Golepalli Ramulu vs The State Of A.P.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 6002 Tel

            THE HON'BLE Smt. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
                             AND
             THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

                CRIMINAL APPEAL No.302 OF 2014

                           JUDGMENT

(Per Hon'ble Smt. Justice P.Sree Sudha)

1. By judgment dated 21.02.2014 passed in Sessions Case No.475

of 2013, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar at

Jagtial, held A1 guilty under Section 302 IPC and acquitted A2 to A6 of

charges under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC. A1 was sentenced to life

imprisonment and levied with a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default of

payment of fine, he was to suffer S.I. for a period of six months. Out

of the fine amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, an amount of Rs.1,95,000/- shall

be paid as compensation under Section 357 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. to the son of

A.1 i.e. P.W.4 who is at present living with his maternal grandfather. It

was also further observed by the trial Court that the period of judicial

detention was from 04.02.2012 to 04.04.2012 and the first accused is

entitled for remission in future under Section 433-A Cr.P.C. read with

Section 428 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence

imposed, A1 is in appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.

2. The charges framed against A1 and the other accused read

thus:

'FIRSTLY:- That you, A1 to A6 on or about prior to 31st day of January, 2012 at Lambadipalli being the husband and in-laws of deceased Padma subjected her to cruelty to bring additional dowry and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and within my cognizance;

SECONDLY:- That you, the A1 on or about 1st day of February, 2012 at about 05.00 a.m, at Lambadipalli committed murder intentionally (knowingly) causing the death of your wife Padma and daughter Swapna and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and within my cognizance;

3. The accused however pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.

4. During the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and

marked in evidence 23 exhibits and 18 MOs. The defence did not

adduce any oral evidence. Upon consideration of the oral and

documentary evidence, the Sessions Court convicted A1 as aforestated

and let off the other accused.

5. The gist of the prosecution's case is that the first accused killed

his wife-Gonepalli @ Koyeda Padma and daughter-Gonepalli Swapna,

aged 17 years, with a toddy tapping knife and threatened his son-

Chandu who was studying Second Class and fled away from that place.

Brother of the first deceased gave complaint under Ex.P1. P.W.2 was

elder brother of P.W.1 and he deposed that the father of A.1 is alive;

P.W.3 is the elder brother of the first deceased; P.W.4 is son of first

deceased and own brother of second deceased and also an eye

witness to the occurrence; P.W.5 is cousin of P.Ws.1 and 2; P.W.6 is

Ex-Sarpanch of Lambadipalli Village; P.W.7 is the brother-in-law of

P.W.1; P.W.8 is the photographer and he filed photographs under

Exs.P3 to P10; P.W.9 is the mediator for inquest panchanama of the

first deceased under P.12 and the second deceased under Ex.P3 and

she is the daughter of P.W.2; P.W.10 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon at

Area Hospital, Jagtial, who conducted post-mortem on the first

deceased and gave report under Ex.P.15 and P.W.13 is the Doctor who

conducted post-mortem of the second deceased under Ex.P.18 and

P.Ws.11 and 12 are panch witnesses for the confessional and seizure

panchanamas of A.1, but both of them turned hostile and did not

support the case of the prosecution. P.W.6 who is the Ex-Sarpanch

also turned hostile and he has not stated as in Ex.P.2. P.W.14

registered the complaint in a case in Crime No.22 of 2012 for the

offences under Sections 302, 498-A IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act and sent express FIR under Ex.P19. P.W.15 is the

Investigating Officer who conducted entire investigation and filed

charge-sheet against the accused.

6. P.Ws.1 and 2 are elder brothers of the first deceased. They

deposed that A.1 went to Muscat and returned to India four months

back and he performed the marriage of his elder daughter-Malleshwari

with one Prashanth and at the time of marriage a cash of

Rs.3,00,000/-, two tulas of gold apart from other household articles

were presented. Out of which P.W.1 gave Rs.60,000/- for the marriage

expenses and in fact he spent Rs.1,00,000/-. Thereafter A.1 started

abusing and beating his sister-first deceased with a demand to get an

additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on the pretext that he incurred lot

of expenditure upon which P.W.1 along with others came to A.1 and

requested not to harass their sister on the ground of additional

amount. P.Ws.1 and 2 further deposed that after fifteen days, they

received a phone call and came to know that A.1 hacked his wife-

Padma and daughter. A.1 killed his daughter as he has to perform her

marriage by giving dowry. They further deposed that A.2 to A6

harassed their sister and also abetted to kill the deceased. A2 is elder

brother of A1, A3 is elder sister, A4 is the husband of A3, A5 is younger

sister of A2 and A3 and A6 is the son of A5. In the cross-examination,

he admitted that they have not given any complaint when A1

threatened and beat his sister. It was suggested to him that the son of

the deceased was not residing at Lambadipalli and he was staying at

Potharam and was going to school, but he denied the same. P.W.2 is

also deposed on the same lines. But it seems that he has not attended

the mediation along with P.W.1. He further deposed that though A2

separated from A1, they are living separately since long time, A3 and

A4 resided at Sudddapalli and they came to Lambadipalli for the

marriage of Malleshwari. A5 and A6 are residents of Potharam. It was

suggested to him that A1 was not in the house at the time of offence

and he went to Vemulawada and some unknown thieves entered into

the house and committed murder of wife and daughter of A1 but a

false complaint was given by P.W.1 and he denied the same.

