IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
JAYASHANKAR BHUPALPALLY.
Tuesday, this the 24th day of February, 2026
Present:- Sri Agnoor Nagaraj, Assistant Sessions Judge, JS.Bhupalpally.
SC.No. 408 of 2022
(Old SC.No.307 of 2019)
Preliminarily registered case No.9/2019 committed by the Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani, in Cr.No.50/2017 of
PS., Mahadevpur for the offences U/secs.306, 498-A IPC r/w Sec.34 IPC.
Prosecution.Sri Md. Rafeeq, Addl., Public prosecutor, JS.Bhupalpally.
AccusedA1-Kalva Raju, S/o.Muthyalu @ Muthaiah, Age:30 years, Caste:Madiga, R/o.SC colony, Brahmanapalli (v). A2-Kalva Muthyalu @ Muthaiah, S/o.Maisaiah @ Mallaiah, Age:60 years, Caste:Madiga, R/o.SC Colony, Brahmanapalli (v). A3-Kalva Pochamma @ Pochu, W/o.Muthyalu @ Muthaiah, Age:55 years, Caste:Madiga, R/o.SC colony, Brahmanapalli (v). (Sri P.Vasunder, Advocate defended the accused)
Offences under sectionSec.306 IPC Punishment for abetment to commit suicide with a common intention. Sec.498-A IPC Punishment for penalizes cruelty by a husband or his relatives against a married woman with a common intention.
Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty
FindingA2 and A3 are found not guilty for the charges u/secs.498-A and 306 IPC and A1 found not guilty for the offences u/Secs.498-A and 306 IPC, but found him guilty for the offence u/sec.324 IPC.
2
Sentence or orderA1 is found guilty for the offence U/sec. 324 IPC and he is convicted U/Sec.235(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of (2) two years and he shall also pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rs. Three thousand only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for (6) six months for the offence U/sec.324 IPC. The remand period undergone by A1 as under trial prisoner shall be set off U/s 428 Cr.P.C.
@@@@@
This Sessions case is coming up for hearing before me on 06.02.2026 and upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS., Mahadevpur filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 in Crime No.50/2017 for the offences u/Secs.306, 498-A r/w 34 IPC.
2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that the marriage of Smt Shailaja was performed with A1 on 07.04.2010, but she did not beget any children out of wedlock. The A1 used to harass and torture her physically and mentally and also abusing her in filthy language every day in drunken state stating that she did not beget any children. A2 and A3 also used to harass her stating that she did not beget any children. Smt. Shailaja used to inform the same to her adoptive parents Pws.1 and 2. On 24.04.2017 at 7 p.m., A1 beat his wife Shailaja with a plastic water pipe, due to which she felt insult and consumed pesticide poison. Immediately, PW.4 along with A1 shifted her to
Government Hospital, Mahadevpur where the doctor gave first 3 aid and shifted her to MGM Hospital, Warangal. Before shifting her from the hospital, Mahadevpur, the doctor there i.e., Pw.10 recorded her dying declaration. Wherein she stated that she consumed poison as A1 beat her for money. After she was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal she died on the same day 10.10 p.m. In this regard, on the next day i.e., on 24.04.2017,
Pw.1 filed complaint before Pw.12.
