Mane Naga Narasimha Rao, W.G. ... vs State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., Hyd 3 ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3209 AP

     HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

                                   And

     HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

               Criminal Appeal No.1144 of 2014

JUDGMENT:      (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar)


1)     Assailing the judgment of acquittal dated 11.09.2014

passed in Sessions Case No.536 of 2012 on the file of III

Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur, the

informant (PW.1) preferred the present appeal.

2)     Originally, A.1 to A.3 were tried for the offences

punishable under Section 302 and 201 read with 34 IPC, on

an allegation that on 04.07.2011 in the morning hours, all

the accused caused the death of one Addanki Aruna Kumari

(deceased), by smothering her and also causing a blunt

injury on her face with an intention to cause her death;

Thereafter in order to screen away the evidence, all the

accused are alleged to have hanged the body to picturise as if

it is a case of suicide.

3)     The    facts   as    culled     out    from     the   evidence   of

prosecution witnesses, are as under:

i)    PW.1 is the brother of the deceased. PW.2 is the mother

      of PW.1 and the deceased. PW.3 is the sister of PW.1

      and PW.4 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. PWs.5,

      6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are the neighbours of the accused. A.1
                                  2                  CPK, J & BKM, J

                                                  CRLA.No.1144 of 2014




       is the husband, while A.2 and A.3 are sister and brother

       of A.1 respectively.

ii)    The marriage of A.1 with one Aruna Kumari (deceased)

       was performed about 12 years prior to the incident. It is

       said that ever since the date of marriage, A.1 was

       harassing his wife as he was addicted to vices like

       drinking and having extra marital relationship. The

       deceased used to inform such harassment on phone to

       her family members. However, PWs.1 to 4 tried to

       convince A.1 not to harass the deceased and also

       advised the deceased to adjust with the situation.

iii)   About 8 months prior to the death of the deceased, A.1

       met with an accident and sustained fractures to his

       hand and leg. Initially, he was treated as inpatient in a

       Hospital at Tanuku and after discharge he was advised

       to take bed rest in the house. The deceased served him

       during the said period. It is said that while taking rest,

       A.1 was harassing the deceased with offensive words.

       After his recovery, the parents of A.1 fell sick. The family

       members of the accused asked the deceased to serve

       them also, to which she refused. All the accused

       harassed her physically and mentally forcing her to

       serve their parents who were bed ridden. The deceased

       is said to have stated that since she served A.1 for a
                                3                 CPK, J & BKM, J

                                               CRLA.No.1144 of 2014




      long time, she cannot serve any more and asked A.1 to

      send his parents to his brother's houses. All the

      accused replied that their parents will not go anywhere

      and asked the deceased to serve them. It was further

      alleged that on one occasion, A.2 threatened the

      deceased stating that if she does not serve, she would be

      killed and will perform the marriage of A.1 with another

      woman and get her services utilized.

iv)   On 04.07.2011, in the morning hours the deceased is

      said to have made a phone call to PW.1 informing him

      about the harassment in the hands of the accused and

      asked him to come over to her place apprehending

      threat to her life. While they were preparing to go to

      Chagallu Village from Machilipatnam, A.1 telephoned to

      PW.2 and informed that the deceased is unwell. PW.2

      informed the same to PW.1 and others, on which PW.1

      in turn called A.1 who informed PW.1 that the deceased

      became unconscious and when the doctor examined,

      her pulse was not felt. PW.1 and other family members

      went to Chagallu by engaging a car to the house of A.1

      and by the time they reached, the body of the deceased

      was lying in front of house of the accused. They noticed

      a press injury on the right side of the neck. The mother,

      elder sister-in-law and third sister-in-law of A.1 came

      out on seeing them. Thereafter, PW.1 set the law in
                                   4                CPK, J & BKM, J

                                                 CRLA.No.1144 of 2014




      motion by lodging a report before PW.16-the Head

      Constable of Chagallau police station, basing on which a

      case in Crime No.67 of 2011 came to be registered for

      the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34

      IPC. Ex.P.16 is the original FIR.

v)    PW.16 claims to have recorded the statement of PW.1.

      Thereafter, he visited the house of A.1 and as it was late

      night, he posted a guard. On the next day morning, he

      again visited the scene of offence and in the presence of

      mediators (not examined) he examined the scene of

      offence and prepared a scene observation report. He

      seized M.O.1 Saree, got slips affixed on it and also got

      photographed the dead body of the deceased. He then

      conducted inquest over the body in the presence of

      Panchayatdars,     namely,      K.   Purnarao      and      K.

      Vijayalakshmi and M. Veerraju (none of them were

      examined). During inquest, he examined PWs.1 to 5 and

      recorded their statements. After completion of inquest,

      the body was sent for post mortem examination.

vi)   PW.13 the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health

      Centre, Nidadavole conducted autopsy over the dead

      body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.10 Post Mortem

      Certificate. After receiving FSL report, he issued his final

      report, which is Ex.P.12.
                                    5                 CPK, J & BKM, J

                                                   CRLA.No.1144 of 2014




vii)     On 11.07.2011 at 9.30 A.M., PW.16 arrested all the

         accused at the house of A.1 and sent them for remand.

         Further investigation was taken up by PW.17. According

         to him, after receipt of final opinion from the Post

         Mortem doctor, he altered the section of law from

         Section 306 r/w 34 IPC to Section 302 r/w34 IPC on

         20.03.2012 that is nearly eight months after the

         incident. Ex.P.18 is the altered FIR.

viii)    On 22.10.2011, PW.18 the Sub-Inspector of Police,

         Chagallu Police Station, took up investigation and

         verified the statements recorded by PW.16. He examined

         PWs.6, 7 and 8 and gave a questionnaire to the doctor

         on 11.02.2012.

ix)     PW.19 the Inspector of Police, who also investigated the

        case, speaks about proceeding to Chagallu village, visiting

        the scene of offence, verifying the scene of observation

        report and also examining PWs.1 to 5. After completion of

        investigation, he laid a charge sheet, which was taken on

        file as P.R.C.No.17 of 2012 on the file of Judicial

        Magistrate of First Class, Nidadavole against the accused

        for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201

        read with 34 IPC.


4.       On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents,

as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were furnished to
                                  6                  CPK, J & BKM, J

                                                  CRLA.No.1144 of 2014




them. Since the case is triable by Court of Session, the same

was committed to the Court of Session under Section 209

Cr.P.C. Basing on the material available on record, charges

referred to above, came to be framed, read over and explained

to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed

to be tried.


5.    In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1

to 19 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.20, besides marking M.O1.

After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was

examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the

incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the

evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which they pleaded not

guilty and reported no defence evidence.


6.    Having regard to the nature of the evidence adduced by

the prosecution, more particularly, the evidence of PWs.1 to

5, coupled with the evidence of Post Mortem doctor and the

evidence of Investigating Officer, which were found to be

contrary to the case of the prosecution itself, the learned

Sessions Judge acquitted the accused. Assailing the same,

the informant filed the present appeal.


7.    Sri      Narasimha   Rao       Gudiseva,   learned    counsel

representing Sri Dasari S.V.V.S. Prasad, learned counsel for

the appellant would submit that the learned Sessions Judge

erred in acquitting the accused. According to him, the
                                7                 CPK, J & BKM, J

                                               CRLA.No.1144 of 2014




evidence of PWs.1 to 4 establish the harassment meted out to

the deceased by the accused. He further submits that their

evidence show that on the previous day, as well as on the

date of the incident, they received a phone call from the

deceased informing about the harassment in the hands of the

accused and the threat to her life. He further submit that the

version of A.1 informing about the health condition of the

deceased on the date of the incident varied from call to call,

which speaks volumes about his conduct. Coming to the

evidence of the Post Mortem doctor, he would submit that the

findings given by the doctor that it would be a case of suicide

is apparently incorrect. If the evidence of post mortem doctor

is read as a whole, it would give a clear indication that dealth

with homicidal. He took us through the evidence of witnesses

and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narwinder Singh

v. State of Punjab1; the Judgment of this Court in Dollu

Venkataramana v. State of A.P.2 and Suniram Kisku v.

