S. Kannaiah Singh vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—A girl of 20 years, namely, K. Rani, who is said to have been betrothed to a person for marriage, was unfortunately put to death on 21.08.2006. A complaint (Ex.P.1), in this behalf, was submitted by her father, P.W.1, at 6.30 p.m. to the police at Tappachabutra. Crime No. 153 of 2006 was registered. It was mentioned in Ex.P.1 complaint that the sole accused, by name, S. Kannaiah Singh @ Kannaiah @ Khanniahlal, used to attend to the electrical works in the area, and did some work in the house of P.W.1 also. The accused is said to have fallen in love with Rani and intended to marry her. Few months before the incident, the marriage of Rani was said to have been fixed with another, and unable to digest it, the accused came to the house of P.W.1 at 6.00 p.m. on 21.08.2006, when Rani alone was in the house. P.W. 1 is said to be sitting on a pial, which is at about 20 ft. away from his house. The accused is said to have picked up a sword from the nearby Gurudwara, and attacked Rani on the neck and other parts of the body, resulting in her instantaneous death. P.W. 1 stated that soon after he heard about the incident, he went to the spot and found her daughter dead, and prayed for action.

The police rushed to the spot immediately and prepared the scene of offence panchanama, conducted inquest and sent the dead body for post-mortem. The persons acquainted with the offence were examined and their statements were recorded. Charge sheet was filed, alleging the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC against the accused. The case was committed to the Court of IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, as S.C. No. 229 of 2007. The trial Court framed a charge, and on the accused pleading not guilty, trial was conducted.

On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P. 1 to P.8 were filed. M.Os.1 to 3 were taken on record. Through its judgment, dated 14.09.2007, the trial Court held the accused guilty of the offence of causing the death of Rani and imposed the sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Hence, this appeal.

Ms. Naseeb Afshan, learned counsel for the accused, submits that while according to Ex. P. 1 complaint, there are no eyewitnesses and P.W.1 rushed to the spot only on receiving the information; in the evidence before the Court, the prosecution came out with an alleged eyewitness in the form of P.W.2. She contends that the name of P.W.2 was not mentioned in Ex.P. 1, and that the trial Court did not take into account these inconsistencies. She submits that P.W. 1 admitted in the cross-examination that he did not see the accused and the deceased moving together, and that he went to the place of occurrence, only at 6.30 p.m. after the incident.

The learned counsel further submits that the version of P.W.2 that there were no persons in the immediate neighbourhood, that too, in a cluster of about 500 houses, is just unbelievable. She submits that P.W.1 was so evasive that he did not even furnish the approximate time, at which, the betrothal ceremony of the deceased was performed. According to her, the accused was falsely implicated and that the conviction and sentence ordered by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that Ex.P. 1 was submitted immediately after the incident, with the objective of furnishing information to the police, and one cannot expect all the minute details to be furnished in it. She submits that though the name of P.W.2 was not mentioned in Ex.P.1, her presence cannot be doubted and her evidence is free from any contradictions. It is also pleaded that no suggestion was made to P.W.2 to the effect that from her house, she cannot observe what is taking place in the house of P.W.1, and that the prosecution has proved the case, beyond any pale of doubt.

P.Ws.1 and 4 are the parents, P.W.3 is the brother and P.W.2 is the paternal aunt of the deceased girl Rani. She is said to be undertaking the work of knitting mirrors on the dress materials, at her house itself, whereas P.W.1 is an ice cream vendor in the streets and P.W.3 is an employee in a private organization. P.W.4 is said to have gone to a different place on the fateful day i.e., 21.08.2006. In Ex.P.1, the details of the incident, leading to the death of Rani were furnished by her father, P.W.1. After referring to the fact that there existed an affair between the accused and the deceased, and that the marriage alliance of his daughter was fixed with another, P.W. 1 stated:

Today i.e., 21.08.2006 at about 6.00 p.m. while my daughter Kumari Rani was alone in the house, the above said Kannaiah Lal Singh, who was present in Gurudwara situated in front of my house, came to my house armed with a talwar and attacked my daughter''s neck, hands and other parts of the body, due to the grudge that she was ignoring him and his love. As a result, my daughter Kumari K. Rani died on the spot. Accused Kannaiah Lal Singh run away from the spot along with the talwar. At the time of that incident, I was present at pial (Chebutre) nearby my house in the locality. On hearing about the incident, I rushed to the spot and found my daughter lying in pool of blood. Kindly take necessary action against accused Kannaiah Lal Singh for brutally murdering my daughter.

The complaint is said to have been drafted by another person, whose name, P.W. 1 did not mention, nor did the prosecution examine the scribe. It is important to note that P.W.1 did not make any reference to the presence of his sister, P.W.2, at the scene of offence. If, in fact, the distance between the pial where P.W. 1 was sitting, and his house is said to be just 20 ft., for all practical purposes, it is front yard of the house of one room tenement. If any person enters the house, the same can easily be noticed from the pial, which is at a distance of 20 ft. from the house. In the chief-examination, P.W.1, at one stage, stated that his daughter alone was in the house, and that he was sitting on a pial at a distance of 20 ft. from the house. It is difficult to reconcile both these aspects. He can be said to be right in the premises. Secondly, the chief-examination of P.W. 1 proceeds, as though he has seen the accused attacking the deceased, he made an attempt to catch the accused, but the accused ran away. Though he did not mention that in Ex.P. 1, the relevant portion of the chief-examination of P.W. 1 reads as under:

On 21.08.2006, I was sitting on a pial near to my house which is at a distance of 20 ft. On 21.08.2006 around 6.00 p.m. my daughter, deceased, was alone in my house. The accused came to my house and assaulted with sword on my daughter, deceased, on her neck, head, and fingers and my daughter died instantaneously on the spot due to cut injuries. At the time of incident on a pial at a distance of 20 ft. away from house. The accused ran away with the sword when I tried to catch him.

The only mention in his deposition about P.W.2 is that she witnessed the incident. In his cross-examination, P.W. 1 stated that he cannot furnish the particulars of the betrothal ceremony of his daughter. It is also stated that he did not see the accused moving with the deceased. According to him, the accused himself informed about it. He stated that he was not present in the house, when the incident took place, and that he went to the scene of offence around 6.30 p.m. It is difficult to reconcile Ex.P.1, on the one hand, and the evidence of P.W.1, on the other hand, on this aspect. A perusal of Ex.P.1 gives an impression that at 6.00 p.m. on 21.08.2006 while the deceased alone was in the house, P.W.1 was on a pial, which is at a distance of 20 ft. from his house. In the cross-examination, however, he stated that he went to the scene of offence at 6.30 p.m., that, in fact, is the time, at which, Ex.P. 1 was submitted to the police station.

P.W.2 stated that at the time of occurrence, she was in front of her house, and that she saw the accused coming into the house of P.W.1 with a sword and attacking the deceased. She further stated that when she made an attempt to rescue the deceased, the accused pushed her away. In the cross-examination, she stated that she does not know the bridegroom, whose betrothal was performed with the deceased. Though she admitted that there are about 500 houses in the locality, she stated that there was no one at the time of the incident i.e., at 6.00 p.m. Several suggestions were made to her, pointing out the contradictions between what she stated in her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., and in her evidence before the Court.

The evidence of P.W.3 is not of immediate relevance. He has only stated that his sister, the deceased, used to move with the accused. This does not accord with the evidence of P.W. 1.

P.W.4, the mother of the deceased, stated that she came to know about the affair between her daughter and the accused one month before the incident. It was suggested to her that someone else killed the deceased, but out of suspicion, their people have implicated the accused.

The evidence of Government functionaries is not of immediate relevance. The Investigating Officer, P.W. 10, stated that P.W.1 came to the police station and someone helped him in getting the complaint scribed. He admitted that the presence of P.W.2 was not mentioned in Ex.P.1, and even in the charge sheet, the presence of P.W.2 was not specifically mentioned.

It is, indeed, painful that a girl, who was about to get married, was put to death in such a brutal manner. The difficulty for this Court is that the evidence, in relation to her death, is not clear and consistent. Had P.W.1 been consistent in his approach, things should have been different altogether. On the one hand, he stated that at 6.00 p.m. he was present in his house, when his daughter alone was in the one room tenement. On the other hand, he stated in the cross-examination that he did not witness the occurrence, and he came to the house, only at 6.30 p.m. It hardly needs any mention that the veracity of the evidence of any witness in a criminal case is always examined, on the touchstone of the facts mentioned in the complaint, which is submitted at the earliest point of time. In a given case, there may be several developments, over and above, what was mentioned in the complaint. For instance, if the investigation reveals a different angle to the offence, it may point out the participation of the other accused or witnessing of the incident by others. Such is not the case here. For all practical purposes, the state of affairs stagnated to the one, that was witnessed immediately after the occurrence, and stated in Ex.P. 1.

Ex.P. 1 does not refer to the existence of any eyewitness. However, P.W.2 came forward at the stage of trial, as though she is an eyewitness. Though the sword is said to have been picked up by the accused from a nearby Gurudwara, no one concerning that institution was examined. The only basis to suspect the involvement of the accused is that he had developed intimacy with the deceased. In unequivocal terms, P.W. 1 stated that he did not see the accused moving with the deceased. The information available with P.W.4, the mother of the deceased, is also equally vague and doubtful. She is said to have come to know about the existence of such relation, one month before the occurrence. She did not speak about her seeing the accused and the deceased moving together. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are unable to furnish the proximate time, at which, the betrothal ceremony of the deceased was performed. The medical evidence, no doubt, discloses that cut injuries are present on the body of the deceased and they could have been caused with a sharp weapon like knife. However, the prosecution was not able to establish that those injuries were caused by the accused.

One important aspect is that in his evidence, P.W.1 admitted that he used to start from his house in the morning and come in the night after selling the ice cream. He did not state as to how he happened to be at 6.00 p.m. at his house. The defence was well advised not to further elaborate this in the cross-examination and naturally intended to invoke the presumption that there is every likelihood of P.W. 1 not being at the scene of occurrence on that day.

From the discussion undertaken by us and with reference to the evidence on record, and particularly of P.Ws.1 and 2, a serious doubt would arise as to their very presence at the scene of occurrence. The benefit of that, now, must naturally go to the accused.

We, therefore, allow the Criminal Appeal, and the conviction and sentence ordered against the appellant/accused, in S.C. No. 229 of 2007 on the file of IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, through judgment dated 14.09.2007, are set aside. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is needed, with reference to any other crime. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him.