Pujari Hanmanthu @ Kistaiah vs State of A.P.

Gopalakrishna Tamada, J.—The appellant herein is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.127 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, tried for an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that on 17-9-1998 at about 9.30 A.M., the appellant herein murdered the deceased Alakonda Lachaiah in the fields a Pochampalli village and thus committed an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and Exs. P.1 to P-14 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge, after full-fledged trial, held that the accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.50/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

The case of the prosecution, according to the evidence let in, is as follows:- The accused is the son-in-law of the deceased Alakonda Lachaiah, a resident of Lingapuram village, Bellampally Mandal. Alakonda Pentamma, who was examined as P.W.1, is the wife of the deceased and Pujari Kondakka, who was examined as P.W.2, is the daughter of the deceased and P.W.1. The marriage between the accused and P.W.2 was performed about 12 years prior to the date of incident and they lived happily for a period of about 10 years. On the date of incident, i.e., on 17-9-1998, the accused asked his wife P.W.2 to bring an amount of Rs.500/- from her father and when she replied in the negative, the accused went to his father-in-law i.e., the deceased and demanded an amount of Rs.500/- saying that he wanted to live separately, for which the deceased expressed his inability to pay the amount. Later, the deceased went to his fields to attend to his routine works.

At about 9.30 A.M. on the fateful day, P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, went to the fields to give drinking water to her husband and by the time she reached the fields, she saw both the accused and the deceased quarrelling and fighting with each other and on that, P.W.1 raised hue and cry. Then, the accused took out a knife i.e., M.O.1 from his waist and stabbed the deceased on the neck, on the right shoulder, on the right side of the stomach and also other parts of the body. Then P.W.1 rushed to her husband, took him from the spot towards the mango garden, brought him to the fields of one Chapidi Posham and gave him some water to drink. The deceased told her that their elder son-in-law Pujari Hanmanthu, i.e., the accused, stabbed him with the knife (M.O.1). On seeing this, the accused fled away from the spot. After hearing her hue and cry, the daughter of the deceased i.e., P.W.2, her son and others rushed to the spot. Her son went to the police station and brought a policeman, who recorded her statement at about 13.00 Hrs. on that day, which was marked as Ex. P-1.

On 17-9-1998 at about 2.00 P.M., the Head Constable of Tandur Police Station registered the case as Crime No.144 of 1998 for an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and issued copies of Express F.I.Rs., to all concerned. The original F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P-9. P.W.9, the S.I. of Police, Tandur Police Station, proceeded to the scene of offence on the very same day and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators i.e., P.W.5 and another and the inquest report is marked as Ex.P.10. During the course of inquest, P.W.9 examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 others and recorded their statements u/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. He also seized the blood stained clothes of the deceased i.e., ''Dhothi'' (M.O.2) and blood stained ''Pancha'' (M.O.3), blood stained earth and controlled earth at two places, which were marked as M.Os.4 to 7. He also seized the blood stained ''banian'' of the accused, which was marked as M.O.8. P.W.7, the Photographer, took photographs of the dead body of the deceased and the scene of offence, which are marked as Exs.P.5 to 7. Later, P.W.9 sent the dead body to the Head Quarters Hospital, Bellampally, for the purpose of autopsy. The Civil Assistant Surgeon, who was examined as P.W.8, has conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on the very same day at 8.00 A.M. and issued Ex.P.8-Post Mortem certificate. According to the Doctor, i.e., P.W.8, the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage due to both the chest injuries.

On 18-9-1998, the Inspector of Police, who was examined as P.W.10, verified the investigation conducted by the S.I. of Police i.e., P.W.9 and found that it is on correct lines. He visited the village and recorded the statements of some of the villagers. On 20-9-1998 at about 4.00 P.M., he arrested the accused in the presence of mediators i.e., P.W.6 and two others and interrogated the accused and during the course of interrogation, it appears that the accused made confession statement. The said statement was reduced into writing, which was marked as Ex.P-3. Later, P.W.10 proceeded to the scene of offence along with accused and mediators and the accused picked up M.O.1 and it was handed over to the S.I. of Police (P.W.10). P.W.10 seized the said knife under Ex.P-4 and the accused was remanded to judicial custody. On the same day, P.W.10 examined P.W.4 and recorded his statement. On 23-9-1998, P.W.10 recorded the statement of P.W.1. He forwarded M.Os.1 to 4 on 6-10-1998 to the Forensic Science Laboratory along with requisition i.e., Ex.P-11. Letter of advice is Ex.P-12 and covering letter is Ex.P-13. After receipt of the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory i.e., Ex.P-14 and the post-mortem certificate i.e., Ex.P-8 and after completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Sri I.V.N. Raju, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 is totally doubtful and her presence also cannot be accepted as during the course of chief-examination, she stated that there are five injuries on the body of the deceased whereas the medical evidence shows that there are only three injuries on the body of the deceased. The further submission is that the alleged offence has taken place on 17-9-1998 whereas, according to the evidence of P.W.4, the person who sold the knife, it was sold on 19-9-1998 and as such it is highly improbable for the prosecution to establish that with a knife to be purchased on 19th the accused committed the offence on 17th.

