Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Maturi Venkata Manikyala Rao, E.G.Dt., vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 6 August, 2024

Author: K.Suresh Reddy

Bench: K Suresh Reddy

                                  1
                                                               KSR, J &SRK, J
                                                       Crl.A.No.1320 of 2016



APHC010002962016

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                                       [3486]
                                AT AMARAVATI


               TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH 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: 1320/2016

Between:

Maturi Venkata Manikyala Rao, E.g.dt.,              ...APPELLANT

                                AND

The State Of Ap Rep Pp                         ...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant:

   1. T S RAYALU

   2. LEGAL AID

Counsel for the Respondent:

   1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following:
                                      2
                                                                     KSR, J &SRK, J
                                                             Crl.A.No.1320 of 2016




                             JUDGMENT

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)

Sole Accused in Sessions Case No.328 of 2015 on the file of

the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, is the

appellant in the present Criminal Appeal. He was tried and

convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section

302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for "LIFE" and also

to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment

for a period of two (02) years.

2. Substance of the charge is that on 17.11.2014 at about

1.30 P.M, the accused hacked his wife by name Maturi Sunitha

(hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") with M.O-3-Kinfe in Ravi

Infotech Computer Centre belonging to Pw-8, causing her

instantaneous death, thereby committed offence punishable under

Section 302IPC.

3. Case of the prosecution, as per the evidence of prosecution

witnesses, is as follows:-

All the material prosecution witnesses are residents of

Pamarru Village. The deceased was also a resident of the same

Village. The accused is a resident of Kunduru Village. Pw-1 is the

KSR, J &SRK, J

younger brother of the deceased, Pw-3 is the mother of the

deceased and Pws-4 and 6 are the relatives of the deceased

respectively. The marriage of the deceased was performed with the

accused in the year-2009. At the time of marriage, an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- was given to the accused apart from six (06)

sovereigns of gold. The accused was working as a Hindi pandit at

that time and both the accused and the deceased set up their family

at Hyderabad. After six (06) months, the deceased conceived and

she was brought from Hyderabad to Pamarru. Thereafter, she gave

birth to a male child. Thereafter, the accused left his job and came

down to Kunduru Village to his parents' house. The deceased was

sent to the accused to Kunduru Village to lead matrimonial life after

providing "sare". The accused used to ill-treat the deceased,

demanding additional dowry and also used to suspect her fidelity.

Thereafter, the deceased left the matrimonial home and she started

living with her parents' i.e., Pws-1 and 3. Unable to bare the

harassment, the deceased gave a report to the police and a case in

Cr.No.63 of 2014 was registered against the accused under Section

498-A IPC at Pamarru Police Station. In connection with the above

crime, the accused was arrested. Thereafter, the accused filed

O.P.No.66 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge,

KSR, J &SRK, J

Ramachandrapuram seeking restitution of conjugal rites. As the said

case was coming up for filing counter on 10.11.2014, Pw-5- an

Advocate filed vakalat on behalf of the deceased. On 16.11.2014,

the accused telephoned to Pw-5 and threatened him in an uncouth

language and asked him to advice the deceased to join with him

otherwise he would kill the deceased and also Pw-5. Then, Pw-5

advised the deceased, Pws-1 and 3 to be more careful. The

deceased was learning computer course in Ravi Infotech centre at

Ramachandrapuram, which is owned by Pw-8. Pw-2 is working as a

faculty in the said computer centre. Pw-1 used to accompany the

deceased to the computer centre due to fear of the accused. The

accused also joined in the said computer centre for learning

computer course.

4. On 17.11.2014 at about 1.30 P.M, Pw-1 took the deceased to

the computer centre and dropped her there. Then, he went to the

medical shop in Stalin Hospital and purchased medicines and

returned back. When he came to the computer centre, which is

situated in the first floor, he found the accused hacking the

deceased. When Pw-1 tried to intervene, the accused pushed him

aside and fled away along with knife. Due to the said attack, the

KSR, J &SRK, J

deceased died on the spot in a pool of blood. Immediately, Pw-1

went to police station and gave a report-Ex.P-1 to the police.

5. Pw-12-Sub- Inspector of Police, Ramachandrapuram Police

Station received Ex.P-1 at about 3.00 P.M from Pw-1 and registered

a case in Cr.No.184 of 2014 under Section 302 IPC and issued

copies of FIRs to all the concerned. Ex.P-10 is the copy of FIR.

Having received information, Pw-13-Inspector of Police along with

Pw-12 went to the scene of offence, situated at Ravi Infotech Centre.

He prepared observation report-Ex.P-5 in the presence of Pw-10 and

another. He also prepared rough sketch-Ex.P-11 at the scene of

offence. He got the scene photographed through Pw-7.

Photographs were marked as Ex.P-2. He seized M-Os-1 and 2

i.e., blood stained ceramic tails and controlled ceramic tails at the

scene of offence. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of

Pws-1 to 6 and others. He also conducted inquest over the dead

body in the presence of Pw-10 and another. Inquest report was

marked as Ex.P-6. He forwarded the dead body to the Government

General Hospital, Ramachandrapuram for Post-Mortem examination.

6. Pw-11, Medical Superintendent, Area Hospital,

Ramachandrapuram conducted autopsy over the dead body. He

opined the cause of death was due to "multiple injuries with severe

KSR, J &SRK, J

haemorrhage and shock". He issued Post-Mortem Certificate-

Ex.P-9. On the same day, Pw-12 arrested the accused near

Government Hospital, Ramachandrapuram in the presence of

Pw-10. On the basis of the confession made by the accused,

M.O-3-Knife was recovered from the bushes at Junior College

ground, Ramachandrapuram. He also seized M.Os-4 and 5

i.e., shirt of the accused and button of the shirt of the accused. He

also seized M.Os-6 to 11 wearing apparels of the deceased. He

sent the material objects to RFSL, Vijayawada. After receiving of

RFSL report, Post-Mortem Certificate-Ex.P-9 and after completion of

investigation, Pw-13 filed charge sheet.

7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 13

and marked Exs.P-1 to 13 and also exhibited M.Os-1 to 11.

8. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,

he denied the incriminating material found against him.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well

as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.

KSR, J &SRK, J

10. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record.

11. The relationship between the accused and the deceased are

not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the marriage of the

accused was performed with the deceased in the year-2009. It is

also not in dispute that on the basis of the report given by the

deceased, a case in Cr.No.63 of 2014 of Pamarru Police Station was

registered against the accused under Section 498-A IPC. It is also

not in dispute that the accused was arrested in the said crime. It is

also not in dispute that the accused filed O.P.No.66 of 2014 on the

file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram seeking

restitution of conjugal rites.

12. Coming to the actual attack on the deceased, Pw-1, who is

none other than the younger brother of the deceased, has

categorically stated that on the fateful day at about 1.30 P.M, he took

the deceased to Ravi Infotech centre and dropped her as usual. He

went to Stalin hospital and purchased some medicines and returned

back to the computer centre. At that juncture, he found the accused

hacking the deceased with M.O-3-knife. When he tried to intervene,

the accused pushed him aside and ran away along with knife.

Though the defence cross-examined Pw-1, nothing adverse has

been elicited from his evidence. Apart from the evidence of Pw-1,

KSR, J &SRK, J

there is evidence of independent witness i.e., Pw-2, who is working

as faculty in the said computer centre. His evidence disclosed that

on 17.11.2014 at about 1.30 P.M, the deceased attended for classes

in the computer centre. His evidence further disclosed that at the

same time, the accused also attended for computer classes in the

said computer centre. Suddenly, the accused took out a knife and

hacked the deceased on her neck, thereby causing her

instantaneous death. As already pointed out, Pw-2 is working as a

faculty in the said computer centre owned by Pw-8. Though this

witness was also cross examined by the defence, nothing has been

elicited in favour of the defence. The evidence of Pws-3, 4 and 6

discloses the "motive" on the part of the accused to kill the

deceased. All these three witnesses have specifically stated that the

accused used to harass and ill-treat the deceased, demanding

additional dowry and also suspected her fidelity. As already pointed

out, Pw-3, who is none other than the mother of the deceased and

Pws-4 and 6 are relatives of the deceased. The prosecution also

adduced the evidence of Pw-5, who is a practicing advocate, who is

defending the deceased in O.P.No.66 of 2014. Pw-5 in his evidence

has categorically stated that on 16.11.2014, the accused telephoned

to him and threatened him with dire consequences. Pw-5 has also

KSR, J &SRK, J

furnished his mobile number as well as mobile number of the

accused. As such, the prosecution is able to prove the motive as

well as the actual attack on the part of the accused.

13. The ocular version spoken to by the prosecution witnesses

has also lent support from the medical evidence, adduced by the

prosecution through Pw-11. In the Post-Mortem report-Ex.P-9, the

doctor found the following injuries on the person of the deceased.

External injuries:-

1. A chopped wound of size 14*5*4 cms. extending from

posterior aspect of right ear externally upto right nasal alae

cutting the external pinna bone deep.

2. A chopped wound of size 10*6.5*6.5 cms. present at

middle of cervical region of neck exposing the cervical

spinal card, major blood vessels, nerves etc.

14. It is also elicited in the evidence of Pw-11 that the injuries on

the deceased were possible by the weapon like M.O-3. Of course,

M.O-3 was recovered from the bushes situated at Junior College,

Ramachandrapuram, which is a place accessible to one and all.

But, the evidence of Pws-1 to 6 clinchingly establish that it is the

KSR, J &SRK, J

accused, who attacked the deceased in broad daylight in the

computer centre, where number of persons present.

15. In view of the above facts and circumstances, in the

considered opinion of this Court, there are no illegalities or

irregularities in the judgment, which is impugned in this Criminal

Appeal.