LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) imposing the sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months.- Having considered the above factors, we find that every circumstance noted by the trial Court goes to show that it was the appellant who got enraged by the conduct of the deceased in his attempt t liking, inasmuch as he was not in good terms with PW-3, the mother of tho develop close relationship with his daughter PW-2 which was not to hise deceased. The appellant was stated to have been aggrieved by the non- cooperation of PW-3 in his attempt to dissolve the marriage with his wife who is the daughter of the elder sister of the appellant as well as PW-3. Merely because PWs-3,4,6 and 7 are related to the deceased, there is no reason why they should implicate the appellant who is also closely related to them. If according to the appellant, he was not present when the murder of the deceased took place in his residence, as rightly pointed out by the trial Court, then it was for him to explain as to how the dead body was found in his house. Admitting the presence of the dead body of the deceased in the courtyard of the appellant’s house, no step was taken by the appellant to explain the situation of the presence of the dead body in his house. The theory of the hostile witnesses PWs-1 and 2 that they went for shopping along with the appellant was rightly rejected by the trial Court in the absence of any other supporting material both oral as well as documentary. The evidence of the doctor (PW-13) and Exhibit P-8 disclose that the deceased was mercilessly wounded with the knife (M.O.-10) which resulted in his instantaneous death due to shock and hemorrhage. The overall consideration of the evidence available on record only substantiate the guilt of the accused-appellant in the killing of the deceased and consequently the conclusion reached by the trial Court and upheld by the High Court does not call for any interference. The appeal, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed.





                                                                  Reportable



                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2168  OF 2009


  Polamuri Chandra Sekhararao
 @ Chinna@ Babji                                   ….Appellant


                                   VERSUS


      State of A.P.                                        .…Respondent


                               J U D G M E N T




 Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

 1.        This appeal is directed  against  the  conviction  and  sentence
 imposed upon the appellant for the offence punishable under  Section  302,
 Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) imposing the sentence of  imprisonment
 for life and a fine  of  Rs.  1,000/-  with  default  sentence  of  simple
 imprisonment for a period of three months.

 2.        The case of the prosecution as projected in Exhibit P-1 was that
 on 06.04.2004, in the evening at 5.10 p.m.  the  deceased,  Ravi  Kishore,
 went to the house of the accused in his Hero Honda Motor  Bike,  when  the
 accused and his two daughters Polamrui Divya and Polamrui  Jaya  Chandrika
 [PWs-1 and 2] were chatting outside the house.  It is  alleged  that  when
 the accused asked the deceased as to  why  he  came  there,  the  deceased
 declared that he wish to marry both his daughters and threw a challenge as
 to whom he would give them in marriage.  It is further  alleged  that  the
 accused, enraged by the statement of the deceased, brought  a  long  knife
 from his bed room and inflicted several blows on the deceased due to which
 he fell down breathless on the floor.

 3.        According to the prosecution, the accused  along  with  his  two
 daughters PWs-1 and 2, thereafter, went to the Steel Plant Police  Station
 in his two-wheeler and handed over the knife to the Station writer stating
 that he had killed the deceased with that knife.

 4.        According to the prosecution, statement of  PW-1  (Exhibit  P-1)
 was registered against the appellant for an offence under Section 302, IPC
 on 06.04.2004.  As many as 15 witnesses were examined in  support  of  the
 prosecution.  Exhibits P-1 to P-29 were exhibited and  M.O.-1  to  M.O.-14
 were marked.  The appellant was questioned under Section 313,  Cr.P.C.  to
 which the appellant simply denied his involvement in the occurrence.

 5.        Though PWs-1 and 2 were examined as eye-witnesses,  they  turned
 hostile and none was examined on the defence side.

 6.        Dr. N.V.S.L. Narasimham [PW-13] in the post mortem report opined
 that the deceased appeared to have died of hemorrhage  and  shock  due  to
 incised cut injuries on the neck and multiple incised cut injuries on  the
 other parts of the body.

 7.        The trial Court based on the evidence of doctor (PW-13),  Dasari
 Yerrayya [PW-9] and Y. Suryanarayana, Deputy Superintendent of Police [PW-
 15] as well as Exhibits P-4 and P-8 held that the death of deceased was  a
 homicidal one.

