DOLA ALIAS KUMMARI VENKATA RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the sole accused in S.C. No. 35 of 1991, on the file of the Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, challenging his conviction for the offence under S. 302, IPC under two counts and sentence of imprisonment for life under each count and the sentences to run concurrently. The above convictions and sentences were imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru by his judgment dated 7-11-1991.

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows :- The accused originally belonged to Kotha Punaturu of Srikakulam District. About 12 years back he left his native place and came away to Bhimavaram and was doing agricultural cooli work. About 10 years back after he settled down at Bhimavaram he developed illicit intimacy with one Kamalamma (PW. 1), a resident of Mahadevapatnam and they lived together as husband and wife for about 8 years. They have also constructed a house at Mahadevapatnam. They begot two boys, who are the deceased in this case. Since about six months prior to the date of offence, the accused was working as a Jattu Cooli in a rice mill at Narasimhapuram near Bhimavaram. He was suspecting the character of P.W. 1. On 17-7-1990 in the evening the accused got Rs. 350.00 towards bonus and the Jattu maistri paid an amount of Rs. 100/- with a request to purchase chicks. The accused gave Rs. 200.00 to P.W. 1 and asked her to purchase chicks but P.W. 1 refused stating that she has to discharge debts. Thereupon, the accused grew wild and left the house remarking that after he returns to the house he will beat her (P.W. 1). Out of fear, P.W. 1 along with her second boy Ramesh went to the house of P.W. 6 and took shelter and complained to him about the misbehaviour of the accused and she left the first boy in the house. On the advice of P.W. 6, P.W. 1 proceeded to her brother's house at Vissakoderu and complained the matter to him. P.W. 2 is her brother. P.W. 1 begot one son and a daughter through her former husband. The daughter died and Santharao is her son through her former husband. P.W. 4 is the wife of Santharao, who is also residing at Mahadevapatnam. P.W. 1 went to Vissakoderu on 18th morning and complained to her brother P.W. 2 about the misbehaviour of the accused. P.W. 1 went for cooli work along with her sister-in-law and returned back in the evening. At about 6-00 p.m. on the same day the accused came to P.W. 2's house and asked P.W. 1 to return the amount of Rs. 200.00 which he paid. She returned Rs. 170.00 stating that she purchased clothes worth Rs. 30.00 for her second son. She incidentally remarked that the accused came there only for money and not for her and that he is not her husband and that the two children were not born to him. Thereupon, the accused remarked that he will kill both the children by administering pesticides and he took away the second son Ramesh on a cycle. The accused took the cycle from the shop of P.W. 8 at Narasimhapuram on the hire at about 10.00 a.m. on that day. On the way he purchased Monothen of 250 ml. for Rs. 53.00 from a Fertiliser shop at Bhimavaram. P.W. 7 is the clerk in the shop who sold the pesticides under Ex. P. 1 receipt on which the accused also put his thumb impression. From there he proceeded to his house at Mahadevapatnam. He also purchased some Pulav packets on the way. The accused went to the house of P.W. 4, who is the daughter-in-law of P.W. 1 on that night. He enquired P.W. 4 about the first boy and asked her to wake him up. P.W. 4 took Syamaraju, the eldest son of the accused and followed the accused to his house. The accused gave two pulav packets to both the boys and also gave one packet to P.W. 4. After having given palavu to both the boys, the accused administered pesticides poison to both the boys. MOs. 1 and 2 are the tumblers in which the poison was administered. On the very same night the accused went to Vissa koderu and informed P.W. 1 that he killed both the boys by administering pesticides. P.W. 2, brother of P.W. 1 consoled P.W. 1 stating since the accused was in a drunken state such remarks cannot be given much importance as nobody would kill his own children. On the next day the accused took P.W. 1 on his cycle to Vissa Koderu. In the meanwhile, P.W. 4 went to the house of the accused and opened the doors and found that two dead bodies of the boys lying on a mat. MOs. 1 and 2 and the plastic container M.O. 3 were found lying there. P.W. 1 went to the house and found the two dead bodies and went to the Sarpanch on that day at about 8.00 a.m. complained the matter to him. He reduce what all P.W. 1 stated to him in writing (which is marked as Ex. P. 6) and he went to the Police Station and gave Ex. P. 6 report to the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 18) at about 10.00 a.m. who registered it as Crime No. 31/90 under S. 302, IPC and issued express FIRs to all the concerned. Ex. P. 24 is the FIR sent to Court. P.W. 19 Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram Rural took up investigation in this case. He got drafted Ex. P. 7 observation report, which was attested by P.W. 12 and another mediator. He prepared two rough sketches of the scene of offences under Exs. P. 25 and P. 26. He also got the scene of offence photographed by P.W. 10. He also seized M.Os. 1 to 4. He held inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased boys, separately and Exs. P. 8 and P. 9 the inquest reports. He sent the dead bodies to the doctor P.W. 16 for postmortem examination. P.W. 16 Deputy Civil Surgeon, Government Hospital, Bhimavaram conducted postmortem examination over the dead bodies of the deceased on 20-7-1990. He conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the boy Dola Syama Raju and issued Ex. P. 21 postmortem certificate. He also conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased boy Dola Ramesh and issued Ex. P. 22 postmortem certificate. After receiving Expert's opinion, the doctor opined that the death in both the cases was due to organ phosphorous insecticide poison and that the boys would have died 35 to 40 hours prior to his postmortem examination. Ex. P. 23 is the final opinion given by the doctor. After the completion of investigation into the case, the charge sheet was filed.

(3.) The prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 19 and got Exs. P. 1 to 27 and M.Os. 1 to 7 marked in support of its case against the accused. After the closure of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the accused was examined under S. 313, Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The plea of the accused is one of total denial.