APHC010591702018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2328/2018 Between: 1. PINAPATI SUDHAKAR, SUGALI COLONY PORANKI, PENNAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DIST. 1. STATE OF AP, rep by its its Public Prosecutor, High court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to to allow the appeal while setting the Judgment in SC No. 316/2014 dated 13.07.2018 on the file of sessions Judge, Ma Vijayawada and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner or appellant on bail while suspending the sentences and judgement dated 13-07-2018 in SC.No. 316 of 2014 on the fil Judge, Mahila Court at Vijayawada, bail to the satisfaction I M.M, Vijayawada and pass Counsel for the Apellant: 1. Sri. B V S CHALAPATI RAO, LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respodent: 1. LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2328/2018 PINAPATI SUDHAKAR, SUGALI COLONY PORANKI, PENNAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DIST. ...APELLANT AND STATE OF AP, rep by its its Public Prosecutor, High court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and stae of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPODENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to to allow the appeal while setting the Judgment in SC No. 316/2014 dated 13.07.2018 on the file of sessions Judge, Mahila court at 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 enlarge the petitioner or appellant on bail while suspending the sentences and 2018 in SC.No. 316 of 2014 on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court at Vijayawada, bail to the satisfaction I M.M, Vijayawada Sri. B V S CHALAPATI RAO, LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respodent: LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3514] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY PINAPATI SUDHAKAR, SUGALI COLONY PORANKI, ...APELLANT STATE OF AP, rep by its its Public Prosecutor, High court at and stae of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPODENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to to allow the appeal while setting the Judgment in SC hila court at that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner or appellant on bail while suspending the sentences and e of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court at Vijayawada, bail to the satisfaction I M.M, Vijayawada p. 2 CRLA.2328 of 2018 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2328 of 2018 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.316 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Sessions Judge under two charges: a) The first charge was under Section 302 IPC; and b) The second charge was under Section 498-A IPC. 2. Substance of the charge is prior to 19.05.2012 the accused, subjected his wife, namely Pinapati Prameela Rani (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), to physical and mental cruelty by harassing her and demanding additional dowry, and on 19.05.2012 at about 3:00 a.m., he gagged the deceased by stuffing a lungi into her mouth, beat her with a hammer on her head and temporal region, and cut her neck with a sickle and caused her death, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. After completion of trial, the learned 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.1,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. The learned Sessions Judge further convicted p. 3 CRLA.2328 of 2018 the accused under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, briefly, is as follows: a) The accused is none other than the husband of the deceased. PW.1 is the mother, PW.2 is the father and PW.11 is the elder sister of the deceased respectively. Marriage between the accused and the deceased was performed in the year 2007 and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a female child by name Sanjana. The accused, along with the deceased and their daughter, was residing at Sugali Colony, Poranki, within the limits of Penamaluru Police Station, Krishna District. At the relevant point of time, the accused was working as a Lecturer in Narayana College and used to go to college in the morning and return home in the evening. b) While so, on 16.05.2012, the accused sent the deceased along with their daughter Sanjana to the house of her parents at Repudi Village to attend a prayer meeting arranged at their house. On 17.05.2012, the accused visited Repudi Village and brought back the deceased and their daughter, in spite of objections raised by PWs.1, p. 4 CRLA.2328 of 2018 2 and 11. After returning to Vijayawada, a quarrel ensued between the accused and the deceased. c) While so, at about 5:50 a.m. on 19.05.2012, the accused telephoned P.W.11- elder sister of the deceased, and informed her that a quarrel had taken place between him and the deceased and that, in the course of the said dispute, he had beaten her, as a result of which blood was oozing, and requested her to come and look after the deceased. Having receiving the said information, P.W.11, at about 6:00 a.m., informed her mother, P.W.1, over telephone. Thereupon, P.Ws.1 and 2, the parents of the deceased, proceeded to the house of the accused and found the deceased lying on a cot in a pool of blood, while the accused was absent from the house. On seeing the deceased in such a condition, P.W.1 went to the concerned police station and lodged a report. d) PW.12- the then Inspector of Police, Penamaluru Police Station, received Ex.P1 report from PW.1 and registered the same as a case in Crime No.291 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC. He issued copies of the F.I.R to all the concerned. F.I.R was marked as Ex.P11. Immediately, he proceeded to the scene of offence situated at D.No.1-25, Sugali Colony, Poranki along with mediators- PW.7 and another. p. 5 CRLA.2328 of 2018 e) P.W.12 found the dead body of the deceased lying on a cot with bleeding injuries on her head, face and neck, and noticed a pool of blood at the scene of offence. He also found one iron hammer and a sickle with a wooden handle at the spot. He prepared an observation report- Ex.P7, in the presence of mediators- P.W.7 and another. He prepared a rough sketch-Ex.P12. He seized M.Os.1 to 5 along with the identity card of the accused from the scene of offence. He got the scene photographed through P.W.6-the photographer, and the photographs were marked as Ex.P5. He further seized M.Os.6 and 7 at the scene of offence in the presence of mediators-P.W.7 and another. He examined P.Ws.1, 2, 4, 5 and others and recorded their statements. f) On 22.05.2012, on receipt of credible information, P.W.12 apprehended the accused at Platform No.38 of Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada, in the presence of mediators, P.W.7 and another. He seized M.O.8, a blood-stained shirt worn by the accused, under a mediators’ report-Ex.P13. Thereafter, the accused was remanded to judicial custody. P.W.12 sent M.Os.1 to 8 to the RFSL, Vijayawada, under a letter of advice-Ex.P14, and the RFSL report was marked as Ex.P16. After collecting all relevant documents and after completion of the investigation, P.W.12 laid the charge sheet. p. 6 CRLA.2328 of 2018 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.12, marked Exs.P1 to P16 and exhibited MOs.1 to 8. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. 7. Accepting the evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.11, coupled with the medical evidence adduced through PW.3, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 8. Heard Sri B.V.S.Chalapathi Rao, learned legal aid counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. 9. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 10. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties, as admittedly the deceased is none other than the wife of the accused. It is also an admitted fact that the deceased met with a homicidal death in the house of the appellant, where no third person was present. Further, it is not in dispute that P.Ws.1 and 2 are the parents and P.W.11 is the elder sister of the deceased respectively. In the present case, the criminal law was set into motion on the information furnished by the appellant himself. p. 7 CRLA.2328 of 2018 In the earliest version, Ex.P1, P.W.1 stated that on 19.05.2012 at about 6:00 a.m., P.W.11 telephoned her and informed her that the deceased was lying with bleeding injuries in the house of the appellant. It was further stated that P.W.11 came to know of the said fact only on the information given by the appellant, who telephoned her at about 5:50 a.m. on 19.05.2012, informing her that he had beaten the deceased on the head, that blood was oozing, and requesting her to come to his house to see her sister. 11. Having received the said information from PW.11, PW.1 immediately rushed to the house of the appellant and found the dead body of deceased in a pool of blood. On the same day, she went to Penamaluru Police Station and gave Ex.P1 report at about 09.00 AM. 12. P.W.1, in her evidence, stated that when she visited the house of the appellant, she found him absent and further reiterated the same version as stated by her in the earliest report, Ex.P1. P.W.11, the elder sister of the deceased, deposed that at about 5:50 a.m. on 19.05.2012, she received a telephone call from the appellant, who informed her that a quarrel had taken place between him and the deceased, that he had beaten her, that blood was oozing, and requested her to come and look after her sister. P.W.11 further stated that at about 6:00 a.m., she telephoned her mother, P.W.1, and conveyed the said information. Thus, it is evident that it was only on the information furnished by the appellant the criminal law was set into motion by p. 8 CRLA.2328 of 2018 P.W.1. Otherwise there was no occasion for P.W.1 to visit the house of the appellant in the early hours of 19.05.2012. 13. P.W.1 promptly lodged Ex.P1 at the police station without any delay. The ocular version spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 11 stands corroborated by the medical evidence adduced through P.W.3, coupled with post-mortem report- Ex.P2. Apart from the appellant having furnished information to P.W.11 about beating the deceased, another circumstance in favour of the prosecution is that, in terms of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it was incumbent on the part of the appellant to offer an explanation as to how the deceased met with a homicidal death in his house; however, no such explanation has been forthcoming from him. 14. Instead of offering a plausible explanation, the appellant came forward with a false version stating that a mixie had accidentally fallen on the deceased and that she sustained injuries. The said explanation stands completely negatived by the medical evidence adduced through P.W.3, coupled with Ex.P2. There was no cross-examination of P.W.3-the doctor, on the specific line of defence advanced by the appellant, namely, the alleged accidental fall of a mixie on the head of the deceased. Further, the deceased sustained as many as four injuries on her body. The doctor, in his evidence, categorically stated that the said injuries were possible only by beating with p. 9 CRLA.2328 of 2018 M.O.1 with heavy force. Thus, the appellant, instead of offering explanation, put forth a false and untenable version. 15. Further, though the incident occurred on 19.05.2012, the appellant absconded and was apprehended only on 22.05.2012. If, as alleged, some third person had committed the murder, the accused, being the husband of the deceased, ought to have immediately informed the police; instead, he absconded for a period of three days. This conduct of the appellant constitutes an additional incriminating circumstance against him, particularly when it is established that he and the deceased were residing together in the house and that there was no third person present, except their minor daughter. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, under Section 302 IPC needs no interference. 16. Insofar as the offence under Section 498-A IPC is concerned, absolutely no cogent evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to substantiate the allegation of cruelty or harassment in connection with demand for additional dowry. On the contrary, P.W.1, in her cross- examination, categorically stated that the appellant never harassed the p. 10 CRLA.2328 of 2018 deceased for additional dowry and that he did not subject her to any form of cruelty. In view of such specific admission by P.W.1, the offence under Section 498-A IPC is not established. Consequently, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is liable to be set aside. 17. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed-in-part. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, in Sessions Case No.316 of 2014, dated 13.07.2018, under Section 498-A IPC is hereby set aside. However, the conviction and sentence recorded under Section 302 IPC in Sessions Case No.316 of 2014 is hereby confirmed. Needless to state that the period already undergone by the appellant/Accused shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dated 10.02.2026 KGM/NKA p. 11 CRLA.2328 of 2018 104 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2328 of 2018 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.SURESH REDDY) Dated 10.02.2026 KGM/NKA