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

The evidence of P.W.1, who is no other than the wife of the deceased and the mother-in-law of the accused, is to the effect that while going to the fields she has witnessed her son-in-law i.e., the appellant stabbing the deceased i.e., her husband. Furthermore, in Ex.P-1, she has categorically stated that her husband told her that their eldest son-in-law Pujari Hanmanthu stabbed him with the knife. There is nothing in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 to elicit that there is motive for P.W.1 i.e., mother-in-law and P.W.2 i.e., the wife of the accused to foist a false case against the accused. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 who is the eye witness is to be totally believed. P.W.9 proceeded to the scene of offence and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.5. After the inquest is over, the dead body was sent to P.W.8, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, who was attached to Government Hospital, Bellampally, for conducting the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.8, on receipt of requisition, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and noticed the following external injuries on the person of the deceased:

Stab wound present over left side of the chest 11/2" above the left costal margin in mid clavicular line 1 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x 8 cm depth. On opening, left lung lower lobe injured.

Stab wound 2 cm below the right scapula 2 cm x 1/2 cm x 4 cm depth. On opening right side lung posterior portion injured.

Stab wound anterior surface middle 3rd of right leg 2 x 1/2 x 1 1/2 cm.

According to P.W.8, all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. He further opined that the death of the deceased was caused between 18.00 and 24.00 hours prior to post-mortem examination. He further opined that the death of the deceased was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of chest injuries. He issued Ex.P-8 Post-mortem certificate. He further opined that a weapon like M.O.1 could cause injuries on the person of the deceased. Considering the evidence let in by the prosecution on the point of homicidal death, we hold that the deceased died of homicidal death.

In order to prove that the accused was responsible for causing death of the deceased, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W.1, the wife of the deceased. As per her evidence, the accused, her son-in-law who was demanding a sum of Rs.500/- as he wanted to establish a separate matrimonial home by taking the room on rent. But her husband i.e., the deceased expressed his inability to pay the amount. Therefore, the accused was annoyed. Thereafter, the deceased went to the field for doing agricultural operations. After some time, she also went to the field to give drinking water to the deceased. At that time she had seen the accused and the deceased quarrelling with each other. On seeing the above incident, P.W.1 cried loudly. Thereafter, the accused took out the knife which was hidden around the waist and stabbed the deceased on the neck, on the right shoulder, on the right side of the stomach and also other parts of the body. On getting the stab injuries, the deceased fell down. P.W.1 poured the water in the mouth of the deceased and brought him to the field of Chapidi Posham. But the deceased died on the spot. P.W.1 was cross-examined but nothing is elicited in the cross-examination so as to disbelieve her evidence.

P.W.2, who happened to be the brother of P.W.1 and deceased, though was not an eye witness to the incident, came running to the spot and noticed that her father was lying. She made enquiries with P.W.1 as to what happened. Thereupon, P.W.1 alleged to have narrated the entire story. Thus, P.W.1 narrating the incident to P.W.1 itself as a corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1.

The evidence of P.W.1 further disclosed that when she was giving water to her deceased husband, he told her that he was stabbed by the deceased. Apart from the fact that P.W.1 was an eye witness to the incident, the deceased also made a dying declaration to P.W.1 stating that the accused stabbed him. The aforementioned statement of the deceased before P.W.1 is relevant as per Section 32 of the Evidence Act. This part of the evidence of P.W.1 was not challenged in the cross-examination. Thus, we have no hesitation in believing the evidence of P.w.1 in toto. The evidence of P.W.1 is also corroborated by Ex.P-1, which was lodged immediately thereafter. It is further corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.8 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P-8.

Considering the entire evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is fully legal and therefore we do not see any ground to interfere with the order of conviction and sentenced recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.

The criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed.