MALA ASWARTHAPPA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The core question which had been argued in elaboration by Sri Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the appellant/accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Mohd. Osman Shaheed representing the State is on the aspect whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Anantapur in S.C.No.37/94 be sustained in the light of the fact that except Ex.P-14, the dying declaration recorded by PW-15, the Magistrate, there is no other acceptable evidence available on record and especially in the light of the fact that the dying declaration recorded by A.S.I., Ex.P-17, giving minute details which would definitely create suspicion. Both the counsel made submissions at length pointing out to the evidence of the hostile witnesses and also the medical evidence of PW-11 and PW-12. Both the Counsel placed strong reliance on several decisions to substantiate their contentions that the dying declaration if it is otherwise trustworthy and believable can be the basis for conviction though the same is not corroborated by other evidence. Reliance also had been placed on Sant Gopal vs. State of U.P. (1995 Crl.L.J.312 (All.)(DB)), Nawab Ali Jhinnu vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1994 S.C.1607), K.R. Reddy Vs. Public Prosecutor (AIR 1976 S.C.1994), Public Prosecutor Vs. Shaik Meera Valli (1993 (2) ALT (Crl.) 86 (DB)), Prithi Chand Vs. State of H.P. (AIR 1989 S.C.702), Lallubhai Vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 1972 S.C.1776), Shanmugam Vs. State of T.N. (2003 S.C.C. (Crl.) 501), P. Babu and Others Vs. State of A.P. (1993 (3) Crimes 567), State of Assam Vs. Mafizuddin Ahmed (AIR 1983 S.C.274), Sharad Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 S.C.1622), and Rabi Chandra Vs. State of Orissa (AIR 1980 S.C.1738).

(2.) There cannot be any quarrel about this proposition of law in view of the settled position of law in this regard. The appellant/accused preferred this Criminal Appeal as against the Judgment dated 28-10-1997 in S.C.No.37/94 on the file of the Court of Session, Anantapur wherein he was convicted under Sections 342 and 304 Part-II I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and six years respectively and the said sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(3.) The version of the prosecution in nutshell may be specified as hereunder: The appellant/accused is a resident of Muddireddypalli village of Hindupur Mandal. Chalavadhi Papamma (PW-1) is a resident of 74, Udegolam village of Rayadurg Mandal. She is the second wife of Obulesu and she has two daughters namely Jayalakshmi and Obulamma. The first wife of Obulesu has four sons and one daughter namely Chalavadi Danamma (deceased). The children of the first wife of Obulesu are in good terms with PW-1 though she is a step mother to them. The second daughter of PW-1 married the appellant/accused and her sister was given to one Chandrayudu of Pothukunta village. The appellant/accused suspected that his wife Obulamma has got illicit intimacy with the husband of her sister, Chandrayudu, and also suspected that the deceased was encouraging and helping them to develop such contact. The accused was unhappy and bore grudge against the deceased and developed aversion towards her. Therefore, he used to express his desire to marry some other girl and wants to desert Obulamma. On 19-4-1993 the appellant/accused, the deceased, one Chalavadi Mala Ramadas (PW-2), T. Venkatesulu (PW-3), Chalavadi Padmavathi (PW-4), Chalavadi Hanumakka (PW-7), M. Obulamma (PW-5) and Chalavadi Obulamma (LW-9) have assembled in the house of PW-1 to attend the function of Sremantham to Obulamma, the wife of the appellant/accused. The appellant/accused was uneasy in the function. He expressed his opinion to the deceased to marry some other girl by discarding Obulamma. When the deceased chastised the appellant/accused and also told him that he should not desert Obulamma, the appellant/accused got offended very much and though that the deceased is mainly responsible and also obstruction for his second marriage and therefore planned to get rid of the deceased. On 19-4-1993 at about 1 P.M. while all the family members of PW-1 were sitting and talking, the appellant/accused came and requested the deceased to come into the house as he has got work to talk to her. The deceased followed the appellant/accused into the room of the house. The appellant/accused closed the doors from inside and bolted. The appellant/accused beat her with a stick indiscriminately all over the body and caused multiple injuries. On hearing the screams of the deceased all the members of the family i.e., P.Ws.1, 2, and 9 and others rushed to the doors of the room and requested the appellant/accused to open the door. As the appellant/accused did not open the door, PW-2 opened with crow-bars and entered into the room. The appellant/accused threatened them with dire consequences and went away. The deceased was immediately shifted to the Government Hospital, Rayadurg. On medical intimation given by the Doctor S. Nagabhushanam, A.S.I. (PW-16) went to the Government Hospital, Rayadurg and recorded her statement registered it and investigated. Prior to that Sri N. Ramalinga Reddy, Judicial I Class Magistrate, Rayadurg (PW-15) had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. Thereafter the deceased was referred to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Anantapur for further treatment. Nazeer Ahmed, H.C.1436, II Town Police Station, Anantapur received the death intimation and sent the same to Rayadurg Police Station. The deceased died of shock because of hemorrhage due to multiple injuries. Thereupon, the Section of law was altered to Section 302 I.P.C. and further investigation was done in the case. Sri B. Gangi Reddy (PW-17), the then Inspector of Police, Rayadurg held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators and subjected post mortem. He effected arrest of the appellant/accused on 6-5-1993 and laid charge sheet after completion of the investigation.