Dola alias Kummari Venkata Rao vs State

G. Radhakrishna Rao, J.—This is an appeal preferred by the sole accused in S.C. No. 35 of 1991, on the file of the Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, chellenging his conviction for the offence under S. 302, IPC under two counts and sentence of imprisonment for life under each count and the sentences to run concurrently. The above convictions and sentences were imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru by his judgment dated 7-11-1991.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows :-

The accused originally belonged to Kotha Punaturu of Srikakulam District. About 12 years back he left his native place and came away to Bhimavaram and was doing agricultural cooli work. About 10 years back after he settled down at Bhimavaram he developed illicit intimacy with one Kamalamma (P.W. 1), a resident of Mahadevapatnam and they lived together as husband and wife for about 8 years. They have also constructed a house at Mahadevapatnam. They begot two boys, who are the deceased in this case. Since about six months prior to the date of offence, the accused was working as a Jattu Cooli in a rice mill at Narasimhapuram near Bhimavaram. He was suspecting the character of P.W. 1. On 17-7-1990 in the evening the accused got Rs. 350/- towards bonus and the Jattu maistri paid an amount of Rs. 100/- with a request to purchase chicks. The accused gave Rs. 200/- to P.W. 1 and asked her to purchase chicks but P.W. 1 refused stating that she has to discharge debts. Thereupon, the accused grew wild and left the house remarking that after he returns to the house he will beat her (P.W. 1). Out of fear, P.W. 1 along with her second boy Ramesh went to the house of P.W. 6 and took shelter and complained to him about the misbehaviour of the accused and she left the first boy in the house. On the advice of P.W. 6, P.W. 1 proceeded to her brother''s house at Vissakoderu and complained the matter to him. P.W. 2 is her brother. P.W. 1 begot one son and a daughter through her former husband. The daughter died and Santharao is her son through her former husband. P.W. 4 is the wife of Santharao, who is also residing at Mahadevapatnam. P.W. 1 went to Vissakoderu on 18th morning and complained to her brother P.W. 2 about the misbehaviour of the accused. P.W. 1 went for cooli work along with her sister-in-law and returned back in the evening. At about 6-00 p.m. on the same day the accused came to P.W. 2''s house and asked P.W. 1 to return the amount of Rs. 200/- which he paid. She returned Rs. 170/- stating that she purchased clothes worth Rs. 30/- for her second son. She incidentally remarked that the accused came there only for money and not for her and that he is not her husband and that the two children were not born to him. Thereupon, the accused remarked that he will kill both the children by administering pesticides and he took away the second son Ramesh on a cycle. The accused took the cycle from the shop of P.W. 8 at Narasimhapuram on the hire at about 10.00 a.m. on that day. On the way he purchased Monothen of 250 ml. for Rs. 53/- from a fertiliser shop at Bhimavaram. P.W. 7 is the clerk in the shop who sold the pesticides under Ex. P. 1 receipt on which the accused also put his thumb impression. From there he proceeded to his house at Mahadevapatnam. He also purchased some Pulav packets on the way. The accused went to the house of P.W. 4, who is the daughter-in-law of P.W. 1 on that night. He enquired P.W. 4 about the first boy and asked her to wake him up. P.W. 4 took Syamaraju, the eldest son of the accused and followed the accused to his house. The accused gave two pulav packets to both the boys and also gave one packet to P.W. 4. After having given palavu to both the boys, the accused administered pesticides poison to both the boys. M.Os. 1 and 2 are the tumblers in which the poison was administered. On the very same night the accused went to Vissa koderu and informed P.W. 1 that he killed both the boys by administering pesticides. P.W. 2, brother of P.W. 1 consoled P.W. 1 stating since the accused was in a drunken state such remarks cannot be given much importance as nobody would kill his own children. On the next day the accused took P.W. 1 on his cycle to Vissa Koderu. In the meanwhile, P.W. 4 went to the house of the accused and opened the doors and found that two dead bodies of the boys lying on a mat. M.Os. 1 and 2 and the plastic container M.O. 3 were found lying there. P.W. 1 went to the house and found the two dead bodies and went to the Sarpanch on that day at about 8.00 a.m. complained the matter to him. He reduced what all P.W. 1 stated to him in writing (which is marked as Ex. P. 6) and he went to the Police Station and gave Ex. P. 6 report to the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 18) at about 10.00 a.m. who registered it as Crime No. 31/90 under S. 302, IPC and issued express FIRs to all the concerned. Ex. P. 24 is the FIR sent to Court. P.W. 19 Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram Rural took up investigation in this case. He got drafted Ex. P. 7 observation report, which was attested by P.W. 12 and another mediator. He prepared two rough sketches of the scene of offences under Exs. P. 25 and P. 26. He also got the scene of offence photographed by P.W. 10. He also seized M.Os. 1 to 4. He held inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased boys, separately and Exs. P. 8 and P. 9 the inquest reports. He sent the dead bodies to the doctor P.W. 16 for postmortem examination. P.W. 16 Deputy Civil Surgeon, Government Hospital, Bhimavaram conducted postmortem examination over the dead bodies of the deceased on 20-7-1990. He conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the boy Dola Syama Raju and issued Ex. P. 21 postmortem certificate. He also conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased boy Dola Ramesh and issued Ex. P. 22 postmortem certificate. After receiving Expert''s opinion, the doctor opined that the death in both the cases was due to organo phosphorous insecticide poison and that the boys would have died 35 to 40 hours prior to his postmortem examination. Ex. P. 23 is the final opinion given by the doctor. After the completion of investigation into the case, the charge sheet was filed.

The prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 19 and got Exs. P. 1 to 27 and M.Os. 1 to 7 marked in support of its case against the accused. After the closure of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the accused was examined under S. 313, Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The plea of the accused is one of total denial.

The case of the prosecution is that the accused purchased Monothan pesticides from the shop of P.W. 7 and administered the same to his two sons on the night of 18th/19th July, 1990 which resulted in their death.

P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the wife and brother-in-law respectively of the accused and they spoke consistently with regard to the differences or illfeelings between P.W. 1 and accused. The evidence of P.W. 1 is to the effect that the accused was coming in a drunken state and was beating her of and on suspecting her character. She also deposed that the accused insisted her to do prostitution and earn money and manager the house and that she refused for the same, that she complained the matter to her brother, P.W. 2 who used to come and settle the disputes. P.W. 2 Kutumbarao, the brother of P.W. 1 also deposed that the accused used to beat P.W. 1 in a drunken state, that he was insisting P.W. 1 to do prostitution and earn money, that on such occasions, P.W. 1 used to come away to his house and that he used to take her to the accused and pacify the matter.

The case entirely depends upon the circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that in a case solely depending upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must, in the first instance, be fully established and the circumstances, so established, must lead to an irresistible inference of the guilt of the accused precluding all reasonable possibility of the accused being innocent. Now let us see how far the circumstances in this case establish the guilt of the accused.

According to the evidence of both P.Ws. 1 and 2, who are sister and brother, about one year and two months ago (prior to their giving evidence in the trial court) the accused came to his house in a drunken state and gave Rs. 200/- to P.W. 1 saying that he received it towards bonus. He asked P.W. 1 to purchase chickenbirds with that money to be reared. Then P.W. 1 told him that she had to discharge debts but the accused warned her that he will see her after he returns from playing-cards. Out of fear on that night she took her younger son Ramesh to the house of one Addanki John, who expressed his inability to interfere with their matters. On the next day she proceeded to the house of her brother P.W. 2 along with her son and informed her brother and her sister-in-law about her difficulties. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 further shows that at about 6-00 p.m. the accused came to P.W. 2''s house and found fault with P.W. 1. He asked P.W. 1 to return Rs. 200/- which was given to her and she handed over Rs. 170/-. P.W. 1 remarked at that time that the accused came to her only for money and not for her and that the accused is not her husband and that the children were not born to him. Then the accused said that the children will be killed by administering some pesticide. The evidence of P.W. 7 shows that on 1-7-1990 at night at about 8-00 p.m. when he was in the pesticides shop, the accused came to their shop and purchased Monothan of 250 ml. for Rs. 53/- under the bill for Rs. 53/-. This witness has further affirmed that before the Magistrate in an identification parade he identified the accused as the person who purchased the pesticides in his shop on 18-7-1990. This witness was cross-examined at length but nothing is elicited from him to discredit his convincing testimony.

