CRLA/885/2007 of Deesari Buddi, Vs State of A.P., on 29 December 2010

1. The sole accused in Sessions Case No.224 of 2006 on the file ofthe Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam at Krishna, convicted of theoffences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian PenalCode, 1860 {“IPC” for brevity} and sentenced to suffer lifeimprisonment with fine of Rs.50/- {Rupees fifty only) in default to sufferone month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPCand sentenced to six months imprisonment for the offence underSection 324 IPC, is the appellant herein.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased DeesariSarojini, aged about 50 years, was the wife of the accused and P.W.1is the mother of the deceased and they are residents of YelamarruVillage. The marriage of the accused and the deceased wasperformed about 30 years back and they were blessed with threechildren and all the three children were married. The last daughter,Bhavani, was residing with the mother, as her husband expired. Theaccused suspected the fidelity of his wife and found fault with thedeceased living with her last daughter and several times he madedemands to come and live with him and that she did not oblige.

3. On 26.03.2006 at about 6 pm, the accused went to the house ofthe deceased and again called her to come and live with him. She didnot come and he left the house threatening her. On 27.03.2006 in themorning hours, P.Ws.1 and 2 went for coolie work and at about 2 pm,when they were returning along with the deceased, the accused askedthe deceased Then the deceased arrogantly replied and refused. The accused took a toddy tapper knife and hacked the deceased indiscriminatelycausing injuries to the vital organs. P.W.1 interfered and she was alsobeaten on the backside of her head. P.W.3 came to the scene and theaccused fled away. The deceased and P.W.1 were taken to thehospital and on the way to hospital, the deceased died. On acomplaint given by P.W.1, a case in Crime No.18 of 2006 underSections 302, 307 and 324 IPC were registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation, the statements of the witnesseswere recorded, panchanama of the scene was conducted and deadbody was sent for inquest. P.W.1 was also sent for medicalexamination. On 27.03.2006, the accused was arrested and he gave aconfessional statement. The accused was sent for remand. Theinvestigation disclosed that the accused is guilty of the offence underSections 498-A, 302, 307 and 324 IPC. The accused was committedto the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge, afterappearance of the accused, framed the following charges.

Firstly: That prior to 27.03.2006 at Yelamarru Village,Pedaparupudi Mandal, you being the husband of DeesariSarojini by your willful conduct suspected her fidelity andharassed her and that you thereby committed offencepunishable under Section 498 (A) IPC and within mycognizance.

Secondly: That you on 27[th] day of March, 2006 at about 2pm at Yelakunta line donka in Yelamarru village committedmurder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death ofDeesari Sarojini by hacking her with a toddy tapper knifeindiscriminately and that you thereby committed offencepunishable under Section 302 IPC and within my cognizance.Thirdly: That you, on the same date, time and placementioned in Charge No.2, hacked Surimilli Satyavathi with atoddy tapper knife and caused bleeding injury with an intentionto kill her, if by that act you had caused the death of SurimilliSatyavathi you would have been guilty of murder and that youthereby committed offence punishable under Section 307 IPCand within my cognizance.

Lastly: That you, on the same date, time and placementioned in charge No.2 voluntarily caused hurt to Surimilli

Satyavathi by means of a toddy tapper knife which is aninstrument for cutting used as weapon of offence likely tocause death and that you thereby committed an offencepunishable under Section 324 IPC and within my cognizance.

4. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined andExs.P1 to P20 and MOs 1 to 12 were marked. After the evidence ofthe prosecution was over, the accused was examined under Section313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.” for brevity). Nooral defence evidence was adduced but Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judgepassed conviction and sentence, which are attacked in this appeal.

5. As the accused has no counsel to defend himself, Smt.J.Kusumavathi, learned counsel, is appointed as State Legal Brief. 6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellantand the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. The points that arise for consideration are

(1) Whether the prosecution has proved that the accusedhas committed murder of the deceased and causedinjuries to P.W.1? andhas committed murder of the deceased and causedinjuries to P.W.1? and

(2) Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by thelearned Sessions Judge is legal and sustainable?

8. In support of the prosecution case, P.W.1 deposed that thedeceased was staying with her daughter at Yelamarru Village andthere were disputes between the accused and the deceased and theaccused asking the deceased to join him but she refused. On the nextday, she along with the deceased and P.W.2 went to the fields at about7 am and they attended to the coolie work and at about 2 pm, theyreturned and when they reached near Yalakunta, the accused cameand demanded the deceased to come with him and the deceasedrefused. The accused again persuaded and the deceased gave thesame reply. Then the accused took the tapper knife and hacked onher chest and when P.W.1 tried to interfere, the accused hacked her also on the back of her head. Thereafter, the deceased and herselfwere taken to the hospital and she gave complaint-ExP1. In the crossexamination, she stated that the deceased was her first issue. Shespoke about the differences between the accused and the deceased. She also denied that the deceased was harassing the accused due toillegal contacts with Bheemannadora. She denied the suggestion thatthe accused did not come and demanded the deceased to join himand that she did not witness any incident.

