Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Annam Venkatesh., vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep Pp., on 27 June, 2024

Author: K.Suresh Reddy

Bench: K Suresh Reddy

                                  1
                                                              KSR, J & SRK, J
                                                       Crl.A.No.928 of 2016



APHC010144202016


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


             THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE
                 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                 PRESENT

       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
                                  AND
    THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY


                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 928/2016

Between:

Annam Venkatesh.

                                                    ...APPELLANT

                                 AND

State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep Pp

                                                ...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant:

   1. J SREELAKSHMI

   2. LEGAL AID

Counsel for the Respondent:

   1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following:
                                    2
                                                                  KSR, J & SRK, J
                                                           Crl.A.No.928 of 2016




                          JUDGMENT

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

Accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.44 of 2016 on the file

of the Court of XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur

District, is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal. He along

with his mother i.e., Accused No.2 were tried by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge under five (05) charges. The first charge

was under Section 498-A IPC against Accused No.1, the second

charge was under Section 304-B IPC against Accused No.1, the

third charge was under Section 302 IPC against Accused No.1, the

fourth charge was under Section 201 IPC against Accused No.1 and

the last charge was under Section 201 IPC against Accused No.2.

2. Substance of the charge is that Accused No.1 used to harass

his wife, by name Annam Koteswaramma @ Rupa (hereinafter

referred to as the deceased), subjected her to cruelty, demanding

her to bring additional dowry and on 24.09.2015 he caused her

death by pressing her neck with force and by throttling her and to

screen the evidence, he tied the body to a saree and hanged the

body to a ceiling fan, thereby committed offences punishable under

Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 and 201 IPC. After completion of trial,

the learned Additional Sessions Judge while acquitting Accused

KSR, J & SRK, J

No.2 for the charge levelled against her, convicted the Accused

No.1 under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of two (02) years. The learned Additional

Sessions Judge further convicted Accused No.1 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 suffer Simple

Imprisonment for a period of three (03) months. The learned

Additional Sessions Judge also convicted Accused No.1 under

Section 304-B IPC of course, no separate sentence was awarded as

he was sentenced to imprisonment for "LIFE" under Section 302

IPC. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run

concurrently.

3. Heard Smt. J. Sreelakshmi, learned counsel for the appellant

as well as Sri. Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Public

Prosecutor.

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

witnesses, is as follows:-

Accused Nos.1 and 2 are residents of Narasaraopet town,

Accused No.2 is the mother of Accused No.1. Accused No.1 was

working as a clerk in a local vegetable market. The marriage

KSR, J & SRK, J

between the Accused No.1 and deceased was performed on

31.01.2013 at Bapatla. PW-1 is the father, PW-2 is the mother of the

deceased, PW-3 is the cousin of PW-1 and PW-4 is the brother-in-

law of PW-1. The parents of the deceased are residents of Bapatla

Town. At the time of marriage, PW-1 paid an amount of

Rs.1,10,000/- to the Accused No.1 towards dowry apart from giving

house hold articles. After marriage, the deceased joined matrimonial

home at Narasaraopet. Three months after the marriage, Accused

No.1 and the deceased went to Bapatla, where Accused No.1 fell ill

due to Dengue fever. Accused No.1 and the deceased remained at

the house of PWs-1 and 2 for a period of two (02) months and

thereafter Accused No.1 left for Narasaraopet, leaving the deceased

at the house of her parents. Subsequently, after six (06) months,

Accused No.1 set up his family at Narasaraopet along with the

deceased. After the deceased joining at Narasaraopet, she informed

PW-1 over phone stating that Accused No.1 is ill-treating her and

demanding her to bring more money towards additional dowry. After

sometime, PW-6-caste elder telephoned to PW-1 and informed him

that both the accused are harassing the deceased. Having come to

know the same, PW-1 went to Narasaraopet and placed the matter

before the elders-PWs-6 and 8. The elders chastised the accused.

KSR, J & SRK, J

PWs-6 and 8 advised Accused Nos.1 and 2 to look after the

deceased well. Thereafter, the couple were sent to Ponnur, where

the senior paternal uncle and aunt of Accused No.1 are staying.

