Name: Tushaar Sadanand

Roll no: 1634

CASE SUMMARY

Ediga Anamma Vs State of Andhra Pradesh,Citation:1974 AIR 799,1974

SCR (3) 329

Introduction

On 4th November 1971, a young woman Anasuya and her baby daughter
nirmala were brutally murdered in a small village of konapally in the state
of andhra pradesh by the accused Ediga Anamma due to anger developed
by sex jealousy for the victim who had extra maritial relationship with her
illicit lover. After all the investigations and findings the accused was
convicted and awarded death penalty by the sessions court and the
conviction and the sentence was also upheld by the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh. A criminal appeal was filed by the accused in the Supreme Court
appealing to the court that the death sentence be dissolved and be
substituted by life sentence.

The issue was whether to replace the death sentence with life
imprisonment considering the fact that the accused is a young women and
mother of a 10 year old child and was flagged out of her conjugal home and
moreover the judgment by the sessions court was pronounced on 31
December 1971 and the appeal by the accused was heard in February
1974 ,this extended period of time had caused great distress to the
accused. The appeal was heard by a bench of judges which was consisted
of Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer and Justice Ranjit Singh Sarkaria. The
judgment encapsulates the long standing debate of usage of death
sentence and its relevance in today’s times.

Relevant facts
The appellant in this case is the accused Ediga Anamma and the case is of
criminal nature. The accused is a married woman who developed an illicit
relation with a widower living in the same village of Ankenpally even while
being in her husband’s home. This relationship was discovered by her in
laws resulting in her flagellation by her father in law and she shifted back to
her parent’s home in Konapally village. Her paramour responded by shifting
himself to the same village and the accused and the person continued on
with their interdicted meetings.The victim anasuya was also a married
woman and even she had an extra marital relation with accused’s lover and
she was unfortunately neighbour of the accused. The accused eventually
came to know about this, she was fired up by jealousy for her rival, and she
decided to eliminate the victim.

On 4th November 1971 anasuya left her house for the fields with her baby
in the afternoon hours. She was followed by the accused into the fields
where she and her child were ruthlessly murdered by the accused and the
victim’s clothes were replaced by the accused with her own clothes and her
face was disfigured so as to mislead the investigators and the baby’s body
was buried under the sand bed of a nearby stream . Then she went to her
paramour’s home and confessed everything to him asked him to elope with
her and flee the place with her, but he refused to go with her. She then
proceeded to her uncle’s village. The police were informed by the villagers
after the discovery of the body of victim ,it was initially misunderstood as
accused’s body but later when she returned from her uncle’s village and
when the her lover confessed to the police everything under stress and with
all other corroborative evidence found, anamma was charged with the
offence of murder.

The sessions court convicted her of murder under section 302 and 201 of
I.P.C and gave her death sentence which was also upheld by the High
Court and finally she made an appeal in the Supreme court. She appealed
that her death sentence be substituted by life imprisonment.

Issues
The question before the court was whether the conviction by lower courts
was correct and whether to substitute the accused’s death sentence with
life sentence or not, considering the fact that modern criminology regards
crime and criminal equally important in picking up the right sentence and
also taking into account the amendment in the criminal procedure code in
1973 which inserted a line that after the post conviction period, judges
should hear the accused on the question of sentence and then pass the
sentence on him according to law.

Contentions

The contentions raised by the amicus curiae Shri Khathuria were that there
was no direct evidence in the case and the confession of the appellant's
paramour was in extra judicial settings and that the accused’s death
sentence is not justified after conviction , considering the fact that the
appellant is young woman and a mother of 10 year old child, she suffered
flagellation from her father in law and that she was victim to uncontrolled
sex indulgences. And also that she suffered prolonged agony due to an
extended period of court proceedings over 3 years. He also stated that
amendment to the criminal procedure code in 1973 which adds the line that
post conviction period the judges should hear the accused on the question
of the sentence before passing the sentence on him according to law. He
stressed that the accused's social background should be considered taking
into account the mentioned amendment .

On the other hand the counsel for the state stated that the baby’s body was
found in the sand bed with the accused clothing on it and also a chisel
which was used as the murder weapon was discovered with it .The
appellant’s own father admitted that it was his chisel which went missing
and appellant’s clothes were also found on ansuya’s body.The counsel of
state also argued that the accused’s illicit lover had no ill will towards the
accused so his confession can be relied upon and it was also corroborated
by the evidence found and also by the three witnesses who confirmed that
they saw anamma following her victim to fields on that day. The counsel
said that all the evidence and the confession point to the fact that the
accused committed greusome murder of the victim and her daughter which
is reasonable grounds for conviction and death sentence ,

Judgement

The court confirmed the conviction of the accused stating that Shri
Kathuria’s attacks on the prosecution’s evidence testifies to his industry
but it lacks conviction.It also stated that confession alone wouldn’t have
sufficed but due to existence of the corroborative evidence and testimonies
given by the witnesses it becomes evident that the accused has committed
the crime.So the court confirmed the conviction of the accused

The court awarded the accused life imprisonment instead of death

sentence taking into account many factors such as the social background
of the accused,her youthfulness,her flaggellation by her in laws and also
her being a mother of a young boy and agony she suffered in the last three
years since she committed the crime. The judgement also cited the 1973
amendment in criminal procedure code to state that the death sentence
can be given only in special cases.

The judgement established that the rights of a person do not end with his
conviction.

The judgement was unanimous.

 Conclusion

The judgement dissolved the death sentence of the accused substituting it

with the life imprisonment and upheld the conviction of the accused.This
judgement highlights the reformative aspect of penology in India, it
reconfirmed in the belief that punishment shouldn’t be retributive in nature
and it reaffirmed that death penalty can only be awarded in rarest of the
rare circumstances and many factors should be taken note of before
pronouncing a death sentence. It also strengthened the legal principle that
after the conviction the court shall hear the accused on the question of
sentence and then pass the sentence on him according to law.