VASA CHANDRASELHAR RAO Vs. PONNA SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the judgment of acquittal of the charge under S. 302, IPC passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The accused-respondent stood charged and was tried by the Sessions Judge, Eluru for the offence under S. 302, IPC, on the allegation that he committed the murder of his daughter Suneetha and his wife Padmavati. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under S. 302, IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. On appeal being carried, the High Court by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused of the charge under S. 302, IPC and instead convicted him under S. 498-A, IPC and for such conviction, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for three months. It is the order of acquittal recorded by the High Court of the charge under S. 302 which is being assailed by the State as well as by the father of the deceased Padmavati.

(2.) The prosecution case in nutshell is that the accused had married the deceased Padmavati in June, 1985 and out of the wedlock, a daughter deceased Suneetha was born. Initially the accused was staying with his parents but later on, shifted his family to Palakol and was earning his livelihood by doing tailoring work. On account of financial stringency, which the accused was facing, often he was harassing the deceased Padmavati and forcing her to get money from her parents. The accused was also suspecting the character of the deceased. While both of them were at Palakol, the mother of the deceased PW. 24 had come to look her daughter and when she reached the house of her daughter, she found that accused was torturing his wife Padmavati. Mother PW. 24, therefore brought her daughter to her own house where Padmavati gave birth to a female child Suneetha. The father of the deceased Padmavati PW. 19 made several efforts for the return of Padmavati to her matrimonial home but it never succeeded. Finally on 11-1-1991 P.Ws. 9 and 21 took the deceased Padmavati and her daughter to the house of the accused and left her there, while the parents of the accused PWs 1 and 2 were also present. After leaving Padmavati with the accused, both PWs. 9 and 21 left for their respective house at about 3 p.m. and at 6 p.m. P.W. 21 received a telephone message from P.W. 1 that the accused has murdered the deceased Padmavati and Suneetha inside the house. P.W. 21, therefore rushed to the place of occurrence, after picking up PW. 9 on the way and found the dead bodies of the deceased. A knife M.O. 4 was also lying near the dead bodies of the deceased. At that point of time P.W. 1 also informed that the accused has murdered the two deceased persons. P.W. 1 also gave a report at the Police Station that the accused has murdered his wife and daughter and it is further case of the prosecution that the accused himself made a confession that he murdered the two deceased persons. On the basis of the First Information Report Exh. P-5, the police registered a case and took up investigation. The accused was arrested and there were some seizure of bloodstained clothes Exh. P34. The knife M.O. 4 was also seized. The dead bodies were sent for post-mortem examination and ultimately, on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer P.W. 25. On the basis of the evidence of the doctors PWs. 5 and 6, who had conducted the postmortem examination over the dead bodies of the deceased persons and the postmortem reports Exh. P15 and P16, it has been held that the deceased had died on account of injuries received by them and the injuries were anti-mortem in nature and death is homicidal. This conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge on the basis of materials already indicated was never assailed in appeal. Though the prosecution examined a large number of witnesses, including the parents of the deceased PWs. 1 and 2, who are supposed to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence, but PWs. 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 23 did not support the prosecution case during trial and, therefore, they were cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. Since the eye-witnesses PWs. 1 and 2 did not support the prosecution case during trial, the learned Sessions Judge, relying upon the circumstantial evidence, convicted the accused of the charge under S. 302, IPC. The circumstances relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge are:

(3.) On these circumstances proved by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge came to hold that the charge of murder under S. 302 has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the accused of the said charge and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.