Ramtenki Venkati vs Stale of A.P.

Jayachandra Reddy, J.

1 The sole accused in Sessions Case No. 48 of 1977 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Adilabad is the appellant. He was tried for the murder of his wife. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 24-6-1977 in the field called "Kummari Chenu" near the village Indhani at about 12.00 non. The case rests purely on the circumstantial evidence and the Court below accepted the prosecution case and convicted him u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. The prosecution case is as follows:-- The deceased Bayya was married to the accused about four years prior to the occurrence, but by that time she did not attain puberty and hence she was not fit for conjugal life. For some time the accused and the deceased lived together but the deceased was sent back to her parents'' house which is also in the same village. The marriage of the sister of the accused was fixed up and for that the father of the accused went to P.W. 3 the father of the deceased and requested him to send the deceased to his house. After some persuation she was sent by P.W.3 to the house of the accused. Though the marriage of the sister of accused was over the deceased was not sent back to her parents'' house. On the day of occurrence P.W. 5 saw the accused and the deceased going towards the field "Kummari Chenu". In the evening only the bullocks returned but the deceased and the accused did not return. P.W. 2 the uncle of the deceased came to know that only the bullocks had returned and the deceased and the accused did not return. He and some others went to the field and found the dead body of the deceased lying with bleeding injuries in the "Kummari Chenu". By then the parents of the accused were there sitting and weeping. P.W. 2 then went to the Police Patel P.W. 1 and (sic) the matter to him. P.W. 1 also came there along with his Sunkaries, (sic) dead body of the deceased, prepared a report Ex. P-1 and went to Police station Asifabad in the next morning, and gave Ex. P-1 to P.W.9 so the Sub Inspector He registered the Crime u/s 302 I.P.C. and issued express P I. Rs. On 26-6-1977 the father of the accused approached P.W. 6, a petty shop-keeper. P.W.7 a caste-elder and others to help him in apprehending his son who has committed the crime and who was trying to sun away from the place, P.Ws 6 and 7 and others went there and found the accused in his house. They caught him and tied him with a rope and on being questioned he confessed that he had killed his wife. P.W. 9 the Sub Inspector reached the place of occurrence at about 10.15 a.m. on 25-6-1977, held the inquest and examined P.Ws. 2, 3, during the inquest. He sent the dead body for post-mortem. He went to the Gram Panchayat Office and there he found the accused tied to a post. He noticed some injuries on the accused. He prepared Panchanama, arrested the accused and sent him for remand. He also seized M O. 2 a "Badise" (wood chipper) which was lying near the dead body in the field. The doctor P.W. 8 conducted the postmortem examination. He found 10 contused lacerated wounds and internally he found fracture of the 5th rib. The doctor opined that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries. He also opined that injury No. 6 is fatal and that the deceased would have died immediately. He also opined that the death of deceased was less than 48 hours. On 27-6-1977 he examined the accused and found some nail marks and abrasions near the left ear and the cheeks and other places. After completion of the investigation a charge sheet was laid.

The prosecution relied on the following circumstances:--(1) There was had relationship between the accused and the deceased as spoken to by P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 (2) The accused was last seen in the company of the deceased (evidence of P.W 5). (3) The extra-judicial confession made by the accused as spoken to by P.Ws. 6 and 7.

When examined under Sec. 313 Cr. P.C. the accused denied the offence and also retracted from the alleged extra-judicial confession and he further stated that on the day of occurrence the deceased was living with her parents and that he was innocent and was falsely implicated.

With regard to the motive the evidence of P Ws 2. 3 and 4 is relied upon by the prosecution. P.W.3 is the uncle of the deceased. He deposed that the deceased was living with her parents and she was brought to the noose of the accused on the occasion of the marriage of the sister of the accused and after that she was not sent back. Thereafter there was misunderstandings between the father of the accused and himself and the accused was Jiving separately with his wife. This evidence does not in any manner show that the accused and the deceased were having bad relationship P.W.3 is no other than the father of the deceased. He deposed that as the deceased did not attain puberty she was brought and left in his house saying that the accused would contract another marriage. Some time prior to the occurrence the father of the accused came and requested him to send the deceased to attend his daughter''s marriage and promised to send her back. Though that marriage was over, the deceased was not sent back. He requested the parents of the accused to send their daughter but they abused him that he was spoiling the cordial relationship between the accused and the deceased. He was told that the deceased was ill-treated, but this part of the evidence cannot be accepted. Therefore, his evidence also does not establish that there was bad relationship. P.W.4 only speaks about the deceased bring brought to the house of the accused prior to the marriage of the sister of the accused on the promise of sending her back and that later when P.W.3 wanted to take her back he was told that the deceased and the accused were living happily and it was not desirable to separate them. It can be seen that his evidence also does not establish that the relationship between the accused and the deceased was not cordial. Therefore, the first circumstance, viz., the motive part of it, is not established beyond reasonable doubt.

