IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 866 OF 2017 Between: Rumjula Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Polesu Ankammanagar, Guntur Town, Guntur District. St age 33 years, R/o. 1 lane. ...Appellant/Accused AND The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondent/Complainant Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 09-06-2017 made in SC.No.543 of 2016 on the file of the XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet. Counsel for the Appellant: Smt. Lakshmi D S Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: APHC010309962017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3528] TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 866/2017 Between: Rumjula Srinivasa Rao ...APPELLANT AND The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Appellant: 1.LAKSHMI DS Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (PerHon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in S.C.No.543 of 2016 on the file of learned XIII Additional ...RESPONDENT District & Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet is the appellant. He was tried and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to suffer Imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. 2 2. Substance of the charge against the accused is that on 06.11.2013, the accused beat his wife Kusuma Kumari (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) indiscriminately by suspecting her fidelity, causing her death in his house at about 06.00 P.M. or 06.30 P.M. by smothering her and in the same process, he hanged the dead body to show as if she committed suicide. thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as under: (a) The accused is none other than the husband of the deceased. Their marriage was performed about six years prior to the date of incident and the couple blessed with two sons aged about 4 and 2 years. About three years prior to the incident, the accused addicted to bad vices and used to abuse and beat the deceased suspecting her fidelity. About two months prior to the date of incident, when the accused beat the deceased in a drunken state, the mother of the deceased along with PW.1 chastised her. When the mother of the deceased intervened, the accused also said to have beat her with a stick. While so, on 06.11.2013 at about 09.00 A.M., the mother of the deceased went for coolie work and returned home at about 06.00 P.M. She found the people gathered in front of the house of the accused. She also found the dead body of the deceased was brought by the accused outside the house. The mother of the deceased went into the house and found a chunni hanging to the wooden beam of the house. They informed to 108 Ambulance through phone who came and declared the deceased dead. The mother of the deceased came to know through neighbours that the accused beat the 3 deceased on the previous day. Having suspicion over the death of the deceased, PW.1 went to the Police Station and gave a report. At about 01.30 A.M. on 07.11.2013, PW.6 Sub-Inspector of Police, Nadendia, received Ex.P5 report from PW.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.148/2013 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P6. At about 07.00 A.M. on the same day, PW.6 visited the scene of offence situated in the house of the accused at Ganapavaram Village. He prepared observation report Ex.P1 in the presence of PW.4 and another. He also seized M.Os 1 to 4 under Ex.P1. He prepared rough sketch Ex.P7 at the scene of offence. He secured the presence of PWs 1 to 3 and recorded their statements. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW.6 and others under Ex.P2. He sent the dead body to the Community Health Centre, Chilakaluripet for Postmortem examination. PW.8 Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Chilakaluripet, conducted Autopsy the dead body on the same day. He found nine injuries on the person of the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to smothering along with compression of lower part of neck and upper part of chest wall which leads to asphyxia. He also opined that the ligature mark is Postmortem ligature mark. He issued preliminary Postmortem certificate Ex.P9 and final opinion under Ex.PII. (b) PW.6 forwarded M.Os 2 to 4 to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (for short, ‘the R.F.S.L.’), Guntur for analysis. R.F.S.L. report is marked as Ex.PIO. On 25.01.2014, PW.9 verified the investigation made by PW.6 and found it on correct lines. On 12.04.2015, he received R.F.S.L. over 4 report Ex.PIO and on the basis of the same, he altered section of law from 174 Cr.P.C. to 302 IPC. Altered F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P12. Further investigation was taken over by PW.10 Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Rural Circle. On 18.05.2015, PW.10 arrested the accused in the presence of PW.4 and another. After completion of investigation, PW.10 filed charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 10,marked exhibits PI to PI2 and exhibited MOs 1 to 4. 5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him. Heard Smt. D.S.Lakshmi, learned counsel for the appellant, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 6. 7. Admittedly, the deceased met with homicidal death in the house of the accused. The accused, deceased and two kids aged about 4 and 2 years are residing in the house at Ganapavaram village. The evidence of PWs 1 & 2, who were none other than the cousin brother and own brother of the deceased, has clearly goes to show that the accused used to harass the deceased and also used to beat her suspecting her fidelity. The neighbour PW.3 also corroborates the version of PWs 1 & 2. So far as the mother of the deceased is concerned, she died during pendency of the case; as such, she could not be examined. Admittedly, the couple is residing at Ganapavaram 5 along with two kids. As such, as per the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is for the accused to explain as to how the deceased met with homicidal death in his house. Apart from giving explanation, as required under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the accused came up with a false explanation stating that the deceased committed suicide. But the evidence adduced through PWs 7 & 8 clearly show that the ligature mark is Postmortem ligature mark and PW.8 Doctor has clearly stated that the deceased died of homicidal smothering along with compression of lower part of neck and upper part of chest wall' which leads to asphyxia. As such, the question of suicide does not arise in the present case. The evidence of PW.7 also clearly shows that he found the hyoid bone is normal and intact. As such, the accused came up with a false explanation of suicide. Absolutely, no explanation is forthcoming from the accused as to how the deceased met with homicidal death in his house. Apart from the medical evidence adduced through PWs 7 & 8, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 also corroborates with the version of prosecution that the accused used to beat the deceased suspecting her fidelity. As such, there are no merits in the present Criminal Appeal and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet in S.C.No.543/2016 needs no interference. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet in S.C.No.543 of 2016 vide judgment dated 09.06.2017. i 6 Needless to observe that the sentence already undergone by the appellant shall be given set off as per the provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGI AR //TRUE COPY// SECTIUN OFFICER To, 1. The XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, (with records) 2. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chilakaluripet. 3. The Station House Officer, Nadendia Police Station, Guntur. 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 5. One CC to Smt. Lakshmi D.S., Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CC to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. [OUT] 7. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi (for dispatch of LC record) 8. Three CD Copies YM sree A HIGH COURT DATED:04/03/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.866 of 2017 = 07 APR 2025 g . Current Section . ^ ^^!Ss£i?SPATC\<^tf!^ o DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL