Gummidi China Peddapuram @ Manniyya vs State

Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.—The sole accused in Sessions Case No.376 of 1996 was tried by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. On evidence the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove the guilty of the accused and therefore the accused was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Hence the appeal by the sole accused.

The accused was charged for an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC for causing the death of deceased No.1. The accused was found guilty under the said charge and he was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The accused was also charged for an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC for causing the death of deceased No.2. The accused was found guilty u/s 304 Part II IPC and he was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. Both the sentenced imposed upon the accused-appellant were made to run concurrently. The accused was acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC.

The prosecution story can briefly be narrated as follows :

That the accused had married one Gummadi Subbalakshmi (deceased No.1) about 18 years back. Deceased No.2 Gummadi Surayya was the son of deceased No. 1 and the accused. The accused suspected fidelity of deceased No.1 and therefore there used to be quarrel between them on that score. The accused used to complain to one Pulugu Nagesh, who was the junior paternal uncle of D1 regarding her character. The accused was used to tell Nagesh that Dl is indulging in prostitution. The said Nagesh suggested the accused to catch D1 red-handed.

It is the further case of the prosecution that once the accused sent D1 to her paternal house at Ravikampadu suspecting that she was indulging in prostitution. After some days, the accused brought her to Kothangi and they were residing in a thatched but put up by him near the house of PW1. On the night of 19-6-1996 the accused kept a curved knife beneath his head when he went to sleep. The accused and PW3 (Gummadi Gesamma) aged about 7 years who happened to be the daughter of the accused slept on the floor while deceased Nos.1 and 2 slept on a cot. PW3 saw the curved knife with the accused and so she could not get sleep. On the intervening night of 19/20-6-1996 the accused got up and hacked D1 and D2 and thereby killed them. PW3 witnessed the incident and raised cries. On hearing the cries of PW3, PW4, who was the elder brother of the accused, and one Gummadi Nageswara Rao (PW5), soft of PW4, who are immediate neighbours, rushed to the house of the accused. They informed to PW1, who happened to be the brother-in-law of the accused, that PWs.1 and 2 rushed to the house of the accused and they saw the accused was going away at a distance. They went inside the hut and saw the dead bodies of the deceased on the cot. Gummadi Ramarao was sent to the parents of D1 who were residing at Ravikampadu to inform regarding the death of the deceased. At about 7.00 a.m. PW1 and PW6, the father of D1 and Pulugu Veerababu went to the Village Administrative Officer of Kothangi and reported the matter. The VAO, recorded the statement of PW1 and the same was sent to the Station House Officer, Annavaram. LW18 the Station House Officer, Annavaram Police Station received the statement of PW1 and report of VAO, and registered the case against the accused in Crime No.106 of 1996 u/s 302 IPC, and issued the FIR. He made arrangement to send the copies of first information report to all concerned. Mr. M. Vishwanadh, Inspector of Police took up investigation, visited the scene of offence and prepared the panchanama of me same in the presence of mediators. He also got the scene of offence photographed through one Shaik Ghouse Bajee. He conducted the inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased in the presence of LWs.10 and 11 and got drafted the inquest report. Later, the dead bodies of the deceased were sent to the Community Hospital, Prathipadu for post-mortem examination. Dr. D. V. Ramanamurthy, PW11 conducted post-mortem examination over the dead bodies of the deceased and opined that the death of Dl was due to shock and haemorrhage due to vital injury to neck and the death of D2 was shock and haemorrhage due to vital head injury. PW15, the C.I. of Police arrested the accused on 22-6-1996 at about 4.30 p.m. in the presence of the witnesses Dasari Lakshmana Rao and PW9 when the accused was surrendered before him. When the accused was in the Police custody he has given willingness to recover the weapon used in the commission of the offence. The accused alleged to have recovered MO8 from the scene of offence. It was attached by the police under panchanama. Thus, on completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.

In order to connect the accused with the crime, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 15. They also produced certain documents and they were marked as Exs.Pl to P36.

In order to establish the fact that the deceased died homicidal death, the prosecution led the evidence of PW15 and PW8. PW8 happened to be the Village Administrative Officer. He had attested the inquest report in respect of D1 and D2. The observation report and the inquest report are filed on record as Exs.P6 and P7 respectively.

The Investigating Officer made arrangement to send the dead bodies of the deceased to PW11 for post-mortem examination. PW11 happened to be the Deputy Civil Surgeon attached to the Central Prison Hospital, Rajahmundry. At the time of the incident he was attached to the District Head Quarters Hospital, Rajahmundry. He was also on deputation to Community Hospital, Prathipadu on 21-6-1996. He received the requisition from the Circle Inspector of Police, Annavaram to conduct the post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of the deceased. He commenced the post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased No. 1 i.e., Gummadi Subbalakshmi, on 21-6-1996 at about 12.00 noon and noticed the following external injuries on the person of the deceased G. Subbalakshmi.

