Pitla Chandram vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—This case presents a typical example as to how the Courts become helpless, if the kith and kin of a deceased woman become dishonest and change their version after being won over. The sad part of the matter is that almost all the key prosecution witnesses changed their stand, nearly two years after their evidence supporting the case of the prosecution was recorded. Neither the Public Prosecutor was vigilant, nor the trial Court was careful to prevent such nefarious activity.

The sole accused was married to one Suguna, daughter of P.W.1 and sister of P.W.2, who are residents of Kasulabad village of Medak district. The accused and the deceased (Suguna) were blessed with two children - P.Ws.3 and 5. Initially, they were said to be residing at Rudraram village of Medak District, but migrated to Ankapoor, Nizamabad district, for livelihood.

The marriage of P.W.-4 (Laxminarasawa), another daughter of P.W.-1, was scheduled to take place on 30.04.2006. In that connection, the accused, his wife (deceased) and their children are said to have gone to the house of P.W.-1. After the marriage, the accused is said to have informed P.W.-1 that he would return to the village on 09.05.2006. On 08.05.2006, the accused, the deceased and P.W.-3 are said to have slept in a room and the remaining persons in the warrandah, and open place. At 5.30 a.m. P.W.-2 is said to have gone inside the room for taking key of the tractor and noticed the dead body of the deceased in pool of blood and an axe by the side of the dead body. The other members of the family became aware of the incident.

P.W.-1 submitted a complaint, Ex. P.1, before the Police, Mirdoddi at 8.15 a.m. on that day, alleging that the accused caused the death of the deceased by hacking with an axe. Based on the said complaint, Police registered a case in Crime No. 38 of 2006 under Sec. 302 IPC and arrived at the scene of occurrence. The steps stipulated under law, such as preparation of scene of offence panchanama, inquest and causing of post-mortem were taken. The statements of the persons, who are acquainted with the offence, were recorded. Further investigation was carried out and P.W.-16 filed the charge sheet.

The trial Court framed relevant charges against the accused, and on his pleading not guilty, conducted the trial. P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined, Exs. P.1 to P. 11 were filed, and M.Os.1 to 7 were taken on record. Through its Judgment dated 19.02.2009, the trial Court held the accused guilty of the offences alleged against him. It sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine suffer simple imprisonment for six months, for the offence under Sec. 302 I.P.C., and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Sec. 201 IPC, which shall run concurrently. Hence, this appeal.

Ms. Ammaji Nettem, learned counsel for the appellant-accused submits that though P.Ws.1 to 5 initially deposed against the accused, all of them have changed their version after being recalled, and the trial Court treated such changed versions as perjury and held the accused guilty of the offences charged. She contends that even according to the original version of the principal prosecution witnesses, the deceased, accused and P.W.-5 slept in one room, and, in case the accused hacked the deceased in the night, the substance of the incident not being noticed by P.W.-5 not to speak of the other inmates in the house does not arise. She contends that it was mentioned by P.W.-1 in Ex. P. 1 that the door was bolted from inside and there is no mention as to how the door was opened, enabling P.W.-2 to enter the room at 5.30 a.m. for taking the keys. She argues that the injury through an axe can be caused only by hitting hard and when so many injuries are noticed, the victim is bound to cry and other persons in the house are bound to become alert. It is also argued that the conviction was solely based upon the surmises and by treating the evidence of prosecution witnesses as perjury.

Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that it is a clear case of P.Ws. 1 to 5 having been won over, two years after the conclusion of their evidence, and the trial Court has rightly treated the subsequent versions of such witnesses as amounting to perjury. She pleads that there is no comparison between what was stated by P.Ws. 1 to 5 at the initial stage and what was stated at a later point of time. She contends that the trial Court has taken proper steps for directing the prosecution of P.Ws.1 to 5 for perjury and has come to the correct conclusion vis-�-vis the accused.

The incident is said to have taken place in the intervening night of 8th/9th May, 2006. The complaint was submitted at 8.15 a.m. of 09.05.2006. In the complaint, P.W.1 did not attribute any motive or objectionable conduct on the part of the accused, preceding the incident. She has simply stated that her son P.W.-2 noticed the dead body of the deceased and since the accused was not present in the house, she is of the opinion that he might have killed the deceased "due to some reason". She was consistent in her evidence when she was examined in January, 2007.

P.W.-2, the brother of the deceased, is the person who first noticed the dead body of the deceased, when he is said to have entered room at 5.30 a.m. He too was a bit consistent in his evidence recorded in April 2007. P.W.-3 is the minor son of the deceased and the accused. The record does not disclose that the trial Court has taken any precautions for recording the evidence of this minor witness. He has only stated that his father killed his mother. This witness did not make any mention of any disputes between his; parents.

P.W.-4 is the sister of the deceased, whose marriage was performed at relevant point of time. She has just repeated what was said to have been noticed by P.W.-2. P.W.-5 is another child witness, and she is the girl, who is said to have slept with her parents on the fateful night. She did not make any mention about the incident. She has only stated that when she woke up in the morning, she observed that her mother was killed with an axe and her father was not there. She is the only witness, who stated that there were disputes between her parents on earlier occasion.

These five witnesses are either the parents, or children, or blood relatives of the deceased. For the reasons best known to them, all of them filed applications before the trial Court for recalling them in the year 2009. The applications were allowed, and on 05.02.2009 they deposed in the cross-examination in such a way that hardly any scope is left for anyone to suspect the involvement of the accused in the death of the accused. The sad part of it is that the Additional Public Prosecutor got the witnesses declared hostile only after everything that helps the accused was stated by them. The collusion between the accused and P.Ws.1 to 5 is evident on the face of it. The role of Additional Public Prosecutor is far from satisfactory. The trial Court also did not properly examine as to what was the purpose or basis for recalling not only one, but all the material prosecution witnesses. Once the fatal and destructive evidence has become part of the record, the trial Court appears to have become furious and directed that P.Ws.1 to 5, 7, 9 to 11 be prosecuted for perjury.

A serious legal question arises for consideration here. The Court can treat the evidence of a witness as perjury, if only in the properly instituted proceedings in that behalf such a finding was recorded. Treating a portion of the evidence amounting to perjury even before such proceedings were instituted, much less any finding was recorded, and then holding the accused guilty would amount to serious miscarriage of justice. The Court was required to eschew one of the two contradictory portions of the evidence of the witnesses only after a finding is recorded by a competent Court in that behalf. If the two contradictory portions remained in the record, and no portion of it is eschewed, the benefit of doubt must naturally go to the accused.

Even otherwise, certain aspects remained unexplained. If in fact, the door was bolted from inside, as stated in Ex. P. 1 complaint, it is not mentioned as to how P.W.-2 had an access to the room. Further, if P.W.-5 was sleeping along with her parents, she could not have remained silent when a ghostly incident of axing her mother was taking place. Any person, who receives such an injury, is bound to raise an alarm and the persons in the surrounding, that too in the same house, would wake up. P.W.-17, the Doctor, who examined the dead body of the deceased, stated that there are as many as five cut injuries on the dead body. With the first cut injury, the cry is bound to be so loud, that not only the persons in the room and in the house, but also the neighbours would wake up. When so many improbabilities and inconsistencies exist, we do not find it safe to convict the accused. Therefore, the appeal is allowed.

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C. No. 349 of 2006 on the file of IV-Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Siddipet, dated 19-02-2009, against the appellant - accused are set aside. The appellant - accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is needed in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant - accused shall be refunded to him. The material objects, if any, shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.