State Bihar3 in support of his plea. He further submits that

though no charge for the offence punishable under Section

304B IPC is framed, the accused can be convicted under

Section 304 B IPC as it is a lesser offence to Section 302 IPC.


8.     On the other hand, Sri K. Chidambaram, learned

counsel for the respondents submits that this being an appeal

2011 (1) Crimes 200 (SC)

2019 (1) ALT (Cri) 428

Crl. Appeal No.624 of 2008 8 CPK, J & BKM, J

CRLA.No.1144 of 2014

against acquittal, this court can interfere with the findings of

court below only if the same are perverse. He further submits

that the trial Court has considered every aspect of the

incident, more particularly, the conduct of PW.1 in lodging

the report, and the suppression of earlier statements of the

witnesses by the police, which clearly indicate that the

prosecution has not come forward with true version of the

case. He further submits that the version of PWs.1 to 4 is

inconsistent in material aspects and their version is a

complete improvement from what they have stated in their

earlier statement. Apart from that, the learned counsel would

submit that the evidence of Post Mortem doctor clearly

indicate that the cause of death could not be due to

smothering as suggested by the prosecution. He further

submits that when the doctor in his cross-examination

admits that his opinion is based on guess work and the final

opinion of the FSL does not lend any help to his opinion, the

learned trial Judge was right in discarding the prosecution

case as to the cause of death. In view of the above, he

submits that the judgment under challenge requires no

interference.

9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the

prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt.

                                9                  CPK, J & BKM, J

                                                CRLA.No.1144 of 2014

10. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced, it would

be appropriate to refer to the evidence of the witnesses and

the contents of the First Information Report.

11. We first intend to deal with Ex.P.1 report said to have

been lodged by PW.1. As stated earlier, after receiving

information from A.1 on the morning of 04.07.2011, PWs.1 to

4 proceeded to the house of the accused and noticed the dead

body lying with face upwards. They also noticed an injury on

the neck. Though PW.1 and others went to the house of the

accused in the morning, but a report came to be lodged at

7.30P.M. in the night.

12. The question that arises for consideration is the

genuinity and authenticity of the First Information Report

lodged by PW.1.

13. PW.1, in his chief-examination, deposed about going to

the police station, getting the report scribed by somebody

outside the police station; signing the report and presenting it

to the police. In the cross-examination, he admits that Ex.P.1

report was scribed by a person aged about 45 years with

whom he has no acquaintance prior to scribing Ex.P.1 report.

He further admits that he signed the report without reading

the contents therein; and even at the time of giving evidence,

he does not know what was written in Ex.P.1. His evidence

further discloses that he was working as Press Reporter and 10 CPK, J & BKM, J

CRLA.No.1144 of 2014

had acquaintance with police and hospitals. However to a

suggestion that even by the date of the death of his sister, he

was working as Reporter to Andhra Prabha paper was denied.

The evidence of PW.1 would further show that they reached

Chagallu between 2.00 to 2.30 P.M. and till he presented

Ex.P.1 report to the police, he did not discuss with anyone.

The evidence of PW.1 also discloses that his brother-in-law

was working as Reporter of Vaartha paper, who accompanied

them in the car to the house of the accused.

14. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, neither of them gave

any report immediately after reaching the house. But at about

7.30 P.M., a report came to be lodged. Strangely, PW.1

expressed unawareness about the contents of Ex.P.1 report.

In fact, his evidence shows that even as on the date of giving

evidence, he does not know what was written in Ex.P.1.

Thereby a doubt arises as to the contents of Ex.P.1 report,

more so, when the scribe of the said report was not examined.

Further, as observed by the trial Court, having acquaintance

with the police and hospitals, PW.1 could not have got Ex.P.1

report drafted through someone whom he does not know. It is

difficult to believe that he signed Ex.P.1 report without

knowing the contents therein, more so, when the person who

died, is none other than his sister. Therefore, the doubt

expressed by the trial court with regard to the contents of 11 CPK, J & BKM, J

CRLA.No.1144 of 2014

Ex.P.1 report cannot be found fault with. Once the FIR is

found to be doubtful, the entire fabric of the case has to be

viewed with suspicion.

