IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C. Praveen Kumar, Ravi Nath Tilhari, JJ.
TANIKONDA PETURU, RAJAHMUNDRY – Petitioner
Versus
P.P., HYD – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1075 of 2014
Decided On : 06-01-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – 302 and 324 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 161,207,209 and 313 - Quarrels between parties – Murder - Accused is husband, PW1 and PW2 are daughters, and PW3 is son, of deceased, PW4 is brother-in-law of accused, PW5 is sister of deceased, and PW6 is a resident of same area - Marriage between accused and deceased took place about 25 years ago - Accused was working as Lorry Cleaner - PW1 and PW2 along with family members used to live in village - It is said that during said period, accused used to consume alcohol and demand money from deceased apart from beating and abusing her - About eight years ago, deceased along with her children came back to Guntur, but accused did not join them - Three years later, the accused also joined them in Guntur and all of them were residing in house of their paternal aunt, by name,[PW5] - It is said that accused was suspecting character of his wife [deceased] and as such there were quarrels between them - It is to be noted that, at the time of incident, the deceased was residing in a portion of the house of PW5 as tenant - Whether prosecution was able to bring home guilt of accused beyond doubt.
Finding of the Court:
When the opinion given is not inconsistent with the probability of the case, the court cannot discard the credible direct evidence otherwise administration of justice is to depend on opinionative evidence of medical expert - Medical jurisprudence is not an exact science with precision; but merely opinionative - In the case in hand, contradictions pointed out between the oral and medical evidence are not so grave in nature that can prove fatal to prosecution case - Use which defense can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye-witnesses - Unless, medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in manner alleged by eyewitnesses, testimony of eye-witnesses cannot be thrown out on ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence.
Result : Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
C.Praveen Kumar, J.
1. The sole accused in Sessions Case No. 403 of 2013 on the file of Sessions Judge, Guntur, is the appellant herein. He was tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code [‘I.P.C.’], for causing the death of one Tanikonda Venkayamma [‘Deceased’] with a pestle on her head on 15.02.2012. By its Judgment, dated 28.03.2014, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.
2. The facts, as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, are as under :
(i) The accused is the husband, PW1 and PW2 are the daughters, and PW3 is the son, of the deceased, PW4 is the brother-in-law of the accused, PW5 is the sister of the deceased, and PW6 is a resident of the same area.
(ii) The marriage between the accused and deceased took place about 25 years ago. The accused was working as Lorry Cleaner. PW1 and PW2 along with family members used to live in Tadepalli. It is said that during the said period, the accused used to consume alcohol and demand money from the deceased apart from beating and abusing her. About eight years ago, the deceased along with her children came back to Guntur, but, the accused did not join them. However, three years later, the accused also joined them in Guntur and all of them were residing in the house of their paternal aunt, by name, Sundaramma [PW5]. It is said that the accused was suspecting the character of his wife [deceased] and as such there were quarrels between them. It is to be noted that, at the time of incident, the deceased was residing in a portion of the house of PW5 as tenant.
(iii) On the date of incident, the deceased requested PW5 to lend some money. PW5 replied stating that, she has no money, on which, the deceased went back and slept in her portion of the house. On the next day morning, the deceased came with injuries over head and her right eye. When enquired as to how she received injuries, she informed PW5 that during night time, the accused demanded money for consuming alcohol and when she said she has no money, the accused assaulted her with a pestle. Immediately, PW5, PW4 and PW1 [daughter of deceased] took the deceased to Government Hospital, Guntur, for treatment. On 10.04.2012 PW1 informed PW2 requesting her to come to hospital as her mother [deceased] sustained injuries.
(iv) On receipt of the admission of the injured in the hospital, the Head Constable proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured, who was undergoing treatment. He then came back to the Police Station and registered a case in Crime No. 59 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. Ex.P6 is the original First Information Report, while Ex.P5 is the statement of the injured [deceased].
(v) PW9 – the Inspector of Police identified the signature of the Head Constable on Ex.P5 and also identified the First Information Report [Ex.P6] issued by the Head Constable basing on the signature of the Head Constable. On receipt of a copy of Ex.P6, PW9 took up investigation on the same day i.e., 10.02.2019 at 9.00 p.m. and visited Government General Hospital, Guntur, where he examined the injured and recorded her statement. The deceased is said to have stated that her husband is Peturu and she is working in Municipal Corporation. She has two daughters and one Son. According to her, her husband [accused] used to suspect her character and beat her. Ex.P7 is the statement of the deceased said to have been recorded by PW9. He also recorded the statement of PW1 on the same day in hospital.
(vi) From there, PW9 went to the scene of offence, which is the house of deceased and prepared an observation report in the presence of PW7, which is marked as Ex.P1. He also prepared a rough sketch of the scene prepared, which is marked as Ex.P8. At the scene, he examined PW4 to PW6. While taking treatment, the deceased died on 15.02.2012. On receipt of the deat
State of Haryana v. Bhagirath and others
State of Haryana v. Bhagirath & Ors.
Evidence - In any event unless the oral evidence is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, it has primacy."
Dying declaration - Corroboration from the oral dying declarations made by the deceased, coupled with the evidence of Doctor.
Peritonitis as defined in medical dictionary is as under: “inflammation of the peritoneum, typically caused by bacterial infection either via the blood or after rupture of an abdominal organ”.
Dowry death – Conviction upheld - Prosecution succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court rightly convicted the appellant.
Murder – Non-examination of Doctor who conducted autopsy on dead body of deceased and who prepared post-mortem report is not fatal to case of prosecution.
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC based on credible eyewitness accounts and a reliable dying declaration, establishing the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Merely because, some superficial burn injuries were present on the fingers of the accused, it does not lead to any irresistible conclusion that he made efforts to put off the flames.
The court clarified the legal position regarding the admissibility of dying declarations and the interpretation of Explanation II to Section 299 IPC in cases of culpable homicide.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.