Veeramallu Devi vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—Grandhi Madhavi, an advocate joined in Politics at fairly young age and was elected as MLA from Telugu Desam Party. Later on, she resumed her practice, but thereafter, switched over to other activities.

She established a permanent residence at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. While her husband was said to be living at Anakapalli, his native place, on account of his business, one of their elder son Raghava was employed at Bangalore , Madhavi and her younger son G. Hemanth Kumar were residing at Hyderabad. K. Venkatapathy Raju, P.W. 1 was said to be assisting the family, living in that very house, for the past several years.

Veeramallu Devi @ Laxmi Devi was engaged as a domestic servant-cum-cook by Madhavi. P.W. 1 is said to have left the house of Madhavi at about 6.00 p.m., on 19.12.2006 and asked Devi to look after the house, till he comes back. By the time, he returned, at 9.00 p.m., he is said to have found Madhavi in a pool of blood with serious injuries, and that Devi also was seriously injured with knife, driven into her abdomen. He gave information to the police, who turned up instantly, and took Madhavi, as well as, Devi to a nearby corporate hospital. While Madhavi was declared dead, Devi was treated for the injuries. P.W. 1 submitted a complaint under Ex. P1, narrating the incident, and requesting the police to take necessary action. He stated that some unknown persons entered the house when the male members of the family were not present, and stabbed Madhavi, as well as, Devi.

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Jubilee Hills P.S. registered a case in Crime No. 464 of 2006 under Sections 302 and 324 IPC. The scene of offence panchanama was prepared, inquest was conducted, and the body was sent for postmortem examination by the Government Doctor. During the course of investigation, the police suspected the involvement of Devi, and her sister, by name, Bhathina Guna Pavani, and both of them were framed as accused/Al and A2. At the instance of A2, quite large number of ornaments of the deceased Madhavi, her family members, were said to have been recovered. A detailed charge sheet was filed and the trial Court framed necessary charges against the accused/A1 and A2. The accused pleaded not guilty. In the trial the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 17. Exs. P1 to P38 were filed. M.Os. 1 to 57 were also taken on record.

Through its judgment, dated 20.10.2009, the trial Court acquitted A2 but convicted A1, of committing the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. Sentence of imprisonment for life, and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default in payment of fine, A1 was ordered to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months was imposed. Hence, this appeal by A1.

Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, learned counsel for A1 submits that in Ex. P1 itself, P.W. 1 mentioned that the crime was committed by a stranger, taking advantage of the absence of male members, and for all practical purposes, the appellant was treated as a victim, but without there being any basis, she was shown as accused. She contends that the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution is hardly of any help to hold that A1 is guilty of any offence. She further submits that the sole basis for suspecting the involvement of the accused in this case is the alleged recovery of ornaments M.Os. 1 to 57 at the instance of A2, and once A2 was acquitted, the very basis for implicating A1 and A2 disappears. She contends that the prosecution did not even allege anything about the weapons, through which, the gruesome murder of A1 was caused.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the only person, who was in the house along with the deceased, was A1, and in all probability, A1 may have received injuries in the process of killing the deceased. She contends that though the investigation started on the premise that the crime may have been committed by a stranger, the needle of suspicion ultimately stopped at the accused, and the circumstantial evidence gathered at a later stage, substantiated the same.

The murder of the deceased was committed in a gruesome, and very cruel manner. The incident is said to have taken in the evening, and not late in the night.

A perusal of the evidence of P.W. 1 discloses that the protection to the house was arranged through two well trained dogs and a security guard. The security guard is said to have left the house in the evening with the permission of P.W. 1 and the deceased. P.W. 1 further stated that while going out, he instructed A1, and unchained the dogs and left them free. He did not vouch for whatever has happened later, except that he has seen the dead body of the deceased in a pool of blood and A1 in a very seriously injured condition. A perusal of Ex. P1 also discloses that he did not even remotely suspect the involvement of A1, in the crime.

The basis for the prosecution, to suspect A1 and A2 is said to be the recovery of quite large number of valuable ornaments at the instance of A2, the sister of A1. It is interesting to note that such large number of ornaments are said to have been recovered in an open place on 11.01.2007 i.e., 20 days after the incident. Though the revelation made by the accused in the course of examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C., cannot be treated on par with the evidence, a perusal of the statement made by A2 discloses that she has been subjected to third degree treatment and at one point of time, 3 to 4 police officials are said to have threatened to rape her. If that is the level of treatment meted to a woman, it would not difficult for the police to invent and frame, and whatever version they want.

Whatever may have been the justification for the police to file charge sheet, in which, the injured victim was shown as accused, the trial Court ought to have exhibited its attention in a proper manner. On appreciation of evidence on record, the trial Court took the view that the charge, insofar as it relates to A2, cannot be sustained, and acquitted her. If A2 is acquitted, there is hardly anything, which remains on record to sustain the allegation against A1. On the other hand, A1 stands on a better footing, in as much as, she received such a serious injury at the time of the crime against her employer, that the knife driven into her abdomen was very much there, by the time, the police visited, and she was admitted into the hospital.

The prosecution proceeded in a tangent and patently wrong direction. The first thing the prosecution ought to have done was to record the statement of Devi, A1, at least on 11.01.2007, when she was undergoing treatment. Any sensible police officer would have arranged for recording of a dying declaration or at least a statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. from such a person. The version of that woman is available in the form of her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. According to that, she completed the cooking and other work by 6.00 p.m., and when she was about to leave the house, P.W. 1 asked her to stay till he comes back. She stated that there was only one dog, and when she was supplying the food to that dog, four strangers came and verified about the inmates. A1 is said to have informed them that P.W. 1 has gone out and she would find out from the deceased and in the meanwhile all of them have gone to the first floor, where the deceased was present. On hearing the noise from the first floor, A1 is said to have gone there, and by the time she reached, Madhavi was seriously injured, and fell on the ground, and when she tried to intervene by raising voice, three of assailants held her and the fourth one stabbed her. This statement of A1 squarely fits into the contents of Ex. P1, and the evidence of P.W. 1. The trial Court however did not take this aspect into account.

There are other peculiarities in this case. The person who would be immediately disturbed, and concerned, about the death of a woman, would be her husband, and if, for any reason, he is not immediately available, his sons. In the instant case, the husband of the deceased did not figure as a complainant or even as a prosecution witness. P.W. 2 is the son of the deceased, but he did not choose to submit a complaint. The relation of P.W. 1 with the family of the deceased is indeed peculiar. He is said to be the family friend of husband of the deceased, but was living in the house of the deceased for years together, even when the husband of the deceased was staying out. He fumbled while answering certain important questions. It was elicited from him that himself and the deceased were undertaking certain banking activities, and on several occasions, the unsatisfied customers'' violently expressed their grievances against both of them. When such is the state of affairs, surrounding the family of the deceased, it was not at all proper to hold A1 as guilty of committing the offence of the murder of the deceased.

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C. No. 163 of 2008 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dated 20.10.2009, against the appellant-A1, are set aside. The appellant-A1 shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless her detention is needed in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-A1 shall be refunded to her.