The evidence of P.W. 4 is important. The evidence of P.W. 4 shows that on the night of the date of incident the accused came to her house and enquired about his eldest son Syama Raju, that she informed him that the boy was sleeping, that the accused asked him to wake up the boy, that she took the boy to the house of the accused, that the accused brought Palavu packets, that the accused was also holding plastic tin containing pesticides, that the accused served the Palavu to both the boys, that the accused also gave palavu to her, and that when she offered to take the boys to her house, the accused did not allow her to take them. The evidence of P.W. 4 further shows that on the next day morning at about 7-00 a.m. she went to the house of P.W. 1 to give bath to both the boys, that she removed the bolt of the doors and opened the doors, that both the boys were lying dead on a mat and that by the side of the two dead bodies, two glasses and plastic tin M.Os. 1 to 3 were there. Now coming back to the evidence of P.W. 1, she deposed that the accused again came to her brother''s house at about 1.00 a.m. on that night on a cycle and informed her that he killed both the boys by administering pesticides, that they did not believe what the accused said, that on the next day morning the accused took her on his cycle to Mahadevaptanam, that when they reached Mahadevapatnam bridge, the accused asked her to get down, that P.W. 3 was waiting on his D.B. Cart at that bridge, that the accused dropped her there and informed her that she can see the two children in his house and that he killed them by administering pesticides and so saying the accused left for Bhimavaram on his cycle. P.W. 1 further deposed that P.W. 3 heard what all the accused informed her including killing her two children by the accused by administering pesticides and that they were lying dead. This piece of evidence of P.W. 1 is amply supported by the evidence of P.W. 3. P.W. 3 Narasimha Murty deposed that on a Thursday, about two years prior to his giving evidence in the trial court, at about 7.30 a.m. he was taking his D.B. Cart in order to bring coconut plants for one Satyanarayana Raju, that on the way he stopped his cart at the bridge at Mahadevapatnam, that at that time he had seen the accused bringing P.W. 1 on his cycle from Bhimavaram, that he knows both the accused and his wife, that both of them got down from the cycle near the bridge and that he heard the accused informing P.W. 1 that he murdered the two children and that she can see the dead bodies in the house. Nothing is suggested against this witness to speak falsehood against the accused.

The report of the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. P. 16 shows that the brownish liquid, empty steel glass, empty steel glass and a mat with dirty stain contained in a platic contained labelled as "Monothom 36" and in a card board box were analysed and an organophosphorous insecticide poisonous substance was found in items 1 to 3. The report further shows that a bottle containing stomach along with food particles in brownish turbid liquid, a bottle containing a piece of intestine in brownish turbid liquid, a bottle containing a piece of liver, kidney and a piece of spleen in brownish turbid liquid and a bottle containing turbid liquid were also analysed and an Organophosphorous insecticide poisonous substance was found in items 1, 2 and 3. P.W. 16 the doctor gave his final opinion on receipt of Expert''s opinion to the effect that the death in both the cases was due to Organo Phosphorous insecticide poison. Thus, the Expert''s opinion coupled with the doctor''s opinion amply establishes that both the boys died of organo prosporous insecticides poisonous substance. This poisonous substance is proved to have been purchased by the accused from the shop of P.W. 7, on the night of 18-7-1990 at 8.00 p.m. As is seen from the evidence of P.W. 4, the accused was found in the company of the two boys at about 10.00 p.m. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 shows that on the very same night he went to P.W. 2''s house at about 1.00 a.m. and informed P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 that he killed both the boys by administering the pesticides.

In an identical case reported in State U.P. Vs. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, the Supreme Court observed as follows :

"In the instant case the husband was accused of committing murder of his wife. The medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. Husband''s defence was that wife committed suicide by burning herself and he was not at home at that time. However, the evidence established that both of them were in one room throughout the night. The letters written by deceased wire to her relatives from time to time showed that the husband was an alcohol addict, ill-treated her and their relations were strained. Thus the totality of the circumstantial evidence revealed that it was the accused husband who committed murder of his wife by strangulation."

On our independent appraisal and evaluation of the entire evidence, we hold that the evidence let in by the prosecution completely and conclusive establishes the links of the entire chain of circumstances as a whole and that the circumstantial evidence so established leads to the irresistible inference of the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. On an overall scrutiny of the material on record, we are in full agreement with the conclusion reached by the learned Sessions Judge which does not warrant interference.

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru dated 7-11-1991 convicting the accused for the offence under S. 302, IPC. under two counts and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life under each counts and the substantive sentences to run concurrently is confirmed.

Appeal dismissed.