Back
1957 Supreme(AP) 131
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Chervirala Narayan - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Decided On : 07-31-57
The main legal point established in the judgment is the curability of procedural violations under section 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Headnote:
Culpable Homicide - Criminal Jurisprudence - Section 302, Indian Penal Code - Section 207-A (4) and (9) of the Criminal Procedure Code - The court discussed the evidence, circumstantial evidence, and the nature of the offence committed by the accused. The court also analyzed the provisions of section 207-A (4) and (9) of the Criminal Procedure Code and their implications on the trial.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted under section 302, Indian Penal code and sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge, Medak District. The accused strangled his wife to death due to suspicions of her illicit intimacy and pregnancy by another man. The case was decided based on circumstantial evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as the act was committed under grave and sudden provocation. The court also discussed the violation of procedural provisions and its curability under section 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the offence committed by the accused, the admissibility of circumstantial evidence, and the violation of procedural provisions under section 207-A (4) and (9) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and the violation of procedural provisions was curable under section 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Final Decision: The accused's conviction for murder and the death sentence were set aside, and he was instead convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The sentence was modified to R. I.
( 1 ) THE accused was convicted under section 302, Indian Penal code and sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge, Medak District. The version of the prosecution may be summarised thus. The accused is the husband of the deceased. P. Ws. 9 and 10 are the parents of the deceased and are residents of the village of Ailur. After some persuation and with reluctance, they allowed the accused and his sister P. W. 7 to take the girl to the house of P. W. 7 at Venkataipalli for performing the nuptials of the deceased. After the nuptials, the couple lived together amicably for a few days. Suspecting that the girl had illicit intimacy with the son of the Dora of Ailur and had become pregnant by him, on the night of 9th December, 1955 the accused strangled her to death. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence produced on the side of the prosecution and convicted the accused and sentenced him as aforesaid.
( 2 ) THERE are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The case falls to be decided on circumstantial evidence. It is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that . circumstantial evidence must be consistent and consistent only with the guilt of the accused and that if the evidence is consistent with any other rational explanation, then there is an element of doubt of which the accused must be given the benefit ". Bearing in mind the said caution, we shall proceed to consider the evidence in this case.
( 3 ) THE doctor, who performed the autopsy on the dead body, described the condition of the body and the wounds found thereon thus - 1. A horizontal mark in front of the neck measuring 2" in length " in breadth; abrasions and ecchymosis were present in front of the neck ; the horizontal mark had brown and parchment appearance ; there was congestion under the skin. 2. Abrasion on the chin and the lower lip. 3. Abrasions on the posterior side and left and right elbow joints. 4. Abrasion on the left and right inguinal and left inguinal. 5. Abrasion on the right thigh. 6. Abrasions on the right temple. 7. Abrasion on the lateral side of the left knee joint; and 8. Half digested food was present in the stomach.
( 4 ) THE witness expresses his view that, in his opinion, death was due to asphyxia caused by pressure in front of the neck by some blunt weapon and that in view of the presence of half digested food, death must have been caused 1 or 1 hours after she took her meals. This uncontradicted evidence of the doctor clearly establishes that the deceased was strangled to death by pressing a blunt weapon in front of her neck 1 or 1 hours after she took her food. That the deceased had a violent death at the hands of somebody admits of no doubt.
( 5 ) WHO is the culprit that caused the death of this young girl can be ascertained only by other circumstantial pieces of evidence placed before the Court. P. Ws. 9 and 10 are the parents of the deceased. They describe the circumstances under which the accused took the deceased to his sister s house. Their version is : The deceased was ill and they were getting her treated by a Hakim. The accused came and lived with them for three days and thereafter he requested them to send his wife to his sister s house, but they refused for reasons of health. Thereafter, he brought his sister and both of them took her in spite of their protest. P. W. 10 followed them to the sister s house wherein the nuptial ceremony was performed. P. W. 9 went to the village of the sister to bring back the accused and his wife but as the accused refused to send her, he and his wife returned to his place. After five or six days of their return, they were informed, that their daughter died. The evidence of these two witnesses proves that the deceased was taken to the house of the accused s sister, that in her house the nuptial ceremony was performed and that the deceased continued to live in that house till she died. What happened in the house of P. W. 7 is narrated by P. W. 7 and her husband P.
