Kuratikar Sudhakar vs State Of A.P.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 404 OF 2008

KURATIKAR SUDHAKAR .... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH .... RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

S. A. BOBDE, J.

1. The appellant was acquitted by the Trial Court in respect of a charge

under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

IPC’) for the murder of two persons, one Kuratikar Laxman and one Kuratikar

Thukaram. In appeal filed by the State, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh

found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and accordingly

convicted and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.

2. According to prosecution Kuratikar Laxman (hereinafter referred to as ‘1 st

deceased’) and Kuratikar Thukaram (hereinafter referred to as ‘2 nd deceased’)

were father and son. The appellant and the deceased are residents of

Govindapur, Adilabad and were related to each other. The 1 st deceased used to

give medicine to the cattle for snakebite. The 2 nd deceased gave country-made

medicine to the cattle for any disease. About 15 days prior to the date of

incident, the father of the accused apparently became deranged and started Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Ramana Venkata Ganti

wandering in the village. Five months before the incident, the paternal aunt of Date: 2014.08.12 16:41:45 IST Reason:

the accused died of some disease; three years prior to the date of incident, the 2

grandfather of the accused and another relative died due to sickness. The

accused suspected that the above events happened because the 1 st deceased

practiced witchcraft and therefore the accused decided to do away with the

lives of deceased 1 and 2.

3. On the night intervening 13/14-06-2000, the accused found the deceased sleeping along with their family members in front of their house and

went there with an axe. He first hacked the 1 st deceased with an axe on his

throat and then struck the 2 nd deceased twice on his throat and caused severe

bleeding injuries. On hearing the sounds of attack, the complainant woke up

and witnessed the incident as well as saw the accused holding an axe in the

electric light. The accused then ran away on hearing the hue and cries raised

by the complainant. The complaint was lodged by the elder son of the 1 st

deceased on 14.06.2000 at about 8.00 a.m. The Sub Inspector of Police,

Asifabad, registered a crime for the offence under Section 302, IPC. Inquest

was conducted and bodies were sent for post mortem. The doctor opined that

both the deceased died due to hemorrhage and shock.

4. A charge sheet was accordingly filed. The Trial Court acquitted the

accused mainly on the grounds that there was a delay of 17 hours in lodging

the F.I.R.; the Asifabad Police took 9 hours in sending the F.I.R. to the Asifabad

Court. Also that P.Ws. 1 and 2 told D.W. 1 that some unidentified persons

killed both the deceased, as narrated by D.W.-1. According to the Trial Court,

the motive had not been established and further the evidence of P.W.-2, who

was wife of the 2nd deceased, shows that she was in sound sleep, and

therefore, it was not possible for that witness and another to get up and see 3

the accused running away in the light of a solitary lamp in the street and both

P.Ws. 1 and 2 could not have seen the accused, and that too from the back.

Thus, the evidence is suspicious and the prosecution had failed to prove guilt

of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accused was entitled for acquittal.

5. The High Court in Criminal Appeal, referred to the direct evidence of

P.Ws. 1 and 2, i.e. the son of the 1st deceased and the wife of the 2 nd deceased.

The High Court accepted that these were witnesses of truth, who had been

sleeping near the accused on their cots and woke up because of the sound of

hacking made by the axe of the accused. P.W. 1 had stated that he woke up

because of the sound and found the accused holding an axe and standing

between two cots of both deceased. P.W. 2 had categorically stated that on

hearing the sound of hacking made by the axe of the accused, she woke up

and saw the accused standing between the cots of her husband and her

father-in-law with an axe in his hand. The High Court rejected the contention

that because the motive cannot be discovered, the accused is entitled for acquittal since it was not always possible to ascertain the real motive. The

High Court observed that the actor may plan to do the act; though there may

be no evidence of the preparation. The High Court, however, observed that the

failure to discover the motive did not signify its non-existence.

6. The High Court observed that the father of the accused had started

wandering in the village due to madness and that in the cross examination of

P.W. 2 [wife of 2nd deceased] it was put to her that father-in-law (1 st deceased)

was practicing sorcery, which she denied. This strengthens the case of the

prosecution that the accused suspected that the 1 st deceased is responsible for 4

the ill health and madness of his father and therefore he bore a grudge against

the deceased.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

evidence on record. The learned counsel for the appellant heavily relied on the

statement of D.W. 1, that he was told by P.Ws. 1 and 2 that an unidentified

assailant had attacked the deceased. We fail to see how hearsay of a defence

witness could weaken the prosecution case or cast any doubt on the

depositions of the son and wife of the two deceased, who naturally woke up to

the sounds of hacking by the axe and saw the accused standing between the

two cots of the deceased and then saw him running away. These two are most

natural witnesses whose presence at the scene cannot be doubted, being

members of the family.

8. We have examined the depositions of these two witnesses and have

found nothing to discredit the said witnesses. P.W. 1 has clearly stated that he

got up on hearing the sounds of hacking by the accused with an axe and saw

the accused standing between the two cots of the deceased with an axe in his

hand. Further, when he tried to apprehend the accused he ran away along

with the axe, which he then threw on the roadside. The deposition of P.W. 2 is

similar and identical in material particulars. Depositions of P.Ws 1 and 2

remained unshaken in the prosecution examination. The medical evidence,

from the deposition of P.W. 7 [Dr. Anitha Rani], clearly establishes that the

injuries on the two deceased might have been caused by the same weapon.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued on the question of

delay in lodging the F.I.R. The High Court considered this question and found 5 that though the offence was committed in the night intervening

13/14-06-2000, the matter was reported to the police on 14 th June, 2000 at

about 8.00 a.m. The village was about 4 kilometers from the police station

and there was no evidence whether there was any road on which anybody

could have travelled at night and therefore lodging the report in the morning

cannot amount to delay. In any case, delay in registering F.I.R. is not fatal.

We agree with the above findings of the High Court. We find the contention of

the learned counsel for the respondent acceptable in this regard. Learne d

counsel for the respondent has referred to all the material evidence on record

to bring home the guilt of the accused.

10. On the evidence thus, we find that there is clear and unimpeachable

evidence on the basis of which the appellant/accused must be held guilty for

the murder of Kuratikar Laxman and Kuratikar Thukaram on the night

intervening 13/14-06-2000 under Section 302 IPC.

11. In the circumstances, we find there is no merit in the appeal and the

same is hereby dismissed.

............................................

........J. [DIPAK MISRA]

............................................

...J.

[S.A. BOBDE]

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 12, 2014 6

ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.2 SECTION II

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal No(s). 404/2008

KURATIKAR SUDHAKAR Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF A.P. Respondent(s)

Date : 12/08/2014 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of Judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Ms.Niranjana Singh, Adv. Mr.Ram Bhaj, Adv. Ms. Madhu Moolchandani ,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu ,Adv.

Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.A.Bobde pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dipak Misra and His Lordship.

The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

(G.V.Ramana) (Vinod Kulvi) Court Master Asstt.Registrar

(Reportable signed judgment is placed on the file)