1s IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 714 OF 2017 Between: Kadimi Ramesh, S/o. Mangaiah, Aged 29 years, R/o. Kalaparru Village Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Appellant/Accused AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. ...Respondent Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow this Criminal Appeal by setting aside the Calendar and Judgment Dt. 27.01.2017 passed in S.C.No.456 of 2013 on the file of the court of Learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 1 %■ APHC010052382017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 1^0 [3517] 0 THURSDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 714 OF 2017 Between: Kadimi Ramesh, West Godavari District AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Apellant: 1.RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respodent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT :- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) The sole accused in S.C.No.456 of 2013 on the file of the Court of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two charges. First Charge was under Section 498-A IPC and Second Charge was under Section 302 of IPC. ...APELLANT ...RESPODENT 2. Subsistence of the Charge is that on 10.01.2012 at 7.15 PM the appellant caused the death of his wife viz., Smt. Kadimi Swathi (herein after referred to as deceased) in his house situated at Kalaparru Village, Pedapadu i 2 Mandal by hacking her with a knife, causing her death and thereby committed an offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC. 3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted the appellant/ accused under both charges and sentenced him to suffer imprionment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months, for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and further convicted him under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 4. Case of the prosecution briefly is as follows:- PW-2 is the son of the deceased and accused; PW-3 is the brother; PW-4 is the sister, PW-5 is the paternal uncle of the deceased respectively; PWs 6 to 9 are the neighbours of the deceased and appellant/ accused. The appellant/ accused, material prosecution witnesses and also the deceased were residents of Kalaparru Village, Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District. The marriage between deceased and the accused was performed about 7 years back and they were blessed with a son/ PW-2 and a daughter. The appellant/ accused was working as a Mastry and used to arrange coolies for agricultural work. The appellant/ accused used to harass the deceased to sell away the land given to her at the time of their marriage and bring money. The deceased went to her parents house to assist her ailing mother. 3 P While so, on 09.01.2012 the appellant/ accused sent a word to the deceased to come home. On 10.01.2012 at about 7.15 PM, the deceased returned home. While the deeased was sleeping on a cot in the house, the appellant/ accued quarrelled with the deceased for the money and hacked her with a knife and cuased 8 multiple injuries. Having seen the attack, PW-2 i.e son of the deceased went to PW-3, who is his maternal uncle and informed the same to him. At that juncture, PWs 4 and 5 are also present. Having received the information about the incident, PW-1 Ex-Surpanch of the Village went to the Police Station and gave a report. PW-13 the ASI of Peddapadu Police Station received Ex.P1 complaint from the PW-1 and registered a case in Crimie No. 3 of 2012 under Section 302 IPC and issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. Ex.PI 2 is the FIR. On the same day, PW- 14 who is Inspector of Police, Eluru Rural Police Station, having received the information through PW-13 over phone reached Kalaparru at about 10.45 PM and received express FIR from PW-13 and he recorded statement of PW-1. As it was late in the night, PW-14 went to the Police Station and returned to scene of offence on 11.12.2012, where he prepared an Observation Report i.e Ex.P8 in the presence of PW-11 and another and also seized M.Os. 1 to 4 at the scene of offence under Ex.P8. He also seized blood stained earth and control earth i.e M.Os. 2 and 3. He also prepared rough sketh i.e Ex.P13 at the scene of offence. He also got the scene photographed through PW-10. The photographs were marked as Ex.P7 and held inquest over the deadbody in the presence of PW-11 and another. Inquest Report is marked as Ex.P14. 4 At the time of inquest, he recorded statements of PWs 2 to 5 and others. He sent the dead body to the Government Hospital for Postmortem Examination. On 11.01.2012 at 2.30 PM, PW-12 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Eluru conducted autopsy over the deadbody of the deceased. He found 8 cut injuries over the deceased and opined the cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock due to multiple cut injuries” and issued Postmortem Certificate i.e Ex.PIO. Later, PW-14 recorded statement of PW- 10 on 13.01.2012. He arrested the accused near water tank, Kalaparru Village in the presence of PW-11 and another. In pursuance of the confession made by the appellant/ accused, he seized M.0.4 (knife) under a cover of Panchanama i.e Ex.P15. Thereafter, the accused was remanded to judicial custody. He sent M.Os 1 to 4 to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. FSL Report is marked as Ex.PIO. He also got marked the statements of PWs 2 and 3, which were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C by PW-15, II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru as Ex.PII and 17. After completion of investigation and after receipt of Postmortem Report Ex.PIO and RFSL Report Ex.PIO, he filed Charge Sheet. 