- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Pothakamuri Srinivasulu Alias Mooga Subbaiah v. State Of A.P .
Factual and Procedural Background
The accused was employed as a watchman in a “Subabul Garden” at Village Edugundlapadu. On 8 July 1994, he confronted the 70-year-old deceased, Venkayamma @ Rathamma, who was collecting firewood in the garden. After she refused to hand over her bangles and ear-studs, the accused struck her head with a stone, used a sickle to inflict further injuries, and severed her ear-lobes to remove the ear-studs. Witnesses (PWs 2 and 3) saw the accused leaving the garden, found the injured victim, and, along with PW 1 (the victim’s sister), heard her orally implicate the accused before she was taken to hospital. She died two days later from head injuries.
An FIR was registered the same evening under Section 394 IPC, subsequently altered to Sections 302 and 397 upon her death. The accused was arrested on 16 July 1994; ear-studs, a blood-stained sickle, a stone, and a shirt were seized. The trial court convicted him of murder and robbery with life imprisonment (Section 302) and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment (Section 397). The High Court upheld the conviction. The present judgment is on the accused’s appeal by special leave to the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the oral dying declarations made by the deceased to PWs 1, 2 and 3 were reliable and sufficient to sustain the conviction.
- Whether discrepancies alleged by the defence—such as the victim’s medical condition, purported prior FIR, and non-examination of child informants—undermined the prosecution case.
- Whether the recovery of ear-studs and blood-stained articles was credible and necessary for conviction under Sections 302 and 397 IPC.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The nature of the injuries made it improbable that the victim could speak; therefore, the dying declarations were unreliable.
- PW 1 claimed that the victim herself lodged a report at the police station; the alleged FIR was not produced, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution.
- Children who first informed PW 1 were not examined, creating gaps in the prosecution narrative.
Respondent’s Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the State’s specific arguments; it relied on the evidence already accepted by the lower courts.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court, emphasising:
- Credibility of the dying declarations: PWs 1, 2 and 3 were natural village witnesses with no motive to implicate the accused falsely. Cross-examination revealed nothing to shake their testimony. The Court rejected the speculative assertion that the victim must have been unconscious, noting that no such suggestion was made to the medical witnesses.
- Alleged prior FIR: The Court found the claim to be an inconsequential confusion by a “rustic village woman.” Defence counsel had not questioned police witnesses about any such FIR; hence no adverse inference could be drawn.
- Non-examination of child informants: Their testimony was deemed unnecessary because the crucial evidence was the dying declaration, not how PW 1 learned of the incident.
- Recovery Evidence: Although witnesses to the recovery turned hostile, the Court considered the severing of ear-lobes and theft of ear-studs as intrinsically linked to the fatal injuries, establishing the robbery element under Section 397 IPC without resting heavily on the disputed recoveries.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed; Conviction and Sentences Affirmed. The Supreme Court upheld life imprisonment for murder (Section 302 IPC) and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment for robbery (Section 397 IPC) with fine, finding no infirmity in the judgments of the lower courts.
Implications: The decision reinforces that an oral dying declaration to credible witnesses can, standing alone, sustain a conviction for murder and allied offences. No new legal precedent was announced, but the ruling underscores the evidentiary weight accorded to dying declarations in Indian criminal jurisprudence.
R.C Lahoti, J.— This appeal by special leave preferred by the sole accused-appellant lays challenge to his conviction under Sections 302 and 397 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole, maintained in appeal by the High Court. The sentence passed on the appellant is imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs 500, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year, for offence under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years for offence under Section 397 IPC.
2. The prosecution case found proved by the trial court and the High Court is that the deceased Venkayamma @ Rathamma, age about 70 years, resident of Village Edugundlapadu (PS Maddipadu) was collecting the branches of trees at about 10 a.m on 8-7-1994 in the garden known as “Subabul Garden” belonging to PW 4. The accused who was employed as a watchman by the owner of the garden came to the garden and found the deceased alone. She was wearing bangles which assuming to be of gold were asked for by the accused which the deceased refused to give saying that the same were of brass. Then the accused demanded the pair of earstuds which the deceased was wearing. She refused to part with the earstuds. The accused picked up a piece of stone and with it hit on the head of the deceased as a result of which she fell down. The accused took the sickle from the deceased and inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased with the sickle. He also cut the ear lobes of the deceased with the sickle so as to remove the earstuds. In this process the clothes of the accused got stained with blood. The accused then left the garden. While leaving the garden he was noticed by PW 2, another watchman of the garden, and PW 3, a shepherd. At the same time PWs 2 and 3 heard some noise emanating from inside the garden whereupon they entered the garden and found the deceased lying injured. On questioning, the injured narrated the incident as had taken place with her and named the accused-appellant. PW 1 is the sister of the deceased living in the same village who also rushed to the place of the incident upon learning about the incident. To her also the deceased narrated what had happened to her. The deceased named the accused to PW 1 also. The injured was removed to Government Hospital, Ongole and admitted for treatment. PW 10, the duty doctor found the following injuries on the person of Venkayamma:
1. Incised wound 1″ × 1/4″, 3″ below right ear. Blood oozing from it.
2. Cut injury 1″ × 1/2″ in lower part of both ears. Ear lobes lost.
3. Red contusion 6″ × 4″ right side of the neck.
4. Red contusion 2″ × 2″ on right side of the head 4″ above right ear.
5. Contusion 2″ × 1″ at left eye.
3. Venkayamma, when examined by the doctor, was unconscious. She was unable to speak and was not moving her left upper and lower limbs. Two days thereafter she died. The post-mortem examination confirmed a number of injuries having been suffered by the deceased internally consequent upon the external injuries. In the opinion of the doctor performing post-mortem, contusions on the person of Venkayamma could have been caused by a stone while incised wound and cut injury could have been caused by a sickle. The head injury was the cause of death.
