CRIMINAL APPEAL 64 of 2013 on 30 October 2011

JUDGMENT

{Pertion’ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy)

Accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.64 of 2013 on thefile ofthe Court of thelearned Special Sessions Judge-cum-lV AdditionalDistrictandSessionsJudge,Tirupati,ChittoorDistrictistheappellant in thepresent Criminal Appeal. He along with A2 were triedbythe learned Special Sessions Judge under the following[charges.]under Section 302 IPC against A1

1. First Charge was

under Section 304-B against A1

2. Second Charge was

under Section 302 r/w 109 IPC against A2

3. Third Charge wasOrOr

under Section 304-B r/w 109 IPC against4.Fourth Charge wasA2A2

under Section 498-A IPC against A1 and A25.Fifth Charge was KSR, J & TCDS, JCrl.A,No.l077 of2017

6. Sixth Charge was under Section 3 of the Dowry ProhibitionAct, 1961 against A1 and A2Act, 1961 against A1 and A2

7, Seventh Charge was under Section 4 of the Dowry[Prohibition]Act, 1961 against A1 andA2.Act, 1961 against A1 andA2.

2. Substance of the chargeis that on 30.10.2011, at about7.00 p.m, A1 caused the death of his wife viz., Lalitha (hereinafterreferred to as ‘the deceased’) in his house, situated in Plot No. 1886,Tharakarama Nagar, Karakambadi, Renigunta Mandal withinseven(7) years of her marriage with A1 on the abetment of A2, therebycommitted the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B, 302r/w 109 IPC, 304-B r/w 109 IPC and 498-A IPC and under Sections 3and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional SessionsJudge convicted the appellant/accused No.1 under Section 302 IPCand sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’. However, thelearned Special Sessions Judge acquitted A1 for the charges underSections 304-B, 498-A IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry'Prohibition Act. The learned Special Sessions Judge also acquittedA2 for all the charges under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A IPC andunder Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

KSR, J & TCDS, JCrl.A.No.l077of2017

4. Caseof theprosecution,aspertheevidenceoftheprosecution witnesses, briefly is as follows:-

(i) A1is husband and A2 is mother-in-law of the deceasedrespectively. P.W.1is mother of the deceased. P.W.2 is daughter-in-law of P.W.1. P.Ws.4, 5 and 7 are neighbours. Both the accused andmaterial prosecution witnesses are residents of Tharakarama Nagar,Karakambadi, Renigunta Mandal. The deceased married A1 againstthe wishes of her parents andit is a love marriage. After marriage,the couple led happy maritallife for some time. Three months afterthe marriage, P.W.1gave an amount of Rs.25,000/- apartfrom12 grams gold ornaments to the deceased. A1 asked his mother/A2to give money for purchasing auto.As mother of tne A1 refused togive money for the purpose of purchasing auto, A1alongwithdeceased went out and set up separate family in a rented[house][ at]Tharakarama Nagar. Thereafter, A1 used to harass the deceased forwant of cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- to purchase an auto. A1 demandedthe said money from P.W.1 through the deceased,respectively. P.W.1is mother of the deceased. P.W.2 is daughter-in-law of P.W.1. P.Ws.4, 5 and 7 are neighbours. Both the accused andmaterial prosecution witnesses are residents of Tharakarama Nagar,Karakambadi, Renigunta Mandal. The deceased married A1 againstthe wishes of her parents andit is a love marriage. After marriage,the couple led happy maritallife for some time. Three months afterthe marriage, P.W.1gave an amount of Rs.25,000/- apartfrom12 grams gold ornaments to the deceased. A1 asked his mother/A2to give money for purchasing auto.As mother of tne A1 refused togive money for the purpose of purchasing auto, A1alongwithdeceased went out and set up separate family in a rented[house][ at]Tharakarama Nagar. Thereafter, A1 used to harass the deceased forwant of cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- to purchase an auto. A1 demandedthe said money from P.W.1 through the deceased,

(ii) While so, on 30.10.2011 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W.2[received]a phone call from A1, who informed her stating that[the][ deceased][ fell]down due to giddiness and he admitted her in Ruia hospital, Tirupati.Then brother of the deceased along with P.W.1 went to the hospitaland found the dead, body. When P.W.1 enquired with neighbours.

KSR, J & TCOS, JCrl.A.No.l077 of 2017

she came to know that on the fateful day, the accused quarrelledwiththe deceased.Shefurther cameto knowthat from morningonwards, A1 was beating the deceased and ultimately[the][ deceased]fell down and the accused took her to hospital, where[the][ Doctor]foundher ‘brought dead’. Thereafter, A1abscondedhimself.On31.10.2011at about 4.00 p.m., P.W.1 went to the police[station][ and]gaveareport-Ex.P1.P.W.12-thethenInspectorofPoliceRenigunta UrbanPolice Station onreceipt of Ex.PIfromP.W.1registered a case in Crime No.163 of 2011 under Sections[302 and]304-B IPC and issued copies of FIRs to all the concerned.[Ex.PII]isthe copy of FIR.

(iii) On 31.10.2011, P.W.13-the then Deputy Superintendentof Police, Renigunta took up investigation and visited[the][ scene][ of]offence.HepreparedanObservationReport-Ex.P3.Healsoprepareda Rough Sketch-Ex.PI2at the sceneof offenceinthepresence of P.W.8 and another.

(iv) On 01.11.2011,P.W.11,the then Tahsildar,Reniguntaheld inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence ofP.W.8 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P4. After inquest.P.W.13 recorded statements of P.Ws.1 to 7.

(v) On the same day, on receipt of requisition from P W.11,P.W.10-the Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine,

KSR, J&TCDS, JCrl.A.No.l077 of 2017

S.V. Medical College, Tirupati, conducted autopsy over[the][ dead]body. He opined the cause of death was dueto ‘asphyxiaandthrottling’. He issued post-mortem certificate-Ex.P6. FSL Reportismarked as Ex.P7 and the final opinion is marked as Ex.P8.

(Vi) On10.11.2011P.W.13arrestedA1andA2inthepresence of P.W.9 and another under Ex.P5. Subsequently,[A1][ and]A2wereremandedtojudicialcustody.Aftercompletionof.investigation P.W.13 filed charge sheet.

5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1to13 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.12.

6. Whentheaccused wasexaminedunderSection313Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence found against him fromthe prosecution witnesses, but he did not choose toexamine anywitness on his behalf.

7. Accepting the evidenceof prosecution witnesses,thelearned Special Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accusedNo.1 as aforesaid.

8. HeardSriG.VijayaSaradhi,learnedcounselfortheappellant/accusedandSriMarriVenkataRamana,learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor.

9. Wehavecarefullyscrutinisedtheentireevidenceon record.

10. Thereis no dispute withregardto therelationshipbetween theparties. Aboutfive(5) monthspriortothedateofincident, the deceased married A1 andit was love marriage.[For][ a]periodof three(3)monthscoupledledhappymaritallifebymaintaining cordial relationship. About three (3) months prior to thedate of incident, A1 started harassing the deceased, demanding herto bring an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parental[house][ for][ the]purpose of purchasing an auto rikshaw. P.W.1in her evidence hasspecifically stated that she accepted to provide Rs.1,00,000/-[after]few days as sheis not having the said amount with her readily.Subsequently, A1 set up a separate family by taking[a][ house][ for][ rent]in the same colony. While so, on 30.10.2011neighboursof A1informed P.W.1 over phone stating that the deceased was killed bythe appellant/AI. Immediately P.W.1 along with her[son][ went][ to][ the]hospital and found dead body.

11. Theevidence ofP.W.2alsocorroborates withtheevidence of P.W.1. P.W.2 whois none other than the daughter-in-law of P.W.1 stated that the appellant killed her husband as he wasnot coming forward to compromise in the present case. Of course, inthe cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that she has got suspicionagainst the appellant that he might be responsible for the death ofher husband.

ksr,j&tcds,jCrl.A.No.l077 of 2017

of the prosecution. P.Ws.12. P.W.3 did not support the caseevidence of P.Ws. 6of A1 and A2. The4 and 5 are the neighbours- of the prosecution as they haveand 7 is not at all helpful to the casethe reason for fhe death of thestatedthat they donot knowdeceased.