 8.        The trial Court held that though PWs-1  and  2  turned  hostile,
 they deposed that they saw the dead body of the deceased in the  house  of
 the appellant, that they  went  to  the  police  station  along  with  the
 appellant and  that Exhibit P-1 report was given  by  PW-1.   The  learned
 Sessions Judge rejected the case of the appellant that he along with PWs-1
 and 2 went for shopping on that day and they were not present at the place
 of occurrence, inasmuch as, there was no independent  witness  to  support
 the said version.  The trial Judge noted that presence of PWs-1 and  2  in
 the police station was admitted and that the correctness  of  Exhibit  P-1
 cannot be questioned by them. It was also held that when the deceased  was
 lying dead in front of the house of the accused, it was for the accused to
 explain as to how the dead body was found in that place and what steps  he
 had taken to explain the same.  In that view, the learned Sessions  Judge,
 by relying upon the other evidence,  namely,  FSL  Report  (Exhibit  P-29)
 which made specific reference to Item No. 10-the knife and Item  Nos.4,5,6
 and 7 which contained human blood, the cloths which were seized  from  the
 deceased and Exhibit P-5- the Seizure Memo of M.O.-10  prepared  by  PW-14
 while effecting the seizure in the presence of PW-10, a technician in  the
 Steel Plant who had no axe to grind against the appellant, to support  its
 conclusion.

 9.        The circumstances relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge  are
 set out in detail in paragraph 49  of  the  judgment.   Having  found  the
 appellant guilty of the offence of murder of the deceased on 06.04.2004 at
 about 5.10 p.m. with the aid of M.O.-10 within the compound of his  house,
 the trial Court imposed the sentence of imprisonment for life apart from a
 fine of Rs. 1000/- with a default  sentence  of  three  months  of  simple
 imprisonment.  The High Court declined to interfere  with  the  conviction
 and sentence of the appellant in the  judgment  impugned  in  this  appeal
 against which the appellant has come before us.

 10.       We heard Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, counsel for  the  appellant
 and Mr. Amit K. Nain, counsel for the  State.   Learned  counsel  for  the
 appellant, in his  submissions  contended  that  when  the  so-called  eye
 witnesses, namely, PWs-1 and 2 turned hostile,  Exhibit  P-1,  alleged  to
 have been given by PW-1 cannot be acted upon.  He further  submitted  that
 if  the  evidence  of  the  alleged  eye  witnesses  are   eschewed   from
 consideration, what remains is the evidence of PW Nos.3, 4, 6 and  7,  who
 were not eye witnesses but were  closely  related  to  the  deceased  and,
 therefore, their version also cannot  be  relied  upon.   Learned  counsel
 would,  therefore,  contend  that  when   there   was   no   incriminating
 circumstance connecting the accused with the death of  the  deceased,  the
 conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the  Courts  below  cannot  be
 sustained.

 11.       As against the above submissions, learned counsel appearing  for
 the State  contended  that  though  PW-1  supported  Exhibit  P-1  in  her
 Examination-in-Chief, she had to be treated as hostile in  the  course  of
 her cross examination and the conclusion of the  trial  Court  by  relying
 upon various other circumstances narrated in the order, cannot be faulted.
  According to the learned counsel there was motive for  the  appellant  to
 kill the deceased, that the absence of proper explanation as  to  how  the
 body of the deceased was found in the courtyard of the accused and failure
 to satisfy the Court about the plea of alibi was sufficient to  prove  the
 guilt of the appellant of the killing of the deceased.   Learned  counsel,
 therefore, submitted that the  conviction  and  sentence  imposed  on  the
 appellant by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court does not call
 for interference.

 12.       Having heard  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  and  having
 perused the material papers placed on record, the judgment  of  the  trial
 Court as well as the High Court, we are also convinced that the conviction
 and sentence imposed on the appellant does not call for  interference.  PW
 Nos.1 and 2 who are none other than the daughters of the appellant, though
 said to have initially preferred the complaint-Exhibit  P-1  through  PW-1
 alleging murder of the deceased by the  appellant  on  06.04.2004,  turned
 hostile.