4. The Duty Head Constable of Ongole Police Station, having learnt of the incident, reached the hospital soon after the admission of the injured thereat. As the injured was not in a position to give a statement, the Head Constable recorded the statement of PW 1 which was sent to the police station and registered as first information report of the incident on 8-7-1994 at 7 p.m Initially an offence under Section 394 IPC was registered which on the death of the injured was converted into one under Sections 397 and 302 IPC.
5. On 16-7-1994, at about 5 p.m, PW 15 Sub-Inspector arrested the accused in the presence of PW 7 and PW 8. A pair of earstuds was recovered from the accused which were seized and later on identified by PW 1 as belonging to her sister. Upon information given by the accused a sickle and a shirt belonging to the accused, both stained with human blood were recovered. The accused also pointed out a piece of stone, at the place of incident, which too was stained with human blood and was allegedly used in inflicting injuries on the victim. It was seized. The piece of stone, the sickle and the shirt were all found to be stained with human blood by the Forensic Science Laboratory.
6. The trial court and the High Court have convicted the accused-appellant by placing reliance on the dying declaration made by the victim to PWs 1, 2 and 3 as also on recovery of a pair of earstuds, satisfactorily identified by PW 1 as belonging to and worn by the deceased at the time of the incident, and the recovery of bloodstained sickle and shirt.
7. We find no reason to disbelieve the dying declaration made by the deceased to the witnesses PWs 1, 2 and 3. They are all residents of the same village and are natural witnesses to the dying declaration made by the deceased. No reason is assigned, nor even suggested to any of the three witnesses, as to why at all any of them would tell a lie and attribute falsely a dying declaration to the deceased implicating the accused-appellant. Though each of the three witnesses has been cross-examined but there is nothing brought out in their statements to shake their veracity.
8. It was submitted by Ms Nanita Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant that for several reasons the dying declaration cannot be believed. She submitted that looking to the nature of the injuries suffered by the deceased possibly she could not have spoken and must have become unconscious instantaneously. However, no such suggestion has been made to any of the witnesses including the two doctors who respectively conducted the medico-legal examination and post-mortem examination of the victim. On the contrary the three eyewitnesses have positively stated that the deceased was speaking when they had met her soon after the incident. The victim had died two days after the incident. We cannot in the face of this positive evidence just assume that the injured must have become unconscious and speechless because of the injuries and discard on such assumption the dying declaration deposed to by independent witnesses corroborated by the promptly lodged FIR.
9. Next it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that according to PW 1 she had first gone to the police station where the victim had made a report of the incident and then they had proceeded to the hospital. An adverse inference ought to be drawn against the prosecution for withholding the FIR lodged by the victim herself. Such argument was advanced before the trial court and the High Court also. It has been pointed out by the trial court that the witness is a rustic village woman and such a statement appears to have been made by her in a state of confusion. If it was so as is being suggested then the police officers who have appeared as witnesses, especially the one who has proved the FIR, should have been asked whether there was any report of the incident, than the one originating in the statement of PW 1, made at the police station and that too by the injured herself. No question was asked nor any suggestion made to the witnesses on the lines taken in the argument of the learned counsel.
10. It was also submitted by Ms Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant that PW 1 states to have been informed of the incident by some children of the village but those children were not examined. We do not think it is necessary that the children, without regard to their age or description being available, can be held to be such witnesses from whose non-examination an adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution. At best the children were such as had learnt about some happening in the garden of PW 4 and they had rushed to tell this to PW 1. What is relevant and material is the dying declaration made by the victim to PW 1 and in that regard the children were of no relevance.
11. In our opinion, the dying declaration made by the deceased, which finds amply proved by the testimony of PWs 1, 2 and 3, is by itself enough to sustain the conviction of the accused-appellant.
12. The ear lobes of Venkayamma were cut. PW 1 proves that the deceased Venkayamma used to wear earstuds which were stolen away in the incident. So far as the recovery from the accused is concerned the witnesses to the recovery, namely, PWs 7 and 8 have not supported the prosecution case and therefore the recovery is rendered doubtful. However, the factum of earstuds having been removed from the person of the victim by cutting her ear lobes is proved. The cause of death of the victim is inseparably connected with the removal of earstuds, and therefore, the commission of the offences under Sections 302 and 397 IPC is also inextricably interconnected in the facts and circumstances of the case. It can safely be held that the accused was responsible for causing injuries to Venkayamma and was also responsible for removing the earstuds. We do not consider it necessary to deal with the evidence relating to recovery of bloodstained shirt and bloodstained stone and sickle with which the injuries are said to have been caused to the victim.
13. We find no infirmity in the conviction of the accused-appellant and the sentences passed thereon which are maintained and the appeal is dismissed.
Alert