15. Coming to the issue of suppression of earlier

statements, it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence of

PW.1. PW.1, in his cross-examination, admits that initially

the Inspector of Police examined him at his (PW.1) sister's

house on the same day night, when they came to Chagallu

from Mogalthuru. He again says that on 05.07.2011 the Head

Constable of Chagallu police station recorded his statement at

about 7.00 A.M., after completion of inquest proceedings. He

further admits that during inquest, no separate statement of

himself, his mother, sisters, brother-in-law etc, were recorded

and that the inquest report was prepared based on the

statements of himself and his family members etc. He further

admits that after his examination by the Head Constable, no

police officer examined him thereafter. This version of PW.1

with regard to recording of his statement, is inconsistent with

the version of the Investigating Officer.

16. PW.16, the Head Constable, who registered the FIR, in

his examination in chief deposed that immediately after

registration of FIR, he recorded the statement of PW.1 and

thereafter visited the scene of offence. His evidence further

show that he examined the witnesses during the course of 12 CPK, J & BKM, J

CRLA.No.1144 of 2014

inquest and later sent the dead body for post-mortem

examination. PW.16 in the cross-examination further admits

that except recording the statements of the witnesses during

inquest, he did not record their 161 Cr.P.C. statements again.

It would be relevant to extract the relevant portion in their

evidence, which read as under:

PW.16 "......I sent the original FIR along with the report to court and the copies to all concerned. Ex.P.16 is the printed FIR. I recorded the statement of PW.1 Narasimha Rao......"

"...... Except recording the statements of the witnesses during inquest, I did not record their 161 Cr.P.C. statements again....."

PW.1

"....... The Inspector of Police examined him at his sister's house on the same day night when we came to Chagallu from Mogalthuru. But he did not record his statement at that time. On 05.07.2011 the Head Constable of Chagallu P.S. recorded his statement at about 7.00 A.M......."

".......My statement was recorded by the Head Constable after completion of the inquest. I examined during inquest. During the inquest, my mother, my sisters, my brothers-in- law and other persons who came from Mogalthuru were examined. During the inquest, no separate statements of myself, my mother, sisters, brothers-in-law etc., were recorded......"

".......After the Head Constable examined me after completion of the inquest, no police officer examined me subsequently. Except the Head Constable examined myself and family members after the inquest, no police officer examined either myself or my family members thereafter......."

                                13                CPK, J & BKM, J

                                               CRLA.No.1144 of 2014

17. From a reading of the evidence of PW.1 and PW.16,

there arises a doubt as to when the statement of PW.1 was

recorded. On one hand PW.1 claims that he was examined at

his sister's house on the same day of the incident i.e. after

coming over from his village, which would be after the

registration of FIR, but the same is contrary to the evidence of

PW.16, who speaks about recording the statement of PW.1 at

the police station immediately after registration of FIR. The

version of PW.16 is that after recording the statement, he

proceeded to the scene of offence, but the answers elicited in

the cross-examination would reveal that the statement of

PW.1 came to be recorded either at the time of inquest or

subsequent to the inquest. There is no clear evidence as to

when the statement of PW.1 was recorded. Therefore, the

argument of the learned counsel for the respondents/accused

that the prosecution suppressed the earliest statement of

PW.1 cannot be brushed aside, more so, when the FIR

reached the court on the next day.

18. Before dealing with the oral evidence, we intend to deal

with the issue relating to cause of death:

19. As seen from the charge sheet, the case of the

prosecution is that the deceased was done to death by

smothering. None of them have seen as to how the deceased

was killed. But, fact remains that she died in the house of the 14 CPK, J & BKM, J

CRLA.No.1144 of 2014

accused. Having regard to the above, the learned counsel for

the appellant tried to contend that in view of Section 106 of

the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden is on the accused

to explain as to how the deceased died. There cannot be any

dispute with regard to the said proposition, more so, when

there is no dispute with regard to the presence of the accused

in the house. But, in the instant case, the accused have come

out with specific defence of suicide. Suggestions given to all

the witnesses that deceased committed suicide; she was killed

and then hanged; and that she being hyper sensitive

committed suicide in the kitchen by hanging himself, were

denied.

