G.Pedda Mannem vs State Of AP

Disputing the validity and illegality of the judgment that is rendered by the Court of IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, in S.C.No.496 of 2012, dated 19.02.2014, the appellants, who are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 to 3 in the said Sessions Cases, are before this Court.

Having found the 1st appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and likewise, having found the appellant Nos.2 & 3 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w.34 IPC, they were convicted and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each.

Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Rao, who argued on behalf of Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel on record for the appellants as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor who represented the respondent-State.

The crux of the case as projected through the charge sheet is that the deceased Manyam (hereinafter be referred as ‘the deceased’ for brevity) had long standing disputes with the appellants. The deceased, by doing sorcery, was threatening the villagers. The appellants suspected that the deceased through sorcery and by leaving excess water to their garden, damaged the same. In that regard, they bore grudge against the deceased. They discussed and decided to eliminate the deceased. On 12.01.2012, the appellants and accused No.4 went to the house of the deceased at around 9.00 A.M. The deceased was found in front of his house along with his family members. The 1st appellant abused the deceased in filthy language. Appellant Nos.2 & 3 caught hold of the deceased and appellant No.1 stabbed the deceased in his stomach. They dragged the deceased into the bazaar and slit his throat. When his wife i.e. PW2 intervened, accused No.4 caught hold of her and pushed her aside. The deceased died due to profuse bleeding. The incident was witnessed by PWs 1 to 3, LW4 - Rajitha, LW5 - Saritha and others. Appellant No.1 went to his house, washed the knife which  was used in the commission of offence and had hidden it in a shelf.

On the complaint given by PW1, a case was registered and was investigated into. The scene of offence was visited, rough sketch was drawn and scene of offence panchanama was drafted in the presence of mediators. Inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased. Blood stained earth and controlled earth were seized from the scene of offence. The dead body was sent to Government Area Hospital, Wanaparthy, for post-mortem examination and the Doctor who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the death is due to Hypo Voluminic Shock and Cardiac respiratory failure.

The charge sheet thus filed, was taken on file and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The Court of Sessions, on framing charges, recorded the evidence of witnesses and on conducting trial, delivered the judgment.

Subjecting the evidence of PWs 1 to 13, Exs.P1 to P17, Exs.D1 to D4 and Mos.1 to 7 to scrutiny, the learned Judge of the Sessions Court came to a conclusion that the prosecution established the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences charged. However, Accused No.4 was acquitted. Thus, in the light of the aforementioned factual scenario, the points that emerge for consideration are as follows:-

(i) Whether the prosecution established beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellants committed the offences charged?

(ii) Whether the appellants are entitled for acquittal basing on the lapses and lacunae in the evidence of prosecution witnesses?

(iii) Whether the judgment of the trial Court is sustainable in the eye of law?

POINT Nos. 1 & 2:-

Making his submission, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the trial Court ought to have acquitted the appellants in the light of the contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel states that except the testimony of interested witnesses, there is no other independent evidence on record to connect the appellants with the crime. Learned counsel states that the said evidence is incorrect as the cause of death is not spoken by those witnesses in clear terms.

Learned counsel submitted that the trial Court grossly erred in favouring the prosecuting agency though prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. Learned counsel states that there is no positive proof to conclude that the appellants are responsible for the death of the deceased. Learned counsel states that there are number of enemies to the deceased as the deceased was practicing sorcery and though the death of the deceased is not in dispute, it is not the appellants who caused the said death. Learned counsel also submitted that the motive for the appellants to kill the deceased is not established by the prosecution and the said fact itself is sufficient to set-aside the judgment of the trial Court. By submitting thus, learned counsel for the appellant seeks to acquit the appellants.

Opposing the submission thus made, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that there is no rule to hold that the evidence of eye witnesses should be brushed aside only on the ground that they are related to the victim. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the incident occurred when the deceased was chitchatting with his family members and therefore, naturally those family members would be the eye witnesses to the incident and thus, there is nothing wrong in relying upon the testimony of those family members as they are the ocular witnesses to the incident. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also contended that when there is a direct evidence, there is no requirement to establish motive on part of the accused and thus, failure to establish motive in clear terms is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also stated that the death of the deceased is established, cause of death is established, that the accused are responsible for the said death is also established and thus, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants and therefore, the judgment of the trial Court needs no interference.

In the light of the aforementioned submissions, now it has to be seen whether the evidence produced by the prosecuting agency has connected the appellants with the crime in question.

PWs 1 & 3 are the sons of the deceased and PW2 is the wife of the deceased. The evidence of PW1 is that his father died one year eight months back. Themselves and all the accused belongs to the same village and on 12.01.2012, at about 9.00 AM, while himself, his brother-PW3, his mother-PW2, his wife and his father i.e. the deceased were chitchatting in front of their house, at that time, the appellants and accused No.4 came there. Appellant Nos.2 & 3 caught hold of his father by shoulder and Appellant No.3 held his father by his waist. Appellant No.1 caught hold of the collar of his father and stabbed him with a knife in his stomach and they dragged his father on the road and appellant No.1 cut the throat of his father with the same knife. When his mother intervened to save his father, accused No.4 dragged her by tuft of hair. Thereafter, they went away and on that, he went to police station and presented Ex.P1-Complaint to police. Identifying MO1-knife, PW1 stated that with the said knife, appellant No.1 stabbed his father and cut his throat. PW1 also deposed that appellant No.1 has a relative by name Manyam in Pebbair village and the said Manyam raised water-melon crop in a Government land situated adjacent to their land and the excess water from their paddy field flew into the said Government land and on that, he filed a case against his father for damages. He also stated that on the date of incident, they were talking with regard to payment of damages to the said Manyam and in the meanwhile, the appellant and Accused No.4 came to their house and caused the death of his father. PW1, during the course of cross-examination, stated that he did not state to police as in Ex.D1 to the effect that the appellants are their agnates. He also stated that he did not mention in Ex.P1-complaint that appellant Nos.2 & 3 held his father with their hands by their shoulder and waist. He also admitted that he did not state to police and he did not mention in Ex.P1-Complaint that he can identify the knife. He further admitted that the appellants and themselves are not having any fields adjacent to each. Taking aid of this statement, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that when there is no land adjacent to each other, the question of raising dispute regarding the landed property does not arise. However, PW1, during the course of chief examination, clearly stated that the relative of Appellant No.1 by name Manyam, is having land adjacent to their land and excess water flew from their paddy field to the land of the said Manyam and there was discussion amount the family members on the date of incident with regard to payment of damages to the said Manyam.

PW2 corroborating the testimony of PW1 with regard to the happening of incident, stated that the appellants and accused No.4 suspected that they practiced sorcery to their watermelon crop raised in the Government land and with that suspicion, they caused the death of her husband.

The evidence of PW3 is that the relatives of appellant No.1 raised watermelon crop adjacent to their land and the said crop was damaged to some extent with the water from their land and in that regard, damages were claimed. PW3 also stated that the relatives of Appellant No.1 asked them to pay damages to an extent of Rs.50,000/- and they agreed to pay Rs.20,000/-. He also stated that when they were discussing the same subject matter, at that time, the appellants, Accused No.4 and one Pedda Lakshmaiah, came, abused his father and attacked him.

Thus, the motive for the offence is well established by the prosecuting agency through the evidence of PWs 1 to 3. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, the other witnesses i.e. PWs 4 to 6 and further the alleged panchayatdars also failed to support the case of the prosecution. Likewise, even the alleged panchayatdar i.e. PW9 in whose presence the alleged confessional statement of Appellant No.1 was recorded, also failed to support the case of the prosecution. However, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is cogent, convincing and consistent. As rightly argued by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, only because they are the relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded. We consider them to be the natural witnesses.

The cause of death is well established through the evidence of PW11, who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and through Ex.P11-Post mortem report. Though there is some discrepancy with regard to exact time of offence, yet, by the contents of Ex.P1, it is clear that the incident occurred around 9.00 a.m. Taking aid of evidence of PW4, who stated that he heard about the death of the deceased at about 7.00 a.m., the evidence of PW5 that he saw the dead body at about 6.00 a.m., learned counsel for the appellant tried to project that the death did not occur at the time and manner projected by the prosecuting agency. A small mismatch of time does not in our considered opinion fatal to the case of prosecution. Also, this Court is not inclined to appreciate the evidence of PWs 4 & 5, who, though stated that they are residing very near to the house of the deceased, failed to state in clear terms what was observed and perceived by them. Not that they have not supported the case of the prosecution. However, their evidence goes to show that they have exhibited hostility to give evidence before the Court. That apart, even if the evidence of PWs 4 & 5 is believed regarding the time of incident and observation of dead body, the said factor cannot throw away the case of the prosecution. Admittedly, recovery of weapon is not proved. The evidence of PW1 is that by the time they went to police station, appellant No.1 was at police station. Thus, having regard to the said statement and as the witnesses to the alleged confessional statement failed to support the case of the prosecution, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged recovery of weapon from appellant No.1. However, that does not mean that the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 has to be brushed aside. Those eye witnesses clearly spoke about the manner in which the deceased was attacked and as to how the appellants inflicted injuries to the deceased. The prosecuting agency thus, have established through the evidence of direct witnesses that it is the appellants who attacked the deceased and caused his death. Therefore, the points that are taken up for discussion are answered accordingly.

POINT No.3:-

When the judgment of the trial Court is gone through, this Court finds that the learned Judge of the trial Court has discussed each and every aspect of the case and gave clear findings. The learned Judge appreciating and evaluating the entire evidence that is brought on record, has come to a just conclusion that the prosecution has established the guilt of the 1st appellant beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and as regards to appellants 2 & 3 for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. 34 IPC. Carrying weapon with them and attacking the deceased inhumanly, establishes their motive. Due to the injuries caused, the deceased died instantaneously. Thus, this Court is of the view that the learned Judge did not err in holding that the appellants committed the offences charged. We do not find any grounds whatsoever, more so, justifiable grounds to interfere with the well reasoned findings of the trial Court. Therefore, we hold that there are no grounds to interfere with.

Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of the Court of IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, in S.C.No.496 of 2012, dated 19.02.2014.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.