Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Anjinappagari Sanjeevarayappa ... vs P.P., Hyd on 1 August, 2024
Author: K.Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
1
KSR, J &SRK, J
Crl.A.No.1197 of 2016
APHC010354152016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
[3486]
AT AMARAVATI
THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1197/2016
Between:
Sri AnjinappagariSanjeevarayappa @ Sanjeevappa,
Parigi
...APPELLANT
AND
P PHyd
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. V R MACHAVARAM
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
2
KSR, J &SRK, J
Crl.A.No.1197 of 2016
JUDGMENT
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)
Sole Accused in Sessions Case No.435 of 2015 on the file of
the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, Anantapur
District, has filed the present Criminal Appeal. He was tried by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge under two charges i.e., the first
charge was under Section 302 IPC and the second charge was
under Section 404 IPC.
2. Substance of the charge is that on 08.02.2015 at about
7.00 P.M, the accused committed murder of one Madakasira
Lakshmidevamma (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") by
cutting her throat with a knife and stabbing her on the left breast,
causing her death and in the same process he has taken away gold
ear studs from the body, thereby committed offences punishable
under Sections 302 and 404 IPC.
3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge convicted the appellant/Accused under Section 302 IPC and
sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for "LIFE" and also
to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment
for a period of six(06) months. The learned Additional Sessions
Judge further convicted the appellant/Accused under Section 404
KSR, J &SRK, J
IPC and sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of
three (03) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/-. Both the
substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
4. Case of the prosecution, as per the evidence of prosecution
witnesses, is as follows:-
The deceased and all the material prosecution witnesses are
residents of Sasanakota Village, Parigi Mandal. The accused is a
resident of Kodigenahalli Village and he was working as a Carpenter.
The deceased was working as Aaya in Anganwadi at Sasanakota
Village for the last eighteen (18) years. The husband of the
deceased died long back. Pw-1 is the daughter and Pw-2 is the
nephew of the deceased. Three (03) years prior to the date of
incident, the deceased developed illicit intimacy with the accused,
who used to attend his own sister's house by name Gangamma.
The deceased purchased a two wheeler for the accused, who in turn
used to take her to the work place and bring back home. In the
month of January-2015, there was an altercation between the
accused and the deceased. The deceased took back the two
wheeler from the accused. The deceased used to consume toddy
from the shop of Pw-3. While so, on 08.02.2015, Pw-1 and her
grandmother went to Bagepalli to attend a marriage and on the same
KSR, J &SRK, J
day, at about 6.30 P.M they returned. At that time, Pw-1 and the
deceased were sitting in the court yard of the house and were chit
chatting. The accused came there and made three or four rounds in
front of the house. The accused gave a signal to the deceased
inviting her to come out. Then the deceased accompanied the
accused. Thereafter, the deceased did not return home on that
night. On the next day morning, at about 9.00 A.M, Pw-1 informed
Pw-2 about the deceased not returning home. Pw-2 went in search
and found the deceased lying dead near electrical pole with cut
throat injury and informed the same to Pw-1. Then Pw-1 along with
others went to the scene of offence and found the dead body of the
deceased with cut throat injury and missing of her ears along with
ear studs. She found two empty toddy bottles at the scene of
offence. Immediately, she went to Parigi Police Station and gave a
report- Ex.P-1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Parigi Police Station,
who was not examined, registered a case in Cr.No.21 of 2015 under
Sections 302 and 379 IPC. Copy of FIR was marked through the
Investigating Officer-Pw-13 under Ex.P-33. Having received the
information, the Inspector of Police rushed to the scene of offence at
the outskirts of Sasanakota Village along with his staff. He secured
the presence of Pws-9 and 10. He prepared rough sketch-Ex.P-18
KSR, J &SRK, J
at the scene of offence. He also got the scene photographed and
videographed through Pws-4 and 5. The photographs and CDs
were marked as Exs.P-19 and 20. Subsequently, he recorded
statements of the witnesses. Thereafter, he held inquest over the
dead body of the deceased in the presence of Pws-9 and 10.
Inquest report was marked as Ex.P-21. Then he sent the dead body
for conducting Post-Mortem examination.
5. Pw-11-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital,
Hindupur, conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the
cause of death was due to "shock and haemorrhage on account of a
cut throat injury to neck". He also opined that sexual intercourse has
occurred prior to the death of the deceased. He issued Post-Mortem
Certificates Exs.P-14 and 15.
6. Pw-13 seized M.Os-2 to 13 under a cover of panchanama.
On 16.02.2015 at about 4.30 P.M, he arrested the accused at
Kodigenahalli Village in the presence of Pws-9 and 10. On
25.02.2015, the accused confessed stating that the gold ear studs-
M.O-1 were given to his wife Radhamma. The said statement was
recorded as Ex.P-27. Then Pw-13 went to Tirupati to the house of
the accused and questioned Radhamma. She has stated that she
pledged the said gold ear studs in the shop of Pw-8. She has
KSR, J &SRK, J
handed over the pawn ticket to Pw-13. On the basis of said
statement, Pw-13 went to the shop of Pw-8 and showed the pawn
ticket. After seeing the said pawn ticket standing in the name of wife
of the accused, Pw-8 handed over M.O-1 to Pw-13. The pawn ticket
was marked as Ex.P-3. The seizure of mahazarnama was marked
as Ex.P-28. On 26.02.2015, Pw-13 conducted test identification of
M.O-1 through Pw-9 mediator. In the said test identification, Pw-1
identified M.O-1 belonging to her mother. After completion of
investigation and after receipt of Post-Mortem Certificate, Pw-13 filed
charge sheet.
7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 13
and marked Exs.P-1 to 33 and also exhibited M.Os-1 to 15.
8. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
he denied the incriminating material found against him.
9. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused as
aforesaid.
10. We have heard Sri V.R Machavaram, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri. Kochiri Anand Kumar, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for the State.
KSR, J &SRK, J
11. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends
that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident and the case
rests on the circumstantial evidence. He further contends that the
only circumstance relied on by the prosecution is "last seen theory".
As such, on the basis of last seen theory alone, the conviction
cannot be sustained. As such, he requests this Court to allow the
appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge.
12. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
vehemently opposed contending inter alia that apart from last seen
theory, the prosecution is able to prove the recovery of ear studs-
M.O-1 at the instance of the accused. He further contends that on
08.02.2015 at about 4.00 P.M i.e., just prior to the time of
occurrence, the accused went to the toddy shop of Pw-3 and
purchased two bottles of toddy. He further contends that the
evidence of Pw-6, who is the independent witness, goes to show that
he found the accused coming with two bottles of toddy to the scene
of offence. He further contends that the evidence of Pws-1 and 2
also show the motive on the part of the accused to kill the deceased.
13. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record.
KSR, J &SRK, J
14. Pw-1, who is none other than the daughter of the deceased in
her evidence specifically stated that the deceased was having illicit
intimacy with the accused for the last three (03) years prior to the
date of incident. The evidence of Pw-2 also show that the deceased
was having illicit intimacy with the accused. The evidence of Pws-1
and 2 further disclose that in the month of January-2015, the
accused and the deceased quarrelled with each other and the
deceased has taken back the two wheeler from the accused, which
was purchased by her. Thereafter, till 08.02.2015 they did not meet
each other. It is also in the evidence of Pws-1 and 2 that the
deceased is in the habit of consuming toddy. Pw-1 in her evidence
has specifically stated that on 08.02.2015 at about 6.30 P.M, the
accused came to their house and made a signal to the deceased
and following the signal, the deceased followed the accused.
Thereafter, the deceased did not return to the house on that night.
The evidence of Pws-1 and 2 further goes to show that on the next
day morning, at about 9.00 A.M, they found the dead body of the
deceased at the scene of offence.
15. Pw-3, who is an independent witness and who is running a
toddy shop, in his evidence has stated that on 08.02.2015, the
accused purchased two bottles of toddy for Rs.20/- and paid an
KSR, J &SRK, J
amount of Rs.100/-. He further stated that after return of the empty
bottles, he has to pay the balance amount of Rs.80/-. But, the
accused did not return to the shop for handing over the empty bottles
and for collecting Rs.80/-. Another independent witness i.e., Pw-6
states that on the date of offence at about relevant time, he found
the accused coming with two toddy bottles and keeping them near
the electrical pole by removing small bushes. As such, we have no
hesitation to come to a conclusion that the deceased was last seen
in the company of the accused on 08.02.2015 at about 6.30 P.M.
16. The next circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the
recovery of M.O-1-ear studs belonging to the deceased. The
evidence of Investigating Officer-Pw-13 show that the accused
confessed stating that he has handed over the ear studs-M.O-1 to
his wife Radhamma. On the basis of said confession, Pw-13 went to
the house of accused at Tirupati and questioned the wife of the
accused. Immediately, she informed him stating that the said ear
studs were pledged in the shop of Pw-8 and to that effect she
produced a pawn ticket-Ex.P-3. Immediately, Pw-13 went to the
shop of Pw-8 and enquired about the ear studs-M.O-1 by showing
pawn ticket-Ex.P-3. Pw-8 handed over M.O-1 to Pw-13. Thereafter,
Pw-13 conducted test identification of M.O-1 with Pw-9. On
KSR, J &SRK, J
26.02.2015, Pw-9 conducted identification parade of M.O-1 in which,
Pw-1 identified the ear studs belonging to her mother. As such, the
prosecution is able to prove the recovery of M.O-1 at the instance of
the accused. In the above circumstances by the evidence of Pws-1
and 2, the prosecution is able to prove the circumstance of last seen
theory apart from the evidence of Pws-3 and 6, who are the
independent witnesses, to show that the accused purchased two
bottles of toddy and kept at the scene of offence. In addition to that,
the prosecution is also established the factum of recovery of stolen
article-M.O-1 at the instance of the accused. Pw-8 is the owner of
the shop, where the ear studs were pledged, also show that the wife
of accused pledged those ear studs in his shop and Ex.P-3- pawn
ticket stood in the name of the wife of the accused.
17. Viewed from any angle, all the circumstances and the
evidence of prosecution witnesses, point out the guilt towards
Accused alone. Except the Accused, no other person has got any
opportunity to kill the deceased.
18. On the above analysis and having carefully examined the case
in its entirety, in the considered opinion of this court, the prosecution
has proved the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond reasonable
doubt. Therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial
KSR, J &SRK, J
court needs no interference. Hence, there are no merits in the
present Criminal Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
19. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal is dismissed by
confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, Anantapur District, in Sessions
Case No.435 of 2015, dated 28.10.2015
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
______________________________
JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
Date: 01.08.2024
RSI/TSNR
KSR, J &SRK, J
163 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
Criminal Appeal No.1197 of 2016
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)
Date: 01.08.2024
RSI/TSNR
