W' IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT the honourable SRI JUSTICE PRADESH AMARAVATI DAY OF FEBRUARY FIVE K SURESH REDDY AND the honourable SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR g^lMlMLAPPEAL NO: 1077 nc Appeal under Section 374(2) of Or p r • 2-3-2017 on the file of the Special Sessions District and Sessions Judge at Tirupati. Between: Bandaru Venkatesh, S/o Bandaru Prakash, aged about 24 No. 1886 Tharakarama Nagar, Karakambadi, Renigunta. Judge-cum-IV Addl. years, R/o Plot ■■■Appellant(Accused No.1) AND The State of AP; through S.H.O., Renigunta Urban rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court Police Station, Chittoor , Andhra District, Krishna District, Pradesh at Amaravathi ■■■Respondent(Complainant) Counsel for the Appellant : Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: Sri. G Vijaya Saradhi ■ Public Prosecutor 1 ■iV- tJ*-’It A ■i. -j KSR,J &TCDS,J Crl.A.No.l077 of 2017 SibV. r ■ i'j . i vv ■ THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATl MONDAY THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY * - IN % S- And HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1077 of 2017 JUDGMENT {Pertion’ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy) Accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.64 of 2013 on the file of learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-lV Additional Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District is the present Criminal Appeal. He along with A2 were tried the Court of the District and Sessions appellant in the the learned Special Sessions Judge under the following charges. by under Section 302 IPC against A1 under Section 304-B against A1 under Section 302 r/w 109 IPC against A2 1. First Charge was 2. Second Charge was 3. Third Charge was Or under Section 304-B r/w 109 IPC against 4. Fourth Charge was A2 under Section 498-A IPC against A1 and A2 5. Fifth Charge was KSR, J & TCDS, J Crl.A,No.l077 of2017 6. Sixth Charge was under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against A1 and A2 7, Seventh Charge was under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against A1 andA2. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 30.10.2011, at about 7.00 p.m, A1 caused the death of his wife viz., Lalitha (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in his house, situated in Plot No. 1886, Tharakarama Nagar, Karakambadi, Renigunta Mandal within (7) years of her marriage with A1 on the abetment of A2, thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B, 302 r/w 109 IPC, 304-B r/w 109 IPC and 498-A IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’. However, the learned Special Sessions Judge acquitted A1 for the charges under Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry ' Prohibition Act. The learned Special Sessions Judge also acquitted A2 for all the charges under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. seven KSR, J & TCDS, J Crl.A.No.l077of2017 4. Case of the prosecution, as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, briefly is as follows:- A1 is husband and A2 is mother-in-law of the deceased respectively. P.W.1 is mother of the deceased. P.W.2 is daughter-in- law of P.W.1. P.Ws.4, 5 and 7 are neighbours. Both the accused and material prosecution witnesses are residents of Tharakarama Nagar, Karakambadi, Renigunta Mandal. The deceased married A1 against the wishes of her parents and it is a love marriage. After marriage, the couple led happy marital life for some time. Three months after the marriage, P.W.1 gave an amount of Rs.25,000/- apart from 12 grams gold ornaments to the deceased. A1 asked his mother/A2 to give money for purchasing auto. As mother of tne A1 refused to give money for the purpose of purchasing auto, A1 along with deceased went out and set up separate family in a rented house at Tharakarama Nagar. Thereafter, A1 used to harass the deceased for want of cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- to purchase an auto. A1 demanded the said money from P.W.1 through the deceased, (ii) While so, on 30.10.2011 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W.2 received a phone call from A1, who informed her stating that the deceased fell down due to giddiness and he admitted her in Ruia hospital, Tirupati. Then brother of the deceased along with P.W.1 went to the hospital and found the dead, body. When P.W.1 enquired with neighbours. (i) KSR, J & TCOS, J Crl.A.No.l077 of 2017 she came to know that on the fateful day, the accused quarrelled with the deceased. She further came to know that from morning onwards, A1 was beating the deceased and ultimately the deceased fell down and the accused took her to hospital, where the Doctor found her ‘brought dead’. Thereafter, A1 absconded himself. On 31.10.2011 at about 4.00 p.m., P.W.1 went to the police station and gave a report-Ex.P1. P.W.12- the then Inspector of Police Renigunta Urban Police Station on receipt of Ex.PI from P.W.1 registered a case in Crime No.163 of 2011 under Sections 302 and 304-B IPC and issued copies of FIRs to all the concerned. Ex.PII is the copy of FIR. (iii) On 31.10.2011, P.W.13-the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Renigunta took up investigation and visited the scene of offence. He prepared an Observation Report-Ex.P3. He also prepared a Rough Sketch-Ex.PI2 at the scene of offence in the presence of P.W.8 and another. (iv) On 01.11.2011, P.W.11, the then Tahsildar, Renigunta held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.8 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P4. After inquest. P.W.13 recorded statements of P.Ws. 1 to 7. (v) On the same day, on receipt of requisition from P W.11, P.W.10-the Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, 5 KSR, J&TCDS, J Crl.A.No.l077 of 2017 S.V. Medical College, Tirupati, conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to ‘asphyxia and throttling’. He issued post-mortem certificate-Ex.P6. FSL Report is marked as Ex.P7 and the final opinion is marked as Ex.P8. P.W.13 arrested A1 and A2 in the presence of P.W.9 and another under Ex.P5. Subsequently, A1 and A2 were remanded to judicial custody. After completion of . investigation P.W.13 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.12. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence found against him from the prosecution witnesses, but he did not choose to witness on his behalf. (Vi) On 10.11.2011 examine any 7. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Special Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused No.1 as aforesaid. 8. Heard Sri G.Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel for the appellant/accused and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 9. We have carefully scrutinised the entire evidence on record. 6 KSR, J & TCDS, J Crl.A.No.l077of 2017 10. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. About five (5) months prior to the date of incident, the deceased married A1 and it was love marriage. For a period of three (3) months coupled led happy marital life by maintaining cordial relationship. About three (3) months prior to the date of incident, A1 started harassing the deceased, demanding her to bring an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parental house for the purpose of purchasing an auto rikshaw. P.W.1 in her evidence has specifically stated that she accepted to provide Rs.1,00,000/- after few days as she is not having the said amount with her readily. Subsequently, A1 set up a separate family by taking a house for rent in the same colony. While so, on 30.10.2011 neighbours of A1 informed P.W.1 over phone stating that the deceased was killed by the appellant/AI. Immediately P.W.1 along with her son went to the hospital and found dead body. 11. The evidence of P.W.2 also corroborates with the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.2 who is none other than the daughter-in- law of P.W.1 stated that the appellant killed her husband as he was not coming forward to compromise in the present case. Of course, in the cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that she has got suspicion against the appellant that he might be responsible for the death of her husband. ksr,j&tcds,j Crl.A.No.l077 of 2017 of the prosecution. P.Ws. evidence of P.Ws. 6 - of the prosecution as they have the reason for fhe death of the 12. P.W.3 did not support the case of A1 and A2. The 4 and 5 are the neighbours and 7 is not at all helpful to the case that they do not know stated deceased. P.W.13 prepared an is also another VRO, doctor who the VRO, in whose presence 13. P.W.8 is and inquest report. P.W.9 is - arrest. P.W.10 observation report witness for the who is a punch P.W.11 is the Tahsildar who then Inspector of who registered the Crime conducted post-mortem examination dead body. P.W.12 is the held inquest over the Urban Police Station Police, Renigunta and P.W.13 is the Investigating officer. 14. As seen from the his 313 Cr.P.C. he himself admitted the appellant informed the the house and deceased in the according to the situated in third record, the appellant in categorically stated that Of course, the examination, has deceased in the hospital, neighbours stating that into unconscious state the appellant absconded the deceased fell down in . After admitting the Admittedly, even the house went hospital appellant he is living with his wife in , Karakambadi. Except both of them no , As such, it is for the appellant to homicidal death as per the Tharakarama Nagar the said house deceased met with is living m person explain as to how the KSR,J&TCDS, J Crl.A.No.l077 of 2017 of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. Though there provisions explanation offered by the appellant, he came up with a false explanation stating that the deceased fell down at home and from the medical evidence, the was no received injuries. But, as seen deceased received about 13 injuries. All the injuries were on the face and neck of the deceased. According to the medical evidence adduced through Medical Officer-P.W.10, the cause of death was due to ‘asphyxia and throttling’. As such, the false explanation offered by the appellant lends support to the version of the prosecution. As already pointed out, the appellant and the deceased alone were living in the house, and the deceased met with homicidal death. As already pointed out, the appellant in his 313 Cr.P.C. examination has specifically stated that he admitted the deceased in the hospital. As such, in the considered opinion of this Court, the of the accused in the prosecution is able to prove the presence house at the relevant point of time. 15. In view of the facts and circumstances, the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt as all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are pointing out the guilt towards the appellant/accused alone but not to others. Having analysed the evidence carefully, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that there are no grounds to interfere with the / 9 KSR, J aiCDS, J Crl.A.No.l077 of 2017 conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Tiessions Judge. 16. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, in Sessions Case No.64 of 2013, dated 02.03.2017. Needless to state that the period already undergone by the appellant/Accused shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Appeal shall stand closed. SD/- E. KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Special Sessions Judge-cum- IVth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District The V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, Chittoor District The Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District The Sub-Divisional officer, Renigunta Sub Division, Renigunta, Chittoor District The Station House Officer, Renigunta Urban Police Station, Chittoor District, Krishna District One CC to Sri G Vijaya Saradhi Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Three CD Copies Stu TF HIGH COURT DATED:17/02/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1077 of 2017 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL