Dariboina Ramesh vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Bhaskar Rao, J.—The appellant herein was convicted u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam In Sessions Case No. 23 of 1987 on his file for causing the death of his wife, Syamala, hereinafter referred to as "the deceased", by strangulating her with the wire of a table fan in the early hours of 4-9-1986 at Marripalem Visakhapatnam and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. He was also convicted by the learned Sessions Judge u/s 201 of the Indian Penal Code for causing disappearance of evidence and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Both the sentences were however directed to run concurrently.

The gravamen of the charge is that the accused-appellant killed his wife by strangulating her and thereafter burnt her body and suppressed the offence.

The facts of the case are as follows : The accused is a resident of house No. 38-22-20/A, Green Gardens, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. He was working as a casual Mazdoor in P & T Department, Industrial Estate, Visakhapatnam. The accused married the deceased Syamala, daughter of Palla Ramulamma of China Waltair, Visakhapatnam. Originally the accused was staying in the house of his brother Daliboyina Govindarao in Marripalem along with his parents. Subsequently lie took a portion of the house of Peethala Apparao''s brother situate in Mosque street, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam, and stayed therein for some time. One Bonula Gurumurthy was his neighbour. As the accused suspected illicit intimacy between the deceased and the said Gurumurthy, he immediately shifted his residence to a portion of the house of V. Ramarao and Govindamma, P.Ws. 1 and 2 respectively.

On 2-9-1986 while Gurumurthy passing along in which the deceased was living, the deceased invited him to her house and offered a cup of tea. While Gurumurthy was leaving her house after taking the tea the accused noticed the same and picked up a quarrel with the deceased regarding inviting Gurumurthy. Again in the early hours of 4-9-1986 the accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased and killed her by strangulating her neck by using the wire of a table fan and created a scene as if the deceased herself committed suicide. Then the accused brought his mother Appalanarasamma representing that the deceased was dead by committing suicide by burning. P.Ws. 1 and 2 were also informed about the same. All of them forcibly opened the doors of the house. The deceased was found dead with burn injuries over the neck and chest. The accused immediately went to Dr. Kotikula Demudubabu, P.W. 6, a private medical practitioner and requested him to come to his house as his wife is seriously ill. On the way, P.W. 6 was informed that the deceased already died. The accused went to his in-law''s house and informed him that his wife died due to burst of the stove.

P.W. 1 got prepared a report Ex. P. 1 and presented to same to P.W. 10, S.I. of Police, V Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam. P.W. 10 registered the same as Crime No. 217 of 1986 and issued express F.I.Rs. to all, the concerned. P.W. 12, Sub-divisional Police Officer, North, Visakhapatnam look up further investigation. He visited the scene of offence and found the corpse of the deceased lying in the room of the accused. He got the scene of offence photographed through P.W. 3 a worker in the Rama Photo Studio, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. P.W. 12 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W. 4 and others. Thereafter the dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination. P.W. 11, Professor of Forensic Medicine, Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He opined that the deceased died of asphyxia due to antemortem strangulation by a ligature. Ex. P. 24 is the post-mortem certificale issued by him. P.W. 11 sent the viscera to the Chemical Examiner, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Ex. P. 25 is the report of the Chemical Examiner which shows that the viscera does not contain poisonous substance. After conducting the post-mortem examination by P.W. 11, P.W. 12 directed P.W. 13, Inspector of Police, Law and Order, Circle III, Visakhapatnam to change the section of law from Section 174 Cr. P C. to Section 302 I.P.C. P.W. 13. took up further investigation and issued Ex. P. 26, an altered F.I.R. to all the concerned. He examined the scene of offence on 5-9-1986 and prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence, Ex. P. 27. P.W. 13 apprehended the accused on 11-9-1986 in the presence of P.W. 8 and another mediator. After his arrest the accused led the police party including P.W. 13 and P.W. 8 to his house and produced a fan, M.O. 1 and a kerosene stove, M.O. 2. After completion of the investigation into the case, P.W. 14, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Law and Order, Northern Division, Visakhapatnam filed the charge-sheet.

