MUKHERA BELAKOTA REDDI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Criminal Appeals are interconnected and so, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Criminal Appeal No. 846/90 was filed by the sole accused in Session Case No. 123/89 against his conviction u/S. 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentence of ten years Rigorous Imprisonment. He was charged for committing the offences punishable under Ss. 376, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. In respect of charges u/Ss. 302 and 201, IPC, he was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. Criminal Appeal No. 369 of 1991 was preferred by the State against that acquittal.

(3.) The version of the prosecution as to how the crime in question was committed, in brief, is as follows : The deceased Tulisamma, aged about 27 years, was the wife of P.W. 1 Boggula Jamala Reddy, who is a resident of Takkellapadu village. The accused Balakoti Reddy also belongs to the same village. Their houses are situated in the weaker sections colony of the village. The accused had two children and, the deceased had no children. Two months prior to 27-3-89, the date on which the deceased Tulisamma was alleged to have been murdered, the deceased informed her husband P.W. 1 that the accused in his absence visited their house and asked her to have sexual intercourse with him offering to pay Rs. 2,000.00 She then retorted saying that she would give Rs. 3,000.00 to him, if he were to send his wife to her husband for sexual intercourse. On 27-3-89 at about 8-30 a.m. P.W. 1 went to Ramannapalem, a neighbouring village, to fetch ground-nut seeds. The deceased locked the house and went to the chilli garden of P.W. 10 Nagi Reddy, to fetch grass for their milch buffalos. She took with her a sickle and a lungi for tying the grass. P.W. 2, a boy aged about 15 years and belonging to Dhobi caste, went along with his brother Appayya to the cotton field of P.W. 6 Mukkera Venkateswara Reddy, to work as a cooly for plucking cotton. P.W. 3 is one Madhusudan Rao. The lands of P.W. 3 Madhusudan Rao, P.W. 10 Nagi Reddy and P.W. 6 Venkateswara Reddy, are adjacent to each other. There is a water-pump fixed with an oil-engine at the field of Nagi Reddy. The water for P.W. 3's land also was being taken from the said water-pump. On the date of the incident P.W. 3 went to the field of Nagi Reddy P.W. 10 to release water for his lands. The accused came to Nagi Reddy's field on the morning of 27-3-89. He caught hold of the hands of the deceased Tulisamma saying that she was going with everybody but not with him, although he offered her money. The deceased Tulisamma retorted that she would give Rs. 3,000.00 to him, if he were to send his wife to her husband for sexual intercourse. Whereupon, the accused beat Tulisamma with the butt-end of the sickle on hands and legs. Seeing that incident P.W. 2 became panicky and sent his brother to bring P.W. 1, the husband of Tulisamma. The accused thereafter felled Tulisamma and committed rape on her. P.W. 2's brother returned and informed P.W. 2 that the house of the deceased was locked P.W. 3 who was present at the oil-engine of Nagi, Reddy, was requested by P.W. 2 to intervene, but he replied saying that if he were to intervene he would be killed. After the rape was committed, the accused came to the oil-engine shed and wore his underwear. P.W. 2 ran away to the village. The deceased Tulisamma got up with great difficulty, came near the engine-shed, and picked up a mud-pot for water. The accused then gave water to the deceased to drink. P.W. 4 who, was passing along that side saw the accused throwing the deceased into the well and when he questioned, the accused threatened to cut his neck if he disclosed this to anyone. P.W. 4 fearing his life ran away. P.W. 1 the husband of the deceased returned from Ramannapalem at about 2 p.m. and found his house locked. He waited for some time and sent to the chilli-garden of P.W. 10 Nagi Reddy, but did not find his wife there. In the evening at 5 or 6'O clock when he was lying on a cot in front of his house, P.W. 2 came and informed him that the accused had beaten the deceased. P.W. 1, P.W. 8 Mutha Reddy and some others went to the field of Nagi Reddy with torch lights and noticed at the well four or five small heaps of cut grass, broken bangle pieces and a safety pin. On the next day at about 7 a.m. in the morning P.W. 1, 8 and others went to the field of Nagi Reddy and found the dead body of the deceased floating in the well. The police were informed, the S.I. of Police Yerrupalem P.W. 13 received a telephone message at about 10-15 a.m. and after entering the same in the General Diary he rushed to the scene with Constable. At the scene of offence, the S.I. of Police found P.W. 1 and recorded his statement Ex. P1 at about 11 a.m. and sent it to the Police Station where it was registered by P.W. 12 Head Constable as FIR in Cr. No. 7/89. The FIR is Ex. P6. Information about the incident was sent to the Inspector of Police P.W. 14 by the Sub-Inspector P.W. 13 and after receiving the information the Inspector of Police, Madhira, reached the scene at 12 noon and conducted inquest from 12-30 to 3 p.m. At the inquest, he examined P.Ws.1, 3, 5 and others. Ex. P2 is the inquest report. The Inspector of Police, seized MOs. 1 to 5, broken bangle pieces, safety pin, blood-stained banian pieces, chappal and a cotton lungi at the inquest. The Inspector of Police got the water in the well pumped out. Under Ex. P3 mahazar, M.O. 6 the saree on the body of the deceased was seized and the body of the deceased was sent to the hospital for post-mortem examination. Dr. V. V. Rajeswari, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Madhira, conducted post-mortem on 29-3-89. Ex. P5 is the post-mortem certificate. The accused was arrested on 20-4-89. When he was questioned in the presence of P.W. 9 he produced M.O. 9 a torn banian from a handbag which was seized under the mahazar Ex. P4. The charge-sheet was filed on 15-7-89. The plea of the accused was one of denial. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the offence under S. 376 and sentenced him to a term of ten years' R.I. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 was believed by the learned Sessions Judge. The medical evidence, according to the learned Sessions Judge, corroborated the ocular evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3. The conduct of P.Ws 2 and 3 was not found to be abnormal in the particular circumstances by the learned Sessions Judge. Their presence at the scene of offence was properly accounted for. The conduct of P.W. 2 in not informing P.W. 1 the husband of the deceased about the sexual assault committed by the accused was not found to be abnormal in the circumstances. P.W. 2 was afraid of the accused and he was also afraid that if he were to reveal the incident of rape to P.W. 1, the latter might beat his wife the deceased Tulisamma. The conduct of P.W. 3 in not informing others about the incident was also found by the learned Session Judge as not casting any suspicion about his claim that he was present at the scene. The threat administered by the accused was found to be the cause that deterred P.W. 3 from disclosing the incident. As regards the charge u/Ss. 302 and S. 201, IPC, the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 4 on the ground that he did not disclose the same to anyone. He was not present at the inquest. His 161 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded only on 1-4-89. The belated testimony of P.W. 4 was found by the learned Sessions Judge to be unsafe for recording a conviction against the accused u/Ss. 302 and 201, IPC.