APHC010302442017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3528] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 103/2017 Between: Rapuri Siva, Nellore Dt., ...APPELLANT AND The State Of Ap Rep Pp ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. NAGA RAJU VUNNAVA 2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice V. Sujatha) Sole accused in S.C.No.296 of 2010 on the file of the Family Court- cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, is the appellant herein. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under three charges. 2 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_103_2017 The first charge was under Section 302 IPC. The second charge was under Section 201 IPC. The third charge was under Section 309 IPC. 2. Gravamen of the charge is that on 01.01.2010, between 02.30 p.m. and 03.00 p.m., he committed murder of his wife Rapuri Tirumala (hereinafter referred as deceased) by cutting her throat with a sharp edged steel knife and super max stainless blade; in the same process he pressed her neck with the help of screwdriver rod causing her death and that on 02.01.2010 at 02.20 p.m., the accused tried to commit suicide by consuming ‘Gannerupappu’, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 309 of IPC. (a) After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also convicted the appellant under Section 201 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant under Section 309 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 3 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_103_2017 3. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in brief is as follows: The appellant/accused is a resident of Vaikuntapuram, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District and had love marriage with the deceased about two years prior to the date of incident. Both the accused and the deceased went to Hyderabad on masonry works, where the accused used to harass and beat the deceased frequently, suspecting her fidelity. About 10 days prior to the date of incident, both of them came to Kavali with an intent to settle and stay in the house of P.W.2 – Mother of the deceased. On 30.12.2009, P.W.2 went to Kandukur for attending her second daughter’s delivery. On 01.01.2010, the accused, deceased and P.W.1 – Brother of the deceased, went to Kalugolamma temple and returned at 12.30 p.m. Thereafter, when the accused started harassing the deceased, P.W.1, under the impression that it is a routine quarrel, went to a movie. Between 02.30 p.m. and 03.00 p.m., the accused forcibly cut her throat by pushing her on a cot with a sharp edged steel knife and super max stainless blade. He also pressed her neck with the help of screwdriver rod. After confirming the death of the deceased, the accused shifted the body of the deceased to the kitchen room and laid the dead body on a thick blanket on the ground. He further removed blood stains in the first room with the help of chunni of the deceased. The said screwdriver rod and chunni were secreted on the eastern side sun shade of the said room. At about 03.30 p.m., when P.W.1 came back from the movie, the accused 4 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_103_2017 rushed out from the house in a hurried manner. P.W.1 witnessed the dead body of the deceased with a cut injury on her throat when he went inside the house and immediately informed about the incident to P.W.3 – owner of the said house. On 01.01.2010 at about 07.00 p.m., P.W.1 lodged a report (Ex.P.1) before P.W.7 – S.I. of Police who registered the same as Crime No.1 of 2010 under Section 302 IPC of Kavali II Town Police Station and furnished the copies to all the concerned officers. Ex.P.4 is the FIR. P.W.10 – Inspector of Police, Kavali circle, took up further investigation and in that process he recorded the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On 02.01.2010, he recorded the statements of P.Ws.3 to 5. He also examined the scene of offence and prepared an observation report (Ex.P.2) in the presence of P.W.6 – Panch witness. He also seized M.Os.4 to 8. Further, M.Os.9 and 10 were seized from the kitchen. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P.3. While the accused was examined before the mediators, the accused himself produced M.Os.1, 11 and 12. Basing on his confession statement, M.Os. 1 and 11 were seized from the sun shade of the same room and M.O.12 was seized from the accused. The dead body was photographed which are marked as Ex.P.7. Ex.P8 is the CD pertaining to Ex.P.7. After completion of the inquest, the dead body was sent to the hospital for postmortem examination. P.W.8 – Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Kavali has conducted postmortem. Ex.P.5 is the postmortem report, as per 5 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_103_2017 which the cause of death is Asphyxial death due to cut injury to throat. The accused was arrested by P.W.10 at 02.00 p.m., after conclusion of the inquest, during which, the accused has informed that he consumed ‘Gannerupappu’. As such, he was sent to the Government hospital and was discharged on 06.01.2010 from the hospital. After receipt of postmortem certificate (Ex.P.5), wound certificate (Ex.P.6) and RFSL report (Ex.P.9) and after completion of investigation, P.W.10 filed a charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 10, marked exhibits P1 to P9 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 12. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. 5. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 6. Heard Sri. Nagaraju Vunnava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments has contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, ought not to have relied on the evidence of P.W.1 as he is not an eye-witness to the offence. He further contended that as the deceased was having illegal contact with some other person, someone might have killed the deceased and also argued that the appellant had tried to commit suicide by consuming ‘Gannerupappu’. 6 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_103_2017 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposes the appeal contending that the evidence of P.W.1 is crystal clear and the same inspire confidence of this Court. He further contends that right from Ex.P.1, the version of P.W.1 is consistent and there is nothing to doubt his version. He further contends that the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 corroborates with the evidence of P.W.1. Hence, requested to dismiss the appeal and confirm the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. 9. P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased. P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased. P.W.3 is the owner of the house in which P.Ws.1 and 2 were residing along with accused and the deceased. P.Ws.4 and 5 are neighbours. P.W.6 is the panch witness for Exs.P.2 and 3. P.W.7 is the investigating officer. P.W.8 is the doctor who conducted postmortem examination. P.W.9 is the doctor who issued discharge certificate of the accused. P.W.10 is the officer who registered FIR – Ex.P.4 and investigated into the case. 10. P.W.1 in his earliest report has categorically stated that the deceased is his elder sister who loved the accused and got married to him. After their marriage, they went to Hyderabad for eking their livelihood by doing masonry work. About 10 days prior to the date of incident, they returned to Kavali with an intention to settle down and stay in the house of P.W.2. The accused, suspecting the fidelity of the deceased, used to harass her and also used to beat her. 7 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_103_2017 11. While so, on 30.12.2009, P.W.2 went to Kandukur in order to attend the delivery of her 2nd daughter. On 01.01.2010, at 11.00 a.m., P.W.1, accused and the deceased went to Kalugolamma temple for darshan and returned at 12.30 p.m., after which the accused started making galata with the deceased as to why she was seeing the passersby on the way. Assuming the quarrel to be a routine one, P.W.1 went to a movie. P.W.1 stated that he came back at 03.00 p.m. At that time, the accused hurriedly came from the house and ran away. When P.W.1 went inside the house, he found his sister dead in a pool of blood. The said version of P.W.1 regarding harassing and beating the deceased is also supported by P.W.2, who is the mother of the deceased. P.W.2 categorically stated that the accused used to harass her daughter (deceased) and used to suspect her fidelity. P.W.3 who is the owner of the said house and P.Ws.4 and 5 who are the neighbors have supported the version of P.W.1. They stated that after returning from the temple, P.W.1 went out of the house and at that time, the deceased and the accused alone present in the house. They further stated that there was a galata between the accused and the deceased on the fateful day till 02.30 p.m. At about 03.00 p.m., no such galata was heard by them from the house. As no voice was heard from the house of the accused and the deceased, they went towards the said house and found the accused standing outside the house. When they intended to enter into the house, he did not allow them. 8 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_103_2017 12. It is their further evidence that when P.W.1 came back at around 3.30 p.m., sighting P.W.1., the accused went away. Then P.W.1 went inside the house and upon noticing the dead body of her sister (deceased) he raised cries. On hearing the same, P.Ws.3 to 5 went to the scene of offence. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 also corroborates with Exs.P.5 and 9. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased is having illegal intimacy with another person and that it is the motive behind the said incident, cannot be believable as no such suggestion has been put to any of the witness during the course of cross examination. 13. Having analyzed the above evidence carefully, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 corroborated by the Exs.P.5 and 9, the prosecution could establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. We find no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the present case under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. However, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offence punishable under Section 309 IPC is set- aside. 14. In the result, the present criminal appeal is allowed in part. Conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, S.P.S.R. Nellore District in S.C.No.296 of 2010, 9 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_103_2017 dated 18.02.2011 under Section 309 IPC is set-aside, while confirming the convictions and sentences recorded under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. 15. As the appellant could not appear on the date of hearing, this Court directed the Registry to issue non-bailable warrant. On executing the warrant, the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, S.P.S.R. Nellore District addressed a letter to the Registry that the appellant was apprehended and produced before the trial Court and was remanded to judicial custody until further order. In view of the same, the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, S.P.S.R. Nellore District is directed to commit the appellant to the prison for serving the remaining sentence of imprisonment. Needless to state that the period already undergone by the appellant shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J _______________ V.SUJATHA, J Date:07.04.2025 Gss