Golla Nadimidoddi Rangamma vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—This case, in a way, provides an example as to how the very basic principles of the criminal law have been ignored. The Court of Sessions, Anathapur tried A1 and A2 in S.C. No. 598 of 2012. The case of the prosecution was that Ramesh, the deceased was married to A2, by name, Nadimidoddi Rangamma, somewhere in April, 2011. Ramesh is the son of P.W. 1, and brother of P.W. 2. It was alleged that the couple i.e., Ramesh and A2 lived happily for about 3 to 6 months from the date of their marriage, but A2 developed illicit intimacy with A1, by name, Mangala Nagendra of the same Village. The parents of Ramesh are said to have admonished A1 on certain occasions. A2 is said to have gone to the house of her parents for ''Jathara'' for a period of one month and on 27.1.2012, she came back.

In the intervening night of 29/30th day of January, 2012, Ramesh and A2 were said to have slept in their house in Konakondla Village of Anantapur District, whereas, P.W. 1 slept on a cot in the verandah of the house, and P.W. 2, his daughter slept on the pial of the house. Both of them are said to have heard some voice at around 3.00 a.m., and when they went inside the room, they saw A2 holding the feet of Ramesh and A1 holding his neck. On noticing their presence, A1 is said to have run away. P.Ws. 3 to 5 and certain others are said to have gathered in the house and they found Ramesh in dead condition.

P.W. 1 submitted a complaint, Ex. P1, at about 10.30 a.m., on 30.01.2012 before the P.S. Vajrakaraur Mandal. Crime No. 6 of 2012 was registered u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC against A1 and A2. The formalities, such as, the preparation of scene of offence panchanama, conducting of inquest, and postmortem examination, were completed. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The trial Court framed the charges against A1 and A2, and on both of them pleading not guilty, the trial was conducted.

On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 10 were examined and Exs. P1 to P6 were filed. Mos. 1 to 3 were also taken on record. Through its judgment, dated 29.04.2013, the trial Court acquitted A1, but convicted A2, for committing the offence of murder of her husband. Sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month, was imposed. Hence, this appeal by A2.

Sri M. Prahalad Reddy, learned counsel for A2 submits that the trial Court did not record any finding about the involvement of A2, but still convicted her, just on assumptions. He submits that the principle that the motive for the offence in a criminal case must be proved beyond any reasonable doubt, was completely ignored. He further submits that the allegations against A1 and A2 were common and having acquitted A2 by giving benefit of doubt, the trial Court convicted A2. Learned counsel contends that there is serious discrepancy between the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, and the evidence of P.Ws. 3 to 5, is motivated on account of the fact that they wanted to settle score with the mother of A1, and deposed to implicate A1. Learned counsel further submits that there was no allegation at any stage that Ramesh was electrocuted, whereas, the medical evidence on record clearly discloses that the injury No. 1 was caused on account of electrocution. He further submits that P.W. 1 admitted that he borrowed a sum of Rs. 80,000/- from the mother of A1, and the case was foisted only to avoid that amount, and in the process, A2 was convicted.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that being the wife of the deceased, A2 stands on a different footing, and no exception can be taken to the judgment of the trial Court. She contends that all the prosecution witnesses uniformly spoke about the existence of motive for A2, as she developed illicit intimacy with A1. She submits that in Ex. P1, itself, the presence of electrical wires was mentioned and the medical evidence has also supported the same. It is argued that it was not even suggested that A2 was not with the deceased when the incident took place and the absence of any version indicating the circumstances, under which, the deceased died, is certainly, a factum, to be taken into account.

P.W. 1 has five children i.e., 3 daughters and 2 sons. The deceased Ramesh is said to be the elder son and his marriage with A2 was performed sometime in August, 2011. A perusal of Ex. P1 submitted by him discloses that A2 developed illicit intimacy with A1 of their Village three months after the marriage, and on that fateful day, the wife of P.W. 1 went to Anantapur. While A2 and Ramesh were said to have slept in the hall of the house, P.W. 1 slept on a cot, just opposite to the entrance, whereas P.W. 2, his daughter slept on a pial. As in Ex. P. 1 P.W. 1 in his evidence, stated about what happened at 3.00 a.m., on the fateful day, as under:

.....By about 3.00 a.m., Mangala Nagendra (A1) entered our house. A1 caught hold of the neck of my deceased son, A2 caught hold of his legs and thereafter they ran away by the time myself and my daughter Ramulamma entered house. My deceased son was lying dead. The electric wires were lying in the house. A1 and A2 ran away in the darkness. I have noticed the swelling of neck, bleeding from the nostrills....

He did not mention as to whether he noticed the entry of A1 before the incident, or that he noticed him after it. From the chief-examination of P.W. 1, it is also clear that A1 and A2 have run away in the darkness. He did not mention about any quarrel or pushing by A1 and A2. However, P.W. 2 had a different version. This is what he stated in the chief examination,

.....By about 3.00 a.m., on hearing sound, myself and my father went inside the house. When we entered into the house, A1 and A2 were in the house. A1 and A2 pushed us aside and went outside of the house. The deceased was having injuries on his fore head. His neck was found swollen and he was found dead....

P.W. 1 did not state that A1 and A2 pushed P.Ws. 1 and 2 and went away. P.W. 3 is an independent witness, and a neighbour, has a different version altogether. He stated that on hearing the commotion at about 3.00 p.m., himself and his wife, and several others gathered in the house. He categorically stated that A2 was very much present in the house. This contradiction is sufficient to disbelieve the version of P.Ws. 1 and 2.

All through the evidence of prosecution, there is no mention about the electrocution of the deceased or any related injuries upon his body. P.W. 1 has only stated that electrical wires were noticed inside the house. He did not mention that the electrical wires were connected to any power point or any electrical wire put on the body of the deceased.

P.W. 7 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy of the deceased, noticed two injuries on the body namely:

Burnt like injury of 4 x 3 c.m. over left supra orbital region (fore head)

Swelling present in front of neck.

And he opined as under:

....Fracture of Hyoid bone is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury No. 1 is possible by electrocution. Due to throttling, the Hoyid bone should have been fractured....

If, in fact, A1 and A2 caused the death of the deceased by electrocution, the question of there being any attack on the deceased, does not arise. The version presented by P.Ws. 1 and 2, does not fit into the medical evidence on record.

There are several circumstances, which convince this Court to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 1. The first is that though the incident took place at 3.00 a.m., Ex. P1 is said to have been submitted at 10.30 a.m. He stated that he is an illiterate, Ex. P1 was scribed by one Mr. Somasekhara in the police station, at a time, when he i.e., P.W. 1 was not there, and that Somasekhara did not read over the contents to him. One can easily imagine trustworthiness of a complaint prepared in such a manner. Secondly, he admitted that he borrowed a sum of Rs. 80,000/- from the mother of A1, and it was suggested to him that the case was foisted to avoid payment of that amount.

Thirdly, there are inconsistent versions from him about the alleged illicit intimacy between the accused. While in Ex. P1, it was mentioned that the relation started three months after the marriage of the deceased with A2, he stated in his deposition that it was after six months, after the marriage. He has also admitted that for one month, A2 went to the house of her parents for ''Jathara'', and it was only two days before the incident that she came back. Added to these factors, it was elicited from P.Ws. 3 to 5 that they too have borrowed amounts from the mother of A1 and it was suggested that they sought to help P.W. 1 to avoid payment of the borrowed amounts.

The trial Court was also convinced that P.Ws. 1 and 2 cannot be treated as eye witnesses and that the prosecution failed to prove its case vis-a-vis A1. It has already been mentioned that the allegations made by the prosecution are common to both A1 and A2, and not a single factor was alleged separately against anyone of them. The conclusions arrived at, and the finding recorded by the trial Court, however, is as under:

.....The prosecution is alleging that it is A1, but the prosecution could not establish beyond reasonable doubt that it was A1, so A1 is entitled to benefit of doubt. So participation of A2 is concerned it is definite as she was alone with the deceased in the house, so with the assistance of some other person she must have murdered the deceased. There is no other explanation from A2 how her husband died, when he was by her side during that night. Merely saying that she was falsely implicated is not sufficient. Therefore the circumstances points towards A2 definitely and she must have murdered the deceased with the assistance of some other person. Therefore this Court records finding that A2 and some other persons may be A1 must have killed the deceased. Therefore the charge u/s 302 IPC is proved against A2. Participation of A1 is somehow doubtful, so he is given benefit of doubt and by giving benefit of doubt the charges under Sections 450 and 302 IPC are not established against A1. So he is found not guilty for the charges under Sections 450 and 302 IPC A2 alone found guilty for the charge u/s 302 IPC......

Even a person, who commenced the study of criminal law, would disagree with the approach of the trial Court. The use of expressions such as "she must have murdered the deceased with the assistance of some other persons, may be A1" are, in a way, prohibited in a criminal case. It is only when the Court is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the charge against the accused cannot be treated as proved, that it can convict the accused. The expression "must have" or "may be" are known for signifying doubt, and the doubt, in a criminal case, invariably must enure, to the benefit of the accused. The trial Court did not mention as to how it has distinguished between A1 and A2 in the context of extending benefit of doubt. Further it is not at all the duty of the accused to explain as to how the crime alleged against him or her has taken place. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C. No. 595 of 2012 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Ananthapur, dated 29.04.2013, against the appellant-A2, are set aside. The appellant-A2 shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless her detention is needed in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-A2 shall be refunded to her.