Andhra High CourtDudapaka Haritha vs The State Of A.P. Rep. By Its Public ... on 5 June, 2017Author:C.V. Nagarjuna ReddyBench:C.V. Nagarjuna ReddyTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY  AND THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI                       

Criminal Appeal No.226 of 2011

05-06-2017 

Dudapaka Haritha   Petitioner 

The State of A.P.  Rep. by its Public Prosecutor  High Court of A.P., Hyderabad   Respondent

Counsel for the petitioner: Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy

Counsel for the respondent : Public Prosecutor (TS)

<GIST: 

>HEAD NOTE:    


? CITATIONS                              :
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY           
AND  
THE HONBLE Ms. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI      
        
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.226 OF 2011      


THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:         

JUDGMENT:(per the Honble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy)  

        This is a pathetic case of a blind mother killing her own children
numbering two.  As regards the cause of death and the factum of the
appellant killing her own children, Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, learned
counsel for the appellant, has not joined issue.  She has fairly conceded
that though there is no direct evidence connecting the death of the
deceased to the appellant, the fact that both the deceased have died in
the presence of the appellant at her house during night, and in the
absence of any possibility of a third person entering the house and
causing the death of the deceased, it is evident that the appellant herself
has caused death of her two children.  In the light of this concession, the
necessity for us to formally refer to the whole case of the prosecution is
obviated.The learned counsel for the appellant has strongly urged that the
Court below ought to have taken into consideration the circumstances
under which the appellant has caused the death of her two children.  The
learned counsel has placed strong reliance on Ex.P.19, confessional
statement of the appellant, and submitted that out of sheer frustration of
her being abandoned by her husband and her children reportedly asking
her about their father, she might have gone to the extent of doing away
with the lives of her two children, apart from herself attempting to
commit suicide.  In the light of this submission, we have carefully gone
through the contents of Ex.P.19, which fully support the submission of
the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased were repeatedly
asking the appellant about their father, who neglected and abandoned the
accused and the deceased.  Ex.P.1 would clearly show that the frustration
of the appellant has turned into sudden provocation when both the
deceased were persistently asking about their father.  Being in such a
helpless condition the appellant evidently being unable to answer their
persistent queries killed both her children by strangulating with her saree.
These circumstances, in our opinion, would bring the act of the appellant
into one under Section 304 Part-IIPC, for, she killed her two children
though with an intention but under grave and sudden provocation caused
by the repeated queries of the deceased about their father.Therefore, while confirming the finding of the lower Court that the
appellant is guilty of causing the death of her children and the conviction
and sentence recorded against the appellant for the offence underSection
309IPC, we modify the conviction recorded against the appellant in
judgment dt.26.07.2010 in Sessions Case No.59 of 2010 on the file of the
IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Warangal, from the
offence underSection 302IPC to that of the offence underSection 304Part-IIPC.  The appellant is accordingly convicted and sentenced to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, while maintaining the
sentence of fine imposed against her.  If the appellant has already
completed the said sentence of imprisonment, after giving the benefit of
the remissions which she may entitled to as per law, she shall be released
forthwith, if she is not required in any other case or crime.The criminal appeal is accordingly partly allowed.__________________________    
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J      
_________________________    
J. UMA DEVI, J 
05-06-2017