Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
KOMMU VINJA RAO
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/03/1998
BENCH:
G.T. NANAVATI, V.N. KHARE
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G E M E N T
NANAVATI,J.
The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 IPC by the Sessions Court, East Godavari
Division, in S.C. No.198 of 1994. His conviction was
confirmed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
What has been held proved against him is that on
2.8.1993 at about 7.00 p.m., he assaulted Lakshmi with a
knife and killed her on the spot. The prosecution case was
that he had developed illicit intimacy with Lakshmi and for
about 8 to 9 years they had stayed together as husband and
wife. Some months before the date of incident , Lakshmi and
the appellant had separated and since then she was staying
in a thatched hut near the hut of her father. After
separating from Lakshmi, the appellant wanted to join his
first wife-Mariyamma but Lakshmi was creating obstacles in
his way. That was the reason why he assaulted her on
2.8.1993.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution had relied
upon the evidence of three eye-witnesses. PW-2 Polanati
Nookaratnam did not support the prosecution and was declared
a hostile witness. Pw 1-Mariyamma, the former wife of the
appellant did not support the prosecution fully and merely
stated that at about 7.00 p.m. on the day of the incident,
when she saw PW 2 running on the road and asked her why she
was running like that, she was told by her that the
appellant was beating Lakshmi. PW 3, the brother of Lakshmi,
fully supported the prosecution case and both the courts
below have accepted his evidence. Relying upon his evidence
and the evidence of recovery of knife by the accused in
presence of the village Administrative Officer (PW 5) the
trial court convicted the appellant. The High Court also
believed the evidence of PW 3 and confirmed the conviction
of the appellant.
What was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant
is that the High Court and also the trial court failed to
appreciate that there was no light at the place of the
incident and, therefore, PW 3 could not have identified the
assailant of Lakshmi. He submitted that it was raining on
that day and as disclosed by the prosecution evidence it had
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
become dark when the incident had happened. There were no
electric lights around because of load shedding. That,
however, cannot mean that there was no sufficient light at
the time of the incident. The evidence of PWs 3 and 4
discloses that the incident had happened near the shop of
one Kapala Bapiraju at a distance of about 10 feet. It can
be safely assumed that the shopkeeper would not have kept
his shop open without providing for some other source of
light. Moreover, the incident took place at about 7.00 p.m.
and, therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention
that there must have been complete darkness at that time and
PW 3 could not have identified the assailant. It was not
raining heavily. There was movement of persons on the road.
All these suggest that there was enough light and PW 3 could
not have found it difficult to recognise the appellant, who
was none other than the person with whom his sister had
stayed for 8 to 9 years.
We have carefully scrutinised the evidence of PW 3 and
we find no infirmity in his evidence. His evidence receives
support from the evidence of the Village Administrative
Officer, and independent person, who was informed about the
incident within a very short time. As we find that the
appellant has been rightly convicted under Section 302 IPC,
this appeal is dismissed.