue Officer was bound to
assist the police whenever requested. Therefore, on that ground,
his evidence cannot be disbelieved.
39) Now, I proceed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.9
with regard to the recovery of M.O.1. According to him, on
20.04.2009 at request of C.I. of Police, he accompanied him to
arrest the accused as police got information that she is at
Penumudi Bridge. They went to the bridge. On seeing them, the
accused tried to escape. Information was given by the accused
relating to the Axe with which she killed Appalaswamy. It was
stated to be kept by the accused under a Neem tree near
Karakatta in Kanagalavaripalem. Ex.P.1 is the mediators report
(admissible portion regarding the information). Thereafter, on
being led by the accused, they went to Karakatta area at about
12-30 p.m., and the accused shown the place where the Axe
was kept. It was seized by the C.I. of Police under the cover of
mahazar. Ex.P.12 is the mediators report for the seizure. During
the course of cross examination, he deposed that there is gap of
10 days between observation of the scene of offence and the
arrest of the accused. He denied that he signed on all the
reports in the police station.
40) Coming to the evidence of P.W.13, the Inspector of
Police, who is the investigating officer, he deposed that on
10.04.2009 at 8-00 a.m., the Sub Inspector of Police registered
F.I.R. by receiving the report of P.W.1. The Sub Inspector of
Police informed him about the incident. Then, he received F.I.R.
and took up investigation. He examined the scene of offence in
the presence of mediators and took photographs and prepared
rough sketch. Ex.P.20 is the rough sketch. He summoned
panchayatdars and conducted inquest and he examined the
blood relatives. He forwarded the dead body to the postmortem
examination. He examined P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 during the
investigation. He made efforts to trace the accused, but she
was absconding. On 20.04.2009 at 10-30 a.m., he received
information about the accused, as such, he collected mediators
Bhattiprolu Venkata Subrahmanyam and K. Ramachandra and
arrested the accused at Penumudi bridge. Pursuant to her
confession, they proceeded to Penumudi bridge, near
Marrichettu and then the accused brought up the Axe which was
used while committing the offence. Then he seized M.O.1 in the
presence of mediators. He forwarded the material objects to
R.F.S.L. M.O.2 is the controlled earth. M.O.3 is blood stained
earth. M.O.4 is cotton white dhothi. M.O.5 is waist thread.
Ex.P.21 is the R.F.S.L report. During cross examination of
P.W.13, he deposed that he got down from the Jeep at the time
of arrest of the accused. He denied that he is deposing false.
The evidence of P.W.13 was not impeached by the defence
counsel on the ground that he obtained the signatures of
mediators on every paper without securing their presence at the
time of observation of the scene of offence, inquest and arrest of
the accused and recovery of M.O.1. In fact, with regard to the
arrest of the accused and seizure of M.O.1 at the instance of the
accused, the accused did not impeach his testimony in any way.
The accused did not challenge the testimony of P.W.13 that
after the commission of the offence, she was found absconding.
Therefore, the prosecution adduced convincing evidence to
prove that pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the
accused, M.O.1 which was also used in committing attack on
P.W.5 and P.W.6 was recovered. Hence, the contention of the
appellant that the same mediators were used for arrest of the
accused deserves no merits in the absence of challenging the
testimony of mediators as well as investigating officer.
41) Now, as evident from the testimony of P.W.12, the
medical officer, she found that four injuries on the person of
P.W.5 and two injuries on the person of P.W.6. The ocular
testimony of P.W.5 and P.W.6 has no amount of corroboration
from the medical evidence i.e., the evidence of P.W.12 coupled
with Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.19, wound certificates. The overt acts
spoken to by P.W.5 with regard to attack made by the accused
on her head and her further evidence that when she warded off
some of the blows by the accused, she received injuries on the
hands has support from the evidence of P.W.12 and Ex.P.18.
The overt acts spoken to by P.W.6 has also corroboration from
the evidence of P.W.12 coupled with Ex.P.19, wound certificate.
According to the evidence of P.W.11, the Radiologist, who took
C.T. Scans on P.W.5 and P.W.6, the injuries sustained by P.W.5
are grievous in nature. So, there are fractures on the person of
P.W.5 which can be ascribed to Axe. The testimony of injured
has full corroboration from the medical evidence on record.
42) Now, I proceed to appreciate the contention of the
appellant to prove the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C., the
intention to commit murder is the criteria and that the
prosecution did not prove that the accused made attack on
P.W.5 and P.W.6 with an intention to kill them.
43) Section 307 of I.P.C., which runs as follows:
307. Attempt to murder.--Whoever does any act with such
intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if
he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender
shall be liable either to 1[imprisonment for life], or to such
punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life
convicts.--
2[When any person offending under this section is under
sentence of 1[imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused,
be punished with death.]