The prosecution in all examined P.Ws. 1 to 14 and marked Ex. P. 1 to P. 30. Exs. D-1 and D-2 were marked by the defence. When examined u/s 313 Cr. P.C. the accused denied the offence.

The learned Sessions Judge after considering the entire material on record convicted the accused as stated above. Assailing the conviction, the accused-appellant filed the present appeal.

The story of the prosecution as deposed by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 7 is as follows : The accused married the deceased. Originally they were staying in the house of Daliboyina Govindarao (brother of the accused). Thereafter they shifted to another house where one Bonula Gurumurthy was the neighbour. The accused suspected that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with the said Gurumurthy. Therefore, he immediately shifted to another house of P.Ws. 1 and 2. PW 2 wife of PW 1 deposed that the accused and the deceased were tenants in their house, that on 30th and 31st of August, 1986 they went to Kothavalasa, that they returned from Kothavalasa on the night of 31st August, 1986, that at about 12 noon PW 1 came to their house for lunch, that while taking lunch they heard the accused and his wife quarrelling, that on the evening of 1-9-1986 she enquired the deceased as to why she was quarrelling with the accused, that the deceased told her that the accused was disputing her for giving his cycle to his elder brother, that PW 1 also enquired her about the dispute and she told him the same, that in the early hours of 2-9-1986 the deceased called a person by name Gurumurthy, who was going on the road, that he went away by saying that he will come later, that later Gurumurthy came and the deceased gave him a cup of tea, that after taking tea Gurumurthy left the house, that while Gurumurthy leaving the house of the deceased the accused came, that on 3-9-1986 the accused was complaining to the deceased as to why she gave tea to Gurumurthy, that there was a quarrel between them, that on 4-9-1986 by the time she woke up the deceased having got up was cleaning her house, that there was a well in their house, that she requested PW 1 to bail out some water to enable her to clean the utensils etc., that while PW 1 was bailing out water the mother of the accused came with a small container bringing curd, that the deceased came and asked her whether she would take the bath first or she (the deceased) can have the bath first, that she requested the deceased to have her bath first, that the deceased went inside her house where the accused and his mother were already present, that she heard the accused complaining his mother against the deceased as a mental case, that the accused told his mother that he will go to the house of the mother of the deceased, that the mother of the accused by saying that she will enquire about the same from the parents of the deceased, that afterwards the mother-in-law of the deceased went away asking the deceased to close the doors, that after some time the accused also went away from the house, that after five minutes while she was cleaning her teeth she found the accused and his mother coming back to their house together and banging the doors from outside, that she enquired as to what had happened, that the mother of the accused informed her that the accused told her that he was informed by the deceased that she will commit suicide by pouring kerosene over her, that she rushed immediately to PW 1 and informed him about the same, that all of them opened the door from outside and that they found the deceased lying dead on the ground with burn injuries.

PW 2 is an independent witness. She has no connection with the accused or with the parents of the deceased. She was cross-examined at length and nothing was elicited to discredit her evidence and her version was consistent throughout her cross-examination. PW 1 corroborated the version of PW 2. He is also an independent witness. The above evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 2 clinchingly establishes that the accused and the deceased were quarrelling again and again and that they quarrelled on 2-9-1986 and 4-9-1986 also. Thereafter the mother of the accused went away asking the deceased to close the doors. After some time the accused also went away from the house. After some time the accused and his mother returned and started banging the doors and when the door is not opened from inside they forcibly opened the door from outside and they found the deceased dead. PW 7 is a resident of Visakhapatnam doing business in bangles. He deposed that the deceased is his sister''s daughter and his sister who is the mother of the deceased is living at Pithapuram colony, Visakhapatnam, that on the date of offence, he left his house to sell bangles and returned home at about 12 noon, that then he was informed by his wife about the death of the deceased, that he immediately rushed to the house of the accused where he found the deceased lying dead and police people were also found, that on the next day the corpse of the deceased was delivered to his sister and they took the corpse to his sister''s house and after the formal ceremony the corpse was taken to the burial ground, that the accused was present when the corpse was taken to the burial ground, that having seen the accused he took the accused to some distance and questioned him about the offence and the accused confessed before him to have killed the deceased by tying a fan wire around her neck since she has illicit intimacy with one Gurumurthy. This witness is also cross-examined at length and nothing was elicited to discredit his evidence. His statement also was recorded u/s 164 Cr. P. C. before the Magistrate. His evidence lends support to the case of the prosecution.