5. In support of its case, prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 15, marked Ex.P1 to 18 and exhibited M.Os.No.1 to 4. No evidence or documents were marked on behalf of defence. 6. When the accued was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, he denied the incriminating material found against him. 5 7. Heard Sri Rja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the appellant/ accused and Sri Marri Venkataramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant streniously contends that PWs 1, 2 3, 6 to 9 did not support the prosecution. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the only evidence of PWs 4 and 5 is available on record. As there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident, learned counsel requested this Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 9. On the otherhand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State opposed the appeal contending that the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 is in the nature of res gestae and PW-2, who is son of accused, has stated before them that the appellant/ accused killed the deceased with a knife. He further contends that though PW-3, who is brother of the deceased, did not support the case of the prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I PC, but in his evidence, he categorically stated that at about 7.30 p.m, PW-3 came to the house and informed him about the killing of the deceased by inflicting injuries on her neck by the appellant/ accused. As such, he requested this Court to dismiss the Appeal by confirming the conviction and sentense imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 10. We have carefully perused the material available on record. 11. PW-2, who is aged about 10 years at the time of evidence, is none other than the son of the appellant/ accused and deceased. But, unfortunately 6 having witnessed the incident, he did not support the case of the prosecution. So far as PW-3 is concerned, he is the brother of the deceased, who categorically stated in his evidence that he came to know about the incident through PW-2. PWs 4 and 5 have also stated that PW-2 informed about the attack of the accused on the deceased in their presence. Having received the said information from PW-2, all of them went to the house of the accused and found the dead body on the cot with cut injuries on her neck. Further admittedly, the incident took place in the house of the accused, where he along with deceased and two minor children were residing. Though, the deceased met with homicidal death in the house, the appellant/ accused did not give any explanation as required under the provisions of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. Even in his 313 Cr.P.C statement, the appellant/ accused did not give any explanation as to how the deceased met with homicidal death in his house, particularly in the absence of any third party. Admittedly, the accused and the deceased are residing in the house along with two small kids. As such, the burden is always on the appellant/ accused, as per Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, to explain as to how the deceased met with homicidal death in his house. Absolutely, nothing is coming forward from the appellant/ accused as to how the deceased met with homicidal death in his house. Apart from giving non explanation, as required under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, the evidence of PWs 3 to 5 is also available on record, which is in the nature of res gestae. PW-3 was declared as hostile by the proseuction on the ground that he did not speak anything, so far as offence under Section 498-A is concerned. In so far as, offence under % 7 if Sectdion 302 of I PC is concerned, the evidence of PW-3 is crystal clear that he came to know about the death of the deceased through PW-2. PWs 3 and 4 have also stated in their evidence about the harassment of the accused towards deceased for the sake of money. 12. As the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 498-A and 302 IPC with the evidence of PWs 3 to 5 coupled with non explanation of the accused as required under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge needs no interference. 13. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru in S.C.No. 456 of 2013, dated 27.01.2017. The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// f' ft' SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari 2. The Station House Officer, Pedapadu, West Godavari 3. One CC to Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Amaravathi [OUT] 5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Amaravathi. 6. Three CD Copies , Eluru. District. Pradesh at Pradesh at SD sree Or HIGH COURT DATED:02/01/2025 ORDER CRLA.No.714 of 2017 * 19 FEB 2025 'S Ot, ^ . Current Section . DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL