POLAMURI CHANDRA SEKHARARAO@CHINNA@BABJI vs. STATE OF A.P.

Reportable

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2168 OF 2009 Polamuri Chandra Sekhararao @ Chinna@ Babji ….Appellant VERSUS State of A.P. .…Respondent J U D G M E N T JUDGMENT Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) imposing the sentence of imprisonment for life and a 1 Page 1 fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

deceased, Ravi Kishore, went to the house of the accused in his Hero Honda Motor Bike, when the accused and his two daughters Polamrui Divya and Polamrui Jaya Chandrika [PWs-1 and 2] were chatting outside the house. It is alleged that when the accused asked the deceased as to why he came there, the deceased declared that he wish to marry both his daughters and threw a challenge as to whom he would give them in marriage. It is further alleged that the accused, enraged by the statement of the deceased, brought JUDGMENT a long knife from his bed room and inflicted several blows on the deceased due to which he fell down breathless on the floor. 3. According to the prosecution, the accused along with his two daughters PWs-1 and 2, thereafter, went to the Steel Plant Police Station in his two-wheeler and handed over 2 Page 2 the knife to the Station writer stating that he had killed the deceased with that knife.

offence under Section 302, IPC on 06.04.2004. As many as 15 witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution. Exhibits P-1 to P-29 were exhibited and M.O.-1 to M.O.-14 were marked. The appellant was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. to which the appellant simply denied his involvement in the occurrence. 5. Though PWs-1 and 2 were examined as eye- witnesses, they turned hostile and none was examined on the JUDGMENT defence side. 6. Dr. N.V.S.L. Narasimham [PW-13] in the post mortem report opined that the deceased appeared to have died of hemorrhage and shock due to incised cut injuries on the neck and multiple incised cut injuries on the other parts of the body. 3 Page 3 7. The trial Court based on the evidence of doctor (PW- 13), Dasari Yerrayya [PW-9] and Y. Suryanarayana, Deputy Superintendent of Police [PW-15] as well as Exhibits P-4 and

8. The trial Court held that though PWs-1 and 2 turned hostile, they deposed that they saw the dead body of the deceased in the house of the appellant, that they went to the police station along with the appellant and that Exhibit P-1 report was given by PW-1. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the case of the appellant that he along with PWs-1 and 2 went for shopping on that day and they were not present at the place of occurrence, inasmuch as, there was no independent witness to support the said version. The trial JUDGMENT Judge noted that presence of PWs-1 and 2 in the police station was admitted and that the correctness of Exhibit P-1 cannot be questioned by them. It was also held that when the deceased was lying dead in front of the house of the accused, it was for the accused to explain as to how the dead body was found in that place and what steps he had taken to 4 Page 4 explain the same. In that view, the learned Sessions Judge, by relying upon the other evidence, namely, FSL Report (Exhibit P-29) which made specific reference to Item No. 10-

blood, the cloths which were seized from the deceased and Exhibit P-5- the Seizure Memo of M.O.-10 prepared by PW-14 while effecting the seizure in the presence of PW-10, a technician in the Steel Plant who had no axe to grind against the appellant, to support its conclusion. 9. The circumstances relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge are set out in detail in paragraph 49 of the judgment. Having found the appellant guilty of the offence of murder of the deceased on 06.04.2004 at about 5.10 p.m. JUDGMENT with the aid of M.O.-10 within the compound of his house, the trial Court imposed the sentence of imprisonment for life apart from a fine of Rs. 1000/- with a default sentence of three months of simple imprisonment. The High Court declined to interfere with the conviction and sentence of the 5 Page 5 appellant in the judgment impugned in this appeal against which the appellant has come before us.

Learned counsel for the appellant, in his submissions contended that when the so-called eye witnesses, namely, PWs-1 and 2 turned hostile, Exhibit P-1, alleged to have been given by PW-1 cannot be acted upon. He further submitted that if the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses are eschewed from consideration, what remains is the evidence of PW Nos.3, 4, 6 and 7, who were not eye witnesses but were closely related to the deceased and, therefore, their version also cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel would, JUDGMENT therefore, contend that when there was no incriminating circumstance connecting the accused with the death of the deceased, the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the Courts below cannot be sustained. 11. As against the above submissions, learned counsel appearing for the State contended that though PW-1 6 Page 6 supported Exhibit P-1 in her Examination-in-Chief, she had to be treated as hostile in the course of her cross examination and the conclusion of the trial Court by relying

cannot be faulted. According to the learned counsel there was motive for the appellant to kill the deceased, that the absence of proper explanation as to how the body of the deceased was found in the courtyard of the accused and failure to satisfy the Court about the plea of alibi was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant of the killing of the deceased. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court does not call for JUDGMENT interference. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material papers placed on record, the judgment of the trial Court as well as the High Court, we are also convinced that the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant does not call for interference. PW Nos.1 and 2 7 Page 7 who are none other than the daughters of the appellant, though said to have initially preferred the complaint-Exhibit P-1 through PW-1 alleging murder of the deceased by the

