Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. A. S. ANAND AND N. P. SINGH, JJ.
Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam and another
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh,
Criminal Appeal No. 629 of 1985
Decided on 26-3-1993.
Held: Admittedly, there is no eye-witness in the case. The case is sought to be established by the prosecution from circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and these circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the established circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap in the chain of evidence. The proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused alone and totally inconsistent will his innocence. The courts have, therefore, the duty to carefully scrutinize the evidence and deal with each circumstance carefully and thereafter find whether the chain of the established circumstances is complete or not before passing an order of conviction. It is in the light of the above principles that we shall deal with various circumstances relied upon by the prosecution. (para 10)
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302/ 34 - Murder with common intention by husband and Mother-in-law of the deceased - Only circumstantial evidence - Trial Court acquitted - On appeal against acquittal by state, High Court convicted - Further appeal-u/s. 2(a) of Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 - Motive, cause of dowry - Two dying declarations made to P.W. 2 and P.W. 1, found reliable. (Para 12) - Medical evidence corroborating dying declarations (Para 13) - Conduct of appellants immediately and after the occurrence connecting them with crime (Para 14) - Absconding of the appellants (Para 15) - Whether High Court was right in reversing acquittal? (Yes) (Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32(1) - Cr. P.C. 1973 - Section 313.
Held: In view of the above discussion and out appraisal and analysis of the evidence on record, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has successfully established all the circumstances appearing in the evidence against the appellants by clear, cogent and reliable evidence and the chain of the establish circumstances is complete and has no gaps whatsoever and the same conclusively establishes that the appellants and appellants alone committed the crime of murdering the deceased on the fateful day in the manner suggested by the prosecution. All the established circumstances are consistent only with the hypothesis that it was the appellants alone who committed the crime and the circumstances are inconsistent with any hypothesis other than their guilt. It is most unfortunate that the husband of the deceased not only failed to perform his duties and obligations as a husband to protect and take care of his wife as per the marriage vows and instead joined his mother in the most degrading and cold blooded murder of the young innocent bride. (para 16)
Held: The High Court was, therefore perfectly justified in convicting the appellants for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing each one of them to suffer imprisonment for life.(para 19)
Held: We uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellants or the offence under Section 302/ 34 IPC and dismiss their appeal. The appellants were directed to be released on bail by this Court on 30.3.1989. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they arc directed to be taken into custody to suffer the remaining period of their sentence. (Para 20)
JUDGMENT
Dr. ANAND, J.:—The curse of dowry has claimed yet another victim, Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam, the husband of the deceased Kundula Kiti Nagbani and his mother Kundula Annapurna (Mother-in-law of the deceased) have filed this appeal under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, dated 25-6-1985. setting aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, East Godavari Division and convicting both the appellants for an offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentencing each of them to suffer imprisonment for life.
2. On 23rd of August, 1981, between 12.30 - 1.00 p.m. on hearing screams and cry of deceased-Kundula Koti Nagbani, at that time aged about 18 years, Pulapa Lakshmi PW 2, Vempati Paparao PW 3 and Vempati Radha PW 4. rushed to the house of the appellant and found both the appellants along with the father of appellant No. 1 (father-in-law of the deceased) hurriedly coming out of the kitchen while the deceased was lying on the floor engulfed in flames. Since, the appellants or the father-in-law of the deceased were making no attempts to put off the flames, PW 2 asked appellant No. 1 to give her something so that she could extinguish the fire. He, however, did not respond. She then requested first appellants father to give something to her so that the fire could be put off. The father of appellant No. 1 enquired if he should get a bucket of water. PW 2, thereupon, requested him to give either a bed-sheet or a blanket. The father of appellant No. 1 then brought out a bed sheet (Bontha) from the cot and as he was passing it on to PW 2, the mother-in-law of the deceased, appellant No. 2, told her husband not to give the bontha to PW 2. PW 2, in the meanwhile, took the bontha from the father of the first appellant and tried to extinguish the fire. The deceased turned her side. She was alive. The deceased asked PW 2 for some water. Since, the petticoat of the deceased was burning, PW 3, the father of PW 2, who had also rushed along with her to the house of the appellant broke the thread of the petticoat to save her from further burning and threw away the burning garment. In the process, he also received some burn injuries. PW 2 poured water into the mouth of the deceased and enquired from her as to what had happened. The deceased told her that "her mother-in-law had poured kerosene over her and her husband had set fire to her". The deceased again felt thirsty and asked for more water which was again given to her by PW 2, The above statement made by the deceased to PW 2 was overheard by PW 3 and some others, who had also reached on hearing the cries. Vempati Nagabhushanam PW 5, another immediate neighbour of the appellants living only about 2 yards away also heard the cries of the deceased and rushed to the house of the appellant. He noticed PW 3 was pulling out the petticoat of the deceased while PW 2 was attempting to extinguish fire. He saw PW 2 pouring water into the mouth of the deceased. He also heard the statement made by the deceased to PW 2 about the manner in which she had been set on fire. PW 5 thereupon went away to inform the maternal uncle of the deceased at Malakapalli. On the way, he met one Ramakrishna coming on motor-cycle and at his request Ramakrishna gave him a ride to Malakapalli. On reaching the house of the maternal uncle of the deceased, they found the brother of the deceased Vempati Sreerama Krishna Sree-ram PW 1 was also present there. He conveyed to them the information regarding the burning of the deceased and also what he had heard the deceased telling PW 2. Ramarao and PW 1 then went on the same motorcycle to Dharmavaram. PW 1 reached the house of the appellant and saw a number of persons including PWs 2 and 3 gathered there. The deceased was lying on the floor and at that time she had no clothes on her. He noticed that she had received burn injuriesfrom, her breasts
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
