VADLAKONDA LENIN Vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Bench: P. SATHASIVAM,RANJAN GOGOI
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000126-000126 / 2009
Diary number: 37591 / 2007
Advocates: SANDEEP NARAIN Vs
D. MAHESH BABU
Page 1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 126 OF 2009
Vadlakonda Lenin …Appellant Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
RANJAN GOGOI, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment
and order dated 29.9.2006 passed by the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh affirming the conviction of the
accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC and the
sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him.
2. On 18.4.2003 at about 10.30 a.m. PW 1, Ponnam
Pedda Sathaiah, the father of the deceased, filed a
FIR in the Maripeda police station stating that he
Page 2
had given his daughter, Vadlakonda Radha, in
marriage to the accused-appellant in the year 1999.
At the time of marriage a sum of Rs.50,000 was
claimed to have been given by the first informant
as dowry, inspite of which, according to the first
informant, the accused-appellant had been demanding
more dowry and on that account committing
atrocities on his daughter. In the FIR filed it was
alleged that in the early morning of 18.4.2003 the
accused-appellant had murdered his wife while she
was sleeping and had run away. It was further
alleged by the first informant that on coming to
know of the incident he rushed to the appellant’s
house and saw his daughter taking her last breath.
Thereafter, he had brought her to the Area Hospital
at Mahbubabad but on the way to the hospital she
died at about 8.00 a.m.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, a case under
section 302 and 304B of the IPC was registered. In
2
Page 3
the course of the investigation inquest was held on
the dead body and the same was sent for post mortem
examination. A large number of witnesses were
examined and their statements were recorded under
section 161 Cr.P.C. On 3.5.2003 the accused-
appellant who was absconding was arrested from his
house. On the same day at the instance of the
accused-appellant PW 15, M. Laxminarayana, the Sub-
Divisional Police Officer of Mahabubabad recovered
a tapper knife (M.O.6) and a blood stained shirt of
the accused (M.O.7).
4. Charge sheet under section 302 and 498A IPC was
submitted against the accused-appellant. However in
the trial court, charge under section 302 alone was
framed. The trial ended in the conviction of the
accused-appellant who, as already noticed, was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
life. The aforesaid conviction and sentence having
3
Page 4
been affirmed by the High Court this appeal, by
special leave, has been filed.
5. We have heard Mr. J.M. Sharma, learned counsel
for the appellant and Mr. Mayur R. Shah, learned
counsel for the respondent-State.
6. Of the 15 witnesses examined by the
prosecution, the evidence tendered by PWs 1 and 2
(father and brother of the deceased); the evidence
of PW 3, Ponnam Buchamma, who is a neighbour and
who had seen the deceased lying on cot in her house
with bleeding injuries from the neck and the
accused running away from the place; the evidence
of PW 10, who was a witness to the seizure of
material objects No. 6 and 7 and PW 15, the Sub-
Divisional Police Officer of Mahabubabad who had
recovered material objects 6 and 7 on the basis of
the statement made by the accused (Exh.P8) as well
as the evidence of PW 12, Dr. Vaidehi, the Medical
4
Page 5
Officer who had performed the post mortem, would be
relevant, and therefore, must be noticed in some
details.
7. PWs 1 and 2 have deposed in the same vein. From
the evidence of the said two witnesses, it
transpires that the accused, though had received a
sum of Rs.50,000 at the time of his marriage, had
been persistently demanding more dowry and
harassing and assaulting his wife i.e. the deceased
from time to time. It also transpires from the
evidence of PW 1 and 2 that in the evening before
the occurrence there was a betrothal ceremony of
the brother of the deceased, which was attended,
amongst others, by PWs 1, 2 as well as the accused
and the deceased. A plot of land measuring one and
half acres and Rs.30,000 was offered as dowry to
the brother of the deceased which had led to
further renewed demands for additional dowry by the
accused. Immediately after the ceremony a quarrel
5
Page 6
had taken place between the accused and the
deceased as a result of which the deceased went to
her co-sister’s place (PW 5) to spend the night. In
the early morning, she came to her own house and
was lying in a cot when, according to PWs 1 and 2,
the accused caused knife injuries on the neck of
the deceased. According to the said witnesses
though the deceased was taken to the hospital she
died en-route.
