APHC010975832017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI V / c 'ws:^ MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE V. \ ^ m i/f ’j-i" PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1527 OF 2017 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow the Criminal Appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence of Life Imprisonment imposed in S.C.No.08 of 2016 dated 20-07-2017 on the file of the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Gudivada and consequently acquit the appellant/accused. Between: Yerramsetty Ramesh, S/o.Venkateswararao, aged about 38 years, R/o.Gurajala Village. Now at Mudinepalli Village and Mandal, Krishna District. ...Appellant (Accused) AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., Gudivada Rural Circle Police Station, Gudivada, Krishna District, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Amaravati. ...Respondent (Complainant) Counsel for Appellant: Sri P.Sai Surya Teja Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: APHC010975832017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3528] MONDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1527/2017 Between: 1.YERRAMSETTY RAMESH, S/0 VENKATESWARARAO, GURAJALA VILLAGE NOW AT MUDINEPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT R/0. ...APPELLANT AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, through S.H.O., Gudivada Rural Circle Police Station, Gudivada, Krishna District, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to i) conviction and sentence of Life Imprisonment imposed in S.C.No. 08 of 2016 dt. 20-7-2017 on the file of the XI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Gudivada and consequently acquit the appellant/accused; ii) and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. allow the Criminal Appeal by setting aside the lA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRLAMP 2999 OF 2017 2 KSR,J& VS,J Cria 1527 2017 % Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 72 days in filing the above Criminal Appeal, in the interest of justice, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to enlarge the petitioner/ accused on bail after suspending the sentence at imprisonment dated 20-07-2017 passed in S.C. No. 08/2016 on the of the XI Addl. District and Session Judge, Krishna, Gudivada, pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal No. 1527 of 2017 and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1.P SAI SURYATEJA 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.08 of 2016 on the file of learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Gudivada is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (3) months. 3 KSR,J& VS,J Cria 1527 2017 2. Gravamen of the charge is that on 22.03.2015, at about 03.00 a.m., the accused covered his cotton towel around the neck of one Trinadha Valli Devi (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) and throttled her neck, causing her death, thereby, committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses in brief is as follows: The accused is a resident of Mudinepalli village and used to eke out his livelihood by working as lorry cleaner. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the accused 12 years back and subsequently, they lead (i) their marital life happily and were blessed with two children (P.Ws.2 and 3). Thereafter, as the accused was addicted to vices, he neglected the deceased and P.Ws.2 and 3 and suspected the fidelity of the deceased. Due to the harassment of the accused, the deceased along with her children went to Hyderabad to eke out her livelihood by doing catering works. Thereafter, at request of the accused, the deceased returned to Pedagonnuru village. Subsequently, they shifted to Hyderabad and from Hyderabad to Mudinepalli. (ii) Though the accused shifted his family to Mudinepalli, he continued his cruelty towards the deceased by suspecting her fidelity. While so, on 19.02.2015, one Subrahmanyam (P.W.9) who is a driver of a lorry came to the house of the accused to obtain hand loan of Rs.5,000/- and while 4 KSR,J& VS,J Cria 1527 2017 a he was talking to the deceased, the accused suspecting her, grew wild and decided to eliminate her. On 21.02.2015, at about 06.30 p.m., the accused took up a (iii) quarrel with the deceased on the aforesaid issue and beat her with a pestle. Upon hearing the cries raised by the deceased, the neighborscame out, on which, the accused kept quiet. On the next day, in the early hours at about 03.00 a.m., while the deceased and P.Ws.2 and 3 were sleeping, the accused woke up, sat behind the head of the deceased, covered his cotton towel around her neck and throttled her neck and after confirming the death of the deceased, he removed the towel from her neck and cleaned the blood that came out of her mouth with the said towel. He then placed the dead body on the ground, covered