(1) Oblique incised wound on left side of neck at its root extending just above from the supra sternal notch (front of neck) towards back of neck to a point near the mid-line (on back of neck) measuring 16 cms. long 6 cms. wide (gaping) x a depth that cut the tissues in its way in a transversely oblique direction upto airway structure (tractual tube) in the neck. Thus, the tissues viz., right from the skin downwards subscutaneous tissue muscular tissue and major blood vessels (Jugular and carotids) on left side of the neck were found severed and the cut tissues found exposed with a layer of darkish red blood and clots over. The edges of injury are red and evenly cut and inflamed.

(2) An obliquely transverse incised wound 6 cms. x 3 cms. x wide (gaping) x with a depth of visible muscle tissue on upper part of right side of chest just below the right collar bone with red and evenly cut edges. Thus medial end of this wound is looking exactly opposite in direction to the medial (end of injury No.1 with an injury free area (10 cms.) in between.

On internal examination, he noticed the following injuries on the person of the deceased No.1.

Head and neck :

Scalp :--Nothing significant; skull : intact. Neck : left side : The subcutaneous tissue, muscular tissue and the large blood vessels (jugular and carotid) were found cut (as described under external injuries). The cut tissues are found exposed. Hyoid bone and thyroid cartilege : intact. Other neck structures have softish feel. All the internal visera found soft and palish.

He further commenced the post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased No.2 and found the following external injuries on the person of the deceased No.2.

An incised wound obliquely situated extending from right side of fore head passing upwards and backwards and towards left obliquely across the top of head crossing (involving right frontal and both parietal regions of head) in the middle extending little one left parietal region ended at a point near the anterior (upper) part of occipital area (i.e., just over the occipit) of head and measured 12 cms x 3 cms wide (gaping) x skull visible depth and on probing the wound communicated with the cranial cavity. The edges of the injury are red inflamed and evenly cut (only one external injury).

On internal examination, he found the following internal injuries on the person of the deceased No.2.

Internal :--Head and neck :-- Scalp : (incised wound as described under external injuries) scalp reflected, skull fractured. Valult of skull found cut corresponding to the external injury and head. The oblique length of frontal bone on right side right parietal bone and part of left parietal bones found obliquely cut (fractured) and the length corresponded with the length of the wound on scalp (vide external injury) and cut skull bones had gaped to 2.5 cms. wide and through the opening, some of the brain substance is found escaping. Skull on opening : Membranes on the surface of brain found cut that correspond with the injury on head. Brain : The entire brain substance is found pulpy and transferred into thick and pasty greenish material (due to decomposition).

According to the opinion of the Doctor, all the injuries found on both the dead bodies were more than 35 hours to some time within 48 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. He further opined that both the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage due to fatal injuries by cutting with a weapon. As per his observation, he issued post-mortem certificate in respect of D1, which is filed on record as Ex.P30, and in respect of D2 he issued a post-mortem certificate, which is filed on record as Ex.P31.

On considering the evidence on the point of homicidal death, we hold that the prosecution was able to prove that D1 and D2 died homicidal death.

In order to connect the accused with the crime, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PW3, who happened to be the daughter of deceased No.1 as well as the accused. PW1 happened to be the paternal uncle of deceased No.1 and PW2 is the son of PW1. PW4 and PW5 turned hostile. PW6 was the father of D1. PW7 informed PW6 about the incident in question. PW8 happened to be the Village Administrative Officer at Konthangi, drafted Ex.P1 report and it was handed over to the police through PW1 for registration of the crime. PW8 happened to be one of the attesting witness to the observation report. The observation report is filed on record as Ex.P8. PW9 is the Ex-Sarpanch of the Village, who had attested the panchanama Ex.P8 and the seizure report Ex.P9 wherein the accused had expressed his willingness to discover the knife. PW10 happened to be the photographer, who had photographed the scene of offence as well as the dead bodies of the deceased at the scene of offence. PWs.12 and 13 happened to be corpus Police Constables, who had removed the dead bodies from the scene of offence to the hospital for conducting the post-mortem examination. PW14 happened to be the Head Constable. On receipt of Exs.P1 and P4, he had registered the offence against the accused and he had made arrangements to send the copies of the same to all concerned. Ex.P32 is the copy of the FIR which was sent to the Court of the Magistrate.

As stated earlier, PW1 happened to be the paternal uncle of deceased No.1. As a matter of fact, PW1 was not an eye witness to the incident. PW1 states about the background of the offence. According to the version of PW1 that long after leading martial life, the accused suspected that the deceased No. 1 was involved in prostitution and the accused had made complaints to him. Thereupon PW1 alleged to have advised the accused as to how he can say that the conduct of the deceased was not proper and when the accused had complained to PW1 regarding the conduct of deceased No.1, PW1 had brought the deceased No.1 to his house wherein D1 stayed in the house of PW1 for about 10 days and thereafter she was sent back to the house of the accused.