PW 11 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased found the following burns :

(1) Whole of the front and back of the neck.

(2) Lower surface of the lower jaw.

(3) Upper part of front of chest upto a level of 7 cm. above the horizontal nipple line.

PW 11 also found the following external injuries :

A ligature mark on the neck starting from the front mid-line of the neck on the thyroid cartilage and extending horizontally to the back of the neck. The total length of the ligature mark all around the neck is 34 cms. The width of the ligature mark is 0.5 cm. The mark is fairly visible on the cuticle but clearly visible on the underlying dermis. No definite patterns is seen. On dissection PW 11 found the tissues underneath the ligature mark to be bruised. Both lungs are congested and edematous. Multiple petechial haemorrhages are present in the inter lobar fissures of the lungs. Cut pieces of lungs are floating in water. All the laryngeal cartilages are physically in tact. Hyoid bone is physically in tact. Joints of the hyold bone are supple and normal. He opined that the deceased died of asphyxis due to ante mortem strangulation by a ligature. He specifically opined that the burn injuries are post-mortem in nature.

The police recovered a fan and a wire and a kerosene stove from the room where the deceased died. Thus the evidence of PW 11 coupled with the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 clearly show that the accused alone caused the death of the deceased by strangulating her with a wire. PW 11 also opined that the deceased can be strangulated by the wire which is attached to the fan.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that as the'' doors were closed from inside there is no possibility of the accused to cause the murder of the deceased by strangulating or by burning. It must be noted that PW 11 who is a Doctor and independent witness, at the request of the police visited the scene of offence on 6-9-1986 and demonstrated to the police as to how the door of the room can be bolted from outside. He was cross-examined at length. He denied the suggestion that he has not demonstrated closing of the door from outside of the room. He is an independent witness. Thus it is clear that one can close the door from outside by making the bolt inside to be locked. Thus the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable.

It is next contended that as there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused the deceased herself might have committed suicide. But the evidence of the Doctor, PW 11 clearly shows that it is not suicide but homicide. Therefore, there is no force in this contention also. The evidence on record establishes the following circumstances :

(1) The deceased is the wife of the accused.

(2) The deceased and accused were quarrelling again and again as the accused was suspecting the character of the deceased.

(3) There was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased on the ground of Gurumurthy visiting the house of the accused and the deceased giving tea to him.

(4) There was a quarrel on the date of the offence i.e. in the early hours of 4-9-1986 itself. The same was also heard by PWs. 1 and 2.

(5) On the date of offence the mother of the accused came to his house and after staying for a while she left the house asking the deceased to close the doors and the deceased and accused were only present in the house and none others were in the house. Thereafter PW 2 saw the accused leaving the house and returning with his mother after some time and banging on the doors. After forcibly opening the doors the dead body of the deceased was found lying with burn injuries.

(6) PW 11, the Doctor opined that the death of the deceased is homicidal.

All the above circumstances cumulatively put together clinchingly prove that the accused alone has caused murder of the deceased and none else and the cumulative effect of all the circumstances not only prove the guilt of the accused but negative the innocence of the accused also. Therefore, we see no merits in this appeal. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed.