GOLLA NADIMIDODDI RANGAMMA Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case, in a way, provides an example as to how the very basic principles of the criminal law have been ignored. The Court of Sessions, Anathapur tried A1 and A2 in S.C.No.598 of 2012. The case of the prosecution was that Ramesh, the deceased was married to A2, by name, Nadimidoddi Rangamma, somewhere in April, 2011. Ramesh is the son of PW.1, and brother of PW.2. It was alleged that the couple i.e., Ramesh and A2 lived happily for about 3 to 6 months from the date of their marriage, but A2 developed illicit intimacy with A1, by name, Mangala Nagendra of the same Village. The parents of Ramesh are said to have admonished A1 on certain occasions. A2 is said to have gone to the house of her parents for Jathara for a period of one month and on 27.1.2012, she came back. In the intervening night of 29/30th day of January, 2012, Ramesh and A2 were said to have slept in their house in Konakondla Village of Anantapur District, whereas, PW.1 slept on a cot in the verandah of the house, and PW.2, his daughter slept on the pial of the house. Both of them are said to have heard some voice at around 3.00 a.m., and when they went inside the room, they saw A2 holding the feet of Ramesh and A1 holding his neck. On noticing their presence, A1 is said to have run away. PWs.3 to 5 and certain others are said to have gathered in the house and they found Ramesh in dead condition. PW.1 submitted a complaint, Ex.P1, at about 10.30 a.m., on 30.01.2012 before the P.S. Vajrakaraur Mandal. Crime No.6 of 2012 was registered under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC against A1 and A2. The formalities, such as, the preparation of scene of offence panchanama, conducting of inquest, and postmortem examination, were completed. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The trial Court framed the charges against A1 and A2, and on both of them pleading not guilty, the trial was conducted. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were filed. Mos. 1 to 3 were also taken on record. Through its judgment, dated 29.04.2013, the trial Court acquitted A1, but convicted A2, for committing the offence of murder of her husband. Sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.100/ -, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month, was imposed. Hence, this appeal by A2.

(2.) SRI M. Prahalad Reddy, learned counsel for A2 submits that the trial Court did not record any finding about the involvement of A2, but still convicted her, just on assumptions. He submits that the principle that the motive for the offence in a criminal case must be proved beyond any reasonable doubt, was completely ignored. He further submits that the allegations against A1 and A2 were common and having acquitted A2 by giving benefit of doubt, the trial Court convicted A2. Learned counsel contends that there is serious discrepancy between the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, and the evidence of PWs.3 to 5, is motivated on account of the fact that they wanted to settle score with the mother of A1, and deposed to implicate A1. Learned counsel further submits that there was no allegation at any stage that Ramesh was electrocuted, whereas, the medical evidence on record clearly discloses that the injury No.1 was caused on account of electrocution. He further submits that PW.1 admitted that he borrowed a sum of Rs.80,000/ - from the mother of A1, and the case was foisted only to avoid that amount, and in the process, A2 was convicted.

(3.) PW .1 has five children i.e., 3 daughters and 2 sons. The deceased Ramesh is said to be the elder son and his marriage with A2 was performed sometime in August, 2011. A perusal of Ex.P1 submitted by him discloses that A2 developed illicit intimacy with A1 of their Village three months after the marriage, and on that fateful day, the wife of PW.1 went to Anantapur. While A2 and Ramesh were said to have slept in the hall of the house, PW.1 slept on a cot, just opposite to the entrance, whereas PW.2, his daughter slept on a pial. As in Ex.P1, PW.1 in his evidence, stated about PW.1 what happened at 3.00 a.m., on the fateful day, as under: ..By about 3.00 am, Mangala Nagendra (A1) entered our house. A1 caught hold of the neck of my deceased son, A2 caught hold of his legs and thereafter they ran away by the time myself and my daughter Ramulamma entered house. My deceased son was lying dead. The electric wires were lying in the house. A1 and A2 ran away in the darkness. I have noticed the swelling of neck, bleeding from the nostrills.