JUDGMENT
1. The sole accused, respondent herein, was tried by the III learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, in Sessions Case No. 286/1997 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. On evidence, the learned Judge acquitted the accused, respondent herein, of both the charges.
2. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State of Andhra Pradesh through the learned Public Prosecutor presented the present appeal.
3. The gravamen of the charge against the accused was that he committed the murder of one Vasu and caused hurt to one K. Gangulamma, who was examined in this case as P.W. 1, on 23-11-1996 at about 7-30 a.m., in Ramireddipalle village.
4. The prosecution story can be briefly narrated as follows. P.W. 1 happened to be the sister of the accused. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are parents of P.W. 1 and the accused. P.W. 1, the accused and the deceased are residents of Ramireddypalli village. P.W. 1 was married to one Venkataramayya of Nagaiahgaripalli village. Due to differences between them, she came back to her parents’ house. Thereafter, she developed illicit intimacy with the deceased.
5. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused and his parents requested the deceased to marry PW. 1. The deceased refused to many P.W. 1 but continued his illicit relation with her. Accused insisted that P.W. 1 should leave the house if she wanted to continue her relationship with the deceased. Accordingly P.W. 1 left her parents’ house and started living along with the deceased in a separate house in the same village as husband and wife. On coming to know about the relationship of P.W. 1 and the deceased, the parents of the deceased fixed his marriage with another woman by name Nirmala of Kavetinagar village. The marriage was scheduled to be celebrated on 15-12-1996. The accused came to know about the proposed marriage of the deceased with another woman. He met the deceased on 23-11-1996 at about 6.30 a.m., and requested him to drop the marriage proposal and marry his sister. On this count, there was a petty quarrel between them.
6. It is further stated by the prosecution that on the same day at about 7.30 a.m., the deceased was near the fireplace in his house boiling water. The accused went there with an axe and attacked the deceased from behind on his neck, right eye-brow and back repeatedly. P.W. 1 was inside the house. She came out of it on hearing the cries of the deceased and tried to intervene. The accused pushed her down, beat her with the stick portion of the axe on her right hand and back and threatened her that she would also be killed if she intervened.
7. It is the further case of the prosecution that on hearing the cries of P.W. 1, P.Ws. 2 to 5 came to the scene of offence. On seeing them, the accused is alleged to have run away from the scene of offence.
8. P.W. 1 lodged a report Ex. P1 with Chandragiri police. On the strength of Ex. P1, crime No. 266/1996 was registered against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. P.W. 14, the Inspector of Police, reached the scene of offence immediately after receipt of the First Information Report Ex. P1. P.W. 14 prepared observation report in the presence of P.W. 10. He also prepared a rough sketch Ex. P10. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W. 11. He seized M.Os. 4 to 10 the clothes of the deceased, blood stained earth and controlled earth. He recorded the statements of P.Ws. 1 to 5. Dead body was sent to P.W. 13 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and gave post-mortem certificate Ex. P9. As per the opinion of the Doctor, the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries.
9. P.W. 12, another Doctor, examined P.W. 1 and issued wound certificate Ex. P8. P.W. 14 arrested the accused on 30-11-1996 at A. Rangampeta bus stand and recovered blood stained clothes from his person. Thus, on completion of investigation, P.W. 14 filed charge sheet.
10. The defence of the accused is of total denial. In order to bring guilt to the home of the accused, prosecution led the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 14. It produced certain documents, which were marked as Exs. P1 to P16. Material objects were marked as M.Os. 1to11.
11. In order to prove the fact that the deceased died a homicidal death the prosecution wants to rely upon the evidence of P.W. 14, the Inspector of Police, who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W. 11 who acted as an Inquest Panch. Ex. P7 is the inquest report prepared by them.
12. After the inquest was over the dead body was sent to P.W. 13. P.W. 13 happened to be working as Assistant Professor Forensic Medicine, S.V. Medical College, Tirupathi. On receipt of requisition he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and noticed the following internal injuries.
1. Chop wound of 2 x 0. 5cm. x bone deep, crescent shape, obliquely placed on the outer end of right eye-brow and made a cut of 0.2 depth of underlying bone.
2. Abraded contusion of 1 x 1 cm. Over the upper part of the right temple.
3. A chop wound of 3 x 2 cms. x bone deep over the right parietal eminance horizontal and made a cut of entire thickness of bone of 3 cms. Length.
4. Chop wound of 8 x 3 cm. x bone deep over the upper part of the back of the right side of the neck, cutting the underlying neck muscles, blood muscles, and other soft tissues and made a cut on spinal column.
5. A chop wound 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the back of left side of the upper part of the neck.
6. A chop wound of 5 x 1 cm x bone deep on the back of the left neck 2.5 cm .below the above wound.
7. Scratch of 3 x 0.1 cm horizontal over lumber region.
8. Scratch of 0.1 cm horizontal over right scapular region.
9. Circular laceration 1×1 cm x bone deep 1.5 cm above the injury No. 6 on the left side.
10. Abraded contusion 8 x 0.2 cm over lower part of back of trunk horizontal, corresponding to a scaral region.
11. Circular laceration 1 x 1 cm x bone deep just above the natal claft,
12. Contusion of 12 x 4 cm over upper and outer part of right thigh.
On internal examination, the Doctor found the following internal injuries.