with a bed sheet and fled away from the scene of offence with the said towel. (iv) On the same day i.e. 22.02.2015, at about 06.00 a.m., P.W.2 woke up and noticed her mother lying dead; P.W.2 informed the same to P.W.1 and others over telephone. After receipt of information, P.Ws.1, 4, 5 and others rushed to the scene of offence and noticed the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, at about 11.00 a.m., P.W.1 submitted a report to P.W.12 - ASI, Mudinepalli Police station, who registered a case in Crime No.50 of 2015 under Section 302 IPC. He issued copies of FIRs to all the 5 KSR,J& VS,J Cria 1527 2017 P concerned. Ex.P.9 is the FIR. Thereafter, he informed about the registration of the case to P.W.13 - Inspector of Police, Gudivada rural circle. (V) Having received information about registration of the case. P.W.13 rushed to Mudinepalli Police station and secured a copy of FIR. He along \A/ith clues team, Machilipatnam, visited the scene of offence and after securing the presence of mediators (P.W.10 and another), he prepared an observation report, which is marked as Ex.P.3. He also seized one wooden pestle (M.0.1). He prepared a rough sketch, which is marked as Ex.P.10. He got the scene of offence photographed through P.W.8. The photographs are marked as Ex.P.2. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P4. After securing the presence of P.Ws.1 to 6, 8 and others, P.W.13 recorded their statements. Thereafter, he sent the dead body for postmortem examination. P.W.11 - Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Area hospital. (Vi) Gudivada, upon receipt of requisition from Mudinepalli Police, conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem certificate, which is marked as Ex.P.6, opining the cause of death was due to ‘asphyxia due to strangulation’. (vii) On 25.03.2015, upon receipt of credible information, P.W.13, apprehended the accused at Pedagonnuru bus stand and the accused 6 KSR,J& VS,J Cria 1527 2017 confessed his guilt. Basing on the said confessional statements, P.W.13 seized towel (M.0.2). Thereafter, P.W.13 sent the accused for judicial remand. On 26.03.2015, P.W.13 examined P.W.9 - lorry driver and recorded his statement. On 07.04.2015, P.W.13 sent the material objects to RFSL, Vijayawada. RFSL report is marked as Ex.P.7. After receipt of all the documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.13 filed charge sheet. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 13, marked 4. exhibits PI to P10 and exhibited M.Os.1 and 2. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him. 5. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 6. Heard Sri. P. Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. 7. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused without there being any direct eyewitness to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 302 IPC. He further contended that P.Ws.2 and 3, being minors, were tutored by the 1^' KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1527_2017 prosecution to state against the accused. He also contended that the accused is not at all responsible for the death of the deceased. As such, he requested this Court to allow the present appeal, by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while opposing the appeal, has contended that the accused, killed the deceased by beating her with a pestle and by throttling her throat with the help of a towel. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are children of the accusedand deceased, is consistent in all aspects and is trustworthy. He further contended that just because P.Ws.2 and 3 are child witnesses, their evidence cannot be disbelieved. He further contended that if the accused pleads not guilty of the homicidal death of the deceased, the burden of proof lies on the accused to prove as to how the dead body of the deceased ended up in his house, which in the case on hand was not proved. As such, he sought dismissal of the appeal. 8. 9. P.W.1, in her chief examination has categorically stated that the deceased is her second daughter and that her marriage was solemnized with the accused 12 years prior to the date of incident. Post marriage, her daughter and accused lived happily and were blessed with two children who are P.Ws.2 and 3. Addicted to vices, the accused used to harass her daughter both 8 KSR,J& VS,J Cria 1527 2017 physically and mentally by consuming liquor, suspecting her fidelity. Inspite of the elders intervening into the disputes between the accused and the deceased on several occasions, the accused did not stop harassing the deceased. She further stated that on the fateful day, she received a phone call from P.W.5 (third son-in-law of P.W.1) that the accused murdered her daughter. 