20. To test the defence of the accused, it would be

appropriate for us to refer to the evidence of Post Mortem

doctor. Before dealing with the evidence of Post Mortem

doctor and the evidence of PW.17 and PW.18, who prepared a

questionnaire and given it to the doctor, it would be

appropriate to mention that at the time of inquest they

noticed only one injury on the neck. Even the family

members, who were examined as PWs.1 to 4, speak about

only one injury on the neck. Keeping this circumstance in the

background, we will now refer to the evidence of PW.13, the

Post Mortem doctor.

                                           15                  CPK, J & BKM, J

                                                            CRLA.No.1144 of 2014

21. According to him, on 05.07.2011 he conducted autopsy

over the dead body of the deceased and found the following

injuries:

1) Face is congested and sinozed;

2) Peri orbital edema of left eye with left red colour conjectia on opening of the eye. Left black eye present;

3) Bleeding from both nostrils of the nose present;

4) Upper chest and both upper limbs are congested;

5) A small abrasion on right side of neck 2 inch long and one inch width with brownish black in colour.

Internal findings:

1) On the opening of the mark and skin on the neck, no subcutaneous congestion is seen. No extra vasassion of blood is seen in the subcutaneous tissues.

2) Brain tissues, stomach and both lungs and all viscera of abdomen congested.

PW.16 in his evidence deposed that he sent the viscera to

RFSL for chemical examination and received RFSL report. As

per the said report, the cause of death, which is as under:

"the cause of death to the best of my knowledge is Asphyxia might be due to smothering and also associated blunt injury over face, followed by post mortem hangings and might be homicidal."

Ex.P.12 is the final opinion given by PW.13.

22. From the above, the opinion of the doctor as to cause of

death is asphyxia due to smothering and also associated with

blunt injury over face followed by post mortem hangings and

might be homicidal.

23. At this stage, one circumstance which assumes much

importance is the requisition sent to the Medical Officer, 16 CPK, J & BKM, J

CRLA.No.1144 of 2014

Government Hospital for conducting Post Mortem

examination. The said requisition is marked as Ex.P.17. A

perusal of the said requisition would clearly show that it was

PW.1, who gave requisition to the doctor for conducting post

mortem examination. It is strange as to how a requisition

could have been given by PW.1 to the doctor, for conducting

post mortem and it is also strange as to how the doctor could

have accepted such requisition and conducted autopsy.

Though an argument is sought to be advanced stating that

the Station House Officer sent the requisition for conducting

post mortem examination, but the contents of the requisition

would clearly indicate that it was sent by PW.1. It would be

appropriate to refer to the requisition which reads as under:

"On 04.07.2011 morning they quarrelled with my younger sister and harassed her physically and mentally and caused severe mental stress. Her husband Addanki Kesavamurthy, elder sister-in-law Subbalakshmi and the third brother-in- law Koteswara Rao harassed her younger sister mentally for doing services to their parents and made her to commit suicide. Today morning the deceased informed my elder brother on phone that they are abusing to commit suicide in case she did not do services to her parents-in-law. I came to know that because of mental stress caused by the above three persons, today at 11.00A.M. my sister died by hanging herself."

24. A reading of the entire requisition, though signed by the

Head Constable, show as if it was written by PW.1, who is

brother of the deceased. This shows the interference of 17 CPK, J & BKM, J

CRLA.No.1144 of 2014

outsiders/family members in the investigation process. In the

cross-examination, PW.13-the doctor, admits that his

observation in the final report that it was post mortal hanging

was his guess work based on RFSL opinion. He further

admits that he mentioned in the post mortem report that no

tissues were preserved for further examination. It would be

appropriate to refer the relevant portions in the cross-

examination of PW.13, which reads as under:

".......I was supplied the inquest report also before conducting autopsy";

........The visibility of the ligature mark on the neck depends on the composition or reflected on the skin...

.......In the preliminary report, I did not mention whether the injuries are post mortem or ante mortem. The meaning of post mortal hanging is that hanging of the body subsequent to the death. The observation in the final report that it is post mortal hanging is my guess work based on the RFSL finding. It is true that the RFSL report did not lend any support to my final opinion. It is true that I mentioned in the P.R. report that no tissues were preserved for further examination. It is true that after completion of P.M. and before issuing final opinion, I did not mention any further examination. I did not examine whether there is any corresponding internal injury for the external associated blunt injury over the face mentioned in my final report....."