9. The evidence of P.W.2 is also about the differences between theaccused and the deceased and on the date of the incident, she alongwith the deceased, P.W.2 and others going to coolie work and whilereturning, the accused demanding the deceased to join and there waswordy exchange between the accused and the deceased. Thereafter,the accused hacked the deceased and P.W.1. In the crossexamination of this witness, there is no much material to discriminatethe testimony being entrusted who were inimical with the accused. The evidence of P.W.3 is that he saw the accused in the outskirts ofYalakunta in possession of a knife and he went to the village andinformed the conduct of the accused to the villagers. He identifiedMO1 as the one, which the deceased was holding at the time of theincident.

10. The evidence of P.W.4 is about the apprehension of the accusedat Brahmamgari Matam after coming to know about the incident andhanding over to the police along with a blood stained knife. Theevidence of P.W.5 is that the deceased was her mother and theaccused is the father. She also spoke about the accused demandingthe deceased to come and join with him on the previous day and therefusal of the deceased and subsequently, coming to know about theattack on the deceased on the next day. The evidence of P.W.6 is thatthe deceased and others attending the labour work in his fields till 2pm. The evidence of P.W.7 is that the knife, MO1, belongs to him andit was committed theft of after the accused came to him and consumed the toddy.

11. The evidence of P.W.8 is that he brought the injured to thevillage and thereafter; they were taken in an auto to Gudivada. Theevidence of P.W.9 is that he is an auto driver and he took thedeceased and the injured to the hospital. The evidence of P.W.10 isabout taking photographs at the scene. The evidence of P.W.11 isabout his presence at the time of panchanama of the scene and alsorecording the confession of the accused and recovering the knife andother blood stained clothes of the accused. The evidence of P.W.12 isabout examining P.W.1 and finding injuries in Ex.P14, which are asunder.

“The injured person was first seen at 3.10 pm on27.03.2006 and he examination was commenced at 3.10 pmon 27.03.2006.

When the following injuries were found:

A 2½ interior injury over occipital region bone deep.

I am of the opinion that the injury is simple mightHemorrhage caused by sharp object of less than 6 hoursduration.”

He also deposed about conducting post mortem examination of thedeceased and noticing the injuries in Ex.P15, which are as under.

“The cause of death to the best of injury to vital organ(Brain) on Hemorrhage shock.”

He also opined that the cause of the death is due to injury to vitalorgans. The evidence of P.Ws.13 and 14 is about the investigationdone by them in this case.

12. From the evidence available on record, it is quite clear that therelationship between the accused and the deceased was not cordial. From the evidence of P.W.1, the mother of the deceased, and alsofrom the evidence of P.W.5, the daughter of the accused and thedeceased, on the previous day, the accused came and demanded thedeceased to come and join him and the deceased refused. Furthermore, the fact that the deceased was not living with the accused is not

disputed. Keeping in mind, the conduct of the deceased in refusing tojoin him after living for 30 years in marital life, the accused seems tohave persisted with his demand for taking the deceased with him. With that intention in mind, on the next day also when the deceasedwas coming from the fields, he questioned her and requested her tocome and join. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 on this aspect clearlyestablishes that at about 2 pm at Yellakunta, the accused came andstopped the deceased and there was a wordy altercation betweenthem. The accused demanding the deceased to join and thedeceased refused to join and there seems to be arrogance on her part. Due to that the accused is said to have caused the death of thedeceased by hacking her with a knife. The fact that the deceased dieddue to homicidal injuries is established by the doctor and also theinjuries to the vital organs. P.W.1 also received injuries when sheintervened and this also probabilise her presence at the scene ofincident. Therefore, the fact that the deceased died due to the injuriescaused by the accused is established beyond doubt by the evidence ofP.Ws.1 and 2 and also the medical evidence.

13. As can be seen from the evidence on record by the date of theincident, the deceased is said to be aged about 50 years and theaccused is aged about 55 years. The wife of the accused is said tohave refused to join. Naturally, it is an insult to him and in spite ofpersistent demands, the deceased was said to be arrogant andadamant in joining him. Therefore, the intention of the accused is onlyto see that the deceased joins him for a peaceful living but due to thewordy altercation that has taken place at the time of the incident andearlier and the fact that the deceased was continuously refusing to jointhe accused, he seems to have enraged by the conduct of thedeceased and in that sudden provocation, he has caused injuries tothe deceased. The fact that the accused was carrying a knife by itselfis not a circumstance to hold that the accused intended to kill thedeceased because he did not attack directly on the deceased. On the other hand, he made an appeal to come and live with him for whichshe refused. Therefore, we have no hesitation that the act of theaccused does not attract the severity of the crime under Section 302IPC and in the circumstances and nature of the conduct of theaccused, we feel that the accused can only be convicted underSection 304 Part-I IPC, as the act of the accused was in a suddenprovocation after the wordy altercation when his wife refused to joinhim.

14. In the result, the conviction and sentence recorded against theappellant/accused in the judgment dated 26.02.2007 in SessionsCase No.224 of 2006 on the file of the District & Sessions Judge,Krishna, Machilipatnam, for the offence under Section 302 IPC are setaside, instead the appellant/accused is found guilty of the offencepunishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC and accordingly, he isconvicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for aperiod of seven {7} years. The conviction and sentence of the accusedfor the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC for causing injuriesto P.W.1 are confirmed. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The period of remand underwent by the appellant/accused duringinvestigation, trial and after conviction shall be given set off underSection 428 Cr.P.C.

15. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.

_____________

(K.C.BHANU, J)

_______________________

(N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J)