Harijana Peddinti Erikalanna vs State Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A. P. , Hyderabad

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(AP) 588

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, P. KESHAVA RAO, JJ.
Harijana Peddinti Erikalanna - Appellant
Vs.
State Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and Another - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 598 of 2013
Decided On : 27-07-2018

Advocates Appeared:
Nargis Afshan Khan, Adv.

Headnote:
Criminal Law – Criminal Trial – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Criminal Produce Code, 1973 – Section 209 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 154 – Offence of Murder – Appeal against conviction – Accused is the husband of the deceased. P.Ws.1 to 5 are residents of Rani Nagar, Anantapur house of accused and deceased are situated nearby the house of P.Ws.1 and 2. According to PW.1 on the date of incident at about 3.00 a.m., on hearing cries of deceased, he woke up and saw the accused inflicting injury with a pestle on head of deceased – Then himself, P.Ws.2 and 3 telephoned to 108 Ambulance and then shifted the deceased in that Ambulance to Government General Hospital, Anantapur. It is said that the accused used to suspect the character of his wife Sreedevi and because of which he must have killed her. On the fateful day at about 8.00 a.m., while P.W.12 the S.I. of Police was in police station, received intimation from the Hospital about admission of the injured. Ex.P-10 is the said intimation. At the same time, P.W.1 also went to the police station and made an oral statement, which was reduced into writing – Ex.P-1 is the said statement, which contains the signature of P.W.1. Basing on Ex.P-1, P.W.12 registered a case in Cr.No.68 of 2007 under Section 307 IPC and dispatched the same to all concerned. Ex.P-17 is the FIR – On same day at about 9.00 a.m., the injured succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment in the Hospital. On receipt of death intimation from the Hospital, P.W.4 altered the section of law to one under Section 302 IPC – Held, situation would have been different had the prosecution availed its right under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and cross-examined the witnesses, meaning thereby that if witnesses of this nature, are declared hostile by the prosecution and cross-examined, their evidence in chief can be made use of, to connect the accused with the crime – even in the cross-examination, which took place on 05.03.2010, P.W.1 never went back on his signature in Ex.P-1. It may be true that the First Information Report by itself is not a substantial piece of evidence, but in the given set of circumstances, definitely it can be used to test the veracity of the witness. It is to be noted that the evidence in chief of P.Ws.1 and 2 gets corroboration from the medical evidence in all aspects. The injury said to have been inflicted by the accused with a pestle finds place in the post-mortem certificate, issued by P.W.8. Hence, we feel that the version of these two witnesses in their cross-examination cannot be given any importance – Apex Court in Javed Masoods case and Division Bench of this Court in Dudekula Rasools case categorically observed that situation would have been different had prosecution availed its right under Section 154 of Evidence Act and cross-examined witnesses, meaning thereby that if witnesses of this nature, are declared hostile by prosecution and cross-examined, their evidence in chief can be made use of, to connect the accused with crime – In Pubi Satyanarayana alias Satteyya v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1994) 2 ALT 172 a Division Bench of this Court came down heavily on the practice of the defence seeking deferment of cross-examination with a view to manage prosecution witnesses and make them resile from their earlier statements during the cross-examination – Said judgment does not indicate as to whether witnesses were declared hostile. In the said case, Division Bench condemned such practice and observed that in such cases, proceedings for perjury should be initiated against person concerned – Having regard to above, we feel that the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 in cross-examination has to be eschewed from consideration and their evidence in chief which gets corroboration from other evidence, as referred to by us earlier can be made basis to convict accused – Criminal Appeal dismissed. (Paras 23 to 26)

JUDGMENT :

C. Praveen Kumar, J.

The sole accused in Sessions Case No. 728 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C) Anantapur, is the appellant herein. He was tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, for causing the death of his wife Harijana Sreedevi (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) on 27.04.2007 at 3.00 a.m., in his house in Ferror colony, Rani Nagar, of Anantapur. By its judgment dated 03.06.2010, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default, to suffer imprisonment for a period of one month.

2. The facts in issue are as under:-

The accused is the husband of the deceased. P.Ws.1 to 5 are the residents of Rani Nagar, Anantapur. The house of the accused and deceased are situated nearby the house of P.Ws.1 and 2. According to PW.1 on the date of incident at about 3.00 a.m., on hearing the cries of deceased, he woke up and saw the accused inflicting injury with a pestle on the head of the deceased. Then himself, P.Ws.2 and 3 telephoned to 108 Ambulance and then shifted the deceased in that Ambulance to Government General Hospital, Anantapur. It is said that the accused used to suspect the character of his wife Sreedevi and because of which he must have killed her. On the fateful day at about 8.00 a.m., while P.W.12 the S.I. of Police was in police station, received intimation from the Hospital about the admission of the injured. Ex.P-10 is the said intimation. At the same time, P.W.1 also went to the police station and made an oral statement, which was reduced into writing. Ex.P-1 is the said statement, which contains the signature of P.W.1. Basing on Ex.P-1, P.W.12 registered a case in Cr.No.68 of 2007 under Section 307 IPC and dispatched the same to all concerned. Ex.P-17 is the FIR. On the same day at about 9.00 a.m., the injured succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment in the Hospital. On receipt of death intimation from the Hospital, P.W.4 altered the section of law to one under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P-18 is the altered FIR. Further investigation was conducted by the C.I. of police, who was examined as P.W.11. According to him, on receipt of a copy of the altered FIR, he proceeded to the scene of offence along with his staff and mediators. He prepared a panchanama of the scene at 1.30p.m. and also a rough sketch of the scene, which is marked as Ex.P-12. The said panchanama and the sketch of the scene were said to have been prepared in the presence of P.Ws.7and 9. During the said process, he seized M.os.1 to 4 under Ex.P-13, the seizure mahazarnama. He then visited the mortuary of the Government General Hospital, Anantapur, secured the presence of P.Ws.1 to 4, 6, 7 and 9 and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P-14 is the inquest report. After completion of inquest, he sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. P.W.8, who is the Professor in Forensic Medicine in Government Medical College, Anntapur conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P-17the Post Mortem certificate. On 10.05.2007 at about 8.00 a.m., P.W.11 arrested the accused near Meda Diesel bunk on Gooty road, Anantapur and sent him to remand on the same day. After obtaining the RFSL reports, which are marked as Exs.P-15 and P-16, he filed charge-sheet, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.141 of 2007 by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Anantapur, who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Division under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., which came to be numbered as S.C.No.728 of 2007.

3. Basing on the material available on record, a charge under Section 302 IPC came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-18 and MOs.1 to 7. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(AP) 588

Cases Referred (1)