http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  964 of 2005

PETITIONER: Namala Subba Rao

RESPONDENT: State of A.P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/10/2006

BENCH: G.P. Mathur & A.K. Mathur

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

A.K. MATHUR, J.

                                The present  appeal is directed against an order passed  by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature  at Andhra  Pradesh   in Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2002  whereby the Division  Bench   has affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant under  Section 302 of  the  Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to  as "I.P.C.")  and    sentence of   imprisonment   for life   and  a fine  of  Rs. 1000/-.         Aggrieved against this order, the accused-appellant  has  preferred the present appeal.         Brief facts  giving rise to this appeal are that  the accused is the  husband of Namala Kannamma (for short deceased).  The accused  had a daughter  by name Namala Venkata Laxmi.  He alongwith his  deceased wife and daughter was  residing in the house situated at  18th Ward, Old Town, Tanuku.  He suspected his wife’s fidelity   because of the  illicit  intimacy with PW-2  Kokkirigadda Someswara  Rao.   He asked his daughter PW-6 to keep a watch  on the  deceased wife.   He also communicated to the deceased wife  to  snap her relationship with  PW-2.  But his wife did not listen to him.   Four or five days  prior to the incident  i.e. on 12th November, 1996,  deceased had left the house of the accused and started residing with  PW-2.   On 12th November, 1996,  the accused sent a  word to his  deceased wife  through PW-3 Velagada Suramma to  return home.    PW-3 communicated the message to the deceased   that  her  presence was required at her house by her husband.    The deceased  told  PW-3 to inform her husband that she would come sometime  later.  The  reply  of  the  deceased  got  the accused enraged.   He  went to the house of PW-2 and on his way he picked MO.2 Baditha  from PW-4 Sambhana Satyanarayana, a carpenter.  After reaching at  the house of the  PW-2,  the accused  dealt blows to the deceased  with MO.2 Baditha and  killed her.   Later on the accused  went to   PW-1,  Atchuyutharama, Rao,  an Administrative Officer of that  village at  1.45 P.M.  and informed him the circumstances under  which  he has killed his wife.   The accused’s clothes were stained  with  blood  and he was armed with MO.2 Baditha in his hand.  PW-1,  an Administrative Officer wrote out a report & obtained  the signature  as well as  the thumb impression of the accused thereon and  produced the same  as Ex.P-1 before  PW-11,  A.V.R.P.V. Prasad,   Incharge,  Police Station, Tanuku.    The Sub-Inspector of Police,  PW-11 received the statement of the accused alongwith the   endorsement of PW-1  thereon and registered a case under Section  302, I.P.C.  He seized the  blood-stained shirt and blood-stained  Baditha from the accused and the same was  kept under the  cover of  Ex. P-19 in the presence of P.W.9, Bhogaraju Subba Rao, P.W.1-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Administrative  Officer and  other Panch witnesses of the village.    Thereafter, PW-12 B.V. Chandra Rao,  Inspector  of Police,  Tadepalligudem Circle, inspected the scene of  occurrence and  seized   two pairs of hawai chappals,  broken bangles and  found the  blood-stained earth.  Necessary panchanama of the deceased body  was also prepared in presence of the witnesses.  After completion of  investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the accused under the  aforesaid section.    The  prosecution  in support of its case examined  14 witnesses and got  the documents  marked Ex. P-1 to P-24 and   material objects 1 to 11.          On the basis of  necessary evidence,  the learned Sessions  Judge found  the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302  IPC and   sentenced him to suffer imprisonment   for life and  to pay a  fine of Rs. 1000/-.  Aggrieved against the conviction by the trial court,   an appeal was preferred by the accused before  the High Court and   the High Court confirmed the conviction of the  accused.  Hence, the  present appeal.          We  have gone through the judgment of   learned Sessions  Judge as well as the High Court  and  necessary evidence produced  on record. We have also gone through the statement of   PW-1,  an   Administrative Officer who has recorded the  extra-judicial confession  of the accused and the statement of PW-2 from  whose house the  dead body of the deceased was  recovered. We have also gone  through the statement of P.W.4, carpenter from whom the accused  has taken the Baditha. We have also gone  through the testimony of  other witnesses who have seen the accused with blood-stained  clothes along with Baditha. These statements make one chain which  leads to one conclusion i.e. the guilt of the accused.  

       Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged  before us that the testimony of these witnesses  is   unreliable  and  he has criticized  the statement of PW-1 being a Police stock witness.  P.W.2 is interested witness as he had illegal intimacy with deceased  and P.W.4’s testimony suffers from contradiction.  

After having considered all submissions, we find that the extra  judicial confession recorded by PW-1  has ring  of truth and the same  is corroborated by the recovery of the  blood-stained clothes and  Baditha  with which the accused has attacked the  deceased to  death.   The testimony of PW-2  and  PW 4 fully corroborates  the   extra judicial confession recorded by  PW-1,  an Administrative  Officer.   Therefore,  there is no manner of doubt that the accused  

was the assailant as he was  annoyed with his deceased wife  because of co-habitation with PW-2.  

Learned counsel next submitted that this  case is covered  under exception 1 to Section 300,IPC  as the accused was under   grave  and sudden provocation  of his wife not  abiding his direction.  We do not think ,in the present case, it can be said to be on account  of grave and sudden provocation to the accused for dealing his wife  in this manner. This cannot be said to be sudden provocation that the  wife did not come to the house of  the accused on message sent to  her.  Accused had reasonable time to go to carpenter’s  shop for   picking up Baditha and  dealt the deceased with the Baditha.   This  was  not a grave and sudden provocation to give a cause to such  fatal injuries to his wife.  Therefore,  this case  cannot cover under the  clause  of grave and sudden provocation. Hence, the contention of  the learned counsel  for the accused  cannot be sustained and  accordingly we reject the same.                 

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

Hence, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is  dismissed.