Mondri Sreenu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1263 OF 2005

MONDRI SREENU ... APPELLANT(S)

:VERSUS:

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ... RESPONDENT(S)

ORDER

Appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and

order dated 12.10.2004 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad,

whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by him from a judgment and order

dated 21.12.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khammam in S.C.

No.143/2001 convicting the appellant herein for commission of an offence

punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to

undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100, in default to suffer

R.I. for one month, was dismissed.

The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.

2

The deceased Batta Chandramma is the mother-in-law of the appellant.

Appellant married her third daughter Bhadrakali sometime in 1990. A daughter

and a son were born to them. As appellant is said to have started harassing his wife

by beating and abusing her, she deserted him and went to her parents' house at

Chinthalagudem Village and started living with them. Appellant, thereafter,

married another woman. However, he came to Village Chinthalagudem where his

parents-in-law were residing, to live with them. But after 10 days he started

harassing his wife again. Batta Chandramma (the deceased) - mother-in-law of the

appellant allegedly used to quarrel with him and had asked him to leave the house.

On 19.10.1999, the deceased went to the agricultural field belonging to the

family and she did not return till evening. On enquiry, one B.P. Veraiah informed

the informant that he had seen the appellant in the fields and also heard some cries.

Pursuant thereto, Pitchaiah, Chinna Veeraiah, Barla Ram Babu and Degala

Veeraiah went to the fields in search of Chandramma. They found her dead body

lying in a pool of blood. Her sari was also tied around her neck. Accusing the

appellant as the person responsible for her death, a first information report was

lodged. Appellant was arrested at about 8.30 P.M. on 22.10.1999. He admitted his

guilt and confessed about the commission of the offence. He also made a disclosure

statement pursuant whereto a stick and a stone, which were said to have been used

in the commission of the offence, were recovered. The said articles were seized.

Appellant was produced before Shri R. Verra Reddy, Mandal Magistrate,

Dummugudem on 4.11.1999 and his confessional statement was recorded. 3

Before the learned Sessions Judge, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses.

We, however, need not deal with the depositions of all the prosecution witnesses.

Suffice it to point out that PW-1 (Batta Pitchaiah) - father-in-law of the appellant in

his deposition categorically supported the statements made in the first information

report before the S.H.O. of Bhadrachalam Police Station. PW-2 Bhadrakali, who is

the wife of the appellant, also supported the prosecution case. PW-3 Batta Pedda

Veeraiah and PW-4 Batta China Veeraiah, who were brothers of PW-1 and had

been working in the adjoining fields, deposed that they had seen appellant and the

deceased together. PW-3 categorically stated that whereas the deceased

Chandramma was sitting on 'Mancha' in her paddy field, the appellant (accused)

was standing near it and Chandramma was shouting at appellant. Thinking that the

same was a common affair between them, he went to his work. The evidence of PW-

4 is also to the same effect.

PW-5 Degala Veeraiah is a resident of Chinthalagudem Village. He in his

deposition categorically stated that on the date of incident, while he was grazing his

bulls at the pastures at about 1.00 P.M., he found the appellant going towards the

field of PW-1. He furthermore found the appellant coming back in a hurry at about

4.00 P.M.. He called him (appellant) but he did not give any reply to his call and

went away. On the same night he learnt that Chandramma was found dead in the

fields.

PW-6 Barla Raghavulu who is also a resident of Chinthalagudem Village, a 4

mason by occupation, in his evidence stated that 3 days after the death of

Chandramma, he saw the accused while he was talking to his brother at

Bhupathiraopeta Colony. When the accused was questioned, he confessed before

him that he killed his mother-in-law as she had not been allowing him to live with

his wife (PW-2). Appellant was caught by the said witness and then handed over to

the S.H.O., Bhadrachalam Police Station.

PW-7 K. Rajamma is said to be the second wife of the appellant. She came

to learn about the first marriage of the appellant one year after her marriage with

him. Thereafter, she left his company. According to her also, appellant used to beat

her after consuming alcohol.

One D. Motiya, who examined himself as PW-8, was residing in the house

adjacent to the house of the deceased. He also testified that the appellant used to

harass his wife PW-2 whereupon a Panchayat meeting was convened and the

appellant was chastised. He also deposed that after the meeting of the Panchayat,

appellant came to his in-laws' place and started living there. He also proved that

Chandramma used to harass and warn him to go out of the said house but he

continued to live there. Almost to the same effect is the evidence of PW-9. Both PW-

8 & PW-9 supported the prosecution case.

The learned Sessions Judge having regard to the aforementioned materials

brought on record by the prosecution found the appellant guilty of commission of 5

offence and recorded a judgment of conviction and sentence in the manner as

noticed hereinbefore.

The High Court on appeal preferred by appellant has affirmed the said

judgment of conviction and sentence.

Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

appellant would raise the following contentions in support of this appeal:

(1) That the recovery of stone having been made from an open place, no

reliance could have been placed thereupon by the Courts below.

(2) The evidence of PW Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6 could not have been relied upon by the

Courts below as it was wholly unbelievable that although they had been

working in the adjoining fields, but did not come to the rescue of the

deceased despite her cries.

(3) PW-1 - the informant in the first information report did not make any

statement as to how the death of the deceased took place and as such

prosecution must be held to have failed to prove its case.

(4) No reliance can be placed on the statement of the appellant purported to

have been made under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as no

requisite warning, before making the statement, that the same can be used

against him in the criminal case was given.

6

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand,

supported the impugned judgment.