 13.       To reiterate the facts, the deceased  is  none  other  than  the
 nephew of the appellant i.e. son of his elder sister, Karem Veera Veni (PW-
 3).  Since the appellant was not in  talking  terms  with  his  wife,  his
 daughters, namely, PW Nos.1 and 2 were living along with their  mother  in
 their grandparents’ house at a different place.  The above facts  are  not
 in dispute inasmuch  as  the  appellant  admitted  the  same  in  the  313
 questioning.  It has also come in evidence that the move of the  appellant
 to secure divorce from his wife was not supported by PW-3 and,  therefore,
 he was not in good terms with PW-3 also.  His wife is none other than  PW-
 3’s elder sister’s daughter.  K. Hema Sekhar (PW-4) is the father  of  the
 deceased, K. Kiran Kumar (PW-6) is the brother  of  the  deceased  and  K.
 Swarnalatha (PW-7) is the sister of the deceased.  Though according to PW-
 3, the appellant and PW-3 were not in talking terms, the children of  both
 were moving friendly with each other.  According to the  prosecution,  the
 deceased developed a liking for PW-2, daughter of the appellant which  was
 also known to the appellant’s elder sister as well as K. Swarnalatha  (PW-
 7), sister of the deceased.

 14.       It is stated that it was in the above stated background when PWs-
 1 and 2 visited the house of the deceased to  spend  their  holidays,  the
 appellant having come to know about the move of the  deceased  to  develop
 close relationship with PW-2, got enraged by his conduct which made him to
 call him to his house on 06.04.2004 and that after the  deceased  arrived,
 the appellant questioned his conduct towards his daughter  PW-2  to  which
 the deceased appeared to have retorted saying that he can even marry  both
 his daughters, which provoke d the appellant to ultimately inflict the cut
 injuries with the knife  (M.O.-10)  and  the  deceased  succumbed  to  his
 injuries on the spot.  The fact that the dead body  of  the  deceased  was
 found in the compound of the appellant is not in dispute.  It is also  not
 in dispute that the said fact was  reported  to  the  Steel  Plant  Police
 Station by PWs-1 and 2 along with the accused.  The  knife  (M.O.-10)  was
 seized in the presence of PW-10 by PW-14 under Exhibit P-5.  The  Forensic
 Science Laboratory (FSL) report also confirmed that human blood was  found
 on the weapon (M.O.-10) though the origin of the blood group was stated to
 be not traceable.

 15.       Inasmuch  as  PWs.1  and  2  turned  hostile,  the  trial  Court
 attempted to examine as to whether there were circumstances enough to link
 the appellant with the death of the deceased.  In that attempt  the  trial
 Court has culled out the following 16 circumstances:
                 “49. The following circumstances/chain of events  make  the
          Court to draw an inference that the accused  dealt  blows  on  the
          deceased with M.O.10 and murdered him:-
                      a) The accused and  his  wife  on  account  of  their
                         differences are living separately and the wife  of
                         the  accused  is  residing  with  her  parents  at
                         Kesanapalli of East Godavari District  along  with
                         PWs 1 and 2 and her son;




                      b) The deceased was also residing in the house of the
                         parents of the wife of  the  accused  and  he  was
                         having close intimacy with the  daughters  of  the
                         accused; especially PW-2;
                      c) On account of  differences  between  him  and  his
                         wife, the accused is not having talking terms with
                         his sister i.e. PW-3;
                      d) On account of the  grudge  developed  against  the
                         deceased, having been informed by PWs-1 and 2, the
                         accused  gave  a  telephonic  call  to  PW-3   and
                         requested her to send the deceased to his house;
                      e) The deceased went to the house of the  accused  on
                         06.04.2004 at 5 p.m.  on  his  motor  cycle  (PW-2
                         deposed about the blue coloured Hero  Honda  Motor
                         Cycle parking it in front of her house and  having
                         dents);
                      f) The dead body of the deceased was found  lying  in
                         the premises of the house of the accused;
                      g) PWs-1 and 2 i.e. daughters of the accused going to
                         the police station  along  with  the  accused  and
                         giving Ex.P.1 report to the police at 17.40  hours
                         i.e. 5.40 p.m. on 06.04.2004;
                      h) The accused not admitting  himself  going  to  the
                         police station along with his daughters i.e. PWs-1
                         and 2.
                      i) The denial of the accused about  the  presence  of
                         the dead body of the deceased in the  premises  of
                         his house in his examination  under  Section  313,
                         Cr.P.C.
                      j) The seizure of M.O.10 by PW-14 in the presence  of
                         PW-10 under Ex.P.5 (PW-10 is also a technician  in
                         the Steel Plant);
                      k) The presence of the accused in the police  station
                         on 06.04.2004 (PW-10 deposed about the presence of
                         the accused  in  the  police  station  apart  from
                         deposing about the seizure of MO-10)
                      l)  The  accused  not  attending  to  his   duty   on
                         06.04.2004;
                      m) The theory of  alibi  introduced  by  the  accused
                         through PWs-1 and 2 who  are  his  daughters  that
                         they had been for shopping  along  with  him  from
                         3.30 p.m. and returning to the house at 7.30  p.m.
                         not being proved;
                      n) The police informing PW-3 about the murder of  her
                         son by the accused at 7 p.m. on 06.04.2004;
                      o) PW-1 informing PW-8 on 06.04.2004 at about 7  p.m.
                         about the death of the deceased  from  the  police
                         station;
                      p) The accused not giving  any  explanation  for  the
                         presence of the dead body of the deceased  in  the
                         premises of his house but he  simply  denying  the
                         offence and stating that the police  have  foisted
                         the case against him.”