25. From the answers elicited in the cross-examination of

the doctor, it is very much clear that he has mentioned in the

preliminary report about the injury on the face i.e. congestion

and the synosis of the face and peri-orbital odema of left eye.

But, however, no such injury was found at the time of 18 CPK, J & BKM, J

CRLA.No.1144 of 2014

inquest. In fact, he states that he did not mention whether

the injuries are post mortem or ante mortem.

26. Therefore, it is very much clear that the finding given by

the doctor that it is a case of smothering and not a case of

suicide has no basis. The fact that there was only one injury

is also evident from the photographs of the deceased taken by

PW.12. Therefore, it cannot be said that the injuries are ante

mortem in nature so as to cause death due to asphyxia on

account of smothering.

27. At this stage it is also to be noted that PW.18 the Sub-

Inspector of Police, is said to have prepared a questionnaire

and gave it to the doctor on 11.02.2012. In the cross-

examination, she admits preparation of questionnaire, which

is marked as Ex.P.19. She also admits that the question No.2

does not indicate any injury on the face, as per the post-

mortem report and that the 3rd question does not suggest any

homicidal death.

28. Therefore, it is very much clear that it was not PW.18,

who prepared the questionnaire, but at the behest of

somebody, the questionnaire came to be prepared and

supplied to the doctor. Her own admission show that she has

no knowledge about the contents and meaning of certain

terms used in the questionnaire.

                                19                 CPK, J & BKM, J

                                                CRLA.No.1144 of 2014




Oral evidence:

29. Insofar as the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is concerned, all

the witnesses speak about receiving information on

04.07.2011, about the deceased being in critical condition

and the pulse not detected. They stated that they reached the

house of the accused by 2.30 P.M. and noticed bruise on the

right side of the neck and the said bruise was because of the

harassment by the accused due to which she might have

committed suicide. If really that was the reason, nothing

prevented them from lodging a report within a reasonable

time as the police station is situated in the very same village.

Even assuming for the sake argument that the report was

lodged by PW.1, no explanation is forthcoming from him as to

why he kept quiet till 7.30 P.M.

30. Be that as it may, the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 would

show that their version in court is a complete improvement

from what they have stated in their earlier statements and

their versions are not consistent. According to PW.1, on

04.07.2011 in the morning hours, the deceased called him

stating that the harassment is severe and asked him to come

over to the house, as the accused are threatening to kill her,

while the evidence of PW.2 is to the effect that on 04.07.2011

the deceased called PW.1 stating that the harassment is

severe and that she was beaten throughout the night and 20 CPK, J & BKM, J

CRLA.No.1144 of 2014

requested PW.1 to come over there immediately. While the

evidence of PW.1 is to the effect that his mother received a

phone call at 11.00 A.M. from the accused, who informed that

the deceased became unconscious with fits and her pulse

found not detected, PW.2 gives a different version stating that

the information given by A.1 is only to the effect that the

condition of the deceased is serious. Though the version of

the witnesses speak about the torture by the accused on the

previous day and A.1 beating the deceased throughout the

night, but PW.2 admits in his cross-examination that she did

not state before the police that the accused beat her daughter

on the previous night. She also admits that she did not state

before the police about the injuries found on the dead body.

Similarly, PW.1 did not state many crucial facts when he was

examined by the Investigating Officer. The relevant portion

from the evidence of investigating officer is as under:

"....... PW.1 did not mention in Ex.P.1 and did not state before me that himself and his family members on seeing the dead body felt that the accused murdered the deceased by beating......"

.......PW.2 did not state before me that the accused murdered the deceased by assaulting her. PW.2 did not state before me about the presence of injuries over the dead body. PW.2 did not state that the accused beat her daughter on the previ9ous night. PW.3 did not state that A.2 and A.3 were encouraging A.1 in harassing the deceased. PW.3 did not state that A.1 was addicted to the vice of drinking and gambling and was coming home in a drunken condition......."

........PW.3 did not state that all the accused forced the deceased to serve the father of A.1 stating that she has no option except to 21 CPK, J & BKM, J

CRLA.No.1144 of 2014

serve her father-in-law or to commit suicide and that if the deceased failed to exercise either of the options, they would murder the deceased and perform the marriage of A.1 with another woman. PW.3 did not state before me that on 04.07.2011 the deceased called her by phone and state that all the accused beat the deceased on the night of 3/4.7.2011. PW.3 did not state before me that the brother and sister-in-law of A.1 informed them that Aruna Kumari committed suicide.

.......PW.4 did not state before me that PW.1 on seeing the deead body stated that it is a homicidal death caused by all the accused and asked PW.1 to give report......"

31. Therefore, it appears that these witnesses failed to

mention the crucial facts, which we have referred to above, in

their earlier statements before the police and deposed for the

first time while giving evidence in the court. Apart from that,

as observed by us earlier, if really there was harassment right

from the date of marriage, which took place about 12 years

ago, PW.1, being a reporter and having acquaintance with the

police, could have as well raised a dispute before the elders of

Mogalthuru or Chagallu, but no such steps were taken.

32. In support of his plea, the learned counsel for the

appellant relied upon judgments in Sunil Shrikrushna

Wankhade and another v. State of State of Maharashtra4.

It was a case where an appeal came to be preferred against

the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302

and 498 A IPC. In the said case, the trial court framed a

charge against the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 306 IPC, while the conviction was recorded for the

Crl.A.No.624 of 2008, dt. 11.01.2021 22 CPK, J & BKM, J

CRLA.No.1144 of 2014

offence under Section 498 A IPC. It is also to be noted that in

the said case, the death took place within two years of the

marriage.

33. Narwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1 supra) was a

case where an appeal came to be preferred before the Apex

court challenging the conviction under Section 306 IPC. In

the said case, initially a case under Section 306 IPC was

registered, but a charge under Section 304B IPC was

ultimately framed by the court. After a full pledged trial, the

trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable

under Section 304B IPC and sentenced him to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. On appeal,

the conviction under Section 304B IPC was altered to Section

306 IPC. It is to be noted that in the said case the marriage

took place on 30.09.1984 and the death took place on

30.05.1988 within seven years of the marriage. In view of the

above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to Section

222 Cr.P.C. and the presumption under Section 113 A of the

Indian Evidence Act, upheld the conviction under Section 306

IPC.

34. In Dollu Venkataramana v. State of A.P., (2 supra),

the marriage of the deceased was on 13.04.2001 and the

death occurred on 09.08.2001. Initially, the case was

registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and after investigation, 23 CPK, J & BKM, J

CRLA.No.1144 of 2014

the police filed a charge sheet for the offence punishable

under Section 302 and 306 IPC. The trial Court, while

acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 302 IPC, convicted him for the offence punishable

under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous

imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay fine of

Rs.10/- with default provision. The conviction of the accused

under Section 306 IPC was set aside by the High Court on

23.02.2007 and the matter was remitted to the lower court for

fresh adjudication. On remand, the trial Court found the

accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302

IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life.

Challenging the same, an appeal came to be preferred before

the High Court. After analysing the evidence and the

judgments of the Apex Court and in the absence of any

explanation given by the accused as to how the deceased died

though admitted that both of them stayed in Room No.2 of

Simhadri Lodge, the High Court confirmed the conviction for

the offence under Section 302 IPC.

35. The case on hand stands on a different footing. The

incident in question took place 12 years after the marriage.

Presumption either under Section 113 A or 113 B of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be invoked.

                                24                  CPK, J & BKM, J

                                                 CRLA.No.1144 of 2014

36. Having regard to the evidence of the doctor with regard

to cause of death, the nature of evidence of PW.1 vis-à-vis

Ex.P.1 report and the statements before the police during

investigation and this being an appeal against an acquittal

where the scope of interference of this court is limited except

when the findings recorded by the trial court are perverse or

contrary to evidence, which is not so, we see no grounds to

interfere with the judgment under appeal.

37. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall

stand closed.

_________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

________________________ B. KRISHNA MOHAN, J

Date: 27-08-2021 Ksn......