GOLUGURI VENKAYAMMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the sole accused against the judgment of the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, dt. 29-3-1990 in S.C.No. 290/89. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The deceased D.Bullemmai, aged about 70 years and the accused are residents of Arthamuru village. The house of the accused is adjacent to the house of the deceased. There is a backyard between their houses blocked with a fencing errected with bamboo and casurina tree poles covered by a gunny cloth. On the date of the offence i.e., on 17-10-87 between 3.30 and 7.00 p..m. some unknown offenders entered the house of the deceased and murdered her by causing multiple injuries and committed theft of gold ornaments and escaped with the property. On the day of offence, P.W.3 sent food to the deceased through P.W.2. P.W.2 on reaching the house of the deceased found the dead body of the deceased lying on a cot with bleeding injuries and the ornaments missing on her person. He immediately returned to his house and informed P.Ws. 1 and 3 P.Ws. 1 and 3 rushed to the spot and found the deceased lying dead on the cot with injuries. Later P.W.1 informed the police and the police registered a crime under Sections 302 and 380 IPC. During the course of investigation, the Inspector of Police, P.W.10 observed the scene of offence. That observation revealed that the family members of the accused might have murdered the deceased as there is no possibility for others to enter the house of the deceased through the southern door of her house without the notice of the accused. The accused also gave a confessional statement leading to the discovery of the gold ornaments. The Inspector of Police seized those ornaments in the presence of mediators, arrested the accused and sent her for remand. P.W.3 also identified one gold patteda as that of the deceased in an identification parade. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 10 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-17and M.Os.1 to 11. The accused denied the offence and she also denied the recovery of gold ornaments. The lower Court after considering the entire evidence on record held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 302 IPC as there was no sufficient proof to show that the accused removed the ornaments from the body of the deceased after killing her. The lower Court however held that as the accused was in possession of M.Os.1 to 3, the prosecution was successful in proving the guilt of the accused under Section 411 IPC. Hence, the lower Court punished the accused only under Section 411 IPC by inflicting the punishment of two years R.I. against that the present appeal is filed.

(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the articles which were recovered from the accused are common articles and it cannot be said that they are stolen articles. But it should be noted that a person who is well acquainted with any article can pick up the same even if ten other similar items are mixed up with it. In this case an identification parade was held by mixing M.O.1 with similar ornaments and P.W.3 identified M.O.1 as the ornament of the deceased. Also the accused could not give satisfactory explanation as to how she was in possession of M.Os.1 to 3. According to the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 10, it is the accused who went inside her house and picked up a cloth bundle from the hole of a wall and produced M.Os. 1 to 3. The lower Court clearly observed that the cloth bundle is a very small one and if it is carefully kept in the hole of a wall, it will not be accessible to others and as per the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 10 the accused alone removed the brick in the hole and produced the cloth bundle containing M.Os. 1 to 3. Thus the lower Court was perfectly right in convicting the accused under Section 411 IPC.

(3.) The conviction of the accused under Section 411 IPC is confirmed. However, the sentence is reduced t one year R.I. instead of two years R.I. With the above modification in the sentence, the criminal appeal is dismissed.