44) A perusal of Section 307 of I.P.C. means that if
anybody committed any act with such intention or knowledge,
and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused
death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with
imprisonment... So, it is sufficient on the part of the prosecution
to prove that the accused attacked P.W.5 and P.W.6 with an
intention or knowledge that if she by that act caused death, she
would be guilty of murder. Coming to the case on hand, two
injuries on the vital part of the body i.e., on head received by
P.W.5 are grievous in nature. First injury is 4x1 cm laceration
on the left side of the forehead and she could ward off further
attack, as such, she received injuries on the right upper arm,
right wrist and left hand. According to the medical evidence,
injury No.1 is grievous. The accused attacked P.W.6 also on her
head. Hence, P.W.6 received laceration of 2x1 cm over the left
of parital region and abrasion of 1x1 cm on the left side of the
neck. Either the intention on the part of the accused to commit
murder of P.W.5 and P.W.6 or with the knowledge that she
made such attack is to be gathered from the attending
circumstances also. The act of the accused in gaining entry to
the hut from the back side door by breaking open the back side
door of the hut is nothing but a violent act. So, after gaining
entry, she attacked P.W.5 and P.W.6 firstly targeting their
heads. One of the injuries received by P.W.5 was grievous in
nature. The time of offence also is the criteria. It is not as
though the attack was made in a spur of moment without any
premeditate plan. On the other hand, the attack was in odd
hours when P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 were sleeping. So, no other
inference is possible except the inference that the accused made
a fierce attack on P.W.5 and P.W.6 with an intention to kill or
with knowledge that if by that act she caused death of P.W.5
and P.W.6, she would be guilty of murder. The nature of the
weapon was a big Axe which can be used to commit murder of
any human being.
45) This Court has gone through the decisions cited by
the learned counsel for the appellant.
46) Turning to the decision in Parsuram Pandey's case (3
supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the essential
ingredients of Section 307 of I.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that for the purpose of Section 307 of I.P.C., what is
material are the intention or the knowledge and not
consequences of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying
out the intention. Intention which is a state of mind cannot be
proved by precious direct evidence as a fact and it can be
detected or inferred from other factors. Some of the relative
consideration may be the nature of the weapon used, the place
where the injuries were inflected, the nature of the injuries and
the circumstances in which the incident took place. Dealing with
the same, the Hon'ble Supreme Court looked into the factual
background into that, that none of the witnesses have stated
that fire-arm causing injuries was being used by any particular
accused and that injured did not see the accused using fire-arm
and held that the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is not
made out.
47) Coming to the present case on hand, as this Court
already pointed out that M.O.1 was a big Axe which can be used
to commit the murder of any person. The accused violently
gained entry into the house of P.W.5 and P.W.6 through back
door in odd hours when P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 were sleeping
and she targeted the heads of P.W.5 and P.W.6. In my
considered view, the parameters laid down in Parsuram
Pandey's case (3 supra) goes against the appellant. Relying
upon the above, I am of the considered view that the said
decision is of no use to support the contention of the appellant.
48) Turning to Fireman Ghulam Mustafa's case (5 supra)
also the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with Section 307 of I.P.C.
and appreciated the facts therein to the effect that the injuries
caused to the witnesses therein were not on the vital parts of
the body and ultimately held that the offence under Section 307
of I.P.C. was not made out. The factual background in the above
said case is altogether in a different footing. Here the injuries
on P.W.5 and P.W.6 were on the heads which were caused to
them by the accused in a violent manner. Under the
circumstances, even the case Fireman Ghulam Mustafa (5
supra) is of no use to the present case.
49) Another decision in Hakam Singh's case (4 supra)
has nothing to do with the allegations under Section 307 of
I.P.C. In fact, in the above said decision, the conviction under
Section 307 of I.P.C. was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In fact, it is misquoted to the present situation.
50) The contention of the appellant that if really she had
an intention to commit murder of P.W.5 and P.W.6, she would
have completed the task and she would have not spared them
further is not tenable, because, Section 307 of I.P.C. specifically
dealt with an attempt to commit murder with intention or with
knowledge that by such an act if he/she caused death, he/she
would guilty of murder. Simply because the accused failed in
her attempt to complete the murder of P.W.5 and P.W.6, it
cannot be held that she has no intention to commit murder. In
fact, as evident from the defence of the accused before the
Court below at one hand the contention of the accused is that
she did not cause injuries to P.W.5 and P.W.6 and at another
hand her contention is that she was mentally disturbed. Much
has been argued during the course of hearing by relying upon
two decisions by the learned counsel for the appellant to
contend that the accused was suffering with certain mental
disorder, as such, she cannot be convicted under Section 307 of
I.P.C.
