Kummari Ramanna and Another vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Neelam Sanjiva Reddy, J.—A-l and A-2in S.C.No, 502/96 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Kurnool, are the appellants. They were tried on charges framed u/s 302 IPC or in the alternative on the charge framed u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC, and they were found guilty of the said charge and accordingly convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The substance of the charges against the accused is that on 22-11-95 at about 9.00 am. in between Nagendra Nagar and NTR Nagar of Kallur Village, in the footpath in the cholam field, A-l (Kummari Ramanna) and A-2 (Kummari Lakshman) committed the murder of one Kummari Pakiraiah (herein after referred to as the deceased) by attacking him with hunting sickle and dagger.

The case of the prosecution is that the deceased is the husband of PW-1 (Kummari Govindamma) and son of PW-2 (Kummari Sanjanna). They were originally natives of Sankirenipalli village of Nandikotkur Taluk. As most of their lands were submerged under Srisailam Project, they migrated to Kurnool about 7 years ago and residing in Nagendranagar near Radio Station by purchasing a plot. They are eking out their livelihood by maintaining buffaloes and vending milk. Pakiramma, the daughter of PW-2, was given in marriage to Venkataswamy of Musalimadugu, who is brother of A-1 and A-2. They are also residing in Nagendranagar near the house of the deceased. The accused and their brother Venkataswamy were maintaining lorries and eking out their livelihood by hiring lorries. Venkataswamy used to harass and beat his wife suspecting her fidelity. When PW-2 and the deceased intervened, they were also beaten. The accused and Venkataswamy tied the deceased to a pole and beat him about one month prior to the occurrence. Again on the next day, when the deceased was returning after delivering milk, the accused caught hold of him and beat him The accused were taken into custody on the report given by PW-1. They were later let off as Pakiramma, the daughter of PW-2 pressed for a compromise. Thereafter also, the accused and their brother used to harass Pakiramma. Thus, there were misunderstandings between the families of the accused and the deceased. Ten days prior to the occurrence, the accused threatened the deceased with dire consequences by going to his house along with their brother Venkafaswamy.

The deceased purchased a tractor one week prior to the occurrence. As the tractor was engaged by some persons on hire on the date of occurrence i.e. on 22-11-95, the deceased and PW-1 went to NTR Nagar, which is at a distance of 1 K.M. from Nagendranagar to secure fabourers. In between NTR Nagar and Nagendra Nagar, there were house plots and fields with cholam crop. At NTR Nagar, they met PW-10 (Uppan Venkoba), who has arranged the sale of tractor and who had agreed to work as driver. PW-1 and the deceased could not secure any labourers at NTR Nagar as they had already left for work. Hence,they were returning home along with PW-10 at about 9.00 a.m. PW-10 was proceeding ten feet ahead of them. While they were proceeding in the footpath in the fields, in which cholam crop was standing at a height of six feet, both the accused suddenly made their appearance. A-1 was armed with a hunting sickle and A-2 with a dagger. PW-3 (J.Mallikarjuna Reddy) saw the accused proceeding towards the scene armed with the above weapons prior to the occurrence. A-1 gave four blows on the head and one blow on the left cheek of the deceased. The deceased raised both of his hands to ward off the blows and sustained injuries. A-2, who was armed with dagger, stabbed on the left side of the stomach. He also stabbed 5 to 6 times indiscriminately on the back of the deceased. When PW-1 went to the rescue of her husband, she was pushed by A-2 and consequently fell down in the field. The deceased, who also fell down, was stabbed on his thighs and testicles by A-2. On hearing the cries of PW-1, PW-10, who was going ahead, turned back and saw the incident By the time he rushed to the rescue of the deceased, both the accused ran away. PW4 (Boya Ranganna) saw them running towards Santhoshnagar with blood stained weapons in their hands from the scene of offence.

