Aleti Chandraiah vs The State of A.P.

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—This appeal u/s 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is filed by the sole accused in S.C. No. 108 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. The accused was tried for the offences of subjecting his wife to harassment, punishable u/s 498-A IPC, and causing her death on 19.10.2008 at Palitham Village of Peddapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District, punishable u/s 302 IPC. He was also charged with the offence of attempting to commit suicide punishable u/s 309 IPC.

Through its judgment, dated 27.08.2009, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 309 IPC. Sentence of imprisonment for life, and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months was imposed for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and the punishment of Simple Imprisonment for three months was imposed for the offence punishable u/s 309 IPC.

The accused was married to the deceased, Aleti Chinna Yellamma, and they had four daughters and a son out of their wedlock. It was alleged that the accused was addicted to consumption of toddy and used to physically and mentally harass his wife, the deceased. P.W. 1, the Sarpanch of the Village, filed a complaint under Ex. P1, before the Station House Officer, Peddapally stating that at 11.45 a.m. on 19.10.2008 the Village Servant-P.W.3 came and informed him that the accused and the deceased quarreled with each other and both of them were found in a pool of blood. He is said to have rushed to the house of the accused, and there, he found the wife of the accused dead and the accused, with serious injury in the stomach. He is said to have called the Ambulance and sent the accused to a hospital. The accused is said to have informed P.W. 1 that he killed the deceased on suspecting her character, and narrated certain incidents, which are said to have taken place between both of them. On receipt of Ex. P1, the Sub Inspector of Police, Peddapalli-P.W. 11, registered a case in Crime No. 241 of 2008 u/s 302 IPC. He visited the scene of occurrence, got prepared a panchanama, and caused inquest and postmortem. Since the accused was seriously injured, he was admitted into a Government Hospital, and on requisition being given, P.W. 13 Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karimanagar recorded dying declaration from him.

After conducting a detailed investigation, the Inspector of Police-P.W.12 submitted a charge sheet. Taking the same into account, the trial Court framed the charges. Before the trial Court, P.Ws. 1 to 15 were examined, Exs.Pl to P17 were filed, and MOs. 1 to 9 were also taken on record.

Learned Counsel for the accused submits that there was absolutely no evidence whatever, to prove that the accused committed the murder of his wife. He contends that the very fact that the accused received serious bleeding injury on the abdomen, so much so, that not only he was hospitalized but also a dying declaration was recorded, discloses that he is not the person, who has caused injuries to or death of his wife. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court based its conclusions, just on assumptions, and circumstantial evidence does not support the charge.

Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the evidence of children of the accused and the deceased P.Ws. 4 and 5 clinchingly establishes that the accused was harassing his wife for the past several years, and whether one goes by the principle of last seen together, or existence of the motive to do away with the life of the deceased, it is only the accused, that can be said to have caused the death of the deceased. She further contends that though P.W.1, who filed the complaint-Ex. P1, turned hostile, the contents of the complaint and the subsequent revelations clearly indicate that the death was committed by none else than the accused.

The trial Court framed the following points for its consideration:

1). Whether the prosecution could prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the accused had murdered his wife in his hut on 19.10.2008, thereby committed an offence punishable u/Sec. 302 IPC?

2). Whether the prosecution could prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the accused had attempted to end his life by stabbing himself with a toddy tappers knife, thereby committed an offence punishable u/Sec. 309 IPC?

3). The result of the case?

Since both the offences are referable to the same incident, common discussion was undertaken and findings were recorded.

This is a rare case in which, a person was found dead and one who is accused of committing murder of such person, that too spouses were found in the same pool of blood, with serious injuries. Had there been an eye witness to the occurrence, the mere fact that the person-accused of causing murder was found with serious injuries would not have made much of difference. Though the incident is said to have taken place at about 11.00 a.m., there were no other inmates, in the house.

The complaint about the occurrence was submitted by P.W. 1, the Sarpanch of the Village. A detailed account of the nature of relations between the accused and the deceased was given in Ex. P1. Unless the complainant himself is a member of the family or one who had a direct knowledge about the affairs in the family, such a detailed account is not expected.

The source of information to P.W. 1 is said to be P.W.3, the Village Servant. It is not as if that the P.W.3 has seen the occurrence. He, in turn, is said to have got the knowledge from P.W.2, a woman in the neighboring house. The record discloses that P.W. 1 did not vouch for what is contained in Ex. P1 or what is said to have recorded from him u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Naturally, he was declared hostile and the very basis for registration of crime and making allegation against the accused, became shaky. In their evidence, P.Ws. 2 and 3 have only stated that on hearing cries in the area they went inside the house of the accused and found the accused and the deceased in a pool of blood there. From this, it is difficult to conclude that the death of the deceased was caused by the accused.

P.Ws. 4 and 5, the children of the accused and the deceased, stated that the relationship between their father and mother was not cordial and that the accused used to consume toddy frequently. They have also stated that two days before the incident, the accused started suspecting the fidelity of the deceased. Even if all this is taken as true, it would be difficult to conclude that the deceased was killed by the accused.

The entire conclusion of the trial Court was based upon circumstantial evidence. However, if one goes by that very evidence, a different conclusion becomes possible. In case, the accused was so angry and determined to kill his wife, he would not have chosen the time of 11.00 a.m., nor he would have injured himself to such an extent, that he was almost in the mouth of the death. The very fact that the couple, though ridden with poverty, was living together, and had five children, suggests that difference was not to such an extent, as to provoke the accused to kill his wife.

The case on hand in fact presents a peculiar situation. It has already been mentioned that on account of the seriousness of the accused, due to injuries in the abdomen, he was admitted in the Government hospital. The concerned Circle Inspector of police issued requisition to the jurisdictional Magistrate for recording dying declaration of the accused. The Magistrate, P.W.13 came to the hospital and recorded statement-Ex. P16. The answer from the accused was as under:

Myself and my wife quarreled to each other. The quarrel took place with regard to the meals. I beat my wife with axe. My wife died. I myself slitter with knife with an intention to die. Since my wife died, I splattered myself to die myself.

If a person from whom a dying declaration is recorded; survives, the value of the declaration recorded from him virtually gets rounded off to ''zero''. It is almost similar to that of a Will, during the lifetime of a person, who executed it. Apart from suffering the serious infirmity as to admissibility, referred to above, Ex. P16 suffers from another infirmity of the same magnitude. Being self-incriminatory in nature, it cannot form part of a record in a criminal case. Even otherwise, the version that emerges from Ex. P16 is totally different from what is mentioned in the charge, or for that matter, Ex. P1. Though the children, P.Ws. 4 and 5 were having full knowledge of the incident, they have not chosen to file complaint, and P.W.1, who submitted the complaint, was treated hostile.

One important circumstance, which the prosecution failed to explain was that, in case the accused were to have committed the murder of his wife, and thereafter made an attempt to commit suicide, both of them would not have been in the same pool of blood. The possibility of a third person attacking both of them cannot be ruled out. The only basis for alleging that the accused made an attempt to commit suicide was Ex. P16. Once that is held to be inadmissible in evidence, there is no way that the accused can be found guilty of any offence, whatever.

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C. No. 108 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, dated 27.08.2009, against the appellant-accused, are set aside. The appellant-accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is needed in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-accused shall be refunded to him. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall also stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.