There also, the accused used to ill-treat the deceased having

addicted to alcohol. PWs-9 and 6 admonished the accused and

advised them to lead happy marital life. Two (02) months thereafter,

the couple shifted to their residence to Karampudi, where the cousin

of Accused No.1 was staying with family. Accused No.1 and the

deceased stayed for a period of six (06) months. Thereafter,

Accused No.1 again started ill-treating the deceased. Again, the

couple shifted to Narasaraopet. On 24.09.2015, the Accused No.1

came to the house in a drunken state. The Accused also did not use

to attend for his work. The deceased quarrelled with the Accused

No.1 for consuming alcohol repeatedly and the accused left the

house and returned at 7.15 P.M on the same day and beat the

deceased. He hold the neck of the deceased and thrashed her to

the wall, pressed her neck forcibly. During the course of galata, the

deceased pulled the shirt of the appellant and two buttons of the shirt

of the accused were fallen down. But, in spite of the same, the

appellant forcibly hold her throat and made her to fell down, which

led to instantaneous death. Blood was oozing from the nose of the

KSR, J & SRK, J

deceased and having confirmed that she died, the appellant picked

out a saree, tied one end to her neck and other end to the ceiling fan

and hanged the body. Thereafter, Accused No.1 went out and again

consumed alcohol and came back to the house at about 8.30 P.M.

He cut the saree into two pieces and removed the knots from the

neck and kept the body on the ground. Again, he came out of the

house by closing the doors and moved here and there till mid night

and went to the house of his mother i.e., Accused No.2 at about 1.00

A.M and informed her about the death of the deceased. He wrapped

his torned shirt in a paper and kept in the house of Accused No.2

and brought his mother to his house. Then, Accused No.2

telephoned PW-3 about the death of the deceased. Immediately,

PW-3 informed the same to PW-1, PW-1 telephoned to PW-6, who

confirmed the death of the deceased. Then, PWs-1 and 2 along with

their relatives went to Narasaraopet and found the dead body of the

deceased in the house of Accused No.1 with injuries. Having seen

the dead body with injuries, PW-1 went to the police station at about

9.00 P.M on 25.09.2015 and gave a report.

5. PW-16-Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet II Town Police

Station received Ex.P-1 from PW-1 and registered a case in

Cr.No.112 of 2015 under Section 304-B, 498-A and 201 IPC and

KSR, J & SRK, J

issued copies of FIRs to all the concerned. Ex.P-14 is the copy of

FIR. Having received the information from PW-16, the Dy.SP,

Narasaraopet, who is examined as PW-18, took up further

investigation. He visited the scene of offence and prepared

observation report in the presence of mediators PWs-11 and 12.

Ex.P-15 is the observation report. He also seized silk saree-M.O-1,

two shirt buttons-M.O-2 and knife with wooden handle-M.O-3 under

the said observation report. He prepared rough sketch at the scene

of offence. He got the scene photographed through PW-13.

Photographs were marked as Ex.P-8. He shifted the dead body to

Area Hospital, Narasaraopet for Post-Mortem examination. PW-14-

Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Narasaraopet conducted

autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He found four external

injuries on the body of the deceased. He opined the cause of death

was due to "Asphyxia as a result of strangulation". He issued Post-

Mortem Certificate- Ex.P-9. He did not find any ligature mark on the

neck of the deceased. On 26.09.2015, PW-18 visited the hospital

and recorded statements of PWs-1 to 5 and another. He issued a

requisition to PW-17 to conduct inquest over the dead body of the

deceased. PW-17 held inquest over the dead body in the presence

of mediators PW-18 and another. Ex.P-13 is the inquest report.

KSR, J & SRK, J

After inquest, PW-18 recorded statements of PWs-6 to 10 and

others. On 30.09.2015 PW-18 sent the Viscera and Hyoid bone to

RFSL, Guntur for medical examination. The RFSL report is marked

as Ex.P-11. On 05.10.2015, PW-18 arrested both the accused in the

presence of PWs-11 and 12. On the basis of the confession made

by Accused No.1, he recovered the torned shirt-M.O-4 from the

house of Accused No.2 under a panchanama-Ex.P-17. Both the

accused were remanded to judicial custody. After completion of

investigation, PW-18 filed charge sheet.

6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 18

and marked Exs.P-1 to 17 apart from exhibiting M.Os-1 to 4.

7. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,

they denied the incriminating material found against them.

8. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned

Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused as

aforesaid while acquitting Accused No.2.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the

conviction under Section 302 IPC as well as under Section

304-B IPC are illegal. He further contended that framing of separate

charges under Sections 302 and 304-B IPC itself is not proper as

KSR, J & SRK, J

304-B IPC can only be charged as an alternative charge for 302 IPC.

