G VEERABRAHMAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Guthula Veerabhramam, was convicted by the learned II Addl. Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry for committing murder of his wife Vijayalakshmi (hereinafter called "the deceased") by pouring kerosene over her body and setting fire to her in his own house at about 11.00 p.m. on 14-1-1983 and giving false information to screen himself from the legal punishment. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under S. 302, I.P.C., and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under S. 201, I.P.C. with a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) This is rather an unfortunate case where the marriage between the accused and his wife - the deceased Vijayalakshmi - ran into rough weather about two years, after one male child was born to them. "It is an unfortunate and disturbing phenomenon that has recently arisen in many parts of our Country that the instances of bride killing are alarmingly on the increase. If society should be ridden of this growing evil, it is imperative that whenever dastardly crimes of this nature are detected and the offence brought home to the accused, the Courts must deal with the offender most ruthlessly and impose deterrent punishment." [Vide Virbhan Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1983 SC 1002 : (1983 Cri LJ 1635)]. The case before us is one of its kind. While, in the vast majority of such cases, the harassment and killing of the Bride is traceable to the abominable and pernicious practice of demanding and extracting dowry and the failure on the part of the Brides parents to adequately satisfy the greedy demands of the husbands people, the reason for the torture and murder of innocent wife, Vijayalakshmi, in the present case, according to the prosecution, was that she was an obstacle and hindrance in continuance of the appellants illicit relations with one Hemalatha, the daughter of one Sathiraju, in whose house the accused and his wife were previously living as tenants. The appellant, was working as Lower Division Clerk in Godavari Barrage Project at Dowlaiswaram but his temporary services were terminated on the ground of excess staff about one month prior to the occurrence. Since, about three months prior to the date of occurrence, the accused and his wife have been residing in the house of one N. Gangaraju at Dowlaiswaram. Previous to that, he was residing in the house of the said Sathiraju in the same locality during which time he developed illicit relations with the said Hemalatha, Sathirajus daughter. The accused was compelled to vacate the house of the said Sathiraju at the instance of his brother-in-law (P.W. 12) to whom and her parents the deceased Vijayalakshmi had complained about illicit intimacy of her husband with the said Hemalatha. It is on account of the protests made by his wife Vijayalakshmi about the accused continuing affair with the said Hemalatha in spite of the change of the residence, he accused started harassing, ill-treating, assaulting and torturing her. By the date of the occurrence, the accused and his wife Vijayalakshmi and their two years old son alone were residing in a portion belonging to the said N. Gangaraju. As the deceased went on complaining against her husband about his affair with the said Hemalatha, the accused developed ill-feelings against her and that was the reason that he was beating and ill-treating her frequently. The father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law (P.W. 12) of the accused now and then used to admonish him whenever he picked up quarrel with his wife. P.W. 12, the brother of the deceased Vijayalakshmi and the brother-in-law of the accused went to the house of the accused on Bhogi day and requested him to go over to his parents house at Boboerlanka along with the deceased and their child for the Pongal and Kanumu festivals but the accused refused to oblige him and also refused to send his wife and the child. It is in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, who are no other than the daughter-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of the owner of the same house and who are residing in a portion adjoining to that of the accused, that the accused and his wife Vijayalakshmi were not living happily and that there were frequent quarrels between them. The accused beat his wife severely on several occasions and once drove her away to her parents house to fetch them for settlement. Accordingly, the deceased took her parents to the house of the accused and there was an altercation between the accused on the one hand and the father and brothers of the wife of the accused on the other. During that alteraction, the wife of the accused made specific allegations that the accused had illicitintimacy with the house owners daughter of the house in which they were previously residing and is continuing the same in spite of the change of their residence.

(3.) On the night of Sankranthi on 14-1-1983, the accused was in exclusive company of his wife and the two years old son in his portion and there was some altercation between the accused and his wife Vijayalakshmi on the question whether they should go to the parents house of the deceased Vijayalakshmi for the festival. At about 11-00 p.m. on that night, P.Ws. 1 and 2, who were the immediate neighbours of the accused, while they were preparing sweets in the back-yard of their house which adjoins the western room of the accused, heard the cries of Vijayalakshmi saying "Baboy Baboy". On hearing these cries, both P.Ws. 1 and 2 rushed to the western room of the accused and knocked the door and when the accused did not open the door, which was bolted from inside, they opened the same by forcibly pushing it. On entering into the room, they found the accused alone and none else standing without drawer on his person and his wife, Vijayalakshmi lying on the floor with face upwards in the dining room having extensive burns on the face and other parts of the body and struggling for life and saying that she was dying. The electric light was burning in the room at that time. Surprisingly they found the accused in normal disposition and unperturbed condition. They questioned the accused as well as Vijayalakshmi as to what happened. While Vijayalakshmi merely stated that she was dying, but the accused did not give any reply to the question put by P.W. 1. On seeing the deceased with extensive burns on her person, they raised alarm and in response to the alarm raised by them, the owner Gangaraju and P.W. 3 another tenant and a neighbour of the accused arrived at that place. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and others who gathered there advised the accused to take Vijayalakshmi to the hospital which he did accordingly. Till then the accused did not open his mouth and remained silent and unperturbed. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 found in the dining room where the deceased Vijayalakshmi was lying, a kerosene bottle (M.O. 1) with a little quantity of Kerosene in it and M.O. 2 a match box and half burnt match stick. M.O. 3 is the burnt saree, M.O. 4 is the blouse and M.O. 5 is the langa of the deceased Vijayalakshmi which she had on her person at the time of the occurrence.