8. PW 3 had deposed that in the early morning of
the day of the occurrence while she was going to
the stools side she noticed the deceased lying in
the cot of her house with injuries on the neck from
which she was bleeding. PW 3 had also deposed that
she saw the accused running away from the house.
The co-sister of the deceased to whose house the
deceased had gone after the quarrel with the
accused was examined as PW 5. She, however, did not
support the prosecution case. PW 3 had however
admitted that in the early morning of 18.4.2003 as
6
Page 7
the deceased had not come out of her house she went
to the house of the deceased and found her lying in
the cot with injuries on the neck. PW 10, as
already noticed, had deposed to the recovery of
M.O. Nos.6 and 7 on the basis of the statement made
by the accused (Ex.P.8) before PW 15, the Sub-
Divisional Police Officer. PW 12 is the Doctor who
had performed the post mortem on the deceased. He
had deposed that he found incised wound involving
the whole of the neck of the deceased and also cut
wounds of the hyoid bone and the trachea.
Corresponding to the said external injuries, PW 12
found the carotid vessels (the major vital blood
vessels supplying blood to the brain) as well as
the wind pipe of the deceased to have been cut. PW
15 is the Sub-Divisional Police Officer before whom
the accused had made the statement (Exh.P8) leading
to the recovery of material object No. 6 (knife)
and material object No. 7 (blood stained shirt). PW
15 had also deposed that the whereabouts of the
7
Page 8
accused after the incident were not known and he
could be arrested only on 3.5.2003.
9. Coupled with the above, from the examination of
the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., it
transpires that the accused was not available after
the incident. The absence of the accused has been
sought to be explained by him by stating that he
could come to know of the news of the death of his
wife from the newspapers after which he had
reported the incident to his sister.
10. A careful consideration of the evidence adduced
by the prosecution would go to show that there is
no direct evidence of any eye witness to the crime
alleged against the accused. However, it transpires
from the depositions of the prosecution witnesses
that certain circumstances inimical to the accused
have been proved by the prosecution in the present
case. Such circumstances which have been culled out
8
Page 9
by the learned trial court and also by the High
Court can be summarised as below:
i) The accused had been making demands for dowry and on that account was harassing, intimidating and committing atrocities on the deceased;
ii) the accused and the deceased alognwith PWs 1 and 2 had attended the betrothal function of the brother of the deceased in the evening prior to the incident. Immediately after the incident, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased;
iii) in the early morning of the next day the deceased was found by PW 3, lying in a cot in her own house with injuries on her neck;
iv) the accused was found by PW 3 to be running away from the place.
v) the whereabouts of the accused was not known after the incident and he could be arrested only on 3.5.2003; and
vi) the accused had stated in his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. that he came to know of the incident only from the newspapers, whereafter he had explained the whole incident to his sister.
11. The culpability of the accused-appellant, in
the absence of any direct evidence, has to be
9
Page 10
judged on the basis of the circumstances enumerated
above. The principles of law governing proof of a
criminal charge by circumstantial evidence would
hardly require any reiteration save and except that
the circumstances on which the prosecution relies
must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and such
circumstances must be capable of giving rise to an
inference which is inconsistent with any other
hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. It is
only in such an event that the conviction of the
accused, on the basis of the circumstantial
evidence brought by the prosecution, would be
permissible in law. In this regard a reference to
the “five golden principles” enunciated by this
Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 may be recapitulated
for which purpose para 153 of the judgment in the
above case may be usefully extracted below:
“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
10
Page 11
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved’ as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra : (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the following observations were made:
certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict, and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has
vehemently argued that in the present case the
prosecution has failed to prove the most vital
11
Page 12
circumstance of the case, namely, motive of the
accused for committing the alleged crime. Infact,
according to the learned counsel, no charge against
the accused having been framed under section 498A
IPC inspite of specific allegations of demand of
dowry and harassment etc. of the deceased by the
accused the motive for commission of the alleged
offence remain unsubstantiated. Learned counsel has
also pointed out that the prosecution case to the
effect that the deceased had left her house in the
evening prior to the incident and has spent the
night in the house of co-sister, PW 5, has not been
established. It is also urged that, in any case, if
the deceased had spent night in the house of the
co-sister, as claimed by the prosecution, no
explanation has been forthcoming as to how she
could be seen by PW 3 lying injured in the cot in
her own house in the morning. Learned counsel has
further submitted that PW 3 has contradicted
herself on a vital part of the prosecution story,
12
Page 13
namely, the point of time when she had seen the
deceased lying in the cot and the accused fleeing
away from the place. While at one place PW 3 had
claimed to have seen the above sequence of events
while going to the stools side, in her cross-
examination she had stated that she saw the same
while returning.
