Veerla Venkaiah vs State of A.P.

Vaman Rao, J.—This appeal is directed against the Judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda, rendered in S. C. No. 184 of 1992 on 17-12-1992, under which the appellant/accused was convicted for an offence u/s 307 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years, and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000-00, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

Facts relating to this appeal may be stated, briefly, as follows :

PW-2, Kunchala Mohanamma is the wife of the accused. They were married about five years prior to the incident. They lived at Wadapally together for sometime. The accused is stated to have neglected PW-2. Thus, there were differences between them. PW-2 shifted to her parents at Nagarjunasagar. She took up a job in a drugs factory there. Two months prior to the incident, the accused also came down to live at Nagarjunanagar and asked his wife, PW-2 to join him. She refused. According to PW-2, she put up a separate residence. But the accused continued to ill-treat her. While so on 22-1-1992, PW-2 started from her house at about 5.30 a.m. with a view to attend to her duty in the factory. Before that the accused left his house on the pretext of going for taking tea. When PW-2 reached upto CE''s Office, the accused called her to him. He asked her to return home and asked her not to attend to her duty on that day. Then both of them were walking back. After some distance, the accused told PW-2 that he persuaded her to believe his words for going back with him only to kill her. She pleaded for mercy. The accused beat her. According to PW-2, while the accused was about to press her neck, a TVS moped vehicle came from opposite side. So the accused stopped his attempt. Thereafter they walked upto pump house. The accused again beat her there. She started weeping. As there were some children in the vicinity, the accused asked her to shut her mouth. She stopped crying. Thereafter, they reached the Officers'' club. The accused then held her by shoulder and stabbed her with a knife on her fore-head all along hair line. The accused threw her on the road. Then he sat on her chest and again cut her skin on the left fore-head in continuation of the first injury and then tried to stab on the crown of the head; but the knife fell on -her left thumb. When she pleaded for mercy, the accused cut the right palm at the web portion between the thumb and index finger. Then the accused alleged that she was not of good character and stabbed on her chest with the knife . She raised alarm. The accused told her that as she had illicit intimacy with another man, he wanted to kill her. So saying he tried to cut her neck. PW-2 cried loudly. In the meanwhile, a bus and a lorry came all along the road and on seeing those vehicles the accused threw her on the road and ran away from that place. According to PW-2, PW-4, Bonala Chittappa, an employee in Vijaya Vihar Guest House happened to come there. She told him what all had happened. PW-4 took her to K. N. Hospital and got her admitted. According to the prosecution, PW-1, the brother of PW-2 having come to know of this incident went to the Hospital and saw PW-2. At his instance, PW-2 narrated the whole incident to him, as above. He observed the injuries on her person. He went to Police Station and lodged the report. Ex. P-1, on which the PW-6, Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Cr. No. 3/92 and issued the FIR Ex P-4, PW-5, Dr. K. Shiva Ramaiah, examined the injured and gave the Wound Certificate, Ex P-3. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been duly laid.

It is, thus, seen that the prosecution case hinges on the solitary evidence of the victim, PW-2. The relationship between PW-2 and the accused and the fact that they had strained relationship and that PW-2 left Wadapally, where she was earlier living with the accused and came down to live at Nagarjunasagar with her brother, is not disputed. It is also in the evidence, as stated by PW-2 that she had taken up a job at Nagarjunasagar. PW-2''s evidence that the accused came down to Nagarjunasagar and then wanted her to leave the job and join him appears to be quite probable. According to PW-2, she refused to comply with the demand of the accused in that behalf. This constitutes the background of the incident. PW-2'' s evidence as to the actual incident, as to how the accused accosted her on the way; how he called her and how he made her to believe that he was trying for conciliation appears to be quite natural. PW-2 has given a graphic description of the incident and as to various assaults that he made on her firstly near the CE''s office and thereafter on the way back near the Pump house and again near the officers''" club. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of PW-2 so as to discredit her version, as to the manner in which the incident occurred.

Learned counsel for the accused, however, contends that as the incident is stated to have occurred in a public place, there ought to have been eye-witnesses who must have witnessed the incident and non-examination of any such witnesses creates suspicion about the prosecution case. It may be mentioned that the incident is stated to have occurred very early in the morning, sometime between 5.30 a.m. and 6 a.m. It also appears that the accused has taken all precautions to choose an isolated place on the way. Thus, there is nothing improbable that any other person would not have witnessed the incident. At any rate, the evidence of PW-2 has to be assessed on its own merits and not on the basis of the alleged omission of the prosecution to examine any other probable witness.

PW-2''s, version as to the incident is corroborated by the fact that she was got admitted in the K. N. Hospital at Nagarjunasagar, immediately after the incident at about 8.15 a.m. on the same day.

PW-4, Bonala Chittappa is the person, who admitted PW-2 in the Hospital. Though he has been treated as hostile by the prosecution, his evidence corroborates PW-2 to the extent that on the date of the incident, while he was going to duty to Vijaya vihar on TVS Moped, he saw PW-2 coming from opposite side with bleeding injuries. On her request, he took her to the Hospital and admitted her there. PW-4''s evidence corroborates PW-2 that at about 6.00 a.m. she was found with injuries on the road, where the incident occurred. According to the Sub-Inspector of Police, the Investigating Officer, who is examined as PW-6, PW-1 gave the FIR about the offence at about 7.00 a.m., after he went and saw PW-2 at the Hospital. Thus, the FIR was lodged promptly within half-an-hour to one hour of the incident. Though, the wound certificate mentions the time as 8.15 a.m., that perhaps refers to the time when the Doctor actually examined PW-2.

The Medical evidence given by the Doctor, PW-5 discloses that PW-2 received as many as six injuries. These injuries conform to the version of PW-2 as to the various assaults made by the accused on her with the knife.

Thus, the evidence of PWs 2 and 4 and the fact that the FIR was lodged promptly at the police-station and the Medical evidence, unequivocally corroborate the version given by PW-2 as to the manner in which the incident occurred, in which the accused inflicted injuries with the knife on her body.

Learned counsel for the accused, however, contends that even assuming that the incident has been proved beyond doubt and the accused had caused the injuries found on PW-2, conviction of the accused for an offence u/s 307, IPC cannot be sustained. Relying on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in Jai Narain Mishra and Others Vs. State of Bihar, and a Judgment of the Gauhati High Court, Kalu Ram Brahma v. State of Assam 1977 Cri LJ 98, it is contended that considering the nature of the injuries found on PW-2, offence u/s 307, IPC cannot be said to have been made out. In the case before the Supreme Court, the finding was that though the accused used a heavy weapon like ''Farsa'' for inflicting injuries, it was found that the sharp edge of the weapon was not used for inflicting injuries. In view of that it was held that the offence made out was not u/s 307, IPC, but was one u/s 324, IPC.

In the case before the Gauhati High Court, the finding of fact was that the injuries found on the victim were superficial in nature like scrapes and grazes, though the weapon used was a dangerous weapon. Considering the nature of the injuries, it was held that the offence u/s 307, IPC was not made out and that it was a case u/s 324, IPC. But, in the case on hand, though the weapon of offence has not been seized, the evidence of PW-2 is very clear that the accused used a knife. Considering the gravity of the injuries found on PW-2 and the nature of the injuries, including the one described as incised one 1" x W x muscle deep on right chest medial to right breast, it cannot be said that the intention to commit murder cannot be attributed to the accused.

Considering all these circumstances, I find no reason to differ from the view taken by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the charge against the accused for an offence u/s 307, IPC, beyond reasonable doubt.

The accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years, which is the maximum. It is stated by the learned counsel for the accused that the victim and the accused are divorced and they are leading separate lives.

Any way, considering the circumstances of the case, the sentence of ten years'' rigorous imprisonment is reduced to five years'' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of pay-fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

With this modification in sentence, the appeal is dismissed. As the accused is on bail, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda, shall ensure that non-bailable warrant is issued for the arrest of the accused-appellant to complete the remaining period of sentence.