Dandera Lachanna, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY AND THE HON'BLE Dr . JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER CRI MI NAL APPEAL No.8 9 7 of 2 0 1 2 JUDGMENT (Per Dr.Justice Shameem Akther) This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the appellant/ accused, challenging the judgment, dated 13-05-2011, passed in S.C.No.80 of 2011 by the III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Adilabad at Asifabad, whereby, the Court below convicted the accused of the offence punishable under Section of I.P.C.

and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/ -.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Chayanam Ravindranath, learned Legal Aid counsel appearing on behalf of the accused, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Telangana) representing the respondent-State and perused the record. 3.

The learned Legal Aid counsel appearing on behalf of the accused would contend that the Court below ought not to have believed the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, who is wife and daughter respectively of deceased Venkaiah, who were not at the scene of offence, and that there is no proper investigation by the police. Further, he contended that the confession ought to have been recorded in the presence of revenue officials; that though there are inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 302 IPC and prayed to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused.

4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State would submit that the trial Court rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and there is nothing to take a different view and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused by the Court below.

5.

In view of the above contentions put-forth by both the learned counsel, the points that arise for determination in this Criminal Appeal are:

( 1 ) W h et h er t h e accu sed h ad cau sed t h e deat h of h is fat h er Dan der a Ven k aiah ?

( 2 ) W h et h er t h e con v ict ion an d sen t en ced r ecor ded of t h e offen ce u n der Sect ion 3 0 2 I PC again st t h e accu sed by t h e Cou r t below is liable t o be set aside ? 6.

The case of the prosecution is reads as under: The accused is the second son of Dandera Venkaiah, who is the deceased in this case. About seven years prior to the offence, the marriage of accused was performed with one Kamala. After his marriage, the accused built a house and living separately with his wife. After constructing the house, the accused addicted to consuming alcohol and became idle without doing any work. The accused used to quarrel and beat his wife, due to which she left him and started staying at her parental

house at Penchikalpet. Thereafter, the accused frequently used to ask his father, the deceased herein, to give money for consuming liquor, but deceased refused to give and advised him to get money by doing work. Thereby, the accused bore grudge against his father. On 20-10-2010 at about 10.00 pm, the accused went to the house of deceased and asked him to give money for liquor, but deceased refused to give. On that the accused decided to eliminate the deceased, then the accused brought a plank (ceiling support stick) from back side of the house of deceased, entered into the house and beat the deceased on his head, on left side of cheek and on left side of fore head, when the deceased was sleeping on a cot. As a result of it, the deceased sustained head injury and died on the spot.

When the inmates of the house interfered, the accused tried to beat them also and fled away. On a report lodged by P.W.1 (wife of the deceased), the police registered the crime, investigated into and filed charge-sheet before the Magistrate concerned. The learned Magistrate, took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Session, Adilabad under Section 209 Cr.P.C., since the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. On committal, the learned Sessions Judge, Adilabad, registered the case as S.C.No.80 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and made over the case to the Court below for disposal in accordance with law. The Court below framed charge under Section 302 of I.P.C.

over to the accused for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.

To prove the case of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.19 were marked. M.Os.1 to 6 were also marked.

8.

When the accused was confronted with the incriminating material appearing against him and examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied the same. No oral and documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the accused.

9.

P.W.1 is the mother of accused and the wife of deceased Venkaiah. Her evidence is that six months prior to her deposition on the date of incident, the accused came to their house at 6 pm, had his meals and went away. Again at 10 pm, the accused came and asked for water. Then the mother-in-law of PW.1 opened the door and the accused asked her to give tobacco and then she gave the same. Then accused left the house and after some time returned and beat the husband of PW.1 with stick on the left side of his face. PW.1 identified the stick used by the accused for commission of offence on the fateful day. She stated that her husband suffered bleeding injuries and blood was oozing from his nose and mouth. Then PW.1 woke-up her daughter Padma, who was examined as PW.2. When PW.1 raised cries, her neighbours, who were the other witnesses in this case, came to the scene of offence. On the next day morning, PW.1 lodged Ex.P.1 report to the police. Recitals of Ex.P.1 report corroborate with the evidence of PW.1.