13. In reply, the learned State Counsel has
contended that prosecution case cannot fail merely
on account of the absence of proof of any motive on
the part of the accused to commit the crime.
Learned counsel has submitted that the evidence of
PWs 1 and 2 amply demonstrates that demand for
dowry was made by the accused from time to time and
also the ill-treatment meted out by the accused to
the deceased. The incident had taken place in the
house of the accused to which the deceased had
returned in the early morning. It is pointed out
that PW 3, who had seen the accused fleeing away
from the place of occurrence, is related to both
13
Page 14
the sides and, therefore, is eminently reliable.
The absence of accused for a period of nearly 15
days after the incident and the recoveries made on
the basis of the statement of the accused has been
pointed out by the learned counsel as sufficient
proof of the involvement of the accused in the
crime alleged against him. The contradictions in
the evidence of PW 3, according to the learned
counsel, are minor and insignificant. Learned
counsel has also pointed out that though PW 5 was
declared hostile, she had, infact, supported the
prosecution case to the extent that in the early
morning of the day of the incident, as the deceased
had not come out from her house, PW 5 had gone to
the house of the deceased and found her lying on
the cot with injuries on the neck.
14. We have considered the submissions advanced on
behalf of the parties and the entire evidence on
record. Upon such consideration we find that from
14
Page 15
the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 it is crystal clear
that the accused had been persistently demanding
additional dowry from the deceased and had been
ill-treating her. From the evidence tendered by the
said two witnesses it is also clear that
immediately before the incident there was a quarrel
between the accused and the deceased. In the early
morning of 18.4.2003 the deceased was found lying
injured in the cot in her own house by PW 3 as well
as by PW 5. Nobody except the accused was in the
house immediately before the occurrence. The
accused was seen fleeing away from the house by PW
3. Thereafter, the whereabouts of the accused were
not known until he was arrested on 3.5.2003. After
his arrest, the accused had made a statement (Exh.
P.8) on the basis of which a knife and a blood
stained shirt of the accused (M.Os. 6 and 7) were
recovered. The explanation offered by the accused
for his absence for a period of nearly 15 days
following the death of his wife is unnatural and
15
Page 16
opposed to all cannons of acceptable human conduct
and behaviour. The aforesaid circumstances which
have been proved and established by prosecution, in
our considered view, squarely satisfies the test
laid down by this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda
(supra). The principles laid down in the aforesaid
decision have been consistently reiterated by this
court and exhaustively considered in a very recent
decision in Sathya Narayanan v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police (decided on November 2, 2012). (Reported in J.T. 2012 (11) SC 57).
15. Having considered the totality of the facts of
the present case and the principles of law as
above, we are left with no doubt whatsoever that in
the present case the prosecution has established
beyond all reasonable doubt that it is the accused
alone and nobody who had committed the offence.
Accordingly, we are of the view that the conviction
of the accused and the sentence imposed on him by
the learned trial court as affirmed by the High
16
Page 17
Court will not justify any interference. We,
therefore, dismiss the appeal and affirm the
conviction of the accused under section 302 IPC and
the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him.
................J. [P. SATHASIVAM]
................J. [RANJAN GOGOI]
New Delhi, November 22, 2012.
17