DARAVATH KISHEN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in Sessions Case No. 119/90 who was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, for an offence under Section 302 IPC and consequently sentenced to under go imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- with a default sentence has appealed his conviction. The case of the prosecution was that the accused strangulated his wife (the deceased) between 11.30P.M. and 12.30 A.M. in the intervening night of 1/2.7.1989. The evidence let in by the prosecution consisted mainly of the testimony of P.W.3, the second wife of the accused who was alleged to have been sleeping in the inner room, whereas the offence was committed in the outer room of the two- room house. The other material evidence consisted of the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 4, the neighbours whom P.W.3 had informed about the strangulation of the deceased, soon after the offence.

(2.) The accused had married the deceased more than ten years ago. They were quarrelling with each other, after he contracted his marriage with P.W.3 over an year before the incident. About six months prior to the incident, the quarrel reached such a stage that the deceased left for her parents house, apparently since the harassment by the accused has reached unbearable proportions. It was also in evidence that the quarrel was substantially due to the fact that P.W.3 was more in favour of the accused. On 30.6.1989, the accused went to Munipally village Thanda to the house of his first wife, the deceased and persuaded her parents to send her back with him. P.Ws. 6,7, and 9 have spoken to the fact that the accused brought the deceased back to his house on 1.7.89 and P.Ws. 7 and 2 others who accompanied her left her in the house of the accused. That was at about 4.00 P.M. The evidence of P.W.3 was to the effect that the deceased and the accused were consuming beer and whisky respectively, till about 9.30 P.M. She stated that she was in the inner room, and when she went to wake up the deceased to answer calls of nature, there was no response from the deceased. She opened the unbolted door and found that the edge of the saree of the deceased was tied tightly around her neck. She ran out of the house and reported to P.W. 4 that the deceased was found strangulated. P.W.4 immediately rushed to the place and saw the deceased in her death bed. P.W.3 stated that she went to the house of P.W.2 as well and informed him about what transpired. He also came to the scane of occurrence. P.W.2 went to the police station and gave Ex.P-2 complaint at about 3.00 A.M. on 2.7.89. By the time P.Ws.2 and 4 reached the scene of occurrence, the deceased had died. An inquest was conducted on the same day and the body was sent for post-mortem examination. Ex.P-6 is the inquest report and Ex.P-1 is the post-mortem certificate. On the basis of Ex.P- 2 complaint, Ex.P-8 First Information Report was registered. After investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted for an offence punishable under section 302 IPC. He was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, who convicted him on the basis mainly of the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 4.

(3.) The trial Judge found that there was no direct evidence regarding the alleged offence, however, on the basis of the decision in Padala Veer Reddy vs. The State of A.P., supra (1) he found that the conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence, provided the four-fold criteria were satisfied. The substance of the four-fold test was that circumstantial evidence so complete and perfect must point unerringly to the guilt of the accused and shall be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. After formulating the correct tests for appreciating circumstantial evidence for justifying conviction of an offender, the learned Sessions Judge laid down three considerations to guide the appreciation of evidence in the context of the above formulations. They were the following :