Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (D.B.)
Subba Rao, Bhimasankaram, J.
IN RE: MADUGULA JERMIAH
Decided On : 28 November, 1955
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - DISCOVERY OF BLOOD-STAINED KNIFE AND STOLEN ARTICLES ON INFORMATION GIVEN BY ACCUSED - WHETHER PRESUMPTION OF GUILT CAN BE DRAWN - SECTION 114, EVIDENCE ACT - SECTION 27, EVIDENCE ACT - ARTICLE 20 (3), CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted of murder and robbery. The prosecution's case was that the accused had killed the victims, Vengamma and Bhagyamma, and stolen money and jewelry from them. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the discovery of a blood-stained knife and the stolen articles on information given by the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the evidence was not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed murder or robbery. The court found that the accused had not been seen near the scene of the crime and that there was no evidence that he had absconded after the murders. The court also found that the discovery of the blood-stained knife and the stolen articles on information given by the accused was not sufficient to establish his guilt, as the information may have been extracted from him by coercion.
Issues: 1. Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed murder and robbery. 2. Whether the discovery of the blood-stained knife and the stolen articles on information given by the accused was sufficient to establish his guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed murder or robbery. The court found that the accused had not been seen near the scene of the crime and that there was no evidence that he had absconded after the murders. 2. The court held that the discovery of the blood-stained knife and the stolen articles on information given by the accused was not sufficient to establish his guilt, as the information may have been extracted from him by coercion.
Final Decision: The court set aside the convictions and sentences passed on the accused under Sections 302 and 392, I. P. C., and convicted him under Section 201, I. P. C., and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years.
Subba Rao, C. J.
[1] The accused was convicted by the Sessions Judge, KurnooJ, under Sections 302 and 392, I. P. C. and sentenced to transportation for life under the first count and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under the second count.
[2] The following genealogy may be useful to appreciate the unfolding of the prosecution case. VENGAMMA (deceased) BALA VENKATA | | Pullamma (D. 1951) ------------------------- | | | | ----------------------------- Swamidas Thomas Roubbyn | | | (died May 1954) | Varmiah bhagyamma David Jeremiah (P.W. 5) (deceased) (Accused) Jayamma
[3] Vengamma and her granddaughter Bhagyamma, the two victims, were residents of Bhima-varam. The accused is a resident of Ayyavarikodur, which is about 2-1/2 miles from Bhiinavaram. P.W. 5, who originally belonged to Regadi Gudur, was residing, since his marriage, with his wife Bhagyamma in Bhimavaram. Vengamma owned property worth Rs. 50,000 or Rs, 60,000 and that property was being managed by the accused and his father Thomas till P.W. 5 became the son-in-law of Vengamma. Thereafter, they were not allowed freely into the house by the deceased Vengamma. The accused also discarded his first wife and was requesting Vengamma for financial aid to get himself married but she refused to help him. He was also under the impression that, in the event of David's death, he would be preferential heir to the estate of Vengamma and, therefore, harboured the idea of doing away with Vengamma and Bhagyamma and become the manager of the estate. With these motives, on the night of 18-9-1954, when P.W. 5 was away, he entered the house, murdered Vengamma and Bhagyamma, the former by strangling her and the latter by stabbing her and took away the mud pot containing money by removing it from the place where it was buried and also took away a pair of silver bangles from the body of Vengamma.
[4] Dr. K. Rajeswari who conducted the autopsy on the dead bodies of the two victims, found the following wounds on the body of Bhagyamma:
1. A lacerated irregularly cut edged wound right across the front portion of the neck extending 3 inches from the back of the right ear as far as 2-1/2 inches to the back of the left ear. Both the ends of the wound were tapering upwards to the occipital region. The wound is at the level of the IIIrd cervical vertebrae and it extends from the front part of the neck to the body of the cervical vertebrae, cutting through the naso pharyn all blood vessels and nerves on either side.
2. An irregular incised wound 2 inches x 1/2 inch x 1/10 inches on the right side of the neck below the end of the first injury.
3. An irregular abrasion 1 inch x 1/2 inch at the back of the left elbow.
4. Four abrasions 1/5 inch x 1/16 inch each on the outer surface of the right wrist joint.
5. Among the above four abrasions, there is a clean-cut wound 1/2 inch x 1/1.0 inch x 1/16 inch.
6. An abrasion 1/6 inch x 1/16 inch in the middle and inner part of the left fore-arm.
She is of the opinion that injuries 1, 2 and 5 could have been caused by a moderately sharp deadly weapon of the pattern of M.O. 4, that injury No. 3 could have been caused by contact with a rough surface and that injuries Nos. 4 and 6 could have been caused by scratching with nails. On the body of vengamma, she found the following injuries:
1. Four depressions like finger prints on the right side of the neck.
2. Five depressions like those of four fingers and a thumb on the left side of the neck. Both these were below the angles of the mandible.
3. Four abrasions 1/10 inch x 1/6 inch, 1/8 inch x 1/6 inch, 1/6 inch x 1/8 inch and 1/6 inch x 1/8 inch on the wind pipe (larynx) at the level of the fourth cervical vertebrae.
4. Diffused bluish contusions in front of the neck at the level of the third injury extending 1-1/2 inches away to the right side and 1-1/4 inch away to the left side of the middle line of the neck.
She was of opinion that Bhagyamma would have died of haemorrhage and shock probably due
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