PW-1 and PW-10 went to her house to bring PW-2 and his wife to the scene of offence. PW-2 and his wife came there by the tractor. The deceased was then shifted to the Govt. General Hospital, Kurnool in the said tractor by about 10 a.m PW-7 (Dr M.Ratnakar), Casualty Medical Officer, Govt. General Hospital, Kumool, admitted the deceased who was in an unconscious state and sent Ex, P-6 MIX intimation to the police, which was received by PW-9 (J.Satyam), SI of police, IV Town P.S., Kumool. The deceased succumbed to injuries at 10.35 am PW-7 sent Ex.P-7 death intimation to the police. PW-9, who was present at the police Station, received telephone message about the death of the deceased from Police out-post at Govt. General Hospital, Kurnool. He proceeded there and received Ex. P-6 and P-7 at about 12.30 hrs. he secured the presence of PW-1 at the hospital, who gave oral report about the occurrence. He reduced the same into writing, which was marked as Ex.P-1. He left to the station and registered a case in Cr.No. 129/95 of IV Town Police Station on the basis of Ex.P1 u/s 302 IPC and issued Ex.P-9 express FIR to all the concerned and sent message to PW-11 (T.Chandrasekhar), Inspector of Police, town Circle, Kurnool. On 22-11 -95 at about 2.00 p.m., PW-11 received telephone message about the occurrence. He went to the police station and took up investigation. He proceeded to the scene of offence, which is situated in Kanakaiah ''s cholam field in Sy.No. 338-A and near the foot-path. He secured the presence of PW-6 (S.YellaReddy), VAO, Kallur Village and seized blood stained earth (MO 7) and pair of chappals (MO-5) of the deceased at the scene under Ex.P-5. He also prepared Ex.P-11 rough sketch of (he scene. Thereafter, he proceeded to the Govt. General Hospital, Kurnool. He secured the presence of PW-5 (D. Sitbbarayudu), other inquest panchayatdars, PW1,2, and 10. He, then, held inquest between F6.00 and 18.30 hrs. During the course of inquest, he examined PW. 1,2,10 and others. He prepared Ex.P-4 inquest report and seized blood stained clothes and waist thread of the deceased (MOs 1 to 4). After inquest, he sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He found the accused absconding from the house on the same day. PW-8 (Dr. M.S.R.K.Prasad), Asst. Professor, Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool, conducted post- mortem examination over the dead body and found as many as 30 injuries on his person. He issued Ex.P-8 post-mortem certificate... opining that the injuries 5,7,12,13 & 22 are fatal and are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and the deceased died at 10.30 a.m. in the hospital. After sending the dead body for post-mortem examination, PW-11 continued his investigation. On 23-11-95, he examined PWs.3, 4 and others. He sent the case properly to the Court and gave Ex.P-12 requisition enclosing Ex.P-13 letter of advice requesting the learned Magistrate to send the case property to the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. He could not arrest the accused as they surrendered before the Court and obtained bail.

After the receipt of Ex.P-14 FSL report and Ex.P-8 post-mortem certificate, and after completion of investigation, PW-11 laid charge-sheet against the accused in the Court of the I Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Kurnool. It was taken on file in PRC No.3/96 and the case was committed to the Sessions Court, as the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused are exclusively triable by a Sessions Court.

The plea of the accused was one of denial. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and marked Exs. P-l to P-14 besides marking MOs 1 to 7 to establish its case.

Accused, when examined u/s 313 Cr.PC. While denying the incriminating evidence as false, stated that both of them had been to Nandyal on 22-11-95 to collect the lorry hire charges and that they were falsely implicated in the case. Accused did not adduce any evidence on their behalf except marking Exs.D-1 and D-2 portions of statements of PWs 1 and 2 recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence on record, found the accused guilty of murder and convicted and sentenced them as detailed earlier.

Mr. KAyyapu Reddy, learned senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Sessions Judge erred in accepting the testimony of PW-1 which is interested, unnatural,, improbable and uncorroborated and further submitted that the presence of PW-1 at the time of occurrence was highly improbable and delay in lodging FIR materially affects the truth of the prosecution case as against the appellants and consequently the judgment and order convicting and sentencing the appellants are liable to be set aside.

Ms.CSusheela Devi, learned Public Prosecutor, while refuting the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the evidence of PW1 is natural spontaneous, truthful, that her presence at the scene of offence is unassailable, and practically there was no delay in lodging FIR with the police. She further submitted that the evidence of PW-2 and panch witnesses, medical evidence, and the evidence of police investigating officers, amply corroborate the testimony of PW-1 and there are absolutely no reasons to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Judge leading to the conviction and sentence of the appellants.

The case of the prosecution entirely depends on the testimony of PW-1 in view of the fact that the other eye witness PW-10 did not support the prosecution case. All other witnesses, except PWs. 3 & 4 supported the prosecution case. PW-1 has testified in support of the prosecution case without any material contradictions or omissions. PW-1, being the wife of the deceased, naturally would be termed as interested witness necessitating careful scrutiny of her testimony before acceptance. Appellants are also closely related to the deceased and PW-1. No close relative would venture to make allegations or speak against unless there is some truth in them. The motive for the offence is that there have been misunderstandings between the families of the deceased and that of the appellants on account of illtreatment of the sister of the deceased who is married to ''the brother of the appellants. PWs. 1 and 2, who were also concerned in the misunderstandings between the two families spoke about those facts. Non-examination of the sister and brother-in-law of the deceased to speak about the motive part in our view, would not affect the truth of the testimony of PWs. 1 and 2 as to motive for the crime.

It is seen from the evidence of PW1 that she and the deceased went to NTR Nagar, which is at a distance of two furlongs from their house to fetch coolies for the tractor as it was engaged by somebody. They were returning from NTR Nagar with PW-10, who agreed to be the driver for the lractor, PW10 was ahead of PW-1 and the deceased at the cholam field where the incident occurred. From the background of the family of PW-1 and the deceased, it is evident that all of them work in the family in one way or the other. Considering the background and the time of occurrence, we do not think it improbable for PW-1 to accompany the deceased to engage labourers for the tractor. Even if PW-1 had to attend to some work at the home, she would have easily gone out along with the deceased after attending to her work at the house.