7. P.W.3 is the daughter of the deceased, aged 21 years. She

deposed regarding the quarrel between her mother and father. She

also deposed that her father came from Dubai and performed her

marriage on 04.12.2011. The marriage was performed by her parents,

P.Ws.1 and 2 and maternal grandfather. Her grandfather has given

Rs.60,000/- as dowry to her husband. She further deposed that A.1

was harassing her mother to get Rs.1,00,000/- from her grandfather

on the ground that he has incurred huge expenditure in performing the

marriage. P.W.1 along with elders tried for settlement on 01.02.2012.

She received a phone call stating that her father committed murder of

her mother and sister and immediately she rushed to the place of

offence and when she questioned her brother he said that her father

murdered her mother and sister. She studied upto 10th class. She

further deposed that her educational expenses were incurred by her

father and her deceased sister was also studying 10th class and her

parents were providing education to her deceased sister. Her younger

brother was also studying in English Medium School at Malial. She

further deposed that pustelatadu, necklace and ear studs were

prepared by their father and presented to her at the time of her

marriage. Though they agreed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry,

Rs.1,90,000/- was paid. She further stated that many times panchayats

were held before the elders for sorting out the differences between her

parents. She denied the suggestion that her father was having

sufficient properties and he has not indebted to any one by performing

her marriage.

8. P.W.5 is cousin brother of deceased. In the cross-examination

he deposed that he do not know personally whether there are any

differences between A.1 and the deceased wife prior to the

performance of marriage of P.W.3.

9. P.W.7 deposed that his sister was given marriage to P.W.1. He

deposed that he along with P.W.1 requested the accused not to harass

the deceased Padma and they came to know about the incident

through P.W.4, son of the deceased. He further admitted that A.2, A.3

and A.5 are residing separately from A.1.

10. P.W.4 is the son of the deceased who was studying in 2nd class

at the time of the incident and he is an eyewitness to the occurrence.

He clearly deposed that the first deceased is his mother and the

second deceased is his sister. He deposed that about 23 months back

while he along with his sister were sleeping in front room of their

house at Lambadipalli, his father and mother slept in the bed room of

their house. When he heard the sounds at about 4.00 AM, woke up

and at that time his father came out by holding a knife in his hands

and he inflicted a cut injury on the neck of his sister and she died.

Then his father thrown away the knife, washed his hands and changed

his dress in the meanwhile he went inside the bedroom and saw his

mother dead with injuries on the neck. His father threatened him not

to reveal the incident to anybody, took him on a bicycle dropped near

the school and fled away from that place. He deposed that he informed

the incident to his maternal aunt and also to A.2, A.3 and A.6 and they

all in turn informed the incident to the village Sarpanch-A.5. His

statement was recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

The trial Court after putting preliminary question to the witness who is

aged about 10 years ensured that he was capable of understanding the

sanctity of oath. It was suggested to him that before the Investigating

Officer he has not stated that he intervened when his father was killing

his sister and he has not stated that his father has thrown away the

knife used by him in committing the murder on the heap of dung in

front of the house. It was also suggested to him that he gave

statement before the Magistrate upon tutoring of P.W.1 and by the

Police, but he denied. It was suggested to him that he was in a deep

sleep and he do not know what happened in the night and he denied

it.

11. P.W.6 was the ex-sarpanch of Lambadipalli village, but he

turned hostile and deposed that when they went to the house of the

deceased and found the dead bodies of Padma and Swapna and A.1

was found missing, and there upon he collected the phone number of

A.1 and informed him about the death. A.1 stated that he was

attending temple at Vemulavada and he also stated that P.W.4 did not

disclose anything to him and he was under shock.