1. Scalp contusion 6×3 cm over right temporal region.
2. Sub dural and sub arachnoid haemorrhages present over the brain, c/s. brain petechial haemorrhages present in both hemispheres.
3. Fissured fracture skull seen in contuation of without injury skull in external injury No. 3 extended at both the ends. On right side measuring 8 cms length involving right temporal bone, and on left side 7 cms length left to parietal bone.
According to the opinion of the Doctor, the deceased died due to multiple injuries. He stated that the injuries were possible by a heavy cutting weapon and the injuries notices on the person of the deceased could be caused by a weapon like M.O.1. He further stated that the deceased might have died about 24 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. According to his observation, he issued the post-mortem certificate Ex. P9.
13. Considering the evidence led by the prosecution on the point of homicidal death, we hold that the deceased died a homicidal death.
14. In order to prove the fact that the accused was responsible for causing the death of the deceased, prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 4, 5 and 8. These are the eye-witnesses to the incident.
15. P.W. 1 happened to be the sister of the accused and mistress of the deceased. According to her version, she was married to Venkataramaiah about 6l/2 years prior to the incident. She gave birth to a female child through him. Thereafter, her husband deserted her. She started residing with her parents along with her daughter. She further deposed that the accused was working as a Security Guard in a school. She was running a sundry shop to eke out her liveli hood. The accused used to visit her house. The accused did not like it and so he quarreled with the deceased. Thereafter, she and the deceased started living separately by constructing a hut.
16. It is the further evidence of P.W. 1 that on the date of incident at about 6.00 a.m., the accused came to their house. She was inside the house. The deceased was boiling water outside the house. She heard a sound. She came out of the house and saw the accused hitting the deceased with an age on his neck. She went there. The accused beat her with the reverse side of the axe on her right hand and on her back.
17. The evidence of P.W. 1 further disclosed that she went to Chandragiri Police Station and lodged a written complaint Ex. P1. Looking to the complaint Ex. P1 lodged by P.W. 1, we have no hesitation in holding that the evidence of P.W. 1 is perfectly corroborated by Ex. P1 FIR lodged by her on the strength of which the Police machinery was set in motion.
18. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are in fact eye-witnesses to the incident. Naturally they did not support the prosecution case because they happened to be the parents of the accused. P.Ws. 4 and 5 are neighbours and relations of the deceased. According to the version of P.W. 4, on hearing the shouts of P.W. 1, he went to the scene of offence and noticed the accused running away from the scene of offence and the deceased lying with injuries. P.W. 4 gives corroboration to the evidence of P.W. 1 to the limited extent of the presence of P.W. 1 at the scene of offence.
19. P.W. 5 happened to be the wife of P.W. 4. She was also related to the deceased. According to her version, she was washing clothes in front of her house at the time of the incident. On hearing the cries of P.W. 1, she rushed to the scene of offence. She saw the accused attacking the deceased with an axe. P.W. 5 was cross-examined at length, but nothing is elicited to disbelieve her evidence.
20. We have one more eye-witness, P.W. 8. He is also a relative of the deceased. According to his version, he also saw the accused attacking the deceased with an axe and running away throwing the axe.
21. The evidence of these witnesses corroborates each other’s. Further, the evidence of P.W. 1, as stated earlier, is corroborated by Ex. P1 FIR and the evidence of these witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence which was given by P.W. 13.
22. As stated earlier, P.W. 1 was also injured at the hands of the accused. According to her version, when she intervened, the accused beat her with the reverse portion of the axe on her hand and back. She was examined by the Doctor-PW 12. P.W. 12 issued wound certificate, Ex. P8. This is also a piece of corroboration to the evidence of P.W. 1, which clearly establishes her presence at the scene of offence.
23. It appears from the evidence on record that the evidence of P.W. 1 was recorded on 23-6-1998 at the first instance and the chief-examination and cross-examination were concluded on 24-6-1998. Thereafter, the defence appears to have filed Crl. M.P. No. 108/1998 for recalling P.W. l.That petition appears to have been erroneously allowed on 13-7-1998 by the learned Judge. P.W. 1 was put in the witness box and she was made to say that she had deposed as she was given threat by P.W. 7. But it appears to us that this attempt was made by defence as she might have been threatened by her parents because she deposed against their own son. Therefore, that part of the evidence can be ignored, as it is an afterthought.
24. In this connection, we would like to observe that when an application is filed by defence for recalling a witness under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court has to satisfy itself with the reasons assigned for recalling the witness. The practice of recalling witnesses should be deprecated. In the present case, P.W. 1 was recalled only to make her speak lie before the Court. Therefore, the learned Judges have to be careful in allowing petitions for recalling witnesses.
25. Considering the evidence on record, which conclusively establishes the guilt of the accused under both the charges, we hold that the learned Judge erroneously acquitted the accused-respondent herein. Therefore, the appeal has to be allowed.
26. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The accused-respondent is convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, and is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but no separate sentence is imposed for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, in. view of the fact that the injuries noticed on the person of P.W. 1 were of simple nature. The accused-respondent is directed to surrender before the authorities to undergo the sentence.