Back
2011 (5) Supreme 502
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.S. Sirpurkar and T.S. Thakur, JJ.
Maloth Somaraju — Appellant
versus
State of A.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1849 of 2008
Decided on : 17-8-2011
Facts of the Case :
Appellant was prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of his elder brother by assaulting him with an axe. Trial Court acquitted appellant of said offence. State Appeal thereagainst was Allowed by High Court convicting appellant.
2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
Nothing could be brought out in cross-examination of PW1 ,wife of deceased which would bring her testimony into dark.PW1 lodged the FIR barely within 4-4= hours of the incident. The theory of false Implication by PW1 was just not possible as lady hardly had any time to think about false implication of her brother-in-law.
There were some suspicious circumstances mentioned in the judgment of the trial Court. Trial Court held that time of incident was not mentioned in the FIR , but ignored the fact that subject of bulb was brought in the cross-examination by the defence. Second circumstance was about PW-1 sitting on cot and talking with her husband and not mentioning that husband was also lying on the cot. Said circumstance was absolutely insignificant as it had been shown that her husband was actually lying on cot as per her version in the Court. Another circumstance was account of darkness. However held that even in the light that was available, it was quite possible for PW-1 to identify, which identification was further corroborated by her immediately naming the accused. Blood stained clothes of PW-1 were not seized to establish her presence. Said circumstance was explained by very good explanation given by investigating officer. Even though relatives completely turned hostile and not supported the version. This was for simple reason that they were all interested in the accused. The motive looses all its significance in the wake of eye-witness’s account. Held trial court got swayed away by so-called irrelevant suspicious circumstances which resulted into the acquittal of appellant. High Court considered the evidence without being influenced by all these irrelevant and imaginary suspicious circumstances. Appeal was dismissed
JUDGMENT
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. —
1. Appellant Maloth Somaraju challenges the judgment of the High Court whereby the High Court allowed the State appeal challenging the acquittal by the Trial Court. He was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC on the allegation that on 15.05.1999 at about 2 a.m. at night he committed the murder of his elder brother Maloth Krishna (hereafter referred to as “deceased” for short) by causing his death with an axe injuring his temporal region, nose and face which ultimately resulted in his death.
The prosecution story in short conspectus
Deceased was a worker in Singereni Collaries. He used to go for his duty at about 12.30 p.m. at night every day. On the fateful day, he did not go for his duty. At the time when the incident happened, he was sleeping on his cot along with one son. It is the prosecution case that besides him was another cot on which his wife Heeramani (PW-1) was sleeping along with another son. Besides these two cots, there was another cot on which was one Haridas (PW-9) who was the cousin of Heeramani (PW-1) was sleeping.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that at that time suddenly the appellant came and assaulted Krishna which incident was seen by Heeramani (PW-1) who raised cry which attracted the neighbours who were mostly the relatives of her husband including his parents, his brother, his sister-in-law and cousins of the deceased. All his relatives are Banjara by caste. The deceased was immediately carried in an auto rickshaw to Singereni hospital where he was declared as brought dead. On that Maloth Heeramani (PW-1) had lodged a report before Kothagudem Police Station. Since she was illiterate, Heeramani (PW-1) got scribed the report by Rayala Sathyanarayana (PW-14) and submitted it to Kothagudem police station at 6.30 in the morning. It has come on record that the report was immediately forwarded to the concerned Magistrate who received it at 7.30 in the morning. In this report Heeramani (PW-1) complained that in the midnight she woke up her husband for answering the call of nature. After that, she and her husband slept. As they were talking to each other, her brother-in-law Maloth Somaraju, the accused-appellant came from behind the house with a sickle (Kota Kathi) and attacked her husband on his left temporal, nose and under the nose due to which there was heavy bleeding. She further suggested that she raised cry and on hearing her cries, her father-in-law Balunayak (PW-2), her mother-in-law, Maloth Bhikri (PW-3), elder brother in law Amar Singh (PW-4), his wife Kausalya (PW-5), her second brother in law Phool Singh (PW-6), his wife Maloth Dwali (PW-7) came there. On seeing them, accused Somaraju fled away. After that her husband was shifted in the auto of Mohan Rao to Company Singereni main hospital. However, the doctors there told that her husband was dead. She then narrated that accused/appellant was addicted to drinking and used to come to house and beat her in-laws and was harassing them for which her husband had to pacify them and about fifteen days back when the accused bit her in-laws, her husband had beaten the accused and it was because of this that he bore grudge against her husband and axed her husband. The offence was registered and the investigating officer rushed to the spot, got executed inquest Panchnama as also got drawn the map of the spot and sent the body for autopsy. Autopsy was conducted by M. Gopal Swamy (PW-16). Autopsy report is Exhibit P-19. The autopsy was conducted at 11 a.m. in the morning. According to the doctors, the approximate time of death was 8 to 10 hours before the autopsy. After the completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses and marked 31 documents. In his defence, the plea of accused is of total deny. There was no defence evidence tendered by him.
The Sessions Judge acquitted the accused which acquittal was challenged by the State by f
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