12. Perusal of the entire evidence on record shows that all the

witnesses, except Sarpanch, are relatives of the deceased. Their main

grievance is that accused was harassing the first deceased for

additional dowry. As the first accused performed his eldest daughter's

marriage, he along with other accused demanded for additional dowry

and in that course he hacked the first deceased with a knife and also

hacked his daughter aged about 17 years and fled away from the

scene of offence. There is no eye witness to the occurrence, except the

son of the deceased who was aged about 10 years at that time. The

incident occurred on 01.02.2012. Police also filed memo before filing of

the charge-sheet for recording the statement of all material witnesses

including the son of the deceased under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on

28.03.2012 and accordingly the evidence of child witness was also

recorded by the Magistrate under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the 164

Cr.P.C. statement also the child witnesses stated that his father hacked

his sister, thrown away the knife. He went inside and found his mother

dead in the meantime his father changed his dress, took him away on

a cycle left him near by the school and threatened him not to reveal

anybody and fled away from that place. He informed the same to his

maternal uncle and also to others. The trial Court observed that there

is no reason for the minor son and elder daughter to depose against

her father and relied upon their evidence and convicted A.1 for the

offence under Section 302 IPC. Admittedly the panch witness for

confessional-cum-seizure panchanama turned hostile and thus the

recovery of knife was not established by the prosecution.

13. Now it is for this Court to scrutinize the evidence of the child

witness for arriving to the conclusion whether the judgment of the trial

Court is correct or not.

14. P.W.3 daughter of deceased was also stated regarding quarrel

between A.1 and the first deceased with regard to demand of

additional dowry by her father to her mother. She further stated that

her grandfather was alive and he gave Rs.60,000/- at the time of her

marriage but P.W.1 stated that he gave the said amount. She further

stated that the marriage was performed by their parents though the

agreed amount was Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.1,90,000/- was given and her

parents gave pusthalatadu, necklace and ear studs at the time of

marriage.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that A.1 was

residing in Muscat, earning the amount and sending to the family and

there is no reason for him to demand additional dowry; the defence of

the accused is that he was not in the house and he went to

Vemulavada and some thieves might have intruded into the house and

killed the deceased. Further, P.W.1 and others tutored the son of the

accused and got implicated him and filed a false complaint against him.

If at all A.1 has not committed any offence when ex-sarpanch called

the accused over phone and informed about the death of his wife and

daughter and why he did not turned up immediately, was not

explained by the defence and as per the evidence on record the

accused was arrested by the Police on 03.02.2012 while A.1 was at

Mallial cross roads. P.W.4 stated that his father cut the throat of his

sister, thrown away the knife, changed his dress in the meanwhile he

went inside and seen his mother with cut injuries in the neck. His

father thereupon threatened him to kill if he reveals the same to others

and has taken him on a bicycle near the school and he went away. As

observed by the trial Court there is no reason for the minor child to

depose falsely against his father by implicating him. He clearly stated

that his father hacked his sister and found his mother with cut injuries.

Moreover, immediately after the offence he fled away from that place

and his subsequent conduct immediately after the offence also

supports the version of the prosecution. As per the evidence of the

other witnesses, there was quarrel between wife and husband; though

their marriage took place about 21 years back, when he performed the

marriage of his elder daughter, he again demanded dowry and picked

up quarrel with his wife and it led to hacking his wife to death and also

hacking his daughter aged about 17 years without any reason and fled

away from that place. There is no reason for P.Ws.3 and 4 to speak

against the accused even at the instance of other relatives. Before the

Magistrate P.W.4 clearly stated regarding happening of the events in

his own words and it was recorded by the Magistrate in Telugu. The

Magistrate and also the trial Court ensured whether P.W.4 was

competent to depose before the Court or not by putting preliminary

questions and only after satisfying themselves that he is competent to

give the statement, they proceeded to record the statement/deposition

and as such it cannot be said he was not competent to depose before

the Court.

16. No doubt, there is every possibility to tutor the eye witness but

in this case immediately after the incident when his father dropped him

near the school and fled away, the boy himself revealed about the

incident to his maternal aunt and also to A.2, A.3 and A.6 who are the

relatives of his father but not to the relatives of his mother. All of them

proceeded to the Sarpanch and from there to the house of the

deceased and found the dead bodies in the house. Therefore, it cannot

be said that there is scope for the relatives of the deceased to tutor the

child witness in the interregnum. Even P.W.3 sister of the second

deceased ensured the facts from her brother P.W.4 and deposed

against her father especially when her father was so responsible and

performed her marriage on 04.12.2011 there is no reason for her to

depose falsely against her father after two months. A.1 hacked his

daughter aged about 17 years without any reason. The trial Court

observed that it is a case of Uxoricide and Filicide and very heinous

crime and inflicted life imprisonment to A.1 along with compensation.

It is a case of double murder, at least there was quarrel between wife

and husband before hacking her, but A.1 also hacked his grown up

daughter without mercy and any reason. As the testimony of child

witness is an eye witness to the incident and inspired the confidence of

Court, the trial Court believed the same and his evidence was amply

corroborated by the evidence of other witness regarding the quarrel

between A.1 and his wife, the trial Court rightly convicted A.1 and it

needs no interference.

17. The appeal therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed,

confirming the conviction and sentence imposed upon the

appellant/A1.

______________ P.SREE SUDHA, J

_______________ Dr. D.NAGARJUN, J

19th NOVEMBER, 2022 pgs