http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  300 of 2005

PETITIONER: Golusula Ellaiah

RESPONDENT: State of Andhra Pradesh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/07/2006

BENCH: G P Mathur & R V Raveendran

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

RAVEENDRAN, J.

       This appeal is directed against the judgment dated  19.3.2002 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal  Appeal No.1571/1999, affirming the judgment of the first  Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District in S.C.  No.378/1997, convicting the appellant under sections 302 and  201 IPC. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo  imprisonment for life for an offence under section 302 IPC and  imprisonment for 3 years for the offence under section 201 IPC;  both the sentences to run concurrently.

2.      On 25.6.1996 at about 10.30 p.m., the accused lodged a  complaint with Shamshabad Police Station. In brief, its contents   were : He and his wife Ponnamma were returning from  Chalivendragudem village where Ponnamma’s parents were  living. They halted at Shamshabad for his wife’s medical  check-up at an hospital and thereafter proceeded on foot  towards their village (Kothwalguda). At about 9 p.m. when they  were passing near HUDA colony, four persons accosted them.  Two of them started beating him, while the other two dragged  his wife towards the bushes. He managed to escape and ran to  his village and informed his elder brother and other villagers.  When he returned to the spot along with his brother and other  villagers, he found his wife lying in an unconscious state and  her ornaments were missing (that is, half a tola of gold gundlu,  half tola of gold ear studs and 35 tolas of silver anklets). She  was declared dead when she was taken to a doctor.  

3.      The above complaint was registered as Crime No.130/96  under sections 302 and 379 IPC. A panchnama was drawn at  the scene of occurrence and an inquest was held and the  investigation was taken up. On 30.6.1996, the parents of the  deceased approached the Investigating Officer and expressed a  suspicion about the accused. The IO found that the accused had  absconded after the incident. He was apprehended in his village  on 3.7.1996 and brought to the Police Station, where he gave a  voluntary confessional statement (Ex. P-4) in the presence of  Panch witnesses. It came to light that the accused had pledged  the silver anklets (MO-2) of the deceased on 15.6.1996, the  gold ear studs (MO-3) on 18.6.1996 and the gold gundlu that is  a string of 39 gold beads (MO-1) on 25.6.1996 with a  moneylender at Shamshabad, namely, Sampathraj (PW-4). In  pursuance of the information furnished by the accused, the IO  seized the ornaments (MOs. 1, 2 and 3) as also pawn receipt

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

books containing the duplicate of pawn receipts being Exhibits  P-1, P-2 and P-3 from PW-4, and his statement was recorded.  The accused also took the IO and the Panch witnesses to his  house and produced the pledge Receipt No.8864 dated  15.6.1996 and Receipt No.8882 dated 18.6.1996 relating to the  silver anklets and gold ear studs.  

4.      On completion of the investigation, the accused was  charged with the offence of murdering his wife under section  302 and causing disappearance of evidence under section 201  IPC. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses.  

4.1)    The father of the deceased (PW-1) stated that his  daughter was married to the accused on 8.3.1996, about 3  months prior to the incident; that he had given half tola gold  gundlu to his daughter; that the parents of the accused had  given the gold ear-rings (MO-3) and silver anklets (MO-2) to  the deceased at the time of marriage; that the accused had  pledged all these ornaments; that on the fateful day, the  deceased and the accused had left his house together; that on  the same day in the late evening, the accused came and  informed that the thieves had waylaid and attacked him and his  wife. PW-1 also stated that a few days after the incident, he  approached the Police and expressed his suspicion about the  accused. The mother of the deceased (PW-2), reiterated what  was stated by her husband and also stated that when her  daughter came to her house a week prior to the incident, she did  not have the silver anklets and ear-studs and she was having  only the gold gundlu and that she (her daughter) had informed  them that the accused had pledged the articles and squandered  the money.

4.2)    Sattaiah, brother of the accused (PW-3) stated that the  accused came and informed him around 9 p.m. on the fateful  day that when he was coming with the deceased, some thieves  attacked them; that he along with other villagers rushed to the  scene of occurrence; and that the accused told him that the  thieves had committed theft of the ornaments of the deceased.

4.3)     Sampathraj, a moneylender (PW-4) stated that the  accused and his other family members were coming to his shop  for taking money by pledging articles. He also referred to the  pledging of silver anklets on 15.6.1996, gold ear-studs on  18.6.1996 and gold gundlu on 25.6.1996 by the accused. He  stated that he advanced the accused Rs.1,500 against the pledge  of gold gundlu. He also stated that the silver Anklets and gold  ear-studs (MOs. 2 and 3) were seized from his shop along with  receipt books (Ex. P-1, P-2 and P-3) from his shop, a few days  after the last pledge (25.6.1996). N. Anjaiah (PW-5) stated that  the accused gave a voluntary confessional statement (Ex. P-4)  about murdering his wife, that he and other witnesses went to  the shop of PW-4 and in their presence, MOs. 2 and 3 and  receipt books P-1, P-2 and P-3 were seized; and that,  subsequently, the gold gundlu was shown to him at the Police  Station.

4.4)    Dr. N. Kotaiah (PW-6) who had conducted the post  mortem over the dead body of the deceased, described the  injuries noticed. He stated that the death was due to asphyxia as  a result of throttling. He detailed the external injuries (bruises  around the throat) and incised wound on the lateral side of the  right eye of the deceased, and stated that the internal  examination disclosed fracture of the hyoid bone.

4.5)    PW-7 was a Panch witness. PW-8 was the S.I. of Police

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

who had received the written complaint (Ex. P-1) from the  accused and registered the case as Crime No.130/96. The I.O.  (PW-9) gave evidence about the investigation, voluntary  confessional statement of the accused in the presence of  Panches, seizure of MOs. 1 to 3 and receipt books P-1 to P-3  from PW-4.  

5.      On the said evidence, the trial court by its judgment dated  30.7.1999 found the accused guilty of the offences under  sections 302 and 201 IPC. The appeal filed by the accused was  dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, affirming the  findings of the trial court. The courts have concurrently held  that though there were no eye-witnesses to the incident, the  prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond doubt  by the following chain of circumstantial evidence :   

(a)     The accused admitted that he was with the deceased  when the incident occurred. In effect, the deceased was last  seen with the accused. This was admitted by the accused in his  complaint (Ex. P-11) and to his brother (PW-3);  

(b)     In his complaint (Ex. P-11), the accused stated that the  thieves who attacked him and his wife, had taken away her  ornaments (half a tola of gold gundlu, half a tola of ear-studs  and 35 tolas of silver anklets). But the accused had himself  pledged the said ornaments with PW-4 on various dates \026 on  15.6.1996 (silver anklets), on 18.6.1996 (gold studs) and on  25.6.1996 (gold gundlu) under Ex. P-1, P-2 and P-3 and they  were recovered from PW-4 on the basis of disclosure made by  the accused. This clearly showed that the accused had made a  false statement in his complaint that the thieve had stolen them;  

(c)     Though the accused stated that he was beaten by two of  the attackers, there were no injuries on his body.  

6.      The High Court has relied on the decision in Birbal v.  State of Madhya Pradesh [2000 (10) SCC 213] where, in  somewhat similar circumstances, this Court had affirmed the  conviction based on circumstantial evidence consisting of three  circumstances : (i) the accused and the deceased leaving  together (ii) the accused returning alone and giving a false  explanation that the deceased would come later; and (iii)  statement of the accused while in custody leading to the  discovery of the dead body.  

7.      We find that the concurrent findings recorded by the  courts below are based on cogent reasoning. The chain of  circumstances pointing out conclusively to the guilt of the  accused, is complete. The story of thieves attacking him and his  wife is a concoction intended to shift the blame. However, as  the appellant has assailed the decision of the High Court on  several grounds, we will deal with them.  

8.      The first submission is that the ornaments of the deceased  were not in fact taken away by the accused. The learned counsel  for the appellant relied on the evidence of  PW-1 that when he  went to the scene of occurrence and saw the body of his  daughter, he found the Mangalasutram, Mettelu and nose stud  on the body. According to the learned counsel, the items  referred were nothing but MOs. 1, 2 and 3 --- gold gundlu,  silver anklets and ear-studs. It is contended that if all the three  ornaments were found on the body of the deceased, there was  no question of the accused pledging them or putting forth any  false story. This contention, to say the least, is bereft of any  merit. What PW-1 found on the body of the deceased was a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

Mangalasutram (a yellow thread worn by married women),  Mettelu (toe rings) and nose stud. On the other hand, PW-1 has   described the missing ornaments of the deceased, which were  pledged by the accused, as gold gundlu (which is a string of 39  gold beads), silver anklets and ear-studs. Therefore, the  contention that the pledged ornaments were found on the body  of the deceased and they could not have been pledged by the  accused, is wholly untenable. In fact, this contention runs  against the defence of the accused and the specific statement of  the accused in the complaint dated 25.6.1996 that the thieves  had stolen the three ornaments (half tola gold gundlu, half tola  ear-studs and 35 tolas of silver anklets). If they were still on the  body of the deceased, they could not have been stolen.  

9.      The second contention is that there is a variation in the  evidence of PWs.1 and 2. It is pointed out that while PW-1 has  stated that he gave half a tola of gold gundlu, ear-studs and  Mettelu to his daughter, his wife has stated that what was given  to the deceased was only half a tola of gold gundlu (consisting  of 39 gold beads) and that MO-2 and MO-3 (silver anklets and  ear studs) were given by the parents of the accused. Who gave  the ornaments to the deceased is not material. What is relevant  is what was alleged to be stolen, but was found to have been  pledged. Further, PW-1 himself has clarified in his further  examination-in-chief that the gold gundlu (MO-1) was given by  him to his daughter, and the silver anklets and ear-studs (MOs.2  and 3) were given to his daughter by the parents of the accused  at the time of marriage.

10.     The third contention of the accused is based on the  evidence of PW-3, the brother of the accused, who had stated  that when he went to the scene of occurrence and enquired with  the deceased (as to what happened), she told him that four  persons came and beat her and that after informing him so, she  collapsed. It is contended that this piece of evidence clearly  established that the accused and deceased were waylaid and  attacked by  four unknown persons. We find no merit in the  contention. PW-3 is the elder brother of the accused and is  obviously interested in saving him. PW-3 was treated as hostile  and cross-examined and it was suggested that he had tried to  improve upon his statement given to Police wherein he had  stated that the deceased was unconscious when he went to the  site of occurrence. In the complaint, the accused clearly stated  that he escaped from the attackers, ran to his village, informed  his elder brother and other elders of the village and that  immediately they followed him and came to the spot where his  wife was lying in an unconscious condition. If the deceased was  in a conscious state, when the accused, his brother and other  villagers reached the spot, the accused would have certainly  mentioned it in his complaint and, at all events, would have  examined the villagers. The statement of PW-3 that he went on  a scooter earlier and found the deceased in a conscious  condition, is contrary to the statement of the accused in his  complaint that his brother and villagers followed him, which  shows that he, his brother and villagers reached the scene of  occurrence together.  

11.     The fourth contention is that the seizure of the ornaments  was not established. Reference is made to the evidence of  Investigating Officer, PW-9, who stated that MOs.1 to 3 (gold  gundlu, silver anklets and ear-studs) were seized from the shop  of PW-4. PW-4 also stated in his examination-in-chief  that  MOs.1 to 3, which were pledged with him by the accused, were  handed over to the police when police came to his shop along  with the accused. But in his cross-examination, he stated that he

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

had kept the ornaments with his bankers, that he brought the  said articles from the bankers and produced them before the  Police only on the next day. PW-5 also had stated that only  MOs. 2 & 3 were seized from the shop of PW-4 and that MO1  was shown to him in the police station. The learned counsel,  therefore, submitted that there was no valid seizure in the  presence of Panch witnesses. We may note that both PWs.4 and  5 were also treated as hostile and cross-examined. Their  evidence however clearly establishes that the receipt books P-1  to P-3 were seized from PW-4 and MOs.2 and 3 were also  seized from the shop of PW-4. Even if there is any discrepancy  as to whether MO.1 was seized at the shop of PW-4 or whether  he brought it and gave it to the Police Station on the next day,  the said discrepancy has no relevance. The evidence of PW-4  clearly establishes that the accused had pledged MOs.1 to 3  with him. The evidence of PW-4, PW-5 and PW-8 also  establishes that they were recovered from PW-4 on the  information furnished by the accused.  

12.     No other contention was urged. The appellant has not  been able to make out any infirmity in the order of the High  Court. The appeal has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.