10. There is specific evidence of PW.1-wife of the deceased and the mother of the accused that the accused beat the deceased with a stick and caused injuries on the left side of the face. The evidence of PW.2 corroborates with the evidence of her mother-PW.1, who also clearly and categorically stated that when she woke-up, she saw the accused trying to attack her mother and when she resisted, the accused left the house. She also stated that the accused killed her father, when her father did not give money for drinking. When it is suggested to PWs 1 and 2 that they were deposing false, they reiterated what they stated in their respective chief examinations and withstood lengthy cross-examination.

11. There is also the evidence of PW.3, who stated that around 10.30 pm, he heard the hue and cry of PW.1, then himself along with one Pentaiah went to the house of PW.1 and found the deceased dead. PW.1 informed him that the accused beat her husband. He found the bleeding injuries on the left cheek and temple of the deceased. The evidence of PW.4 also corroborated with the evidence of PW.1. He also stated that he found bleeding injuries on that night as deposed by PW.3. The evidence of PW5, a neighbour of PW.1 also corroborates the evidence of PWs 3 and 4. PWs 3 and 4 were also informed by PW.1 that the accused caused the death of her husband. It is also the evidence of PW.5 to the effect that PWs 3 and 4 and himself went to the house of PW.1 and came to know that the accused beat his father on the left side of his face, as the deceased did not give money for purchase of toddy and the

accused killed him. It is also stated by PW.5 that the accused is habituated to drinking. There is also the evidence of PWs 3, 4 and 6 that the accused was in the habit of drinking. When the deceased refused to give money to the accused, the accused used to beat the deceased. Ultimately, the accused caused the death of his father.

12. PW.7 is a photographer who photographed the deceased and scene of offence, which are marked as Exs P.2 to P8. PW.8 is panch for inquest report, who spoke about the injuries suffered by the deceased and seizure of Mos 1 to 4 i.e.cotton bontha, blood stained soil, lungi and T-shirt respectively in his presence under the cover of Ex.P.11.

13. There is also the evidence of PW. 9 Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and Ex.P.12 Post-Mortem Examination (PME) report issued by him. He specifically deposed that he found contusion over the left manipular region extending to temporal region approximately 10x5 cm. On opening the skull, he found facture of left mandibular and fracture of left temporal bone. He also stated that intra-cerebral haemorrhage noted in left temporal region and bleeding from left ear noted. All the injuries are antemortem in nature and he noted the cause of death is due to head injury. PWs 1 and 2 and other witnesses have also corroborated with the injuries exhibited in Ex.P.12 PME report.

14. PW.10 is panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama of MO.5 enagarra i.e.stick, which was seized under the cover of Ex.P.14 recovery panchanama and he identified MO.5. In their cross-examination, P.Ws.7 to 10 reiterated what they stated in their respective chief examinations and nothing has been elicited to discredit their testimony. PW.11 Inspector of police deposed the manner in which investigation was conducted in this case.

15.

It is apt to refer a decision in Pu lich er la Nagar aj u alias Nagar aj a Reddy v. St at e of An dh r a Pr adesh 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the credibility of interested witnesses who are relatives, observed that it is well settled that evidence of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is either partisan or interested or close relative to the deceased, if it is otherwise found to be trustworthy and credible. The said evidence only requires scrutiny with more care and caution, so that neither the guilty escapes nor the innocent is wrongly convicted. If, on such careful scrutiny, the evidence is found to be reliable and probable, then it can be acted upon. If it is found to be improbable or suspicious, it ought to be rejected. Where the witness has a motive to falsely implicate the accused, his testimony should have corroboration in regard to material particulars before it is accepted.

1 AIR 2006 SC 3010

16. There is ample evidence on record to prove that the death of deceased Venkaiah is caused by his son i.e. the accused herein, when the deceased refused to give money to him for drinking. There is no reason for all the prosecution witnesses more particularly his mother and sister to depose against the accused, in order to implicate him falsely in this case. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is coherent and consistent without any material omissions and contradictions. They withstood the test of cross-examination. Both of them are natural witnesses. Their presence at the time of the incident is quite probable. Their evidence cannot be discarded. The motive on the part of the accused with regard to commission of offence is also established. As per the record, there was no repentance on his face, and when the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding incriminating evidence, the accused simply denied the incriminating evidence and did not adduce any oral evidence and stated that he has no defence witnesses. 17.

The trial court had elaborately dealt the entire oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and there is nothing to take a different view. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

18.

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 13-05-2011 in S.C.No.80 of 2011 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Asifabad. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ JUSTI CE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Dr . SHAMEEM AKTHER, J 28-07-2018 Nvl