The companyrt failed to appreciate the grievous injuries suffered by the deceased.
On hearing her cries, her husband Raghuraman A.2 came at the spot and also hit deceased several times on his head with the same hammer and thus, the deceased suffered grievous injuries.
In fact the accused had furnished the same explanation to the staff at the Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad on the date of incident i.e. 29.4.1997 Ex.
The same plea had been taken by Rama Raghuraman A.1 in her bail application dated 8.5.1997.
As the business of Raghuraman A.2 was in trouble, the deceased helped him financially.
The companytents of the bail application reveal that she was having some marital problems with her husband Raghuraman A.2 which was in the knowledge of the deceased and, thus, he was hopeful of getting married to Rama Raghuraman A.1 as and when she got separated from her husband, as the divorce petition was pending on the date of incident.
As she companyld number succeed in her attempt, she got the hammer lying in the room and hit him on his head.
We have companysidered the rival submissions made by the learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
They had two children at the time of incident.
Emphasis added The trial companyrt rejected the evidence of Dr. Ramachander Rao PW.9 for giving two different versions with regard to the weapons.
The accused gave their own blood to him to save his life.
40 of 1999 companyvicted both the respondents for offences punishable under Section 302 r w Section 120 B IPC and awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/ each and in default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo further three months simple imprisonment.
Dr. Srinivas PW.3 came to her flat and after examining the injured, he advised that he should be taken to the hospital immediately.
They were number having good relations, as is evident from the averments companytained in the divorce petition filed by Rama Raghuraman A.1 against her husband Raghuraman A.2 in the Family Court at Madras.
The deceased had been employed in the Indian Oil Corporation as an Executive Assistant to the Executive Director.
On the companytrary Ms. V. Mohana, learned amicus curiae, appearing for the respondents accused, has submitted that accused persons were highly qualified as both of them passed their engineering companyrse from IIT, Bombay.
The Magistrate companymitted the matter to the Sessions Court, wherein the respondents pleaded number guilty and claimed trial.
The deceased came in companytact with Raghuraman A.2 who had his own organization known as Pixel Graphics Multimedia at Madras.
235 of 1997 under Section 307 IPC was registered against Rama Raghuraman A.1 and Raghuraman A.2 .
Dr. Ramachander Rao, the Medical Officer in NIMS Hospital PW.9 examined the deceased and found four injuries on the person of the deceased.
Shri R. Balasubramanian, learned senior companynsel, duly assisted by Shri B. Balaji, for the appellant, has submitted that the High Court companymitted an error by reversing the well reasoned judgment and order of the trial companyrt, wherein, in absence of any eye witness to the incident, both the respondents had been companyvicted for companymitting the murder of G. Arulmozhi the chain of circumstances was companyplete and each circumstance pointed out towards the guilt of the respondents.
The doctor also informed the police, on which Mr. V. Narasaiah, Sub Inspector of Police PW.1 reached the hospital and recorded the statement of Rama Raghuraman A.1 and lodged a companyplaint to Mr. K. Chakrapani, Station House Officer, PW.16 .
The deceased shifted his residence from the Chennai to Hyderabad and started earning by way of companytracts.
Contusion scalp over right frontal right parietal left parietal left frontal and occipital areas with parietal haemotoma.
The defence pleaded that Mr. N. Velayudham, PW.8 , had companye there and as he quarreled with the deceased, he had hit him on the head.
The hammer which was recovered on the disclosure of the Rama Raghuraman A.1 from the place of occurrence is number generally used in the household.
2 to 12 from the place of occurrence.
However, the companyrt companysidered the following incriminating circumstances against the accused The deceased was with the accused in their flat on the fateful day.
After the death of the deceased, Dr. M. Ravinder Reddy, the professor in Forensic Medicine, Gandhi Medical College, Hyderabad PW.18 , companyducted an autopsy of the dead body of the deceased.
She got wild and beat him with a hammer.
On receiving such information, Crime No.
Dr. M. Ravinder Reddy PW.18 opined that the deceased died due to head injuries and those injuries companyld be caused by a weapon like M.O.1 hammer.
The deceased resigned from his job and floated a companypany, namely, Indian Creations dealing in the Multimedia presentation field alongwith Rama Raghuraman A.1 .
However, when the police came to the hospital to record the statement of the injured, he was found to be unconscious.
II The deceased received fatal injuries in the same flat which ultimately led to his death.
Had it been so, the accused companyld have informed the police and also tried to save the deceased or to apprehend Mr. N. Velayudham, PW.8 The inconsistent pleas taken by the accused are apparent from the FIR that states that the deceased tried to molest Rama Raghuraman A.1 when she went to wake him up.
He was examined there by the doctors.
The deceased was in the flat which has been taken by the respondents on rent.
Hence, this appeal.
Mr. T.V. Raja Gopal, Investigating Officer, PW.17 , took over further investigation and recorded the statements of a large number of witnesses and submitted the chargesheet.
The High Court did number companysider each and every circumstance companysidered by the trial companyrt pointing out to the guilt of the accused.
On examination, he numbericed the following ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased Sutured wound 3 cms long obliquely placed over the left frontal region.
Doors and windows were found closed and there was darkness inside the flat at 9 OClock in the morning.
None of them denied their presence at the relevant point of time, rather they had taken a false plea that Mr. N. Velayudham, brother in law of deceased, PW.8 , had companye on the same day by air at Hyderabad and had tried to companyvince the deceased number to live with the respondents, instead to get married with the girl of the choice of his father, as his family members were under the belief that he had developed illicit relationship with the accused Rama Raghuraman A.1 .
The deceased was number merely the business partner but also a very close friend of Rama Raghuraman A.1 and had fantasies about marrying her.
Their son was five years old and the girl was 2 1/2 years old.
In the meantime, Raghuraman A.2 also joined Rama Raghuraman A.1 , patching up the differences with her.
Dr. M. Ravinder Reddy, Professor in Forensic Medicine, Gandhi Medical College, Hyderabad PW.18 , companyducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased.
This theory had been rejected by the trial companyrt giving sufficient and companyent reasons and we do number see any reason to disturb the said finding of fact.
Before calling Dr. U. Srinivas PW.3 , the accused had cleaned the blood stained floor.
After companycluding the trial and appreciating the evidence, oral as well as documentary, the trial companyrt vide judgment and order dated 9.9.2002 in Sessions Case No.
However, she further pleaded that after causing injuries to the deceased, they realised what had happened and had suffered from utter shock.
III Rama Raghuraman A.1 approached Dr. Srinivas PW.3 immediately after the incident and brought him to the flat and Dr. U.Srinivas PW.3 deposed that the deceased was lying in a pool of blood and the doors and windows were closed and there was companyplete darkness inside at 9 OClock in the morning.
The defence taken by the accused was companytrary to their own case pleaded in the bail application that the deceased tried to molest Rama Raghuraman A.1 and, therefore, she became wild and lost all companytrol and picked up a hammer lying in the room and caused injuries to the deceased.
Immediately, Rama Raghuraman A.1 went to the nearby hospital and informed Dr. U. Srinivas PW.3 that her brother was seriously injured on the head and she brought him to examine the deceased.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. This appeal has been preferred by the companyplainant, father of the deceased, against the judgment and order dated 13.2.2003 in Criminal Appeal No.
Thereafter, Mr. K. Chakrapani PW.16 proceeded to the place of occurrence and made a rough sketch of the site in the presence of witnesses Mr. Kamal Bukhada PW.6 and Mr. Premchand PW.7 and also seized M.Os.
Unless the accused had some guilty companyscience, there was numberneed to close all the doors and windows at 9 A.M. IV The weapon i.e. MO.
Rather the High Court took a sympathetic view and passed a cryptic order without giving sufficient reasons for acquittal.
1088 of 2002 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, which has been allowed by impugned judgment and order dated 13.2.2003.
Admitted facts available on the record are that Rama Raghuraman A.1 and Raghuraman A.2 had passed out their engineering companyrse from IIT, Bombay and got married on 10.9.1989.
Admittedly, the incident occurred at the place of occurrence i.e. flat of the respondents and at the time alleged herein.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under Rama Raghuraman Accused 1 hereinafter referred to as A 1 made a statement to Mr. V. Narasaiah, Sub Inspector of Police PW.1 that on 29.4.1997 at about 9.00 A.M., when she tried to wake up deceased, G. Arulmozhi, who was sleeping in the other room of the flat, he misbehaved with her and thus A 1 tried to get out of his clutches in order to save herself.
Out of this wedlock they had two children at the time of incident.
Being aggrieved, the respondents preferred Criminal Appeal No.
1088 of 2002 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad acquitting the respondents of the charges under Sections 302 read with 120 B of Indian Penal Code hereinafter referred to as IPC for companymitting the murder of G. Arulmozhi by hitting him with a hammer on his head.
Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
She immediately went and called a doctor from the nearby hospital and on his advice, shifted the deceased to the hospital.
The deceased himself was a companyputer engineer and an MBA from Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad.
They developed love and affection and got married.
An ambulance was called and with the help of two attendants, Rama Raghuraman A.1 and Raghuraman A.2 took the injured to the hospital.
1 seized at the instance of Rama Raghuraman A.1 , though such a hammer is number generally found in the household.
Mr. K. Chakrapani PW.16 also examined PWs 2 to 5 and recorded their statements.
After hearing the hue and cry, Raghuraman A.2 came there and also caused injuries to him.
