APHC010155222018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3547] TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 728/2018 Between: 1. KATIKALA MARIYA DASU, R/O. RENTALA VILLAGE, RENTACHINTALA MANDAL., NOW AT 4TH WARD, SUDDAGUNTA., NEAR OLD GORRELAMANDI., MACHERLA ...APELLANT AND 1. STATE OF AP, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,. High Court at Hyderabad, ...RESPODENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to To set aside the Judgment dated. 02.02.2018 in S.C.No. 567/2014 on the file of the X Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala., Guntur District and to pass IA 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 pleased to suspend the execution of the sentence passed inS.C.No.567 of 2014 on the file of the Xth Additional District and Sessions Judge ,Gurajala ,Guntur District dated 02-02-2018 and release the petitioner on bail in Crl.A.No.728 of 2018 pending before the Hon'ble Court and to pass Counsel for the Apellant: 1. LAKSHMI D S Counsel for the Respodent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THIS THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 728 of 2018 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in S.C.No.567 of 2014 on the file of the Court of X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala, is the appellant. The appellant was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, under the following charges: First charge was under Section 304-B I.P.C. and Second charge was under Section 302 I.P.C. 2. Substance of the charge is that the accused subjected his wife Smt. Katikala Ramana Kumari (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) to cruelty by suspecting her fidelity and on 27.02.2014 at about 7:00 P.M., he caused the death of the deceased by strangulating her with a chunni cloth, causing her death within seven years of the marriage, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 302 I.P.C. 3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The learned Additional Sessions judge, further convicted the appellant under Section 498-A I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. Case of the prosecution, as revealed by the evidence of prosecution witnesses, in brief, is as follows: (i) The accused is a resident of Rentala Village, Rentachintala Mandal. The deceased was originally resident of Mutukuru village, Durgi Mandal. The marriage of the accused and the deceased was performed about four years prior to the date of incident. P.W.1 is father and P.W.2 is mother of the deceased respectively. P.W.3 is brother of P.W.2. They are residents of Mutukuru Village, Durgi Mandal. The couple blessed with a son and daughter. The couple used to reside in a rented house initially at Rentachinthala and thereafter shifted to Macherla. The couple used to reside in the house of P.W.8. The accused was working as Lecturer in Sagarmatha College, Rentachinthala and the deceased was working as DLMT in Rajiv Vidya Mission, as outsourcing employee. It is alleged that the accused used to harass the deceased, suspecting her fidelity. The deceased used to visit her parents house and inform them about the harassment. Parents of the deceased and relatives used to console and send her back. As the accused was harassing the deceased, frequently, P.W.2, mother of the deceased, was residing with the couple at Macherla, for the last three years prior to the date of offence. But, there was no change in the attitude of the accused. (ii) On 27.02.2024 at about 7:00 P.M., P.W.2, along with two children went out to purchase eatables. At about 8:00 P.M., P.W.2 returned home. At that point of time, she found the accused pulling the dead body of the deceased from bathroom and kept the same on the cot. When P.W.2 questioned the accused, the latter informed her stating that the deceased committed suicide. When P.W.2 confronted the accused, he admitted that he killed the deceased and left home. On the same day at about 9:00 P.M., P.W.1 received information from P.W.2 through telephone to the effect that the accused killed the deceased. Immediately, P.W.1 along with P.W.3 went to the house of accused, situated at Macherla. He found dead body of the deceased on the cot. At about 4:00 A.M., on 28.02.2014, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and gave report. (iii) P.W.11, S.I. of Police, Macherla Town Police Station received Ex.P1, report from P.W.1 and registered a case in crime No.35 of 2014 under Sections 498-A and 302 I.P.C. He issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. Ex.P11 is the F.I.R. (iv) P.W.14, Inspector of Police, Macherla, having received information, informed the same to DSP, Gurazala. P.W.14 along with P.W.11 visited the scene of offence as per the instructions of DSP. He secured the presence of P.Ws.6, 7 and another and prepared an observation report Ex.P14. He also prepared a rough sketch Ex.P15 at the scene of offence. He seized M.Os.1 to 4. He also photographed the scene of offence under Ex.P16. He addressed a letter to M.R.O., Macherla, to conduct inquest over the dead body as the death occurred within 7 years of marriage. P.W.10 Tahsildar, Macherla conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.Ws.6, 7 and another. But the inquest report was not marked. Signatures on the inquest report were marked as Ex.P5 and P8. He shifted the dead body to Govt. Hospital, Macherla, for post mortem examination. P.W.14 recorded statements of P.Ws.1 to 4 and other witnesses. Page 7 of 13 (v) P.W.9 Civil Asst. Surgeon, Govt. Hospital, Macherla conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to asphyxia due to ligature strangulation. He issued post mortem certificate Ex.P10. (vi) On 03.03.2014, P.W.15, another Inspector of Police, Macherla Town Police Station, took up further investigation. On the same day, he arrested the accused near Rentachintala Railway Station in the presence of P.Ws.6 and 12. After receiving all the documents and after completing investigation, P.W.15 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15, marked Exs.P1 to 16 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 4. On behalf of the accused, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. 7. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 9 to 14, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as aforesaid. 8. Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-state. Page 8 of 13 9. Learned Senior Counsel strenuously contends that the couple is not residing together and due to disputes, they are residing separately. He further contends that a suggestion was put to P.Ws.1 to 3 to the effect that the appellant is not residing along with the deceased. Of course, the said suggestion was denied by P.Ws.1 to 3. He further contends that the deceased along with her two children and P.W.2 was residing together in a rented house belonging to P.W.8. He further contends that except the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, the other material witnesses, i.e. landlord, neighbours and mediators for observation and arrest, did not support the prosecution. He further contends that the medical evidence adduced through P.W.9 coupled with Ex.P10 gives altogether a different picture. He contends that the medical evidence adduced by P.W.9 shows that it is not a case of strangulation and it is a case of suicide. P.W.9 in his evidence has described the injuries as follows: “A ligature mark of size 25 cms in length and 2.5 cm in width, with brownish yellow color, shallow, extending horizontally 2 cms below angels of mandibles from posterior aspects of neck on right side to posterior aspect of neck of left side present.” 10. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that as seen from photographs Ex.P16, there are no ligature marks on the posterior aspect of neck. Ligature mark is on the anterior part of throat, but not encircling the neck. He also contends that P.W.1, in his evidence stated that as the accused was continuously harassing the deceased he kept P.W.2 at the house of deceased in Macherla. But P.W.2 in her evidence, stated that as the accused and deceased were employees, to help the deceased, she is staying in the house of deceased, taking care of the children. But P.W.3 in his evidence stated that P.W.2 was sent to the house of accused to support the deceased. As such the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is contradictory to each other with regard to the purpose of stay of P.W.2 in the house of deceased. He further contends that though there was no charge under Section 498-A IPC, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Section 498-A IPC. He further contends that there is abnormal delay in giving report to the police. 11. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal contending that P.W.2 was very much present in the house and she deposed that she saw the accused pulling the dead body from the bathroom to the bedroom. He further contends that though the neighbours and landlord did not support the prosecution, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is corroborated with the medical evidence of P.W.9. As such he requests this Court to dismiss the appeal. 12. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. Page 10 of 13 13. There is no dispute regarding the relationship of the parties. There is no dispute that the deceased died within 7 years from the date of her marriage. Admittedly, the incident took place between 7.00 P.M. and 9.00 P.M. on 27.02.2014. Admittedly, P.Ws.1 and 3 visited the house of the deceased at about 9.00 p.m. on the same day. But curiously, they did not choose to give report, though police station is in the same Town. P.W.1 choose to give report at about 4.00 A.M. on 28.02.2014. Till such time, P.Ws.1 to 3 did not choose to give any report, as such, there is any amount of delay in lodging the report Ex.P1 by P.W.1. 14. Further P.W.2 in her cross examination has admitted that by midnight police visited their house. But nobody gave report to police. P.W.2 in her cross examination further admitted that police prepared the report and she put her thumb impression on the said report. But the said report did not see the light of the day. Thereafter P.W1 visited Police Station at about 4.00 A.M. and presented report Ex.P1. It seems the prosecution suppressed the earliest report submitted at the house of deceased. Subsequently, after due deliberations, Ex.P1 was pressed into service. As already pointed out except the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, the other prosecution witnesses, i.e. neighbours, landlord, panch witnesses did not support the prosecution. As contended by the learned Senior Counsel, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is inconsistent with regard to the stay of P.W.2 in the house of deceased. P.W.1 in his evidence has stated that as the accused is harassing the deceased, he sent P.W.2 to the house of deceased. But curiously, PW.2 in her evidence has stated that as the accused and deceased were employees, she is staying in their house for the last 3 years by looking after the children of the accused and the deceased. P.W.3 stated that they sent P.W.2 to the house of deceased for helping the latter. As such the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is inconsistent on material particulars. 15. We have also carefully perused the evidence of medical officer P.W.9. The medical officer in his evidence described the ligature marks as follows: “A ligature mark of size 25 cms in length and 2.5 cm in width, with brownish yellow color, shallow, extending horizontally 2 cms below angels of mandibles from posterior aspects of neck on right side to posterior aspect of neck of left side present.” 16. But when we see photograph Ex.P16, which was not in dispute, there was no ligature mark on the posterior part of the neck. The ligature mark is on anterior part of the neck. The ligature mark shown in Ex.P16 clearly reveals that it is a case of hanging. Ligature mark is not encircling the neck. The ligature mark was placed in oblique position. Page 12 of 13 17. Having carefully analyzed the ligature mark in Ex.P16, we found that P.W.9 described the nature of ligature mark incorrectly in his post mortem report Ex.P10. Of course, the defence also suggested to P.W.9 in his cross examination, that to oblige police he issued Ex.P10 post mortem certificate. 18. Further as seen from the judgment, the learned trial Judge described P.W.2 as eye witness. Admittedly, she did not witness actual strangulation caused by the accused. P.W.2 in her evidence stated that she saw the accused pulling the dead body from bathroom to bedroom. No charge was framed under Section 201 IPC. Even the investigation officer did not file charge under Section 201 IPC. 19. So far as harassment is concerned, except stating that the accused used to suspect fidelity of the deceased, no evidence is adduced by the prosecution. It was suggested to P.Ws.1 to 3 by the defence stating that the accused and deceased are residing separately. However, the said suggestion was denied. The learned trial Judge went to the extent of convicting the accused for the offence under Section 498- A IPC, without there being any charge under the said Section. 20. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions is liable to be set aside. Page 13 of 13 21. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant by the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala, in S.C.No.567 of 2014 dated 02.02.2018 is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/Accused shall be refunded to him. As the appellant/accused was already enlarged on bail by order dated 01.03.2023 vide I.A.No.1 of 2023, in terms of the orders passed by the composite High Court in Batchu Rangarao and others v. State of A.P.1, he is directed to appear before the concerned for completing the formalities. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY _______________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 16.09.2025 IKN 1 2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P.)