PULIMALA SAIDAMMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. This is an appeal filed by two accused persons in Sessions Case No. 132 of 1999. They were tried on the basis of allegation that on 10-4-1998 at about mid day they committed murder of one Smt. Pulimala Padma by pouring kerosene over her and setting her ablaze. The deceased Padma was daughter-in-law of A1 and sister-in-law of A2. Charge was framed under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. After trial, they were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

(2.) P.W. 4 was projected as eye-witness to the occurrence. She is daughter of the deceased who was minor on the date of occurrence. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 were projected as witnesses with respect to certain circumstances. P.W. 8 is a witness to the inquest. P.W.9 is a doctor who treated the deceased in the first instance and recorded dying declaration. P.W. 10 is a panch witness for scene of offence. P.W. 11 is also a witness to inquest. P.W. 12 is a Magistrate who recorded the second dying declaration. P.W. 13 is a doctor who conducted postmortem. P.Ws. 14 and 15 are Investigating Officers.

(3.) In the light of the record before us and in the light of the arguments made, we intend first to go to P.W.4's statement who was projected as eye witness. P.W.4 is the daughter of deceased. Her age on the date of recording of statement i.e., 30-4-2001 was 9 years. So, it could be taken that she was about 7 years old when the occurrence took place. The learned Judge put her usual questions to arrive at a satisfaction that the child realizes the importance of making a statement before Court. In her chief examination she supported the case of prosecution and stated that on the date of incident from 8.00 am to 12.00 noon there was quarrel between her mother and A1 and A2. She and her brothers had gone to school, they returned at 12.00 noon. Her mother was inside the house weeping. Some time later A1 and A2 began to quarrel with her mother. Her mother went to tap, brought water and poured down the entire water. In the course of quarrel A1 and A2 took her mother inside the house, the witness also went inside. Al poured kerosene over her mother and A2 lit fire to her. Within a short span of time she caught fire, her father came and poured water and put off the fire. The witness had also gone to Nagarjunasagar hospital when her father took the deceased to hospital. Doctors advised that she should be shifted to Hyderabad. The witness and her brothers went to hospital at Hyderabad. Her mother lived for 7 days and then died. After the death of her mother, her father brought back the body of the deceased and cremated her. In her cross-examination she however stated, "From yesterday, Police have been reading out the entire paper to me, as to how I should give evidence. Police have told me that I should give evidence as per that statement, or else I will be sent to jail. I have been living with my mother's sisters and my mother's brothers. They were also telling me that I should give evidence as above. Previously my statement was not recorded by police. For the first time yesterday, police have read over statement to me. I was quite young then. It is not true to suggest that on the tutoring by maternal aunts, and P.Ws. 1 and 2 I am giving false evidence. It is not true to suggest that they have threatened me, that in the event I do not speak and give evidence as above, they will not educate and look after me." Since this witness is a child witness and in cross-examination she was emphatic to say that she had been tutored by police and other relations of the deceased to make the statement which she had made, it would be highly risky to rely on her statement alone for convicting the accused for an offence of murder. Therefore, the evidence of this child witness will have to be scrutinized with caution and care and will have to be seen and examined in the light of other evidence available on record.