PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. BOJJA UPPARA MUTHYALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the State against the acquittal of Bojja Uppara Muthyalu, the sole accused, who had been charged with murder of his wife I akshmamma. The prosecution case is that on 6th September, 1958, at about 6-30 P.M., in a field called "Chakalavani Chenu" near the village of Gooty-Anantapur which is about a mile from Gooty, the accused caused injuries to the deceased Lakshmamma with M.O. 1, a sickle, and brought about her death. The accused and the deceased were married about six years prior to the occurrence. They lived in the same house where his elder brother Bojja Narayana (P.W. 1), his mother Uppara Narayanamma (P.W. 2) and his niece (P.W. 4), i.e., the daughter of P.W. 1 lived. The accused suspected that his wife was on intimate terms with one Chakala Veranna and on that account there used to be frequent quarrels between the husband and wife. At about 3 P.M. on the date of the occurrence, the accused and the deceased started from their house in a double bullock cart to their fields to get fuel. He was seen carrying a sickle in his hand and both the accused and the deceased Lakshmamma were seen while going by P.Ws. `1 2 and 5, viz., his brother, mother, and enother neighbour respectively. The accused and the deceased were also seen in the field loading fuel by Golla Jangam Ramaiah (P.W. 6) at about sun-set time. Chakali Chinna Govindappa (P.W. 7) also saw them putting fuel in a cart in their field on that day. It was thereafter found that the accused and the deceased did not return to their house that night. According to the prosecution, at about 8 P.M., one Lalireddi and Kummara Narayana informed Bojja Narayana (P.W. 1), the brother of the accused, that the accused had killed the deceased. It may here be mentioned that these two persons have not been examined. It is said that P.W. 1 could not go to the field that night because it was raining heavily. It is only the next morning that P.W.1 went to the field, saw the dead body of Lakshmamma and while returning gave the Village Munsif (P.W. 11) a report (Exhibit P-1) at about 8 A.M. The Village Munsif also went to the field and saw the dead body. He found a number of foot-prints near the dead body and without distubing those foot-prints made arrangements to preserve them and sent express reports (Exhibits P-2 and P-3) to the Magistrate and the police. The Sub-Inspector of Police who arrived at the scene of offence on 7th September, 1958, held the inquest at 3 KM. that day and examined P.Ws. 1, 4 and 5. The Sub-Inspector found the deceased clutching a piece of cloth (M.O.5). He thereafter seized a shirt (M.O.2) from the house of the accused and found M.O.5 correspond to the torn portion of M.O.2. But it may be observed that the shirt (M.O. 2) has not been identified as the shirt of the accused. This Sub-Inspector, however, was not examined as he was not available. The Circle Inspector of Police (P.W.20) reached the village at 5-30 P.M. on 9th September, 1958 and took over investigation and exanined all the material witnesses that night.

(2.) The accused was absconding and could be arrested only on I4th September, 1958, in a hillock near the vi lage called Thondapadu which is five miles from Gooty-Anantapur. At the time of the arrest the accused was wearing M.O.4 a dhoti, and M.O.3 a rowel. These were seized as they contained washed blood-stains. What the accused stated when questioned by the Circle Inspector had been recorded in Exhibit P-7 of which Exhibit P-6 is the admissible portion of that statement. In this the accused gave the information that he buried the sickle (M.O.1). The accused took the Circle Inspector to a place 100 yards from the scene of occurrence and took out the sickle (M.O.1) which was buried under the sand near a palm tree.

(3.) The accused was remanded to judicial custody from 15th September, 1958 and on 19th September, 1958, he was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gooty, (P. W.15) for the purpose of recording his section 164 statement. The Magistrate gave the accused all the prescribed warnings on 19th September, 1958 and questioned him in accordance with the provisions of section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, and rule 85 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. The Magistrate sent the accused back to judicial custody and gave him time to reflect till 22nd September, 1958. When the accused was brought back from judicial custody, the Magistrate warned the accused and again questioned him. As the Magistrate believed that the accused was making a voluntary statement, he recorded the confession of the accused which is marked as Exhibit P-io. The accused, however, denied having made any confession even in the committal Court. In his statement before the Sessions Court, the accused denied the offence and did not explain any circumstances against him. At the trial a feeble attempt was made bv the accused to make it appear that he was of unstable mind. Under orders of the Sessions Court, the accused was therefore placed from 2nd May, 1959 to nth May, 1959, in the Headquarters Hospital, Anantapur, under observation. The doctor (C.W. 1) found that there was nothing wrong with the accused as he did not exhibit any signs of any mental disease and that he was of the opinion that the accused is capable of making his defence in the case.