APHC010193242018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3547] MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH 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: 917/2018 Between: SYED CHINA KADAR VALI, R/O.D.NO. 2-670, KONDA KRINDA, BAZARE, VEMULURIPADU VILLAGE, PHIRANGIPURAM MANDAL, GUNTUR, AP., ...APELLANT AND STATE OF AP, rep. by the Public Prosecutor (AP)., High Court at Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1.D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 Crl.A.No.917 of 2018 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.448 of 2016 on the file of the Court of XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopeta, Guntur District, is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 01.03.2016 at about 12.00 mid night, the accused beat his wife Syed Gulzar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a drunken state and caused her death in his house situated at Vemuluripadu village, Phirangipuram Mandal, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month. Aggrieved by the same, the accused/appellant filed the present appeal. 4. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, is as follows:- (i) The accused is resident of Vemuluripadu village, Phirangipuram. The material prosecution witnesses are also residents of Phirangipuram. The marriage between the accused and the deceased was performed in the month of December, 2010. The couple blessed with a daughter and son, who are aged 5 and 3 years respectively. At the time of marriage, the accused was eking out his livelihood by doing welding works. The accused was addicted to consume alcohol. About five years prior to the date of incident, the auto of the accused met with 3 Crl.A.No.917 of 2018 an accident, in which one person died. To pay compensation to the family of the deceased, who died in the said accident, the accused pledged the jewellery of the deceased and paid compensation. In that connection, both of them used to quarrel with each other. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased, P.W.2 is the brother of P.W.1. It is stated that having addicted to alcohol, the accused used to harass the deceased and sent her to parents’ house frequently. Three years prior to the incident, the accused started Bishmillah water servicing centre at Pericherla. On 01.03.2006 at about 9.00 P.M., P.W.1 went to the house of deceased to see her and grand children. At that juncture, P.W.1 found the accused in drunken condition. When the accused was quarreling with the deceased, P.W.1 admonished him. After having dinner, P.W.1 slept in the veranda of the house, whereas the accused and the deceased along with the children slept inside the house. At about 12-00 mid night, P.W.1 heard weeping of the children inside the house. P.W.1 woke up and knocked the door. Initially, the accused did not open the door and after repeatedly knocking the door, the accused opened the door and pushed P.W.1 aside and ran away. P.W.1 went inside the house and found injuries on throat and nose of the deceased. Immediately, P.W.1 telephoned his son. At about 2.00 A.M., sons and relatives of P.W.1 came to the house of accused. In the mid night, the villagers brought P.W.5 RMP doctor to the house. He examined the injured and declared her as dead. Immediately, P.W.1 went to the police station and gave report. On 02.03.2016 at about 8.00 A.M., P.W.8-Sub Inspector of police, Phirangipuram Police Station received Ex.P1-report from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.15 of 2016 under Section 302 IPC and issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. Ex.P9 is the FIR. 4 Crl.A.No.917 of 2018 (ii) Having received the information, P.W.9-Inspector of police, Narasaraopeta Rural Circle rushed to the scene of offence. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.6 and another. Ex.P5 is the inquest report. He also prepared Ex.P4- observation report at the scene of offence. He also prepared rough sketch-Ex.P11 at the scene of offence. He got the scene photographed through Station camera and the photographs are marked as Ex.P10. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. (iii) P.W.7-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Narasaraopeta conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to “asphyxia as a result of throttling associated with smothering”. He issued Ex.P6- preliminary post-mortem certificate and Ex.P8-final opinion. (iv) On 14.03.2016 P.W.9 arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.10 and another under a panchanama-Ex.P12 and basing on the confession made by the accused, P.W.9 recovered M.O.1-pillow under a panchanam-Ex.P13 from his house. He sent viscera to RFSL Guntur for analysis. RFSL report is marked as Ex.P7. After receiving all the documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.9 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10, marked Exs.P1 to P13 and exhibited M.O.1. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. 5 Crl.A.No.917 of 2018 7. Accepting the evidence of P.W.1, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 8. Heard Sri D.Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that P.W.1 was not at all present in the house of the accused at relevant point of time and he was planted by the prosecution on the next day. He further contends that if really P.W.1 was present at the house of accused at the relevant point of time, he ought to have given a report to the police immediately. He further contends that it is only on the next day morning after arrival of P.W.1 and his sons, the FIR was lodged. He contends that as P.W.1 was planted belatedly, he requests this Court to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed contending that in Ex.P1 P.W.1 has specifically stated that he visited the house of accused on the previous day night and after taking dinner he slept in the verandah, whereas the accused and the deceased along with children slept inside the house. He further contends that the deceased met with homicidal death in the house of accused where there is no other person except two minor children aged 5 and 3 years respectively. He further contends that as per the provisions of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, it is for the accused to explain as to how the deceased met with homicidal death in his house. He further contended that right from Ex.P1-report, the version of P.W.1 is consistent. P.W.1 in his evidence has categorically 6 Crl.A.No.917 of 2018 stated that after hearing the cries of the children at about 12-00 mid night, he woke up and knocked the doors. Having opened the doors, the accused pushed P.W.1 and escaped from the scene of offence. It is only on 14.03.2016 the accused was apprehended by P.W.9. As such, the conduct of the accused in absconding for a period of two weeks lends support to the version of the prosecution. As such, he contends that there are no merits in the appeal and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge may be confirmed. 11. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 12. In Ex.P1, P.W.1 specifically stated that he visited the house of accused on 01.03.2016 to see the deceased and grand children. He further stated that at about 9.00 P.M., the accused having consumed alcohol beat the deceased. He also stated in his report-Ex.P1 that he admonished the accused stating that he will file a criminal case against him. Thereafter, P.W.1 slept in the verandah, whereas the accused and the deceased along with children slept inside the house. He further stated that at about 12-00 mid night, he heard the weeping of the children and he knocked the doors. The accused having opened the door, pushed P.W.1 aside and escaped from the scene. P.W.1 in his evidence further stated that having found his daughter with injuries, he telephoned his sons, who came to the house on the next day morning. Immediately in the mid night, the villagers brought P.W.5- RMP doctor who examined and declared her dead. On 02.03.2016 at about 8.00 A.M., P.W.1 went to Phirangipuram Police Station and gave Ex.P1-report. On that basis, criminal law was set into motion. Though P.W.1 was cross-examined by the defence, nothing adverse has been elicited from his cross-examination. 7 Crl.A.No.917 of 2018 13. Admittedly, the deceased met with homicidal death in the house of accused where there is no other person present in the house. As such, as per the provisions of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, it is incumbent on the part of the accused to explain as to how the deceased met with homicidal death in his house. Instead of giving explanation he absconded for a period of two weeks. Further, the accused took a plea that he was not present in the house at the relevant point of time. This defence also is falsified as the deceased took different pleas with regard to his absence. During examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused took a plea that he went to Jaggaiahpeta on his welding work on the relevant day. But during cross-examination of P.W.1, it was suggested to P.W.1 stating that he went to attend welding work at Guntur on 01.03.2016. As such, the plea taken by the accused also held to be false. Further, the ocular version spoken to by P.W.1 was corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.7 coupled with post-mortem report-Ex.P6 and final opinion- Ex.P8. P.W.7 in his evidence categorically stated that the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of throttling associated with smothering. As such, the ocular version spoken by P.W.1 was fully corroborated with the medical evidence. As already pointed out, it is for the accused to explain, as to how the deceased met with homicidal death in his house. 14. Having analyzed the entire evidence on record carefully, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that it is the accused who committed murder of the deceased who is his wife. As such, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge needs no interference. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8 Crl.A.No.917 of 2018 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused in the judgment, dated 02.03.2023 vide Sessions Case No.448 of 2016 by the learned XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Narasaraopeta, Guntur District, under Section 302 IPC. As the appellant/Accused was already released on bail by order, dated 02.03.2023, in terms of the order, dated 02.11.2016, passed by the Combined High Court in Batchu Rangarao and others Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh (Crl.A.M.P.No.1687 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.607 of 2011), he is directed to surrender before the trial Court to serve the remaining portion of sentence of imprisonment forthwith. Failing which, the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasxaraopeta, is directed to secure his presence by issuing N.B.W. and commit him to prison to serve the remaining portion of sentence. It is needless to state that the period of imprisonment already undergone by him shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dt. 15.09.2025 SAB 9 Crl.A.No.917 of 2018 103 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Criminal Appeal No.917 of 2018 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date: 15.09.2025 SAB