Recovery of blood stained earth and footwear of the deceased at the scene of offence, amply corroborates the testimony of PW-1 about the place of occurrence. It is clear from the testimony of PW-1 that when she tried to intervene when her husband was attacked, she was pushed aside by A-2 and she fell down. This conduct of her is quite natural. No doubt, she did not sustain injuries when she fell down, but it could be that the standing crop lessened the impact of fall. By the time she could recover from the fall, the appellants beat and stabbed the deceased and ran away on seeing PW-10 coming towards them. Natural conduct of PW-1 would be to go near her husband, who had fallen down with injuries and in the process her clothes might have been stained with blood. Unfortunately in this case, neither the Investigating Officers nor the public prosecutor or the defence Counsel thought of probing this aspect, of the case. The witness is a rustic woman and not aware of the legal intricacies of a criminal case. Probably, for these reasons, she would not have spoken about presence or absence of any blood stains on her clothes. Hence, we are of the view that absence of evidence as to blood stains on her clothes, would not point to the improbability of her presence at the scene of occurrence.

It is her evidence that PW-10 went home and brought the tractor along with PW2 to the scene of offence, and they took the injured to the govt. hospital and admitted him in the hospital. Evidently, the Investigating Officer did not think of preparing panchanama for the tractor for blood stains to ascertain that it was that tractor by which the deceased was transported from the scene of offence to the hospital. Transport of the injured-deceased by the tractor was evident in the statements of PW-1 and others even by the time of investigation. We are of the view that investigation as to the presence of blood stains in the tractor is not necessary considering the circumstances of this case. It is apparent from the undisputed testimony of PW-7 and Ex-P6 intimation that the injured-deceased was brought to the hospital by PW-1 and others at about 9.15 am in an unconscious state with injuries. This piece of evidence amply corroborate the testimony of PW-1 pointing to her presence at the time of the occurrence.

PW-9, immediately after receipt of Exs.P-6 and P-7, went to the hospital and recorded Ex P-l statement of PW-1 at about 12-45 hrs. and thereafter on the basis of the said statement, registered a case in Cr.No. 129/95 u/s 302 IPC. Ex.P-1 statement corroborates the testimony of PW-1 on all material particulars.

Considering the circumstances of the case, the anxiety of PW-1 and others would be to lake the injured-deceased to the hospital for proper treatment and not to run to the police station to present a complaint against the appellants leaving the injured-deceased to his fate. The action of PW-1 and others in going to the hospital with the injured-deceased instead of going to the police station appears to be quite natural. After the injured-deceased was admitted in the hospital, the doctor had sent intimation about the case to the police. Apparently, PW-1 and others were aware of it. In those circumstances, their natural conduct would be to wait for the police instead of going to the police station and infact, consequent upon the intimation given by PW1 casualty medical doctor, police went to the hospital and recorded Ex.P-I statement of PW-I. This sequence of the events from the time of occurrence to the recording of Ex.Pl statement of PW1 by the police, appears to be quite natural and reasonable explanation for the alleged delay in lodging Ex. P-l complaint with police. We do not think that this interregnum period had occasioned in any derailment of justice by giving scope to PW-1 and others for deliberations and dicussions to falsely implicate the appellants.

It was suggested to PW-2 that the deceased had illicit intimacy with one Eswaramma and her grown up sons beat the deceased after tying him to a tree. It was also suggested to PW-2 that the deceased had misunderstandings with kuruva people of Sankirenipalli and that he was beaten by them and on that account he was forced to leave the village. These suggestions were apparently made to show that there are other persons inimical towards the deceased and they might have attacked and caused the death of the deceased. All these suggestions were promptly denied by PW-2. If really the deceased was beaten by kuruvas or sons of Eswaramma at any time, there would have been complaints in that regard. We are of the view that all these suggestions were made without any basis and there is absolutely no evidence to show that there were other persons inimical towards the deceased. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the evidence of PW-1 is natural, spontaneous and truthful and the learned trial Judge had rightly placed reliance on the testimony of PW-1 in establishing the prosecution case against the appellants.

It is seen from the evidence of PW8, the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and Ex.P-8 postmortem certificate that the deceased sustained as many as 30 injuries and out of them, injuries 5,7,12,13, & and 22 are fatal and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It is clear from the evidence of PW-1 that all these injuries were caused by A-2 by a dagger. It was A-1, who first attacked the deceased and after A-1 stopped beating, A-2 stabbed the deceased, who fell down. A-2, not being statisfied, again stabbed the fallen deceased. The injuries caused by A-2 only are fatal leading to the death of the deceased. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that conviction and sentence passed against A-2 are quite legal and justified, and do not call for any interference.

As far as A-l is concerned, considering the totality of the circumstances, the weapon used, the nature of attack, and injuries caused, we are of the opinion that the offence committed by A-l squarely falls under Part I of Section 304 IPC and he is liable to be convicted and sentenced accordingly.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against A-l u/s 302 IPC are set aside and he is convicted for the offence punishable under Part 1 of Section 304 IPC and sentenced to 5 years RI.

The appeal in respect of the second appellant (A-2) is dismissed and his conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court u/s 302 IPC are confirmed.