Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
P.Sundaramma vs State, Rep. By Pp., Another on 23 March, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
CRL.R.C.NO.1336 OF 2005
ORDER:-
Questioning the judgment of acquittal passed by the
learned V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), East Godavari at
Rajahmundry in S.C.No.138 of 2001, dated 03-05-2002, Pw.3
filed the present Criminal Revision Case before this court.
2. The case of the prosecution succinctly is thus:-
The deceased was a resident of Rameswaram village and
she married to one Ch.Chandra Rao and they have obtained
customary divorce. The accused, who is also resident of
Rameswaram, was eking out his livelihood by driving a taxi.
About 20 years back, the accused married to one Ratna Kumari
of Visweswarayapuram and they were blessed with three sons.
The said Ratna Kumari died due to ill-health about 12 years ago.
About six years prior to the date of incident, the accused married
the deceased and started living with her at Rameswaram. The
deceased went to Quattar country twice and earned money. With
that amount, she constructed a house and gave an amount of
Rs.20,000/- to the accused for purchase of a taxi. The accused
borrowed the balance amount from a finance company and
purchased the taxi. The accused also invested his share of
money in construction of a house. In the course of repayment to
the finance company, the accused became default in paying
installments. Then the finance company seized the taxi. At that
juncture, disputes arose between the accused and deceased and
they started quarreling with each other frequently. One year
2
prior to the date of incident, the elders convened a panchayat
and made a decision to the effect that deceased and accused
should reside separately. In due course, the deceased developed
an illegal intimacy with her sister's husband and moving with
him freely. She also started making propaganda that the
accused is a drunkard and he is not looking after her properly.
The deceased once again making arrangements to go to Gulf
with the assistance of her paramour. The accused developed
grudge and decided to kill the deceased. On 10-11-2000 when
the deceased went to Church, the accused chased her on a Lorry
and got down at Kandalapalem Church. The accused returned to
Sompally on a Lorry and secured a curved knife. On 10-11-2000
at about 3.00 P.M when the deceased was coming from Kakinada
to Sakinetipally in a RTC and when the Bus stopped near the Bus
Stand, Razole, the accused entered into the bus and questioned
the deceased. The accused hacked the deceased with a knife on
her head, hand, chest etc., indiscriminately and snatched away
her gold Mangalasutram and absconded from the bus. Then he
escaped towards Rajolu town. Immediately, the Driver and
Conductor of the bus shifted the injured to a Community Health
Centre, Rajole where she succumbed to injuries. The Sub-
Inspector of Police having received the report from the
Conductor of the Bus at about 5.30 P.M registered a case in
Cr.No.156 of 2000 under Section 307 IPC. On the same day at
about 6.30 P.M having received death intimation he altered the
section of law from 307 IPC to 302 IPC. The Inspector of Police
conducted investigation and send the dead body for post-
3
mortem examination. Pw.15 Civil Assistant Surgeon conducted
autopsy over the dead body and issued Ex.P-26 post mortem
certificate. After completion of investigation, Pw.18 filed the
charge sheet.
3. The case was taken on file as S.C.No.138 of 2001 and
charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 41I
IPC were framed against the accused.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to
18 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-38 and exhibited Mos.1 to 24.
5. As there is no direct witness to the alleged incident, the
prosecution relied upon the circumstantial evidence. After an
elaborate trial, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused
as the prosecution did not establish the guilt of the accused by
way of circumstantial evidence.
6. This court perused the entire material on record. The
prosecution neither able to prove the motive nor able to prove
the guilt of the accused by way of circumstantial evidence. As
the present Criminal Revision arises out of an acquittal, the view
taken by the trial court cannot be said as an unreasonable. The
scope of present revision is limited. In that view of the matter,
there are no merits in the present Criminal Revision Case and
the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed
in consequence.
________________
K.SURESH REDDY,J
23-03-2022
.
TSNR
