SHAIK MASTAN VALI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant questioning his conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) and sentence of imprisonment of life and fine of Rs. 30,000/- with default stipulation.

(3.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: Adivamma (PW-1) is the mother and Mandapate Rullaiah (PW-2) is brother of Nagandla Pichamma (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) brother of the deceased. The deceased, the accused and the other material witnesses lived in Martur. The deceased belonged to Byneedi Madiga by caste, whereas the accused belongs to Muslim community. The deceased was a deserted lady and she developed illicit intimacy with the accused and gave birth to a female child. She was residing in a thatched house situated adjacent to her parents house. During the lifetime of deceased, the accused used to harass and beat the deceased suspecting her fidelity. On 31.10.1998 at about 9 p.m., while the deceased was watching the T vs. programme in the house of Venkata (PW3, the accused came there and on seeing her the accused became wild and brought the deceased by beating with hands and took up to his house. On the next day morning, PW1 went to the house of the deceased and found that the deceased dead and she was lying on the cot. PW1 found ligature marks on her throat and around the neck of the deceased. On hearing the hue and cry of PW 1, the neighbours gathered at the scene of offence. Thereafter, late M. Polaiah, father of the deceased, went to the police station and gave an oral report to the S.I. of Police at about 3.30 p.m., which was reduced in writing under Ex. P5. On the basis of Ex. P-5, PW6 registered a case in Cr. No. 102 of 1998 under Section 302, IPC and issued FIR Ex.P6. Thereafter, PW6 visited the scene of offence, prepared scene of observation report Ex. P2 and seized MO.1 to MO.3 in the presence of PW4 and another. Then PW6 examined PWs 1 to 3, 5 and others and recorded their statement. On 02.11.1998 at about 8 a.m., PW8 C.I of Police conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW4 and another. Ex. P-3 is the inquest report. On 02.11.1998 itself, Civil Assistant Surgeon at Government Hospital, Addanki (PW 7) conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia caused by strangulation with ligature. Ex. P-8 is the post-mortem report. On 11.11.1998, the accused surrendered before the court. After completion of investigation, PW 8 filed the charge-sheet. On receipt of the committal order by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki, the learned Special Sessions Judge for Cases under SCs and STs (P.A.) Act, 1989, Ongole took the case on file in SC No. 71/99 on its file and ultimately the accused was put up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, charged of the offence under section 302, I.P.C. or alternatively under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( in short the SCST Act). The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined PW 1 to PW 8 and marked Exs. P1 to P8 and MOs. 1 to 8. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of defence. Accused pleaded innocence. Placing reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 i.e. mother and the brother of the deceased respectively, the trial court recorded his conviction. Since it was a case which was based on circumstantial evidence, the trial court took note of several circumstances to fasten the guilt on the accused. Though he was found not guilty of offence under Section 3, he was acquitted of charges for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(2)(5) of the SCST Act. In appeal the High Court affirmed the conclusions. The High Court took note of the fact that the witnesses have seen accused dragging the deceased to the hut in the night. Next day morning the deceased was found dead. This, according to the prosecution version, is sufficient to fasten the guilt in the absence of any explanation by the accused at about his absence thereafter. This stand was accepted by the trial court.