 16.       Keeping the above reasoning of the trial Court in mind, when  we
 examine the submissions, we also notice that there  were  as  many  as  17
 injuries noted in the post-mortem certificate by the doctor  (PW-13).   Of
 the 17 injuries, 13 injuries were incised cut injuries and  the  cause  of
 death was stated to be due to shock and hemorrhage pursuant to the incised
 cut injuries on the neck and multiple incised cut injuries on other  parts
 of the body.  The doctor (PW-13)  also  confirmed  that  the  incised  cut
 injuries could have been caused by a weapon like Exhibit M.O.-10.  Exhibit
 P-29, the FSL report disclosed that though the origin of the  blood  stain
 could not be determined, human blood was detected on MO-10.  The appellant
 admitted the following facts:-that the deceased was son of PW-3,  that  he
 died on 06.04.2004, that he was found dead in the garden which is situated
 in front of his house within his  compound,  that  there  were  number  of
 bleeding injuries on the body of the deceased, that he was not in  talking
 terms with his wife and that is why she was living with her  parents,  and
 that the deceased used to stay in the same house in which his wife and PWs-
 1 and 2 were also staying.

 17.       To a specific question put to the accused as to whether he  wish
 to examine any witnesses he said “no witness”.

 18.        Having  considered  the  above  factors,  we  find  that  every
 circumstance noted by the trial  Court  goes  to  show  that  it  was  the
 appellant who got enraged by the conduct of the deceased in his attempt t
 liking, inasmuch as he was not in good terms with PW-3, the mother of  tho
 develop close relationship with his daughter PW-2 which  was  not  to  hise
 deceased.  The appellant was stated to have been  aggrieved  by  the  non-
 cooperation of PW-3 in his attempt to dissolve the marriage with his  wife
 who is the daughter of the elder sister of the appellant as well as  PW-3.
 Merely because PWs-3,4,6 and 7 are related to the deceased,  there  is  no
 reason why they should implicate the appellant who is also closely related
 to them.  If according to the appellant,  he  was  not  present  when  the
 murder of the deceased took place in his residence, as rightly pointed out
 by the trial Court, then it was for him to explain as to how the dead body
 was found in his house.  Admitting the presence of the dead  body  of  the
 deceased in the courtyard of the appellant’s house, no step was  taken  by
 the appellant to explain the situation of the presence of the dead body in
 his house.  The theory of the hostile witnesses PWs-1 and 2 that they went
 for shopping along with the appellant was rightly rejected  by  the  trial
 Court in the absence of any other supporting material both oral as well as
 documentary.  The evidence of the doctor (PW-13) and Exhibit P-8  disclose
 that the deceased was mercilessly wounded with the knife  (M.O.-10)  which
 resulted in his instantaneous death due  to  shock  and  hemorrhage.   The
 overall  consideration  of  the  evidence   available   on   record   only
 substantiate the guilt of the accused-appellant  in  the  killing  of  the
 deceased and consequently the conclusion reached by the  trial  Court  and
 upheld by the High Court does not call for any interference.  The  appeal,
 therefore, fails and the same is dismissed.




                                                             …………………………...J.
                                                           [Swatanter Kumar]






                                                       ........……………………………J.
                                    [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla]


 New Delhi;
 July 23, 2012


 -----------------------
14