Lunavath Deva vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the sole accused in S.C. No. 258 of 2008 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. Through its judgment, dated 09.10.2009, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence of committing the murder of Lunavath Lalu on 1.12.2006 in Gandipalli village of Husnabad Mandal, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life, and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. The facts presented before the trial Court was that:

Lunavath Balu, P.W. 1, the son of the deceased Lunavath Lalu, submitted a complaint, Ex. Pl, at 12.30 noon on 01.12.2006, before the P.S. Husnabad, stating that he was studying 9th class in the Andhra Pradesh Tribal Welfare Residential School (for short "A.P.T.W. Residential School"), Kataram, he came to his native place Gandipalli, since he developed heat boils to his leg about one week prior to that day. His father is said to have left for the fields at 6.00 a.m. on that day, together with his younger brother, Ramesh, and later on, himself and his mother went to the fields at 8.00 a.m., with Tiffin box for his father and brother. When he was about to reach the filed, he is said to have noticed from a distance of 50 yds that the accused, who was armed with an axe, dealt blows with the weapon thrice on the neck of the deceased, who was watering the chilli crop, and thereupon, the deceased fell down. P.W. 1 is said to have tried to attack the accused with a stone, but since the latter threatened to kill him and chased to some distance, he came away, and informed the incident to one Bhukya Chendru, P.W. 4, and another by name Ramlal. Thereafter, he is said to have gone to the home and brought the villagers to the scene of occurrence duly informing them what has happened.

P.W. 1 further stated in Ex. P 1 that the accused took away his mother P.W. 3, kept her with him as his mistress for a period of three months, and thereafter, quarreled with the deceased stating that unless the money due from him is paid, he should send P.W. 3 as mistress, or else, he would kill the family members. He stated that since his father did not send her as mistress for the accused, and he nursed grudge and killed the deceased.

Crime No. 228 of 2006 was registered and investigation was taken up. The formalities, such as, preparation of scene of offence panchanama, causing of inquest, and sending the body for postmortem examination, were completed. On conclusion of the investigation, P.W. 11 filed the charge sheet, alleging offence of committing the murder of Lunavath Lalu, and attempting the murder of P.W. 1; against the accused. The trial was conducted on the accused pleading not guilty. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 11 were examined and Exs. P1 to P 11 were filed. MOs. 1 to 5 were also taken on record.

Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that though the prosecution presented P.W. 1, as an eye witness, there is any amount of doubt, as to his very presence, at the scene of offence. He submits that P.W. 1 was a boy studying 9th class in a residential school, and even according to him, he did not take any permission from the institution nor medical certificate was filed to show that he suffered from any ill health. He contends that if in fact, the deceased was killed by any villager, the ordinary course of conduct would have been that an elder member of the family or Sarpanch of the Village submits the complaint, and that in the instant case, Ex. P1-complaint, is said to have been submitted by P.W. 1 by going all the way to Husnabad without assistance of anyone. Learned counsel further submits that the medical evidence is at variance with the facts mentioned in Ex. Pl, or the deposition of P.W. 1. It is also argued that P.W. 3, who is said to be the cause of friction, did not express any doubt, or suspicion about the involvement of the accused, and that, there was no basis for the trial Court in convicting the accused.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the gruesome murder of the deceased was witnessed by none other than his son, i.e., P.W. 1, and there is absolutely nothing unnatural, about events mentioned in Ex. Pl, or the deposition of P.W. 1. She contends that though P.W. 1 was subjected to extensive cross examination, no suggestions were put to him doubting his presence at the scene of occurrence. She submits that the postmortem report revealed incised injuries on the neck, and other parts of the head of the deceased, and they completely accord with the facts mentioned in Ex. P 1.

The family of the deceased, Lunavath Lalu, comprised of his wife P.W. 3 and his two sons, i.e., P.W. 1 and another, by name, Ramesh. P.W. 1 was studying 9th class in the A.P.T.W. Residential School. Graphic description of the events that are said to have taken place on 01.12.2006 was furnished in Ex. P 1. It is the eye witness account of a boy studying 9th class. It is indeed extraordinary that a minor boy had travelled all the way, more than 10 KMs., and submitted a complaint. However, if what he has done and stated is true, no exception can be taken to it.

P.W. 1 stated on oath, in his deposition that in the early hours of 01.12.2006, his father and younger brother left for fields, where the paddy was also thrashed. He is said to have left the home for the fields together with Lunch box for his father and brother at about 8.00 a.m., and when he was about to reach the field, he saw the accused attacking his father with an axe. Obviously, out of panic and emotion, he is said to have picked up a stone to throw, at the accused, even ignoring the limitations of his age, and the accused is said to have chased him. P.W. 4 stated that immediately P.W. 1 informed about the incident and the latter vouched for it in his evidence.

If what is stated by P.W. 1 is true, it becomes an eyewitness account. The defence could have been successful either by establishing that P.W. 1 was not present at the scene at all or that what he has stated in his evidence is not true. On the first aspect, there is not even a suggestion in the extensive cross examination of P.W. 1. The suggestions made to him are mostly about other aspects, not having effect of doubting his presence. On the second aspect, the evidence of P.W. 1 was not compared or contrasted with any other reliable evidence to the contrary.

Even where the prosecution is able to prove criminal acts on the part of the accused, the defence can counter it by pleading absence of any motive. In the instant case also, if the prosecution failed to prove motive, the Court would have certainly been convinced to doubt the version presented by P.W. 1.

The motive, which is suggested to the accused in this case, indeed presents a horrible and sad state of affairs in the society. It is not in dispute that the accused lent substantial amount, namely, Rs. 40,000/- to the deceased. In the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused mentioned about this. In case, the amount was not repaid, he could have taken steps in accordance with law. P.W. 5 stated that at one of the panchayats held in this behalf, the deceased was required to transfer an extent of half acre of land to the accused. It is not known as to whether that fructified at all.

P.W. 1 stated both in Ex. P 1 and in his evidence that the accused took his mother, P.W. 3, to his house, and kept her there for a period of three months, and thereafter, left her. At later stage, the accused is said to have come to the deceased, and insisted that if the amount is not paid, he would take P.W. 3 as mistress once again, and if the deceased does not agree for that, he would kill all the members of his family. The facts mentioned above would virtually prick the conscious of the member of any civilized society. Unfortunately, this is the harsh reality.

P.W. 3 is the proper person, who can speak about this aspect. In the chief examination, she stated as under:

.... There were disputes between my husband and accused with regard to repayment of money borrowed. There were panchayats held in connection with lending money. I myself went along with the accused as the deceased did not pay the amount and I returned back there after three months....

What she stated thereafter, in the cross examination is shocking. She stated:

..the accused did not demand my husband for the due amount and that he did not threaten that he would kill any of our family members....

This is unfortunately the level to which the moral standard of P.W. 3 has fallen. She did not have even traces of sorrow or agony for the death of her husband. It is only the company, which the accused and P.W. 3 relished with each other, that resulted in the death of the deceased. There would not have been anything wrong had the prosecution framed P.W. 3 as accused. No such effort was made. To a suggestion made to P.W. 3, she categorically stated that she lived for three months with the accused. That itself shows that the accused took away P.W. 3 and kept her for three months on the ground that the amount lent by him was not repaid.

We have seen the nature of harassment caused by Kabuli valas, in the process of recovery of debts, but not the uncivilized horrendous and shameful acts resorted by the accused.

Much has been argued about discrepancy in the medical evidence and oral evidence. Postmortem report discloses that six injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased and all of them are around the neck. The incised injuries are such that they could be caused only with sharp weapon like axe. The other evidence on record fully supported the case of the prosecution.

We do not find any basis to interfere with the conviction and sentence ordered by the trial Court in respect of the accused and, hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.