BANDI DEVAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF A. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A convict/accused presented this appeal under Sec. 374 Cr.P.C. questioning his conviction and sentence. The judgment impugned is dtd. 16/9/2010 of learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada in S.C.No.69 of 2009. After due trial, this appellant was found guilty for the offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. and therefore, learned Sessions Judge convicted him and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months. It is that judgment which is under challenge.

(2.) The facts leading to the present appeal are required to be recapitulated here: The victim is a woman and is the wife of the accused/appellant. It was in the year 1996 they fell in love and with the consent of elders they got married and begot two children. One of their two children is a son and he died and the other child is a daughter who is living with the parents. The husband has been an auto rickshaw driver. The victim woman is working in a private hospital nursing the patients and attending Electrocardiogram work at the hospital. It is stated that the accused has been in the habit of consuming alcohol. During the matrimonial life, on certain occasions, certain disputes arose between the spouses and on two such occasions the wife had to complain the troubles to the police. On one occasion she complained about cruelty towards her for the purpose of dowry. Intervention of elders resulted in a compromise, but it seems the case was not yet withdrawn. On another occasion the accused allegedly took away Rs.5,000.00 cash and a mobile phone belonging to the wife. On this occasion when she complained to police the spouses were sent to family counseling center where, it is stated, expressing remorse the accused gave an undertaking that he would look after his wife's welfare. It is in the backdrop of these facts and circumstances the offence alleged took place allegedly. The scene of offence is the very rented house where the spouses are living. It is stated that on 17/6/2008 at about 8:00 A.M. the woman was getting ready to attend her job at the hospital and the husband told her not to go to hospital as his mother and brother were to come home at about 10:00 A.M. She spoke to the hospital authorities informing that she could not attend the duty because of her ill-health. It is about that time the accused indulged in a debate with his wife and from out of his pocket he picked up a new blade and got inflicted injuries on both of his forearms by himself and then he told his wife that she was complaining to police and he did not like it and he beat her and felled her down and then sent away his daughter and inflicted, with blade, injuries on both her wrists and as they were not oozing blood he told the same and then sat on her chest and using his both knees pressed her hands to the floor and using the blade cut her throat. On finding blood coming out he was satisfied and he got up and went out the house and latched the door from outside. His daughter went and fetched the sister-in- law of the victim, who was living in the neighbourhood. She took her to the hospital. The hospital authorities sent information to the police who in turn came there and recorded her statement at 1:30 P.M. on 17/6/2008 itself and registered Crime No.343 of 2008 for an offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statements of witnesses, arrested the accused, recovered the crime weapon/blade/M.O.1 and filed the police report before the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada where it was numbered as P.R.C.No.46 of 2008. Acting upon this police report of Machavaram Police Station, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate secured the presence of the accused and furnished him with copies of documents on which the prosecution was intending to rely upon and then finding it a case of trial to be exclusively conducted by a Sessions Court it acted in accordance with Sec. 209 Cr.P.C. and committed the case to the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge who in turn assigned the trial in this case to learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court. Cognizance was taken for the offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. and the presence of the accused was secured and it was recorded that he was defended by his own learned counsel. A charge under Sec. 307 I.P.C. was framed, read over and explained to him to which he entered a plea of not guilty and thereby further trial followed. Prosecution, on its behalf examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7 and exhibited M.Os.1 and 2. Witnesses were cross-examined by learned defence counsel. The incriminating evidence available on record was denied as false during Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. hearing. The accused did not choose to adduce any oral, documentary or material evidence. On considering the evidence on record and the arguments advanced on both sides, the learned Sessions Judge stated that by the evidence of doctor/PW.5 and Ex.P.2-wound certificate the following injuries were noticed on the body of the victim woman/PW.1:

(3.) It is that judgment which is challenged in this appeal. Be it noted that the appellant has not questioned the judgment of the trial Court either on the ground of violation of principles of fair trial or on the ground that he was not given an adequate opportunity to defend himself or that the charge made against him is misleading or that the witnesses testified were bent upon to see his incarceration for any vengeful reasons. Grounds raised in this memorandum of appeal are to the effect that the evidence of PW.1 did not find corroboration and the description of the injuries she suffered did not match with the medical evidence and an earlier undertaking allegedly given by the accused at the family counseling center being not produced in evidence are fatal. Learned counsel further argued that the facts established, at any rate, do not indicate ingredients of Sec. 307 I.P.C. and the reasoning of trial Court is erroneous. It is for these reasons, the learned counsel argued to upset the impugned judgment and acquit the accused. It is to be recorded here that initially this appellant preferred the appeal by engaging his own learned counsel but during the subsequent phases he expressed his inability to have a counsel on his own and in such circumstances, at the intervention of this Court, Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee afforded a learned legal aid counsel who ably argued the matter in defence of the appellant.