51) Now, I proceed to deal with the same. During the
course of cross examination, P.W.2 stated that she knows that
the accused was mentally ill. She did not know whether the
accused was taken to the hospital in auto after putting chains to
the accused. The accused was getting some treatment for
mental illness. Coming to the evidence of P.W.5, who is the
injured witness, she deposed that the accused was shown to a
Doctor, but, she was not having any mental illness. Two years
ago she feigned mental illness. Turning to the testimony of
P.W.6, she does not know whether the accused was having
mental illness. According to her, the accused has no mental
illness. She denied that accused is mentally ill, as such, they
implicated her in the offence. In my considered view, the
defence of the accused before the Court below is nothing but
evasive. It is not the contention of the accused that at the time
of attack on P.W.5 and P.W.6, she was labouring with a mental
disorder, as such, she was not aware of what she was doing at
that time and she was not aware of the consequences of such an
act. On the other hand, the contention of the accused was that
because she was mentally ill, she was falsely implicated in this
case.
52) Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code runs as follows:
84. Act of a person of unsound mind. --Nothing is an
offence which is done by a person who, at the time of
doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable
of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what
is either wrong or contrary to law.
53) A perusal of Section 84 of the I.P.C., shows that
nothing is an offence which is done by a person, who at the time
of committing an act on account of his unsoundness of mind is
incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing
what is either wrong or contrary to law. So, the crucial thing
that is to be established by the accused is that at the time of
offence alleged against her under Section 307 of I.P.C., she was
labouring under a mental disorder and she was incapable of
knowing what she was doing was either wring or contrary to
law. To prove the same, the accused examined D.W.1 and got
marked Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2.
54) The testimony of D.W.1 is that she is Assistant
Professor in Psychiatry in Guntur Medical College. Her date of
examination before the Court below was on 30.09.2010. Since
last 1 ½ years, she is treating the accused, who was brought
with Psychotic symptoms. Ex.D.1 is the Out-patient slip of the
accused, dated 01.05.2009. On 01.05.2009 the accused did not
approach her, but, her husband approached her. The accused
was brought to her from the prison along with escort Woman
P.C. with complaint that the accused was not sleeping and she
was screaming throughout the day. Then, she complained
fearfulness. She could not give any past history of her family or
about her. They treated her with low dose anti-psychotics. She
was brought two weeks later, who showed improvement of her
mental health. Her husband disclosed to her (D.W.1) in the past
also the accused had similar kind of sickness episodically, but
not continuously. He stated that the accused was given
treatment for about four years earlier through a private
Psychiatrist, but, he did not produce any record to that effect.
Even after release from the prison also the accused was under
continuous medical follow up. The accused has been maintaining
good health in the last 1 ½ years and she did not exhibit any
psychiatric ill-health. Ex.D.2 is the bunch of medical record of
the accused containing five sheets. During the cross
examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, she
deposed that upon chemical examination and by taking history
of the patient either from the patient or from her family
members and after observation of the behavior, they came to a
conclusion about the mental health of the patient. The complaint
of the accused is that she was feeling fearfulness and the fearful
is not the chief character to judge a patient as psychic. The
accused did not exhibit violent psychic behaviour during her
examination. She provided minor dose of medicine for her
treatment. She has no documentary proof to show that the
accused was treated for the first time by her.
55) As seen from Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2, they are only
subsequent to the commission of the offence. So, what was the
mental state of mind on the date of the offence i.e., the period
of offence is not brought in evidence. Virtually, even according
to the evidence of D.W.1, the mental sufferance complained by
the accused or her family members was only fearfulness which
is not the chief character to judge a patient as psychic. By
relying upon the evidence of D.W.1 and Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2, the
accused failed to probablise a contention that she was labouring
any mental disorder at the time of offence and that she was not
aware of the consequences the act which was being done by
her.
56) Turning to the decision in Sarju Marandi's case (1
supra), the Patna High Court dealing with the case on hand and
looking into the defence of the accused that he was not sane at
the time of offence took into consideration of the fact that the
second appellant who was alleged to have committed the
murder of the deceased was present in the house all through in
the night from which the dead body of the deceased was
recovered. The Patna High Court took into consideration of fact
that the accused was of unsound mind at the time of occurrence
and even none of the family members dare to live with him.
The Patna High Court took into consideration of the fact that the
accused who setup the plea of insanity did not attempt to run
away after committing the alleged crime when he had sufficient
time to run away, etc. The Patna High Court held that the
accused was able to probabalise his defence theory and allowed
the appeal.
57) Turning to Nivrsutti's case (2 supra), the Bombay
High Court dealing with an appeal under Section 302 of I.P.C.
filed by the appellant upheld the contention of the appellant that
he was insane at the time of occurrence and after the incident.
