DUDAPAKA HARITHA Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a pathetic case of a blind mother killing her own children numbering two. As regards the cause of death and the factum of the appellant killing her own children, Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, has not joined issue. She has fairly conceded that though there is no direct evidence connecting the death of the deceased to the appellant, the fact that both the deceased have died in the presence of the appellant at her house during night, and in the absence of any possibility of a third person entering the house and causing the death of the deceased, it is evident that the appellant herself has caused death of her two children. In the light of this concession, the necessity for us to formally refer to the whole case of the prosecution is obviated.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant has strongly urged that the Court below ought to have taken into consideration the circumstances under which the appellant has caused the death of her two children. The learned counsel has placed strong reliance on Ex.P.19, confessional statement of the appellant, and submitted that out of sheer frustration of her being abandoned by her husband and her children reportedly asking her about their father, she might have gone to the extent of doing away with the lives of her two children, apart from herself attempting to commit suicide. In the light of this submission, we have carefully gone through the contents of Ex.P.19, which fully support the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased were repeatedly asking the appellant about their father, who neglected and abandoned the accused and the deceased. Ex.P.1 would clearly show that the frustration of the appellant has turned into sudden provocation when both the deceased were persistently asking about their father. Being in such a helpless condition the appellant evidently being unable to answer their persistent queries killed both her children by strangulating with her saree. These circumstances, in our opinion, would bring the act of the appellant into one under Sec. 304 Part-I Penal Code, for, she killed her two children though with an intention but under grave and sudden provocation caused by the repeated queries of the deceased about their father.

(3.) Therefore, while confirming the finding of the lower Court that the appellant is guilty of causing the death of her children and the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant for the offence under Sec. 309 Penal Code, we modify the conviction recorded against the appellant in judgment dated 26.07.2010 in Sessions Case No. 59 of 2010 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Warangal, from the offence under Sec. 302 Penal Code to that of the offence under Sec. 304 Part-I IPC. The appellant is accordingly convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed against her. If the appellant has already completed the said sentence of imprisonment, after giving the benefit of the remissions which she may entitled to as per law, she shall be released forthwith, if she is not required in any other case or crime.