P.W.13 prepared anthe VRO, in whose presence13. P.W.8 isis also another VRO,and inquest report.P.W.9 is-observation reportdoctor whoarrest. P.W.10witnessfor thewhoisa punchP.W.11is the Tahsildar whoconducted post-mortem examinationthen Inspector ofdead body. P.W.12 is theheld inquest over thewho registered the CrimeUrban Police StationPolice, Reniguntaand P.W.13 is the Investigating officer.

his 313 Cr.P.C.record, the appellant in14. As seen from thehe himself admitted thecategorically stated thatexamination, hasappellant informed theOf course, thedeceasedin the hospital,the house andthe deceased fell down inneighbours stating thatdeceasedin the. After admitting thewentinto unconscious stateaccording to theAdmittedly, eventhe appellant abscondedhospitalsituatedinwithhiswifeinthehouseappellant heislivingthird, Karakambadi. Except both of them noTharakarama Nagar, As such, it is for the appellant tothe said houseis living mpersonhomicidal death as per thedeceased met withto how theexplain as KSR,J&TCDS,JCrl.A.No.l077 of 2017

of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. Though thereprovisionswas noexplanation offered by the appellant, he came up with[a][ false]explanationstatingthat the deceasedfell downathomeandfromthemedicalevidence,thereceivedinjuries.But,as seendeceased received about 13 injuries. All the injuries[were][ on][ the][ face]and neckof the deceased. Accordingto the medicalevidenceadduced through Medical Officer-P.W.10, the cause of[death][ was]dueto ‘asphyxia andthrottling’. As such,the falseexplanationofferedbytheappellantlendssupporttotheversionoftheprosecution. As already pointed out, the appellant[and][ the][ deceased]alone were living in the house, and the deceased met[with][ homicidal]death. As already pointedout, the appellant in his[313]Cr.P.C.examination has specifically stated that he admitted[the][ deceased][ in]the hospital. As such, in the considered opinion of[this][ Court,][ the]of the accusedin theprosecutionis able to prove the presencehouse at the relevant point of time.

15. In view of the facts and circumstances, the prosecution[is]able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable[doubt][ as][ all]the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are[pointing][ out]theguilt towards the appellant/accused alone but nottoothers.Having analysed the evidence carefully, we have nohesitationtocometo the conclusion that there are no grounds to interfere[with][ the]

KSR,J aiCDS,JCrl.A.No.l077 of 2017

conviction and sentence recorded by the learned SpecialTiessionsJudge.

16. In the result, the present Criminal Appealis dismissedconfirmingtheconvictionandsentencepassedbythelearnedSpecialSessionsJudge-cum-IVAdditionalDistrictandSessions Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, in Sessions Case No.64of 2013, dated 02.03.2017. Needless to state that the period alreadyundergone by the appellant/Accused shall be given setoff underSection 428 Cr.P.C.confirmingtheconvictionandsentencepassedbythelearnedSpecialSessionsJudge-cum-IVAdditionalDistrictandSessions Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, in Sessions Case No.64of 2013, dated 02.03.2017. Needless to state that the period alreadyundergone by the appellant/Accused shall be given setoff underSection 428 Cr.P.C.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Appealshall stand closed.

To

SD/- E. KAMESWARA RAOJOINT REGISTRARSECTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

1. The Special Sessions Judge-cum- IVth Additional District & SessionsJudge, Tirupati, Chittoor DistrictJudge, Tirupati, Chittoor District

2. The V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, ChittoorDistrictDistrict

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa[District]

4. TheSub-Divisionalofficer,ReniguntaSubDivision,Renigunta,Chittoor DistrictChittoor District

5. The Station HouseOfficer,Renigunta UrbanPolice Station,ChittoorDistrict, Krishna DistrictDistrict, Krishna District

6. One CC to Sri G Vijaya Saradhi Advocate [OPUC]

7. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra[Pradesh]atAmaravathi [OUT]Amaravathi [OUT]

8. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of[Andhra][ Pradesh][ at]Amaravathi.Amaravathi.

9. Three CD Copies

Stu

HIGH COURT

DATED:17/02/2025

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.1077 of 2017

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL