APHC010428942017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 919/2017 Between: Golla Subbaiah, Prakasam District The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Appellant: 1. TATA SINGAIAH GOUD Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in S.C.No. Additional District & Sessions Judge, appellant. He was tried by the learned charges. First charge was under Section 498A IPC and the second charge was under Section 302 IPC. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE ELEVENTH 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: 919/2017 Golla Subbaiah, Prakasam District ...AP AND .P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor ...RESPO ellant: TATA SINGAIAH GOUD dent: PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in S.C.No.28 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Markapur He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge charges. First charge was under Section 498A IPC and the second charge was under Section 302 IPC. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3528] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT the Court of learned VI Prakasam District at Markapur, is the Additional Sessions Judge under two charges. First charge was under Section 498A IPC and the second charge 2 2. Substance of the charge is that the accused used to harass his wife by name Golla Rama Lakshmamma @ Ramakka (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) both physically and mentally demanding her to bring money for meeting his expenses for vices and also by suspecting her fidelity and on 07.05.2014 at about 05.00 A.M., he picked up quarrel with her and killed her by throttling her, thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 IPC. After completion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused under Section 498A IPC, convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. 3. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as under: (a) The accused is a resident of Cheemaletipalli village, Ardhaveedu Mandal. The accused is none other than the husband of the deceased and their marriage was performed about 14 years prior to the date of incident. They were blessed with a daughter and son, who were examined as PWs 9 and 10. PW.1 is the father, PW.3 is the brother, PW.4 is the sister and PW.5 is the paternal uncle of the deceased respectively. They are residents of Akkapalli Village, Racharla Mandal. It is alleged that the accused used to harass the deceased both physically and mentally demanding her to bring money from her parents’ house. The accused also sold away his sheep and money was spent for his bad vices. Unable to bear the harassment, the 3 deceased went to her parents’ house at Akkapalli. About one week prior to the date of incident, the accused came to the house of PWs 1 & 2 and took the deceased along with him assuring PWs 1 & 2 that he will look after the deceased well. Accordingly, the deceased left the parents’ house and went along with the accused. PWs 9 & 10 remained in the house of PWs 1 & 2. While so, on the intervening night of 07/08 of May 2014, the accused and the deceased slept in their house. At about 07.00 A.M. in the morning, the deceased was found in an unconscious state on a cot in the house. Thereafter, the accused shifted the deceased in an Ambulance to the Community Health Centre, Cumbum, where the Doctors declared her ‘brought dead’. On the same day at about 09.00 A.M., PW.19 Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Cumbum Police Station, received death intimation Ex.P11. At about 10.00 A.M., he went to the hospital and recorded a statement Ex.P10 from PW.1. At about 11.15 A.M. on the same day, PW.20 Head Constable, Ardhaveedu Police Station, received intimation along with Ex.P10. He registered a case in Cr.No.59/2014 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. which is marked as Ex.P12. At about 11.30 A.M., he went to the scene of offence and secured the presence of PWs 13 & 14. He prepared an observation report Ex.P13 at the scene of offence. He also prepared rough sketch Ex.P14 at the scene. He also photographed the scene under Ex.P15. On the same day, at about 12.30 P.M., PW.20 went to Government Hospital, Cumbum and recorded statements of PWs 1 to 5. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW.15 and others at Government Hospital, Cumbum. Inquest 4 report is marked as Ex.P21. On 10.05.2014, PW.23 Sub-Inspector of Police, took up further investigation. He verified the investigation conducted by PW.19 and found it on correct lines. On 10.05.2014, he recorded statements of PWs 6 to 8, 11 & 17. In the meanwhile, PW18 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Cumbum, conducted Autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 08.05.2014. He opined the cause of death was due to “asphyxial” death due to ante mortem throttling. He issued Postmortem certificate Ex.P9. (b) After receiving preliminary Postmortem report, PW.23 sent preservatives to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (for short, ‘the R.F.S.L.’), Guntur for expert opinion. PW.21 Professor, Forensic Medicine, has examined the preservatives and opined as ‘inward compression fracture of greater cornua of hyoid bone with body of hyoid bone on right side present with diffused contusion to the surrounding soft tissues of hyoid bone on both sides present, red in colour, ante mortem in nature, suggestive of throttling’. He issued opinion under Ex.P16. (c) After receiving R.F.S.L. report, PW.23 filed an alteration memo seeking alteration of crime from Section 174 Cr.P.C to Section 302 IPC. Alteration Memo is marked as Ex.P18. On 04.09.2014, PW.24 Inspector of Police, Markapur Circle, received C.D. file from PW.23 and took up further investigation. He verified the investigation done by PW.23 and found it on correct lines. He recorded statements of PWs 6 & 17 only, as the remaining statements were already recorded by PW.23. Later, he visited Akkapalli 5 village and recorded statement of PW.1 only, as the remaining statements were already recorded by PW.20. He also recorded statements of PWs 9, 10 & 12. On 08.09.2014 at about 01.30 P.M., PW.24 arrested the accused in the presence of PW.16 and another under a Panchanama Ex.P19. After receiving all the documents and after completion of the investigation, PW.24 filed charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 24 and marked exhibits P1 to P21. 