13. To reiterate the facts, the deceased is none other than the nephew of the appellant i.e. son of his elder sister, Karem Veera Veni (PW-3). Since the appellant was not in talking terms with his wife, his daughters, namely, PW Nos.1 and 2 were living along with their mother in their grandparents’ house at a different place. The above facts are not in dispute inasmuch as the appellant admitted the same in the 313 questioning. It has also come in evidence that the move of the appellant to secure divorce from his wife was not JUDGMENT supported by PW-3 and, therefore, he was not in good terms with PW-3 also. His wife is none other than PW-3’s elder sister’s daughter. K. Hema Sekhar (PW-4) is the father of the deceased, K. Kiran Kumar (PW-6) is the brother of the deceased and K. Swarnalatha (PW-7) is the sister of the deceased. Though according to PW-3, the appellant and PW- 8 Page 8 3 were not in talking terms, the children of both were moving friendly with each other. According to the prosecution, the deceased developed a liking for PW-2, daughter of the

sister as well as K. Swarnalatha (PW-7), sister of the deceased. 14. It is stated that it was in the above stated background when PWs-1 and 2 visited the house of the deceased to spend their holidays, the appellant having come to know about the move of the deceased to develop close relationship with PW-2, got enraged by his conduct which made him to call him to his house on 06.04.2004 and that after the deceased arrived, the appellant questioned his JUDGMENT conduct towards his daughter PW-2 to which the deceased appeared to have retorted saying that he can even marry both his daughters, which provoke d the appellant to ultimately inflict the cut injuries with the knife (M.O.-10) and the deceased succumbed to his injuries on the spot. The fact that the dead body of the deceased was found in the 9 Page 9 compound of the appellant is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the said fact was reported to the Steel Plant Police Station by PWs-1 and 2 along with the accused. The

14 under Exhibit P-5. The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report also confirmed that human blood was found on the weapon (M.O.-10) though the origin of the blood group was stated to be not traceable. 15. Inasmuch as PWs.1 and 2 turned hostile, the trial Court attempted to examine as to whether there were circumstances enough to link the appellant with the death of the deceased. In that attempt the trial Court has culled out the following 16 circumstances: JUDGMENT “49. The following circumstances/chain of events make the Court to draw an inference that the accused dealt blows on the deceased with M.O.10 and murdered him:- a) The accused and his wife on account of their differences are living separately and the wife of the accused is residing with her parents at Kesanapalli of East Godavari District along with PWs 1 and 2 and her son; 1 Page 10

JUDGMENT 1 Page 11

JUDGMENT 1 Page 12 16. Keeping the above reasoning of the trial Court in mind, when we examine the submissions, we also notice that

certificate by the doctor (PW-13). Of the 17 injuries, 13 injuries were incised cut injuries and the cause of death was stated to be due to shock and hemorrhage pursuant to the incised cut injuries on the neck and multiple incised cut injuries on other parts of the body. The doctor (PW-13) also confirmed that the incised cut injuries could have been caused by a weapon like Exhibit M.O.-10. Exhibit P-29, the FSL report disclosed that though the origin of the blood stain could not be determined, human blood was detected on MO- JUDGMENT 10. The appellant admitted the following facts:-that the deceased was son of PW-3, that he died on 06.04.2004, that he was found dead in the garden which is situated in front of his house within his compound, that there were number of bleeding injuries on the body of the deceased, that he was not in talking terms with his wife and that is why she was living with her parents, and that the deceased used to stay in 1 Page 13 the same house in which his wife and PWs-1 and 2 were also staying.

witness”. 18. Having considered the above factors, we find that every circumstance noted by the trial Court goes to show that it was the appellant who got enraged by the conduct of the deceased in his attempt to develop close relationship with his daughter PW-2 which was not to his liking, inasmuch as he was not in good terms with PW-3, the mother of the deceased. The appellant was stated to have been aggrieved JUDGMENT by the non-cooperation of PW-3 in his attempt to dissolve the marriage with his wife who is the daughter of the elder sister of the appellant as well as PW-3. Merely because PWs-3,4,6 and 7 are related to the deceased, there is no reason why they should implicate the appellant who is also closely related to them. If according to the appellant, he was not present when the murder of the deceased took place in his 1 Page 14 residence, as rightly pointed out by the trial Court, then it was for him to explain as to how the dead body was found in his house. Admitting the presence of the dead body of the

was taken by the appellant to explain the situation of the presence of the dead body in his house. The theory of the hostile witnesses PWs-1 and 2 that they went for shopping along with the appellant was rightly rejected by the trial Court in the absence of any other supporting material both oral as well as documentary. The evidence of the doctor (PW- 13) and Exhibit P-8 disclose that the deceased was mercilessly wounded with the knife (M.O.-10) which resulted in his instantaneous death due to shock and hemorrhage. JUDGMENT The overall consideration of the evidence available on record only substantiate the guilt of the accused-appellant in the killing of the deceased and consequently the conclusion reached by the trial Court and upheld by the High Court does not call for any interference. The appeal, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed. 1 Page 15 …………………………...J. [Swatanter Kumar] ........……………………………J. [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla] New Delhi; July 23, 2012 JUDGMENT 1 Page 16