Back
2009 Supreme(AP) 90
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
A.GOPAL REDDY and B.CHANDRA KUMAR, JJ.
Kambala Nagarjuna - Appellants
Vs.
State of A.P., rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1428 of 2006
Decided on 19-2-2009
Mr. A.Yadagiri Reddy, Counsel for Appellant.
Additional Public Prosecutor, Counsel for Respondent.
Headnote:a) EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, Sections 3 and 8 - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302 and 324- Where the accused stabbed the deceased wife with knife and caused grievous hurt to her brother who came in between to save her motivated by his doubt to her character and the offence is proved by reliable evidence of those who are not chance witnesses, conviction of the accused for Section 302 IPC is upheld.
b) EVIDENCEACT, 1872, Section 6-lndian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 324:- Acts, declarations and incidents explaining the facts in issue and forming part of the same transaction as the facts in issue will form part of res gestae and admissible under Section 6 of Evidence provided there is no time gap between them with the facts in issue.
c) EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, Sections 3 and 5 - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302 and 324 – The evidence of witnesses who are natural witnesses and whose testimony is corroborated by the injury they suffered during the incident can not be rejected merely on the ground that the witnesses are interested or inimical being relatives of the deceased.
d) EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, Section 3 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302 and 324 – The deposition of the neighbor who claims to have heard the galata between the deceased wife and accused husband while he was in the bathroom will not be helpful as he had not disclosed to the police that he had seen the deceased in the lap of the brother of the witness. However elder sister and brother of the deceased who were present at the time incident and children of the deceased wife are reliable witnesses.
e) EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, Section 27:- Though the evidence of the Investigating Officer as to recovery of the knife use for the offence is trace at the behest of the accused is not inspiring confidence on account of the deposition of the brother of the deceased who is the witness to the incident deposing that he preserved the knife, that itself would not throw the story of the prosecutionif it is otherwise supported by the direct witnesses.
f) INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, Sections 302 and 324 – Where the brother of the deceased was injured during the scuffle resulting in preventing the accused from stabbing the deceased, the accused can not be held guilty of causing serious injury to him under Section 324 IPC since he had no intention of injuring him though he can be convicted of causing murder of the deceased wife under Section 302 IPC and hence appeal partly allowed.
The sole appellant filed this appeal challenging the Judgment, dated 08.08.2006 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru in Sessions Case NO.265 of 2004 by which he was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 324 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of RS.1001- and in default of payment of fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.
2. The appellant hereinafter, will be referred as the accused for the sake of convenience.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused is a resident of Yernagudem Village, Devarapally Mandai, West Godavari District. The deceased is no other than the wife of the accused. They were married about 20 years back and for about 10 years they lived happily and they are blessed with two children. Since about 1 0 years, the accused started suspecting the character of the deceased and beating the deceased indiscriminately. The village elders held a panchayat and admonished the accused to change his attitude, but there was no change in his attitude. The specific charge against the accused is that on 18.03.2004 at about 5 PM he picked up a knife and hacked the deceased on her chest and right leg causing bleeding injuries. Kambala Venkateshwara Rao - PW.11 the brother of the accused intervened and tried to snatch the knife from the hands of the accused and in that process he had also sustained injury. While the deceased was being shifted to Government Hospital, Kovvur, on the way she succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the accused was charged with the offence punishable under Section 3021PC on the allegation of murdering his wife and for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC for causing injury to his brother Kambala Venkateshwar Rao.
4. As seen from the evidence let in by the prosecution case is as follows:
5. The accused is the husband of the deceased, Chinchavarapu Satyavathi, PW-1 is the elder sister of the deceased. PW.2 is the mother of the deceased. PWA is a neighbour of the accused. PW.5 is the daughter of the deceased. PW.6 is the son of the accused.
PW.7 is another neighbour of the accused and his house is behind the house of the accused. PW.11 is the elder brother of the accused and the houses of accused and PW.11 are intervened by three houses.
6. On the date of incident, PW.1 was at her house at the time of incident. The incident occurred at about 5 PM in the evening.
According to PW.1, she heard a quarrel between the accused and the deceased but after some time it was subsided. After some time, she again heard some galata from the house of the accused and rushed to the house of the accused. By the time she went to the house of the accused, the deceased had already sustained stab injury on her left chest and right thigh and that the brother of the accused by name Kambala Venkateshwar Rao (PW.11) held the accused. The accused was holding bloodstained knife and that the deceased had fell down on the ground. PW.11 snatched the knife from the hand of the accused and while snatching the knife MO-1 he sustained injury on his right palm between thumb and index fingers. Then PW1 laid the deceased in her lap.
7. According to PW.11 K.venkateshwara Rao, who is the elder brother of the accused, on the date of incident, his wife had epilepsy and therefore, he went to the doctor at the health center to get medicine for his wife. It is his further evidence that by the time he returned, the accused stabbed his wife with a knife and that he was holding a knife and loitering in his house. PW.11 further deposed that himself, one Srinu, who is the son PW1 caught hold of the accused and snatched the knife from his hand and while snatching the knife from the hand of the accused, he sustained an injury between the
