BATTINA GOVINDAMMA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the Public Prosecutor. The accused are three ladies and closely related to each other. A1 is daughter-in-law of A2 and A3 is daughter of A2. They were accused of having committed murder of Battina Mutyalu on 9th June, 1997 at about 10-00 a.m., in the house of the deceased. They are charged with offences under Sections 449, 341 and 302 read with 34 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and were tried. The learned Sessions Judge convicted them under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of fine they to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. They were also convicted under Section 449 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine they have to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) Prosecution examined 10 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents. The case of the prosecution was based primarily on the testimony of PW1 who was projected as eye-witness coupled with two dying declarations allegedly having been made by the deceased before a Magistrate and also before a police officer. The trial Court did not believe that PW1 was an eye-witness and rejected her evidence on the ground that she had only been projected as eye-witness by the police as an after thought. However, the trial Court believed the dying declaration and based the conviction on those dying declarations. The reasons given by the trial Court for rejecting the evidence of PW1 are cogent. In the first place it is pointed out that in one of the dying declarations (Ex.P22) the deceased had himself stated that when the occurrence took place, nobody other than him and the accused persons was present in the house. The trial Court also found that the PW1 being the mother of the deceased was not even available at the house at the time of inquest. She was also not found at the hospital. She did not accompany the deceased to the hospital. Therefore, there was strong suspicion as to whether PW1 was present at the time of occurrence. We do not find any reason to upset this finding of the learned Sessions Judge.

(3.) Now, there remain two dying declaration, on the basis of which the accused have been convicted. Mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants-accused contends that both the dying declarations cannot be relied upon for conviction as they cannot inspire confidence of the Court. He challenges the reliability of the dying declarations mainly on two grounds. Firstly he contended that in both the dying declarations contradictory statements have been made by the deceased as to the actual occurrence and there are also contradictions with respect to the role allegedly played by different accused persons. Secondly, he contended that, admittedly even according to the prosecution the occurrence had taken place at 10-00 a.m., on 9th June, 1997, the deceased had been taken to hospital by 12-00 noon, both the dying declarations were recorded between 12-00 noon and 1-00 p.m., and the deceased died at 10-00 p.m. The Doctor who conducted post-mortem had found 100 ml undigested liquid rice particles in the stomach of the deceased, the doctor was sure that the food would have been taken by the deceased 4 hours prior to his death, that means the deceased had taken food that too rice after recording dying declaration in the hospital, this has not been explained by the prosecution.