ADARI SURIBABU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused, Adari Suri Babu, in Sessions Case No.194 of 1998 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari Division at Kakinada, had preferred the present criminal appeal being aggrieved of the conviction and sentence imposed under Sections 304 (Part II) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tuni Circle, filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution is that the accused is a resident of Kotha Colony, Kotananduru Village, who is a coolie in brick kiln of one Koolla Ramana. Previously, the accused married a woman by name Nukaratnam and they lived some years together and after the birth of three children, the wife of the accused discarded him and went back to Narsipatnam. Again the accused married Ramanamma about 7 years back at Annavaram Temple. The deceased Ramanamma (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') is the second wife of the accused and they used to go for coolie work in the brick kiln of Koolla Ramana. For about six months, there were ill feelings between the accused and the deceased since the accused was suspecting the deceased to have been illicit intimacy with the owner of the brick kiln. Prior to last Sankranti festival, the deceased quarrelled with the accused and went away to her parents house at Rajupeta. Boddeti Tulasiveni, sister-in-law of the deceased interfered in between the couple and convinced both of them. Again on 28.1.1998 the said Tulasi Veni brought the deceased to the house of the accused and made them united. On the night of 28.1.1998, the deceased and the accused indulged in quarrel. On 29.1.1998 night the accused asked the deceased to sleep with him, for which the deceased bluntly refused and on that the accused being enraged of the same, attempted to commit suicide by pouring kerosene over him. Tulasi Veni obstructed him and admonished him for having attempted to commit suicide. The accused expressed his willingness to take away his life, as it was unless to live with his wife who was constantly refusing to give him conjugal pleasure. Tulasi Veni convinced him, and on that night the couple slept quiet. On 30.1.1998 Friday night the deceased slept with the accused in the room, while Tulasi Veni slept on pial of the house. In the early hours of 31.1.1998 Saturday, the accused attempted to have sexual intercourse with the deceased in the room. But she refused to do so and pushed him. The accused grew angry and confronted with the deceased whether she would allow if Koolla Ramana were in his place. The deceased gave arrogant reply. In that anger, the accused picked up an iron blowpipe and beat the deceased with it and brought her out of the room by so beating her indiscriminately. When Tulsai Veni woke up and attempted to interfere, the accused threatened and intimidated her by raising iron blowpipe at her. She got back with fear. Neighbours gathered there by which time the deceased fell on the ground in front of the house of the accused in a pool of blood and died. Tulasi Veni, due to fear, went to her village Rajupeta and informed the incident to her husband and in-laws and came back to Kotananduru to give report. The V.A.O Kotananduru on 31.1.1998 at 6 p.m., recorded the statement of Tulasiveni and found the dead body of the deceased at the house of the accused and sent report to the police. The case was registered and investigation was taken up. The same was taken on file as PRC8 of 1998 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni and inasmuch as the same is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the case was committed to the Court of Session and the Principal Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry made over the same to the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari Division, at Kakinada, who had recorded the evidence of PWs.1 to 10 and marked Exs.Pl to P17 and MOs.1 to 4 and also Exs.D1 to D3 and ultimately arrived at a conclusion that the accused is not guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but found him guilty for the offences under Sections 304 (Part II) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned Counsel representing the appellant made the following submissions: The learned Counsel submitted that on the strength of the evidence of PW1, whose presence is highly doubtful at the place of occurrence, recording conviction cannot be sustained. The Counsel also pointed out that there is abnormal delay of about 15 hours in lodging the report and this itself would go to show that the version of the prosecution is not true. The learned Counsel also made certain submissions relating to non-examination of Appala Naidu. Since it is the contention of the learned Counsel the very version of the prosecution is that PW1 was waiting for the said Appala Naidu and PW1 being relative of the deceased not being the permanent resident of the locality, this witness may have to be taken as a chance witness and unless there is sufficient corroboration relating to her presence at the scene of occurrence, on the testimony of PW1 alone conviction cannot be sustained, especially in the absence of the evidence of said Appala Naidu. The learned Counsel also submitted that inspite of lapse of time none of the neighbours, said to have been present, gave any report. PW3 was declared hostile and in view of the evidence of PW1 and also contents of Ex.P1, the very presence of PWs.2 and 3 at the scene of offence is highly doubtful. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on Peddireddy Subbareddi and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1991 Crl.LJ 1391.