APHC010503262017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1091/2017 Between: Mala Sreeramulu The State of A.P., Rep. by its P.P. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SRINIVASA RAO NARRA 2. LEGAL AID 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. Special Sessions Judge for trial fo Sessions Judge, Ananthapu is the appellant. He was tried by the learned two charges. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE EIGHTEENTH 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: 1091/2017 ...AP AND of A.P., Rep. by its P.P. ...RESPO ellant: SRINIVASA RAO NARRA dent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in S.C.No.163 of 2017 on the file of the Court of for trial for SCs & STs Cases – cum – VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu (for short, ‘learned Special Sessions Judge’) He was tried by the learned Special Sessions Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3528] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT the Court of learned VIII Additional (for short, ‘learned Special Sessions Judge’) Sessions Judge under 2 First charge was under Section 498A IPC and the second charge was under Section 302 IPC. 2. Substance of the charge is that the accused used to harass his wife by name Mala Baghyamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) both physically and mentally by suspecting her fidelity and on 27.12.2016 at about 10.30 P.M., he altercated with the deceased and caused her death in his house situated at Basapuram village, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 IPC. 3. After completion of the trial, the learned Special 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.500/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. Learned Special Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 498A IPC. 4. The case of the prosecution, briefly, is as under: (a) The accused is the resident of Basapuram village, Kundurpi Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. The material prosecution witnesses are residents of Chinnampalli Village, Settur Mandal. PWs 1 & 2 are none other than the father and mother of the deceased. PW.3 is the mother of the accused. PWs 1 & 2 were blessed with two daughters and the deceased is their elder daughter. About six years prior to the date of incident, the marriage of the deceased was performed with the accused. After marriage, the deceased joined matrimonial home at Basapuram Village and they were blessed with a 3 daughter and son aged about 4 and 2 years respectively. For a period of six months, the accused looked after the deceased properly and thereafter he used to harass the deceased by suspecting her fidelity. He used to beat the deceased frequently. Though PWs 1 & 2 tried to convince the accused to live amicably, he did not heed their advice. PWs 1 & 2 are doing agriculture and coolie works. The deceased used to visit the house of PWs 1 & 2 and used to inform about the harassment and beating her by the accused. The accused used to attend coolie work at Bangalore by taking his wife and children to his work place. Six months prior to the date of incident, the deceased came with her children to the house of her parents and informed them about the harassment. On the next day, the accused came to the house of PWs 1 & 2 along with Panchayatdars and on the next day, on the advice of elders, the accused took the deceased and children to his house. About 10 days prior to the date of incident, the deceased came to her parents’ house and on the next day, the accused came and took the deceased along with children to Bangalore. On 21.12.2016, again the deceased returned to the house of her parents as the accused beat her. On the next day, the accused came to the house of PWs 1 & 2 and promised stating that he will look after the deceased properly. On 26.12.2016, PW.2 took the deceased and children and dropped them in the house of accused at Basapuram and on 27.12.2016, she returned home. On 28.12.2016, at about 08.00 A.M., PW.4 telephoned to PW.7 and informed him that the accused quarreled with the deceased and killed her. PW.7, who is the relative of PWs 1 & 2, informed said fact to PWs 1 & 2. 4 Having received the information, PWs 1 & 2 went to the house of accused situated at Basapuram village and found the deceased lying dead in the house of the accused. On the same day, PW.1 went to the Police Station and gave a report. PW.13 Sub-Inspector of Police, Brahmasamudram Police Station, who was incharge of Kundurpi Police Station, received Ex.P1 report from PW.1 at about 10.00 A.M. on 28.12.2016 and registered a case in Cr.No.98/2016 under Section 498A IPC and 302 IPC and issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. Ex.P13 is the F.I.R. Having received the information, PW.14 Inspector of Police, Kalyandurg Circle, reached Basapuram village at about 11.15 A.M. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW.9 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P8. He also prepared rough sketch Ex.P14 at the scene of offence. He sent dead body to the Community Health Centre, Kalyandurg, for conducting Postmortem examination. PW.16 Civil Assistant Surgeon conducted Autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death of the deceased was due to visceral injury may be due to repeated blunt injuries by foot or hard object to chest and head injury may be due to hard blunt object egde. He issued Postmortem Certificate Ex.P17. PW.14 recorded statements of PWs 4 to 6 at the village. At about 05.00 P.M. on the same day, PW.14 went to the Chinnampalli village and recorded statements of PWs 7 & 12. On 03.01.2017 at about 09.30 A.M., while PW.9 V.R.O. Basapuram village was in his office, the accused approached him and requested him to save from police confessing that he killed the deceased. PW.9 recorded statement of the 5 accused and handed over him to PW.14. The accused said to have confessed before PW.11 and another about the commission of offence. On the confession made by the accused, PW.14 recovered M.O.1 knife under a cover of Panchanama. PW.14 seized the wearing apparel M.O.s 3 to 6 from the body of the deceased under a Panchanama. Then, he arrested the accused who was remanded to judicial custody. Further investigation was taken over by PW.15 Inspector of Police. On 25.01.2017, PW.15 sent material objects to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (for short, ‘the R.F.S.L.’), Tirupathi. R.F.S.L. report is marked as Ex.P16. After collecting the entire material and after completing investigation, PW.15 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 16, marked exhibits P1 to P17 and exhibited MOs 1 to 8. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him. 7. Accepting the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 9 & 16, learned Special Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 8. Heard Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 9. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. 6 10. PWs 1 & 2 are none other than the parents of the deceased. PW.3 is the mother of the accused who did not support the prosecution. PWs 4 to 8 also did not support the prosecution. PW.10 also did not support the prosecution. PWs 13 to 15 are none other than the police officers who registered the crime and investigated into the case. PW.16 is the Doctor who conducted Autopsy over the dead body. 11. Having analyzed the entire evidence on record, the only evidence available on record is the evidence of PWs 1, 2 & 9. PWs 1 & 2 in their evidence categorically stated that the accused used to harass the deceased by suspecting her fidelity. Whenever the accused beat the deceased, the latter used to visit the house of PWs 1 & 2 and on the next day, the accused used to approach them and take back the deceased and children along with him. It is the evidence of PWs 1 & 2 that on 21.12.2016, the deceased visited the house of PWs 1 & 2 and complained about beating of the accused. It is the further evidence of PWs 1 & 2 that on 26.12.2016, the accused came along with village elders to take back the deceased and children to Basapuram village. After the accused giving assurance stating that he will look after the deceased properly, PW.2 took the deceased and her two children to Basapuram village and stayed there on that night and returned to Chinnampalli on the next day. It is their further evidence that on the morning of 28.12.2016, they came to know through PW.7 about the causing of death of the deceased by the accused. Immediately, PWs 1 & 2 went to the house of the accused and found the dead body in his house. It is their further evidence 7 that at that juncture, the accused was not found in the house and till 03.01.2017 the accused was absconding. It is only on 03.01.2017, the accused approached the V.R.O. of his village i.e., PW.9 and made extra judicial confession admitting the commission of offence. It is thereafter PW.9 handed over the accused to PW.14, before whom the accused confessed and led the Investigating Agency to recover M.O.1 knife. 12. Admittedly, the deceased met with homicidal death in the house of the accused. The evidence of PW.16, who conducted Postmortem, clearly establish the homicidal death of the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 & 2 clearly establish the harassment made by the accused towards the deceased. Further, PW.9 is the V.R.O. of Basapuram village, where the accused also is residing. The evidence of PW.9 also is so natural and there is no scope of false implication for PW.9. It is only after the accused made extra judicial confession before PW.9, PW.14 arrested the accused. Further, M.O.1 knife was recovered at the instance of the accused. As such, the ocular version spoken to by PWs 1 & 2 and PW.9 lends support from the evidence of PW.16 Medical Officer. Further, as per the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the accused did not come up with any explanation as to how the deceased met with homicidal death in his house. Initially, the mother of the accused, who was examined as PW.3, stated before the police that the accused quarreled with the deceased on the night of 27.12.2016 and left the house. 8 But, unfortunately PW.3 did not support the prosecution and she was declared as hostile. 13. Having analyzed the entire evidence of PWs 1, 2, 9 & 16, 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 Special Sessions Judge for trial of SCs & STs Cases – cum – VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, in S.C.No.163 of 2017 vide judgment dated 10.08.2017. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J _____________ V.SUJATHA, J Date: 18.03.2025 MVA