IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVA TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 897 AND 935 OF 2017 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 897 OF 2017 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the Judgment dated 11-08-2017 passed by the Special Judge for the Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act - cum- IV Addl. District Judge, Guntur in S.C. No. 163 of 2016. Between: 1. Sattenaplli Koteswara Rao, S/o. Sri S. Venkateswarlu, Occ.; Nil. 2. Sattenapalli Manikyam @ Baji, W/o. S. Koteswara Rao, Occ. : Housewife. 3. Shaik Mahammad,, S/o. Husena, Occ.; Nil (All residents of 7/5 Lane, Srinagar, Guntur Town, Guntur District.) ...Appellants / A2 to A4 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh,, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh (through Arundalpet P.S., Guntur Town, Guntur District.) ...Respondents I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CRLAMP. NO: 1827 OF 2017) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the sentence passed by the Special Judge for the Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act -cum- IV Additional District Judge, Guntur dated: 11-08-2017 in SC.No.163 of 2016 against A-2 to A-4. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. SRINIVASA RAO G CH Counsel for the Respondents: SRI MARRI VENKATA RAMANA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 935 OF 2017 Between: Sattenaplli Amosh, S/o. Sri S. Koteswara Rao, Aged about 24 years, R/o. 7/5 Lane, Srinagar, Guntur Town, Guntur District. ...Appellant / Accused No.1 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh through Arundalpet P.S., Guntur Town, Guntur District. ...Respondent / Complainant Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C,1973, against the Judgment dated 11-08-2017 passed by the Special Judge for the Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-IV Addl.District Judge, Guntur in S.C. No. 163 of 2016. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant bail to the Petitioner and appellant and accused no.1 in CrI.A.No. 935 of 2017 against the Judgment dated 11-08-2017 passed in SC.No. 163 of 2016 on the file of the learned Special Judge for the Trail of cases under SCs and STs POA Act cum IV Addl. Dist Judge Guntur. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant bail to the petitioner/Appellant after suspending the sentence passing by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Guntur (FAC) Judge, Family Court -cum-XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur in Sessions case No. 163/2016 dt. 11-08-2017 against the petitioner/appellant pending disposal of the criminal appeal Counsel for the Appellant :SRI B V KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI MARRI VENKATA RAMANA, ADDITINOAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Judgment: APHC010130072017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) m.f [3517] TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 897/2017 Between: Sattenaplli Koteswara Rao and Others ...APELLANT(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Apellant(S): 1.SRINIVASA RAOG CH Counsel for the Respodent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 935/2017 Between: Sattenaplli Amosh, Guntur Dt., ...APELLANT AND The State Of Ap Rep Pp ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Apellant: 2 1.BV KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respodent: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 The Court made the following common judgment: (per Hon bie Sri Justice K Suresh Reddy) As both these appeals arise out of the same Sessions Case, they are heard together and being disposed of through this common judgment. 2. The accused No.1 in Sessions Case No. 163 of 2016 on the file of the Court of learned Judge, Family Court-cum-XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur (hereinafter referred to as, the learned Additional Sessions Judge), filed CRLA.No.935 of 2017, whereas, accused Nos.2 to 4 filed CRLA No.897 of 2017. All the four accused were tried by the learned Sessions Judge under the following charges; 1. The first charge was under Section 498-A IPC against A1 to A4. 2. The second charge was under Section 304-B IPC against A1 to A4. 3. The third charge was under Section 304-B read with Section 149 IPC against A1 to A4. Substance of the charges is that, prior to 14.01.2015, all the four accused subjected one Sattenapalli Ramadevi @ Ruth (hereinafter referred as the deceased), who is none other than wife of A1, to cruelty, demanding her to bring additional dowry 3. 4 from her parents. On 14.01.2015, between 7 p.m. and 10.30 p unable to bear the harassment, the deceased committed suicide .m.. by hanging herself with a saree to an iron rod within seven years of her marriage and met with homicidal death in their house situated at 7/5 lane, Srinagar, Guntur, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 109 I PC. 4. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A1 under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of -two months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted A1 under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A2 to A4 under Section 498- A read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced each one of them to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted A2 to A4 under Section 304-B read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced each one of them to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years. Both the 5 substantive sentences imposed on A1 to A4 were directed to run concurrently. 5. The case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows: 6. All the accused are residents of Guntur. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased, P.W.2 is the cousin brother of the deceased, P.W.3 is the maternal uncle of the deceased. P.W.1 is resident of Piduguralla and she was working in hotel of P.W.9 at Piduguralla. A1 is the husband of the deceased, A2 is the father of A1, A3 is in live in relationship with A2, A4 is the sisters son of A3. P.W.1 was blessed with three children i.e., two female and one male. The deceased is the younger daughter of P.W.1. Marriage of the deceased was performed with A1 on 26.06.2013. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, a cash of Rs.3,50,000/- and 15 sovereigns of gold were given to A1 to A3 towards dowry. After marriage, the deceased joined the matrimonial home at Guntur. The couple led a happy marital life for some time. It is alleged that the deceased was uncomfortable in the house of A1 to A4 as some Muslim youngsters who are relatives of A3 & A4 used to visit their house frequently. When the deceased expressed inconvenience,A1 to A3 used to beat her and harass her both mentally and physically at the instigation of A4. 6 It is further alleged that A1 used to remain idle without doing any work and harass the deceased for the sake of money. After sometime, the deceased conceived and gave birth to a male child at the house of P.W.1. The deceased remained in the house of P.W.1 for a period of five months. Thereafter, P.W.1 sent the deceased to her in-laws’ house. Since there were quarrels between A1 and the deceased, A2 arranged a rented house, where A1 and the deceased used to reside separately. There also, A1 started harassing the deceased with a demand to get additional dowry and also motorcycle from her parents. A2 to A4 used to visit the house of A1 and the deceased frequently. A1 demanded the deceased to bring an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from P.W.1. The deceased used to inform the same to P.W.1. As the financial position of her parents was not good, they could not meet the demand of A1. 7. 8. On 03.01.2015, the deceased and A1 went to the house of P.W.1, and on the same day, the deceased went to the hotel of P.W.9 and informed about the harassment meted out by her from A1 to A3 which was overheard by P.W.9. 9. On 14.01.2015, P.W1 telephoned the deceased and while she was talking, A1 snatched her phone. Thereafter, P.W.1 tried to call the deceased several times but there was no response. 7 P.W.1 sent P.W.2, who is her sister’s son to find out the position of the deceased. Immediately, P.W.2 went to the house of A1 and came to know that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself with a saree to the iron rod. P.W.2 immediately informed the same to P.W.1. After receiving the information, P.W.1 along with others went to the house of A1 and found the deceased dead. At about 7 a.m. on 15.01.2015, P.W.1 gave a report to the police. P.W.17, SI of Police Arundelpet Police Station, Guntur, received Ex.P1 report from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.35 of 2015 under Section 304-B IPC. Ex.PIO is the FIR. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. Having received the copy of FIR, P.W.18, S.D.P.O, South Sub-Division, Guntur Urban, went to the scene of offence i.e., house of A1. He secured the presence of P.W.14 and another and prepared a scene observation report, Ex.P6. He also prepared a rough sketch, Ex.PII at the scene of offence. He seized M.0.1 under a cover panchanama. On the instructions of P.W.18, P.W.16, the Deputy Tahsildar held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W.14 and another. The inquest report is marked as Ex.P.7. Thereafter, the dead body was sent to the Government General Hospital for conducting post mortem examination. P.W.15, Associate Professor, Guntur, conducted autopsy over the dead 8 body and opined the cause of death was due to Asphyxia as a result of hanging. He issued post mortem certificate Ex.P8 and final opinion under Ex.P9. P.W.18 recorded statements of P.W.1 to 3 and others at Government General Hospital, Guntur. On 18.01.2015, P.W.18 arrested all the four accused in front of railway station, Guntur. Subsequently, after transfer of P.W.18, his successor P.W.19 took up further investigation on 18.03.2015. He recorded statements of witnesses and collected marriage certificate. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. 10. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws’ 1 to 19 and marked Exs’.PI to 12 and also exhibited M.Os’ 1 to 3. 11. When the accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined under Section 313 CrPC, they denied the incriminating material appearing against them and reported no defense evidence. 12. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted the accused as aforesaid. 13. Heard Sri Srinivas Rao G.Ch, learned counsel for the Appellants/A2 to A4 in CRLA.No.897 of 2017 and Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellant/AI in CRLA No.935 of 2017 and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 9 14. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. 15. The relationship between the parties is not disputed. Admittedly, marriage between A1 and the deceased was performed on 26.06.2013. P.Ws 1 & 2 in their evidence stated that at the time of marriage, they paid an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and 15 sovereigns of gold to A1 towards dowry. The accused disputed the said factor and it was suggested to P.W.1 that only an amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid apart from half sovereign of gold at the time of marriage. But as seen from the evidence, the prosecution has not placed any material to show that an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was paid in cash and 15 sovereign of gold was given at the time of marriage. Except the oral assertion, no evidence was adduced by the prosecution. P.Ws’ 3 & 5 are the relatives of the deceased. P.W.4 is the neighbor of the deceased. Evidence of P.W.4 shows that on the fateful day, he came to know that the deceased died at about 9.20 p.m. due to hanging. The evidence of P.W.6 only