PW1 further stated that on the day of the incident, he was slept in his house. At about 2.00 a.m. one Atcharao (PW1) came to his house and woke him up and told him that the accused had committed the murder of D1 and D2. On hearing the shocking news, PW1 ran to the house of the accused and deceased No.1 and he saw the accused running and found two dead bodies of the deceased on the cot. Thereafter he went to the house of one Gummadi Rama Rao and asked him to go to Ravikampadu and inform the death of the deceased No.1 and her son. Thereafter PW1 told about the incident to the Village Administrative Officer and got drafted Ex.P1 the first information report. On the strength of the first information report given by PW1, the offence in question came to be registered against the accused and thus the Police machinery was set in motion.

PW2 happened to be the son of PW1. He is not the eye-witness to the incident but he had gone to the house of the accused and deceased No.1 and he had seen the dead bodies of the deceased in the house of the accused and deceased No. 1. He went to the Village Administrative Officer as per the directions given to him by his father and calls him and his father gives the statement to the Village Administrative Officer which was reduced into writing. Thus, the evidence of PW2 is of no use in connecting the accused with the crime.

We are left out only with the evidence of PW3, who happened to be the eye-witness to the incident. She happened to be the daughter of the accused and deceased No.1. At the time of giving evidence, she was aged about 8 years. The learned Sessions Judge had put her certain questions so as to ascertain and satisfy himself that the child witness is able to understand the significance of the oath. After putting about 10 questions, the 11th question was put to her whether she believes God. Thereupon the child witness replied that she prayed Jesus Christ. The last question was put to her whether what God do if you gives false evidence. Thereupon the child witness replied that God will throw in Agni Noothi. The learned Judge satisfied that the child is able to understand the significance of the oath and therefore the oath was administered and further question were put to her by the learned Public Prosecutor in examination-chief. The child witness PW3 has stated in her evidence that on the day of the incident, she was sleeping by the side of her father and her mother and her younger brother were sleeping inside the hut on a cot. While sleeping, her father kept a knife beneath his head and so she could not get the sleep. She further stated that during the night her father got up and hacked her mother on the neck. While her father was taken out the knife, a blow landed on the neck of her younger brother. On seeing the above incident, she alleged to have raised cries. The neighbours appeared at the scene of offence. On their arrival, she alleged to have stated to the neighbours, who came on the spot about the incident in question.

The learned Counsel Mr. U.S.R Murthy appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant submitted at the Bar that the child witness is a tutored witness and conviction should not be based on the sole testimony of the child witness. The learned Counsel further submitted that the child witness is not able to understand the significance of the questions. She was not able to answer some simple questions like what was her age, where she had gone to give evidence etc. With these answers of the child witness, the learned Counsel Mr. U.S.R. Murthy submitted at the Bar that it will be dangerous to convict the accused on the sole testimony of PW3. The learned Counsel relied upon a ruling reported m Nirmal Kumar Vs. State of U.P., . It was held by their Lordships as under :

"Occurrence taking place in family house at night - Prosecution case resting on child evidence - Child Deposing that she had seen accused in lantern light and giving out their names - Fact that lantern was burning however not stated before the Police - Names of accused also mentioned to Police Officer who examined her."

These contradictions were held to be material and it was held by their Lordships that without corroboration the learned Judges ought not to have convicted the accused.

We hold that the case cited above is not applicable to the present set of facts. In the present case, the child had sufficient mental state of understanding. As stated earlier, the child was put to about 10 questions. If she does not know that where she was given evidence and where she was called, the child does not understand. The 8 years child may not know what is the Court. She is able to give answer that if she gives false evidence, the God will throw in Agni Noothi. This is a very pertinent question but by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry and the answer given by her would go to prove that she has a fear of God and by giving false evidence, the God will punish her. With these questions and answers, we are satisfied that the child witness is letting truth nothing but truth.

The learned Counsel Mr. U.S.R. Murthy appearing on behalf of the accused submitted at the Bar that the child witness did not state before the Police when her statement was recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC that she was hiding herself and watching the incident in question. It is a minor omission which will not go to the root of the matter. She has specifically stated that when all of them sleeping, a kerosene lamp was kept burning and therefore there was no mistaken of identity on the part of the child witness.

For the reasons stated above, we hold that the ruling cited by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant has no application in the present set of facts.

Once the evidence of PW3 is believed then we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution was able to prove that the accused alone was responsible for causing the death of D1 and D2.

It has appeared on record that immediately on appearance of PW1 at the scene of offence, PW3 had stated as to what she had seen. PW1 contacted the Village Administrative Officer and gave the first information report Ex.P1. Immediate narration of the incident by PW3 to PW1 is itself a corroboration to the evidence of PW1. The evidence of PW2 is corroborated by PW1 and it also corroborated by Ex.P1. It further corroborated by the evidence of PW11, who had conducted the autopsy on the dead bodies of the deceased.

Considering the entire evidence on record, we are convinced that the accused was responsible for causing the death of D1 and D2. Therefore, we hold that there is no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry in Sessions Case No.376 of 1996.