The conduct of the accused prior to the incident was not that of
normal human being and he was not looking normal as usual
and his eyes at that particular moment was red and he was
uttering some words as if one Madhu was a devil and he would
have killed. He was sitting in corner of the house and was
weeping throughout. The circumstances existing at the time of
occurrence are that the accused beat his two months old child
with a stick and thereafter thrashed him thrice on pounding
stone and he caused as many as 27 injuries to the child. The
circumstances soon after the commission of offence are that he
did not try to run away. The Bombay High Court took into
consideration those attending circumstances and upheld the
defence of insanity.
58) Turning to the case on hand, the house of the
accused is one furlong away from the house of P.W.2, P.W.5 and
P.W.6. She gained entry into the back door through violent
mode and attacked P.W.5 and P.W.6 on vital parts of the body.
There were no probabilities on the part of the accused that her
behavior prior to the commission of offence was something
abnormal. Her behavior at the time of offence was that she
attacked P.W.5 and P.W.6 on vital parts of the body and after
commission of offence, she absconded with Axe. P.W.2, P.W.5
and P.W.6 categorically testified in their evidence that after the
attack, the accused absconded with the Axe. It is not as though
after the attack, the accused remained at the scene with
abnormal behavior. There is evidence of P.W.13, the
investigating officer, that he found the accused absconding after
the commission of offence. The evidence of P.W.2, P.W.5, P.W.6
and P.W.13 that the accused found absconding after the
commissioner of offence is not challenged. Apart from this, she
made disclosure statement as to where she concealed M.O.1 and
in pursuance of her disclosure statement, the weapon under
M.O.1 was recovered. If really the accused was suffering with
any mental disorder at the time of commission of offence on
P.W.5 and P.W.6, she would not have thought of to conceal
M.O.1 in a hidden place and further she would not thought of to
abscond from the scene of offence. Therefore, the circumstances
prior to the offence, at the time of offence and subsequent to
the offence, negative the defence theory that the accused was
suffering with a mental disorder.
59) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheralli Wali
Mohammed vs. the State of Maharashtra6 dealing with the
appeal filed by the appellant against the concurrent findings of
the Sessions Court as well as the High Court in convicting and
sentencing the accused under Section 302 of I.P.C. and dealing
with the plea of insanity disbelieved the case of the appellant
that he was suffering with mental disorder at the time of
offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court looked into the standard of
proof by relying upon a decision in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai
Thakkar vs. the State of Gujarat 7 and held that the trial
Court did not believe the defence theory that the accused was
suffering with insanity and disbelieved the evidence of P.W.4,
the brother of the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that there was no evidence to show that at the time of
(1973) 4 Supreme Court Cases 79
(1964) 7 SCr 361=AIR 1964 SC 1563
commission of the act, the accused was not in sound state of
mind. While negativing the contention of the appellant, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "the law presumes every
person of the age of discretion to be sane unless the contrary is
proved. It would be most dangerous to admit the defence of
insanity upon arguments derived merely from the character of
the crime. The mere fact that no motive has been proved why
the accused murdered his wife and child or, the fact that he
made no attempt to run away when the door was broke open,
would not indicate that he was insane or, that he did not have
the necessary mens rea for the commission of the offence. While
holding so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal."
60) Coming to the case on hand, as this Court already
pointed out the behaviour of the accused prior to the
commission of offence, at the time of commission of offence and
subsequent to the commission of offence was not that of an
abnormal behavior of a human being. On the other hand, the
facts were that the accused was conscious of the act done by
her, as such, she absconded from the scene of offence. She
assisted the police in recovering M.O.1. Under the
circumstances, it is very dangerous to uphold the contention of
the appellant that she was suffering with any insanity. Having
regard to the standard of proof with which the accused has to
probablise the defence of insanity and as she miserably failed to
probablise such a theory, the contention of the appellant that
she was labouring under a mental disorder at the time of offence
cannot stand to any reason.
61) Having regard to the above, I am of the considered
view that the prosecution before the Court below has proved
cogently beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed
the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. in attacking P.W.5 and
P.W.6 and in my considered view, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, rightly convicted and sentenced the accused.
Viewing from any angle, I see no reason to interfere with the
judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge against the appellant, as such, appeal
must fail.
62) In the result, the appeal is dismissed, as such, the
judgment of the learned XI Additional District & Sessions Judge
(FTC), Guntur District at Tenali, dated 23.11.2010 in S.C.No.1 of
2010, shall stand confirmed.
63) The Registry is directed to take steps immediately
under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court to
the trial Court on or before 21.03.2023 and on such certification,
the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the
sentence imposed against the appellant and to report
compliance to this Court.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
Dt. 14.03.2023.
PGR
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
Note:-
Registry to circulate a copy of this judgment
to the Court below on or before 21.03.2023.
CRL. APPEAL NO.1514 OF 2010
Date: 14.03.2023
PGR
