IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that consistent witness testimonies, even from a child, can substantiate charges of murder and domestic violence under IPC.

JUDGMENT :

K.Sreenivasa Reddy, J.

Sole accused in S.C.No.196 of 2015, on the file of the Court of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, is the appellant. He was tried and convicted by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Further he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The substance of the charge against the accused is as follows:

On 11.10.2014 at 08.20 a.m., in the house of the deceased, the accused caused death of the deceased by beating the deceased with a pestle on her head and further the deceased was subjected to cruelty.

3. Case of the prosecution as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is as follows:

(i) The accused and all the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Gonugur Village. The accused is the husband of the deceased. PW.1 is the mother of the deceased. PW.2 is the nephew of PW.1. PW.3 is the son of the deceased and accused. Marriage of the deceased was performed with the accused about 13 years ago. During their wedlock, they begot two children. After marriage, the accused and the deceased lived amicably till the death of parents of accused. Later, the accused started to harass the deceased. About a year back, accused demanded the deceased to give money to consume liquor. When she refused to give money, the accused picked up a pestle and beat the deceased on her head, as a result, the deceased sustained bleeding injury on her head and succumbed to the injury. PWs.2 and 3 witnessed the occurrence.

(ii) PW.9 was Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuppam police station, having received a report from PW.1, registered the same as a case in Crime No.136 of 2014, under Sections 302, 498-A IPC and issued express F.I.Rs. to all concerned officers. Ex.P6 is the F.I.R.

(iii) PW.10 was the Inspector of Police, Kuppam. On receiving information, he visited the scene of offence at the resident of complainant, found the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PWs.1, 2, 4 and others. During inquest, he examined the aforesaid witnesses and recorded their statements. Ex.P2 was the inquest report. PW.10 examined the scene of offence situated in the house of the deceased and prepared rough sketch. Ex.P7 was the rough sketch of the scene of offence.

(iv) PW.8 was the Civil Assistant Surgeon in Area Hospital, Kuppam, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found four (4) injuries on the deceased. Ex.P5 was the Post Mortem Certificate. According to Ex.P5, the deceased died of severe head injury due to assault about 12 hours prior to Post Mortem Examination.

(v) PW.10-Inspector of police, took up further investigation and on receiving credible information about movements of the accused, he arrested the accused on 13.10.2014 at about 06.30 a.m. After completion of investigation, PW.10 filed charge sheet.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P1 to P9 on behalf of the prosecution. M.O.s 1 to 6 were marked. Plea of the accused is one of the total denial.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Smt.A.Gayatri Reddy, submitted that except PW.3, there are no other eye witnesses to the alleged incident. She submitted that PW.3 is a child witness and much credence cannot be given to the evidence of a child. She further submitted that the alleged incident is said to have taken place on a spur of the moment, in which, in no way the accused can be convicted under Section 302 IPC. She submitted that in the absence of an