The next circumstance is that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased. P.W.5 is the only witness who speaks about the same. In the chief examination P.W 5 stated that his lands are adjacent to the lands of the accused and that on the day of occurrence he had seen the accused and the deceased going to their field and that it was fore-noon. Next day he learnt about the death of the deceased. In the cross-examination he admitted that he does not know the Survey No. of his field. The time when he returned was 10-00 or 11-00 a.m. and that being a shandy day he returned early from his field He also admitted that he did not tell anyone either on that night or the next day morning, though be met several people at the dead body, that he bad seen the accused and the deceased that day in the forenoon. P W.5''s evidence does not inspire confidence. If really he had seen the accused and the deceased together in the field and when he was also present at the time when the dead body of the deceased was discovered in the same field, he should normally tell the parents of the deceased or other people who had gathered there that he had seen the accused and the deceased together in the field. The silence on his part in this regard at a crucial time throws any amount of doubt about his evidence.

The next circumstance is extra-judicial confession spoken to by P.Ws. 6 and 7. P.W.6 deposed that about six months prior to his evidence the father of the accused met him and also P.W.7 and told that the accused was in the house having just then returned from the field and he was trying to abscond after killing his wife. P.Ws. 6 and 7 and others went to the house of the accused and on being questioned the accused confessed and they caught hold of him and tied him to a post. In the cross examination he admitted that he bails from Karnataka State and that he runs a small sundry shop in the village and that he was also involved in a theft case. With regard to the exact words used by the people, who questioned and the answer to that, given by the accused the witness stated in the cross-examination that be asked the accused "why you have beat" and that was in Marathi, He admitted that except this he did not ask the accused anything more. But the accused also answered in Marathi saying "Thathi Ramsi Dushmani Hothi". This does not mean that the accused killed her. However, when welcome to the evidence of P.W.7 he was also present when the accused is alleged to have confessed. He admitted in cross-examination that no converesation between him and the accused took place, when he entered the house and that the accused only said that he should be punished for the crime. In the chief-examination he simply stated that when apprehended the accused confessed the guilt and on further questioning by the public Prosecutor the witness added that they asked the accused about the offence committed by him and he told that he had killed his wife. From what he has admitted in cross-examination, this version given by, P.Ws.6 and 7 viz., the accused admitted in so many words that he had killed his wife, cannot be accepted. Extra-judicial confessions are rather weak type of evidence unless spoken to by such witnesses whose evidence is unimpeachable. Further, in this case the extra-judicial confessions is retracted and P Ws. 6 and 7 have given different versions. Even if we accept this extra-judicial confession since it is retracted there should be necessary corroboration which is lacking in this case. However, we are not prepared to place reliance on the evidence of P.Ws, 6 and 7 for the aforesaid reason. Even with regard to the time of death, a serious doubt arises in view of the medical evidence. The doctor P.W.8 has deposed that he commenced autopsy on 25-6-1977 at about 2-00 p.m. and be found the body to be cold, He found blisters over upper and lower limbs, the body was emitting foul smell and maggots were present and the tongue protruded. In the postmortem certificate it is noted that the brain also was liquified. In Modi''s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 20th Edition at page 132 we find a passage in which it is mentioned that the brain becomes soft and pulpy with in 24 to 48 hours in summer, and becomes a liquid mass from 3 to 4 days. In the same book at page 130 we find that maggots are likely to be found on an average of 40 hours. It the instant case, having regard to the decomposition and the liquidation of the brain, the occurrence must have taken place some time in the intervening night of 23rd and 24th or June, 1977, It is well settled that in a case depending on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances should be conclusive and should be consistent with the guilt of the accused without giving room for any other hypothesis. In the instant case the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution is not at all complete and even otherwise the witnesses who have spoken to these circumstances are not reliable. On mere suspicion that the body was found in the field of the accused the accused cannot be convicted.

In the result, the conviction and sentence of the appellant awarded by the lower court are set aside and he is at liberty. The appeal is allowed,