10. P.W.2, who is the daughter of the accused and the deceased, in her evidence categorically stated that her father i.e. the accused used to pick up quarrel frequently with the deceased suspecting her character. She further stated that on 21.03.2015, at about 08.00 p.m., when the deceased questioned the accused for not bringing cake on the occasion of birthday of P.W.2, the accused, who was in intoxicated condition, beat the deceased with a wooden pestle on the temple region of the deceased and on her neck. Upon receiving injury, the deceased fell down. She further deposed that she and her brother slept by the side of their mother. It is her further evidence that on the next day, when they woke up at about 06.30 a.m., they noticed that her mother died with bleeding injuries. She further stated that when they woke up, they did not notice the accused. Immediately, they made a phone call to P.W.5 and informed about the incident. P.W.3, in his evidence has stated similar to that of P.W.2. Both P.Ws.2 and 3 have consistently stated that after beating the deceased with wooden pestle, the accused left the house. The 9 KSR,J& VSJ Crla_lS27_2017 only contradiction in the evidence of P.W.3 is that he saw his father throttling the neck of his mother (deceased) with a towel. 11. It can be seen that M.0.1 - wooden pestle was identified by P.W.2. Further, on a perusal of the evidence adduced by P.Ws.2 and 3, we are of the opinion that their evidence is consistent and corroborated with each other. Learned counsel for the appellant raised a contention that P.Ws.2 and 3 tutored to state against the accused. On this aspect, it can be seen that though both P.Ws.2 and 3 were confronted that they were tutored by the prosecution, P.Ws.2 and 3 denied the same and stated that they witnessed the incident personally. The defence failed to elicit anything from P.Ws.2 and 3 that they were tutored before giving their evidence. In the absence of any material on record adverse to the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, their evidence cannot be disbelieved. were Further, the evidence of P.Ws.4 to 7 is consistent with regard to the earlier marital disputes between the deceased and the accused. Admittedly, the accused used to harass the deceased mentally and physically, suspecting her fidelity. Even on the fateful day, as the accused did not bring cake on the occasion of birthday of P.W.2, when the deceased questioned him, the accused grew wild and attacked the deceased with M.0.1. Then, he left the house. On the same night, P.W.2 slept by the time accused returned to the 12. 10 KSR,J& VS,J Cria 1527 2017 house. On the next day morning, at about 06.30 a.m., P.W.2 woke up and found the deceased lying dead and noticed the absence of the accused in the house. In the circumstances where the presence of the dead body of the deceased is found in the house of the accused, in which no other person resides other than accused and P.Ws.2 and 3, the burden shifts on the accused to prove as to how the deceased died in his house. In the case on hand, the accused failed to prove the cause of the death of the deceased. He did not offer any satisfactory or credible explanation as to how the dead body of the deceased was found in the house of the accused. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused for the homicidal death of the deceased, beyond reasonable doubt. After conglomeration of the entire evidence available on record and in view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge needs no interference. 14. In the result. Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge Krishna, Gudivada in S.C.No.08 of 2016, dated 20.07.2017 under Section 302 IPC. As the appellant has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 12.05.2023 in terms of the order dated 02.11.2016 passed by a Division 11 KSR,J& VS,J Cria 1527 2017 Bench of the Composite High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Batchu Rangarao and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh\ he is directed to surrender before the concerned, to serve the remaining part of sentence, failing which learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Gudivada shall take necessary steps to secure his presence and commit him to prison to serve the remaining sentence. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. 2016 (3) Alt (CrI.) 505 (DB) (A.P.) 1 Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTON OFFICER To, 1. The XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Gudivada. 2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikaluru, Krishna District. 3. The Station House Officer, Mudinepalli Police Station, Krishna District. 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. (By Speed Post) 5. One CC to Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 7. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 8. Two CD Copies BSV vna - HIGH COURT DATED:28/07/2025 JUDGMENT (P ^ 2 1 AUG 20^5 ^ . Current Section CRLA NO. 1527 OF 2017 •a CO dismissing the criminal appeal