SUGALI DUNGAVATH LAKSHMA NAIK Vs. STATE OF A.P.
LAWS(APH)-2019-6-18
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on June 06,2019

Sugali Dungavath Lakshma Naik Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF A.P. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SUNIL CLIFFORD DANIEL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
MAHAVIR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Accused Nos.1 to 4 in Sessions Case No.334 of 2012 filed this appeal aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur.
(2.)The accused were tried in the above Sessions Case for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC for causing death of one Boya Gudisi Ramanna alias Ramu on 17.10.2011 at about 10.30 p.m., while he was sleeping on an iron cot. Vide judgment dated 21.11.2012, the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur convicted and sentenced accused Nos.1 to 4 to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
(3.)The facts as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are as under:
(i) P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased while P.W.2 is the husband of P.W.1. P.W.3 is the son of P.Ws.1 and 2 and brother of the deceased. P.W.4 is the brother of P.W.2 while P.W.5 is distantly related to P.Ws.1 to 4. P.W.6 is the daughter-in-law of P.Ws.1 and 2 and wife of the deceased. All of them and other related witnesses are the residents of Rayalappadoddi, Bramhasamudram Mandal. The accused are also residents of the same village and are known to the family of the deceased.

(ii) It is stated that on 17.10.2011 at about 7.30 p.m., when P.W.1 and her daughter-in-law were in the house, A1 came there at about 7 or 7.30 p.m., and enquired about the deceased. P.W.1 informed him that the deceased had gone to the village. At about 8 p.m., while the deceased was having meals, A1 again came to their house and enquired about the deceased. P.W.1 informed that he was taking meals. A1 waited for the deceased, and after completion of the meals, A1 asked the deceased to follow him to go to the fields and from there for hunting. Then, the deceased started his motor bike to go to the fields. A1 informed him that there was no need to take motor bike and that they will go by foot. The deceased went along with A1 towards the fields by walk. He did not return home. As such P.W.1 started making enquiries. On the next day, in the early hours, P.W.8-Mallikarjun informed P.W.4 about seeing the accused and the deceased in the fields at about 10 p.m. on 17.10.2011 and the same was informed to P.W.1. Thereafter, P.W.1 and P.W.4 went to the fields and found the dead body of the deceased on a country cot in the fields and found the head of the deceased cut off from the body.

(iii) It is stated that at the time of incident, chilli and tomato crop was being grown in the fields and every day, the deceased used to attend the agricultural operations in the fields. At times, he used to go in the night also for watering the crop. It is further stated that after seeing the dead body of the deceased, P.W.1 went to the police station and lodged a report with P.W.18-Sub Inspector of Police, Bramhasamudram police station, which was registered as a case in Crime No.55 of 2011 under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC. Ex.P.10 is the FIR. Further investigation in the matter was taken up by P.W.19-Inspector of Police, who instructed the Sub Inspector of police to proceed to the scene of offence along with the copy of FIR. At about 9 p.m., P.W.19 proceeded to the scene of offence and noticed the dead body of the deceased lying on an iron cot with the head completely cut off, but it was hanging with the support of skin. On seeing the dead body, he requested the Superintendent of Police to send clues team and dog squad. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 10 a.m., to 12.30 p.m. in the presence of P.W.16 Thippeswamy and other elders. Ex.P.9 is the inquest report. During the inquest, P.W.19 examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and recorded their statements and also noted the injuries found on the dead body. He also seized blood stained woolen bed sheet, pair of chappals, one stick and one plastic bag. M.O.9 is the stick and M.O.10 is the plastic bag. He also collected blood stained earth and controlled earth at the scene of offence, which are marked as M.Os.11 and 12. He also prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. After completing the inquest, he sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. P.W.15 conducted post mortem examination and issued Ex.P.8 post mortem certificate. He found five external injuries and opined that the death is caused due to acute severe hemorrhage due to major vessels injury, which was caused by a hard sharp object. At about 12.30 hours, dog squad arrived at the scene of offence and they were pressed into service. The dog after roaming at the scene of offence went to the house of A1 and also went to the bathroom of A1 and sat there. But A1 was not there on that day. P.W.19 examined P.Ws.9 to 13 and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which are marked as Exs.P.2 to P4. On 28.10.2011 at about 2 p.m., he received telephonic information about the movements of the accused and then, he along with Sub-Inspector of Police proceeded to Thimmappakonda and arrested A1 to A4. It is alleged that basing on the confession made by the accused, M.O.8-sickle and M.O.13-blood stained shirt were recovered. Later, the accused were produced before the Court for judicial remand. After collecting all the material papers, a charge sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.41 of 2012 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.