Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 364
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, B. Krishna Mohan, JJ.
Kechachala Lachi Reddy, Rajahmundry - Appellant
Versus
P.P., Hyd - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 540 of 2015
Decided On : 20-05-2020
B. Paramesewara Rao, Advocate
In cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove all the incriminating facts and circumstances and the circumstances which are incompatible with the innocence of the accused to draw an inference of guilt. The evidence should be tested by the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by the Supreme Court.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - SOLE CHARGE - SOLE ACCUSED - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - EVIDENCE - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES - INFERENCE OF GUILT - INTENTION TO KILL - HEAT OF PASSION - SUDDEN PROVOCATION - OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 304 PART-II IPC - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was found guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for hacking his wife to death with a curved knife. The incident occurred after a dispute arose between the couple due to the accused's suspicion of his wife's infidelity. The accused was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000. He appealed the conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including eyewitness testimony, extrajudicial confession, and circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the court also found that the accused did not have the intention to kill his wife and that the offense committed fell within the exceptions to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the accused had the intention to kill his wife. 3. Whether the offense committed by the accused fell within the exceptions to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including eyewitness testimony, extrajudicial confession, and circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the accused was the only person who could have caused the fatal injury to his wife and that there was no evidence to suggest that anyone else was involved. 2. The court found that the accused did not have the intention to kill his wife. The court noted that the accused had no history of violence and that the incident occurred in the heat of passion after a sudden provocation. 3. The court held that the offense committed by the accused fell within the exceptions to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC. The court found that the accused did not have the intention to kill his wife and that the offense was committed in a sudden fit of rage.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence for murder under Section 302 IPC and instead convicted the accused of the offense punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.
JUDGMENT
M.Satyanarayana Murthy, J. - The accused/appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "I.P.C.") in Sessions Case No.271 of 2014 vide judgment, dated 22.5.2015, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. Aggrieved by the calendar and judgment imposing conviction and sentence on 22.5.2015, the present appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C.").
2. The appellant is the sole accused who faced trial for the sole charge under Section 302 I.P.C. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Kechchala Lakshmi, W/o.K.Latchi Reddy (hereinafter, referred to as "the deceased") married one Kadaru Rama Krishna of Gokavaram Village about 16 years prior to the incident. She was blessed with a daughter and a son during their wedlock but due to disputes, about three years prior to the incident, she separated from her husband Rama Krishna and returned to her maternal house at Busigudem Village along with her children. The children are studying in a Government School by staying in the Government Hostel where as Latchi Reddy, the accused/appellant, is also a native of Busigudem Village. Prior to his marriage with the deceased, he married twice. His first wife died due to ill-health. His second wife deserted him and married another person. Later, he developed illicit intimacy with the deceased Kechchala Lakshmi and for the last one and a half years prior to the incident, they have been living as wife and husband by attending coolie work. About two months prior to the incident, he developed suspicion about the chastity of the deceased Lakshmi. Thereupon, disputes arose between them and the matter was placed before the village elders. The elders admonished the accused and advised the couple to lead marital life but he did not mend his attitude. On 30.7.2012, at about 3:00 P.M., the accused and the deceased returned home after attending coolie work. Again, the accused/appellant raised a dispute and an altercation took place between them. Consequently, he grew wild and picked up a curved knife (kondapodu) available in the house and furiously hacked on her throat and caused a grave bleeding injury. Immediately, she fell down in the room of their thatched house and died on the spot.
Hearing the screams of the deceased, Kathula Bhumireddy (P.W.4), who is a neighbour, rushed there and witnessed the accused coming out of the house with a blood stained knife in his hand. On seeing P.W.4, the accused stated that he hacked Lakshmi and escaped from the scene of offence with knife. Immediately, P.W.4 went to the house of Chavala Trimurthula Reddy (P.W.2), who is the brother of the deceased Lakshmi, and informed about the incident. Immediately, P.W.2 rushed to the house of the accused and found the dead body of deceased Lakshmi lying in a pool of blood. On hearing the screams of the deceased, Kattula Mangamma (L.W.9), Chedala Puttamma (L.W.10), Budamala Venkata Reddy (L.W.11), Budamala Sanyasi Reddy (L.W.12) (not examined as witnesses), who are neighbours of the accused, learnt about the commission of the offence and saw the dead body at the scene of offence. Later, Budemala Pandamma (P.W.3), who is the sister of the deceased, Chavala Akkamma (L.W.5 - not examined), who is the paternal aunt of the deceased, Bantukula Bullamma (L.W.6 - not examined), who is the maternal aunt of the deceased, Bantukula Narasimha Reddy (L.W.7 - not examined), who is the cousin of the deceased, and Chavala Sanjeeva Kumari (L.W.8 - not examined), who is the daughter of the deceased, also came to know about the incident and saw the dead body at the scene of offence i.e., in the house of the accused. P.W.2 went to Gorla Guna Bhushanam (P.W.1), who i