The background fact in which the offence was alleged to have been

committed is not in dispute. The relationship between the parties is also not in

dispute. The fact that appellant had married PW-2 and they had been living

separately for a few years before he came to his parents-in-laws' house to live with

his wife has also not been disputed.

Out of those witnesses who had deposed in support of the prosecution case

for proving the guilt of appellant, not only PW-5, but also the second wife of the

appellant who are independent witnesses, to a large extent, supported the

prosecution case. The strained relationship between appellant and the deceased

must be held to have been proved. PW-2 who is the wife of the appellant, had

completely supported the prosecution case in that regard.

The prosecution case must also be considered from another angle. PW-6,

although is a resident of Chinthalagudem Village, who had been earning his

livelihood by working as a mason, used to visit Bhadrachalam. He found the

appellant talking with his brother at Bhupathiraopeta Colony at about 7.30 P.M. on

22.10.1999. Appellant made an extra judicial confession before him. The reason

that the deceased did not allow him to live with his wife (PW-2) was said to be the

reason for commission of the offence. It was at that point of time he caught hold of

appellant and handed him over to the S.H.O. of the Bhadrachalam Police Station. 7

Yet again in the Police Station, the appellant made a confession. Apart

from the Investigating Officer (PW-18), a confession was also made before PW-14

Yalam Kondal Rao, a resident of Bhadrachalam.

Appellant did not raise any contention that he did not make any extra

judicial confession or a confession before the Judicial Officer as also before the PW-

14. Indisputably, he was produced before the Mandal Officer. The investigation of

the case was taken up by PW-18 Devadas. He produced the appellant before the

Mandal Magistrate R. Veera Reddy on 4.11.1999. His statement was recorded

under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Ansar Ahmad

Chowdhary that PW-15 Veera Reddy did not comply with the provisions contained

in Section 164 Cr.P.C. may not be of much significance. Bhadrachalam falls within a

scheduled area in the State of A.P. The State of A.P., this Court can take judicial

notice, had not extended the provisions of the new Cr.P.C. to the scheduled areas of

the State of A.P. This fact would be evident from the fact that appellant was

examined in terms of Section 342 of old Cr.P.C. As there is no separation of the

Judicial and Executive Officers, appellant was produced before the Executive

Officer for recording his statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. As the provisions

of the old Code were applicable, the precautions which were required to be taken in

terms of Section 164 of the 1973 Code were not complied with. 8

Be that as it may, appellant never retracted the said confession. A

statement made by the accused under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is admissible in

evidence. Apart from the judicial confession, as noticed hereinbefore, the appellant

has also made extra judicial confession before PW-6.

PW-17 Dr. Jhansi Lakshmi, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital,

Bhadrachalam, who conducted the post-mortem over the dead body of

Chandramma, found the following ante-mortem injuries:

1. Lacerated wound 3 x 2 x 2 cms. over the forehead.

2. Loss of right eye-ball.

3. Lacerated would 3 x 4 x 1 cms. over dorsal aspect of left foot.

4. Lacerated would 3 x 1 x 1 cms. over left side of abdomen.

5. Abrasion 3 x 2 cms. over right elbow region.

6. Contusion 5 x 6 cms. on right temporal region.

7. Contusion 3 x 3 cms. over right cheek.

The said Dr. Jhansi Lakshmi was examined as PW-17. In her deposition

before the learned Sessions Judge, she categorically stated that those ante-mortem

injuries were possible to have been caused by a blunt object like stone or stick. She

found a fracture of ribs on the right side of the deceased, as a result of which a

laceration of the right lung was found to be present. She also found 300 CC fluids

blood in the right plural cavity, ligature mark on the neck of the deceased,

congestion and haemorrhage by the side of the ligature mark and sub-dural

haemotoma on right temporal region. In the aforementioned background, PW-1 9

had not been able to specifically state the cause of death and he must be held to be a

truthful witness. The exact cause of the death of the deceased, thus, in the

aforementioned situation could not have been certain to a layman, like PW-1 and

other witnesses.

It may be true that the stone was found in an open place. But unless and

until the site thereof was pointed out, as the Investigating Officer (PW-18)

categorically stated, he could not have identified the weapon which was used for

commission of the offence. It was found to be blood stained. Apart from the stone, a

stick was also pointed out by the appellant which led to its discovery.

It is, therefore, not a case where the Courts below could have totally

ignored recovery of the said articles. Furthermore, although not strictly admissible,

even a confession was made by appellant in the Police Station before PW-14 and one

Seetha Ramulu. Their statements before the Court are also now not in dispute.

Submission of the learned counsel for appellant that the 'last seen' theory

propounded by the prosecution cannot be relied upon, is, in our opinion, not of

much substance. It has not been denied or disputed that the brothers of PW-1,

namely, Batta Pedda Veeraiah (PW-3) and Batta China Veeraiah (PW-4) had lands

by the side of the land of the deceased and PW-1. PW-3 in his statement,

categorically stated that although appellant and the deceased were found to be

quarrelling with each other, he ignored the same as that had become almost a

routine affair. He came to know about non-return of the deceased from the field 10

only in the evening.

Furthermore, not only PW-3 and PW-4 but other prosecution witnesses

whose independence is not in question, also proved the presence of appellant near

the place of occurrence on the date of occurrence between 1.00 P.M. and 3.00 P.M.

According to the post-mortem report, that was the probable period during which

the offence is said to have been committed.

For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that there is no

merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly.

.....................J (S.B. SINHA)

.....................J (CYRIAC JOSEPH)

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 15, 2008.