shows that he arranged marriage between A1 and the deceased. P.W.7 who is the neighbor of A1 did not support the prosecution. P.W.8 is friend of P.W.2 who is said to have lent his motor bike to A1 but, his evidence is also not helpful to the prosecution. P.W.9 is the owner of the hotel where P.W.1 was working. P.Ws. 10, 11 and 12, who are the neighbors 10 of A1, did not support the prosecution. P.W. 13 is the owner of the finance company and his evidence is also not helpful to the prosecution. P.W.14 is the VRA who is panch witness for observation report Ex.P6. P.W.15 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy and issued post mortem certificate Ex.P.8. P.W.16 is the panch witness for inquest report Ex.P.7. P.Ws.17 to 19 are the police officers who registered crime and who investigated the case. Having analyzed the above evidence on record carefully, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, 5 and 9 is relevant in the circumstances of the case. P.Ws.1 to 3, 5 and 9 in their evidence categorically stated that A1 used to harass the deceased demanding additional dowry. P.W.9 also in his evidence stated that on a particular day, the deceased came to his hotel and informed about the harassment made by A1 to P.W.1 and that when he ascertained the deceased, the latter informed the harassment made by A1 demanding additional dowry. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, 5 and 9 clearly goes to show that, A1 used to harass the deceased demanding her to bring additional dowry from her parents’ house. So far as A2 to A4 are concerned, admittedly they were residing separately. 16. 11 It is the evidence of prosecution witnesses that having 17. observed the discomfort of the deceased in the combined house A2 took another house on rent where A1 and the deceased alone were residing. As such, the prosecution is not able to prove the so called harassment on the part of A2 to A4. As already pointed out, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, 5 and 9 clearly established the harassment made by A1 towards the deceased. Further, the prosecution is also able to prove that the deceased met with homicidal death in the house of A1. But no explanation was forthcoming from A1 as to how the deceased met with homicidal death. As such, the prosecution is able to prove the death of the deceased in the house of A1 within seven years from the date of marriage. As such, the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the A1 beyond a reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 304- B IPC and also under Section 498-A IPC. 18. So far as the sentence imposed against A1 is concerned the learned Additional Sessions Judge has sentenced him to maximum punishment. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not assigned any reasons as to why the maximum sentence is being imposed. 12 In view of the above facts and circumstances, inclined to reduce the sentence of the life imprisonment of A1 to a period of ten years. 19. we are So far as A2 to A4 are concerned, it is represented by the learned counsel for the Appellants/A2 to 4 that during the pendency of appeal, A2 expired on 15.10.2021. He also filed a death certificate of A2 along with memo dated 28.01.2025 which is not in dispute. In view of the death of A2, CRLA.No.897 of 2017 is dismissed as abated, insofar as A2 is concerned. Insofar as A3 & 4 are concerned, as the prosecution is not able to prove the harassment on their part, they are entitled to be acquitted. 20. In the result. Criminal Appeal No.897 of 2017 is Allowed, setting aside the convictions and sentences recorded by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur in SC.No.163 of 2016, dated 11.08.2017, against A3 and A4. They are acquitted of all the charges. Fine amount if any paid, shall be refunded to them. 21. So far as,.Criminal Appeal No.935 of 2017 is concerned, the same is dismissed confirming the conviction recorded by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur in SC.No.163 of 2016, dated 11.08.2017. 22. 13 However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from imprisonment for life to imprisonment for a period of ten years. As the Appellant/A1 is released on bail by this Court by order dated 20.03.2023, in terms of the orders of the combined High Court in Batchu Ranga Rao & Others vs The State of Andhra Pradesh , he is directed to surrender before the learned Additional Sessions Judge to serve out the remaining part of sentence. Failing which, the learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to take steps to secure the presence of A1 by issuing non-bailable warrant. It is needless to state that the period already undergone by the Appellant/A1 shall be given setoff under Section 428 CrPC. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. 1 (2016 (3) ALT (CrI) 505) Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Judge, Guntur (FAC) Judge, District and Sessions Judge, Guntur 1 The IV Additional District and Sessions Family Court -cum-Xll Additional L (with records) 2. The Judge, Family Court-cum- Judge, Guntur. 3. The V Additional Superintendent of Jails, District Jail, Guntur. Superintendent of Jails, Central Prison, Rajanrahendrayram East Godavari District. 6. Trie Station House officer, Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur Town, Xll Additional District and Sessions Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur. 4. The 5. The Guntur Distvvct. 7. One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao G CH Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri B.V Krishna Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 10. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. (for despatch of LC record) 11. Three CD Copies PR vna HIGH COURT DATED:18/02/2025 JUDGMENT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 897 AND 935 OF 2017 X 0 3 APR 2025 Current Section fesPATCV^gS:-^ ★ ALLOWING THE APPEAL’S