She further contended that absolutely there is no eye witness to the

alleged incident. The prosecution rests its case only on the

circumstantial evidence. She further contends that the prosecution

has not adduced any evidence to show that the accused murdered

the deceased.

10. On the other hand, Sri. Soora Venkata Sainath, learned

Special Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed contending inter alia

that the evidence of PWs-1 to 9 clearly show that the Accused No.1

used to harass and ill-treat the deceased oftenly having addicted to

consuming alcohol and also by demanding additional dowry. The

evidence of PWs-1 to 9 has categorically demonstrated the

harassment made by the appellant. He further contends that the

accused and the deceased used to reside under one roof and as per

the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is for

Accused No.1 to explain as to how the deceased died in his house.

He also further contends that instead of giving explanation, Accused

No.1 gave a false version weaving a story as if the deceased

committed suicide by hanging herself to a ceiling fan. As such, as

per the provisions of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, apart from

non-explanation, the accused gave a false information to the

KSR, J & SRK, J

prosecution party. In support of his contention, he relied on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gajanan Dashrath

Kharate Vs State of Maharashtra1.

11. We have gone through the entire material available on record.

12. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship of the

parties. It is also not in dispute that the accused and the deceased

are residing in Narasaraopet on the date of incident. So far as

Accused No.2 is concerned, she is residing separately. The

evidence of PWs-1 to 9 has clinchingly established the factum of

harassment and cruelty caused to the deceased by Accused No.1.

The evidence of prosecution witnesses further disclosed that the

accused and the deceased resided in various places i.e., Bapatla,

Karampudi, Ponnur and Narasaraopet with a hope that Accused

No.1 will change his attitude towards the deceased. Finally, the

couple started living at Narasaraopet. On the fateful day, at about

7.15 P.M, the Accused attacked the deceased by holding her neck

and pressed forcibly, due to which, the deceased died on the spot.

Having confirmed about the death of the deceased, he created a

scene as if the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself to a

(2016) 4 SCC 604:(2016) 2 SCC (Cri) 436

KSR, J & SRK, J

ceiling fan. Thereafter, he went to his mother Accused No.2 and

informed about the death of the deceased. It is only thereafter, the

prosecution party came to know about the death of the deceased.

Having visited the house of the accused and having found the dead

body of the deceased, PW-1 set the criminal law into motion by

giving a report to PW-16. Having committed the offence, Accused

No.1 escaped from the scene and he could be arrested only on

05.10.2015. It is only on the confession made by Accused No.1,

PW-18 recovered the torned shirt-M.O-4, which was kept in the

house of Accused No.2. The evidence of PWs-1 to 9 clinchingly

established that it is the Accused No.1, who caused the death of the

deceased. As per the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian

Evidence Act, it is for the accused to explain as to how the deceased

died in his house. Apart from that, the Accused No.1 came up with a

false explanation, weaving a story as if the deceased committed

suicide by hanging herself to a ceiling fan. In Gajanan Dashrath

Kharate Vs State of Maharashtra the Hon'ble Supreme Court held

as follows:-

"As seen from the evidence, appellant Gajanan and his father Dashrath and mother Mankarnabai were living together. On 07.04.2002, mother of the appellant- accused had gone to another Village Dahigaon. The prosecution has proved presence of the appellant at his

KSR, J & SRK, J

home on the night of 07.04.2002. Therefore, the appellant is duty-bound to explain as to how the death of his father was caused. When an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on the accused to offer. On the date of the occurrence, when the accused and his father Dashrath were in the house and when the father of the accused was found dead, it was for the accused to offer an explanation as to how his father sustained injuries. When the accused could not offer any explanation as to the homicidal death of his father, it is a strong circumstance against the accused that he is responsible for the commission of the crime".

13. In the case on hand also, Accused No.1 and the deceased

alone are residing in the house and there is no third person, as such,

the accused instead of giving explanation as to how the deceased

died, came up with a false explanation. As such, the said

circumstance also goes against the accused.

14. Viewed from any angle, all the circumstances and the

evidence of prosecution witnesses point out the guilt towards

Accused No.1 alone. Except Accused No.1, no other person has got

any grievance to kill the deceased.

KSR, J & SRK, J

15. On the above analyses and having carefully examined the

case in its entirety, in the considered opinion of this court, the