GUNDROJU PRAKASAM Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., in causing the death of his wife Gundroju Lakshmi, in the intervening night of 22/23 -05 -2008 at Madhura Nagar, S.Atchutapuram, Kakinada Rural. He was tried in S.C.No.159 of 2009 by the VII -Addl Sessions Judge, Kakinada. Through its Judgment, dated 07 -01 -2010, the trial Court found him guilty of the charge and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/ -, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Hence, the appeal.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are as under: - The deceased and the accused were married about 25 years back and they are blessed with two daughters and son. The elder daughter, by name Chittithalli was married. The couple were living with their second daughter Kalyani PW.1 and son Manikantha PW.5. It is alleged that the accused was addicted to drinks and was not doing any work properly. The deceased and PW.1 were sustaining the family by working as domestic helps, in different houses. The accused was a carpenter by profession. For some days, he came down to Hyderabad. Thereafter, he returned to Kakinada and was insisting the deceased and the other family members to accompany him to Hyderabad. On 16 -05 -2008 at about 10.00 a.m., the accused quarrelled with the deceased over the matter of preparation of food, abused her and beat her with a brick. The deceased sustained minor injury and she was treated by Bura Prasanna Kumar PW.8. The further allegation is that in the evening of 22 -05 -2008 at about 08.30 p.m., the deceased and PW.1 returned home and the accused started quarrelling with the deceased questioning her character. They had dinner and it being the summer, they all slept in front of their house. The deceased and PW.1 slept on one cot whereas the accused and PW.5 slept on other cot. In the mid -night, at about 12 O clock, the accused woke up the deceased and asked for water. The deceased asked the accused to get water from inside the house, by himself, stating that she is tired. Enraged by this attitude, the accused went inside the house, consumed water and returned with a berse (an instrument used by carpenters) and hit the deceased with it, on head. The deceased sustained serious injury and P.Ws.1 and 5 raised cries, and hearing the same, several neighbours gathered there. The accused is said to have run away from there. The injured was shifted to the Government General Hospital, Kakinada, and by about 0250 hours of 23 -05 -2008, she succumbed to the injuries. On being informed by the Medical authorities, the S.I. of Police, Indrapalem P.S. PW.13, visited the hospital and recorded the statement of PW.1. Cr.No.72 of 2008 was registered, and F.I.R. was issued. Investigation was taken up by the Inspector of Police - PW.12. Scene of offence panchanama was conducted, inquest was held, and the dead body was sent for post -mortem examination. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. For about eight months, the accused was absconding, and he was arrested on 18 -01 -2009 at Nakkapalli Addaroad Junction, Visakhapatnam. He is stated to have confessed of committing the crime and led the police, for the recovery of the weapon M.O.1. After completing the investigation, charge -sheet was filed and the case was taken on file. Charge under Section 302 I.P.C., was put to the accused and on his denial, trial was taken up. P.Ws.1 to 13 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.17 were filed, and M.Os.1 to 6 were taken on record.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the incident took place at a time when the accused and the deceased were sleeping with their two children i.e., P.Ws.1 and 5. She contends that the incident took place in the mid -night, and the natural witnesses can be, only the family members of the accused and the deceased, and the immediate neighbours who gathered there on hearing the cries of P.Ws.1 and 5. According to her, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 is consistent, and even the neighbouring residents, who reached the scene, immediately after the attack and have seen the accused running away from there and the deceased lying in a pool of blood, have consistently spoken about the incident and there is absolutely nothing which makes the Court to disbelieve their testimony. She further submits that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and that it does not warrant any interference.