5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him. Accepting the evidence of PWs 1 to 5, 9, 10, 12, 18 & 21, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 6. Heard Sri Tata Singaiah Goud, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 7. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. 8. As seen from the material available on record, there are no direct witnesses in the present case on hand. The prosecution rests its case on circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that the deceased met with homicidal death in the house of accused and nobody was present except the couple. Of course, the neighbours and all 6 other independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. But, the fact remains that the accused and deceased alone are residing in the said house. 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, the appellant came up with a false explanation stating that he went to Burujupalli village to sell sheep. It is only after receiving the intimation from the villagers, he went directly to the hospital. In the evidence of PWs 2 to 5 coupled with the evidence of PWs 9 & 10, they have categorically stated that the accused took the deceased to the hospital in an Ambulance and the Doctors declared her ‘brought dead’, and he left the hospital. Said fact was also mentioned in the Inquest report Ex.P21 which was prepared on the same day. In column No.15 of Ex.P21, it is stated as follows: ‘At about 07.40 A.M., the appellant brought the deceased in 108 Ambulance and the duty Doctor, after examining, declared her ‘brought dead’. Having heard the same, the accused left the hospital leaving the dead body in the hospital’. PWs 9 & 10, who were none other than the daughter and son of the deceased, have also stated in their evidence that “we came to know from the hospital authorities that the accused brought the deceased and left the dead body in the hospital itself and went away”. PWs 2 to 5 also have stated the same thing in their evidence. PW.12, who is attending in 108 Ambulance, stated that on 08.05.2014 between 06.00 A.M. and 07.00 A.M., he received information about the emergency case at Cheemaleti Palli Village. 7 Immediately, he went to the village, picked up the patient who was in unconscious state, and gave first aid and oxygen to the patient. Thereafter, she was taken to the hospital. PW.12 in his evidence has categorically stated that the accused also accompanied the patient in the Ambulance to the hospital. As such, the prosecution is able to prove that the accused was very much present at the house on the date of offence at the relevant point of time. PWs 2 to 5, 9, 10 & 12 have categorically stated that the accused was present in the house at the relevant point of time. Apart from proving the fact that the accused was present in the house, the false explanation offered by the accused lends support to the prosecution version. It is the case of the accused that on previous day, he went to Burujupalli Village to sell sheep and it is only after receiving information, he went to the hospital directly. Though he pleaded alibi, the accused did not substantiate his version by adducing evidence. As such, the accused came up with a false explanation. So far as the other circumstance i.e., cause of death is concerned, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of PWs 18 & 21. PW.18 Civil Assistant Surgeon, in his preliminary Postmortem report Ex.P9, has categorically stated that the deceased died due to “asphyxial” death due to ante mortem throttling. PW.21 is the Professor, Forensic Medicine, and he was requested to examine hyoid bone and other preservatives. After examining, he gave his opinion under Ex.P16 opining fracture of hyoid bone suggesting the deceased died of throttling. As such, the prosecution is also able to prove the factum of the deceased suffering homicidal death. Though all the independent witnesses did 8 not support the prosecution, the prosecution is able to prove the factum of presence of the accused at the relevant point of time, and the homicidal death of the deceased in the house of the accused. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has also considered this aspect in paragraph No.25 of his Judgment, which is as under: “25. In view of the principle laid down U/Sec. 106 of Indian Evidence Act it is for the accused in this case to explain when he left to Burujupalli village and when he actually returned back that was not explained, even there is no evidence to show that really he went to Burujupalli village to sell sheep. On the other hand the evidence of P.W.12 who is a stranger impartial witness to this case specifically stated that the accused accompanied the patient / deceased from the house to the hospital in Cumbum. The said evidence of P.W.12 cut the route of the admit from the side of the accused to give settled some explanation that he was not in the house. Therefore, in view of the presumption U/Sec.106 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act that the accused fails to show his alavy that he is not in the house at the time of incident. This court must consider that it is the accused who is responsible for the death of deceased.” 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the prosecution could able to prove all the circumstances pointing the guilt towards the appellant alone and to none others. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon on a judgment reported in Rakesh v. State of U.P.1. In the said judgment, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that the prosecution could not able to prove the 1 (2022) 12 ILRA 197 9 motive, the presence of the accused at the relevant point of time in the house. In the said case, the prosecution also could not able to prove the factum of the homicidal death. But, in the case on hand, the prosecution could able to prove the presence of the appellant at the relevant point of time in the house. The prosecution further establish that except the accused and deceased, no one was present in the house. Further, the prosecution could able to prove the homicidal death by way of medical evidence. 11. Having analyzed the entire evidence on record, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such, there are no merits in the present Criminal Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Markapur, in S.C.No.28 of 2015 vide judgment dated 20.06.2017. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J _____________ V.SUJATHA, J Date: 11.03.2025 MVA