Abscondance indicates guilty mind.

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. The appellant herein was accused of killing none other than his daughter, by name Irfana Begum (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), aged about 18 years at 12.00 noon on 12.10.2007 in Telephone Colony, Nizamabad.

2. It was alleged that the accused was married to PW.1 and the couple had two sons, by name Arif, who has gone to Dubai for livelihood, and Rafi-PW.2, and one daughter, the deceased. The accused was said to be an auto-driver. PW.2 was a student, and the deceased was learning tailoring work. At the time of occurrence, the accused was said to be taking rest in their house, since one of his upper limbs were broken and he was operated upon.

On 12.10.2007 at about 1200 noon, PWs.1 and 2 are said to have gone to market to purchase provisions on the eve of ensuing festival, Ramzan, and in the house, the accused and the deceased were present. After returning home, PW.1 is said to have knocked the door and after quite sometime the accused opened the door, and his hands and clothes were stained with blood. Frightened on seeing the accused in that condition, PWs.1 and 2 are said to have gone inside the house and found the deceased in a pool of blood. She is said to have beaten by the accused with a big hammer on the head and with a sharp weapon. Several parts of her body are cut into pieces, and that the clothes on her were also torn.

3. On receipt of the information about the incident, the Sub-Inspector of Police – PW.12 rushed to the spot along with his staff, recorded the statement of PW.1, as Ex.P.1, registered Crime No.190 of 2007 under Sec.302 I.P.C., against the accused and took up the investigation. Scene of offence panchanama was drawn, inquest and post-mortem examination were conducted, and a charge-sheet was filed, alleging that the accused committed the murder of his daughter.

4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and numbered as S.C.No.327 of 2008. Before the trial Court, PWs.1 to 14 were examined, Ex.P.1 to P.12 were filed, and MOs.1 to 8 were taken on record. Though the evidence was recorded by the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizambad, the hearing of it was taken place before the Sessions Judge, Nizambad, as per the orders of this Court. Through its judgment dt. 24.09.2009, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence charged and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.200/-, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Hence this appeal by the accused.

5. Sri D.Raghava Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the allegations made against the accused are so unnatural, that one cannot just believe them. He contends that the accused was affectionate towards his family members, including the deceased, and making an allegation that such a person killed his daughter, that too in a gruesome manner, is beyond anybody’s comprehension. The learned counsel further submits that even according the prosecution witnesses the accused was taking rest after getting surgery to one of his limbs, and a person undergoing treatment cannot perpetrate such an act by lifting a heavy hammer. It is also his case that the deceased was none other than the daughter of the accused, and that the prosecution failed even to suggest or attribute any motive to the accused to kill his own daughter. The learned counsel further submits that the trial Court convicted the accused without properly appreciating the evidence on record.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the close relatives i.e., wife and son of the accused, have deposed as PWs.1 and 2, and stated that it is the accused, who committed the murder of the deceased. She submits that the accused and the deceased alone were inmates of the house, when PWs.1 and 2 went outside, and they have consistently stated that on repeated knocking of the doors, the accused opened the door, with blood on his hands and clothes.