3.On receipt of said complaint, Pw.12 registered a case in Crime
No.50/2017 for the offences u/Secs.306, 498-A r/w 34 IPC and issued a FIR Ex.P6. Later, he recorded the statement of Pw.1 and handed over the CD file to Pw.13. Pw.13 visited the MGM
Hospital, Warangal and secured the presence of Pws.5 and 6 and
Lw.9 and conducted inquest panchanma-Ex.P2 over the dead body of the deceased. He also recorded the statements of Pws.2 to 4, 7 and Lws.6 and 7. The Pw.13 got the dead body photographed through Lw.7. Later, he visited place of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama-Ex.P3 in the presence of Pws.8 and 9 and collected the wedding card of A1 and the deceased. The doctor Pw.11 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased has preserved the viscera for sending the same to chemical analysis and report. After receiving the chemical analysis report, he opined that the cause of death was due cardio-respiratory arrest due to consumption of organophosphate insecticide poison. Later, Pw.14 took up the investigation and verified the investigation done by Pws.12 and 13 and found it on correct lines. On 13.05.2017 at 11 a.m., he arrested A1 and on interrogation, he voluntarily confessed the offence, as such he effected the arrest of A1 and sent to court for remand. Subsequently, Pw.15 who assumed the regular charge of Police Station, Mahadevpur took up further investigation and verified the investigation done by Pws.12 to 14 and found it on correct lines. On 24.07.2019 at 10 a.m., he apprehended A2 and 4
A3 at their residence and on interrogation they voluntarily confessed the offence, as such their arrest was also effected and sent to court for remand. After completion of investigation, SI of
Police/Pw.15 filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 for the offences u/secs.498-A, 306 r/w 34 IPC.
4.The Addl.JMFC, Manthani took the cognizance u/secs.306, 498-
A r/w 34 IPC and committed the case to the Court of Sessions,
Karimnagar vide PRC.No.9/2019. The Hon’ble Sessions Judge,
Karimnagar took the case on file vide SC.No.307/2019 and made over the same to the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Manthani for disposal according to law.
5.On 21.04.2022 the Assistant Sessions Judge, Manthani framed the charges u/secs.498-A and 306 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A3, read over and explained to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.Meanwhile, due to bifurcation of Judicial Districts, the case has been transferred to the Court of Sessions at Bhupalpally. The
Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Bhupalpally renumbered the case as
SC.No.408/2022 and made over the same to this Court for
disposal according to law.
7.In support of its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 15 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P6 and got marked no material objects. The prosecution failed to produce Lws.6 and 7 stating that they are not residing in the given address, as such their evidence was closed.. LW.9 was given up by the learned Addl.PP.
8.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused were examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. They denied the same 5 and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence was closed.
9.Heard the arguments of learned Addl. PP and learned counsel for defence.
10.The learned Addl. PP has argued that in this case, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is consistent with regard to the harassment made by the accused against the deceased. Though
PW.7 one of the elders of the panchayath did not state the reason for the disputes between the A1 and deceased in his chief examination, but in the cross-examination, he volunteered that he came to know that due to disputes with her husband, the deceased committed suicide and he has also denied that the deceased committed suicide on her own as she did not beget any children and the accused are no way concerned with her suicide.
Here in this case, the doctor has recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. It is recorded in question and answer form and the dying declaration was made voluntarily by the deceased to the doctor, as such it is relevant u/sec.32 of Indian Evidence Act.
Except, questioning about the Pw.10 that he has not followed the question and answer form in writing the Ex.P4 and also not mentioning about mental condition of the deceased at the time of dying declaration, nothing is elicited to tear the dying declaration.
11.He has also argued that Pw.11 doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased has also found that there are injuries of 13 x 2 cms., and blood clots were present on the right thigh of the deceased which clearly shows that A1 beat her prior to the incident which clearly shows the abetment of the accused against the deceased. The Investigating Officers-PWs.12 to 15 have conducted the investigation in a proper way, except non 6 seizure of the plastic water pipe which said to have used by the
A1 in beating the deceased. He further argued that non seizure of the water pipe is not a sine quanonfor throwing out the entire case of the prosecution when the case of the prosecution is supported by the dying declaration. Further, the death of the deceased due to consumption of organophosphate due to harassment of the accused is not in dispute; Hence, the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges u/secs.498-A, 306 r/w 34
IPC. Hence, he prayed to convict the accused.
12.On the other hand, the learned counsel for defence vehemently argued that there are no eye witnesses to the incident including PWs.1 to 3. PW.4 has only shifted the victim to hospital along with A1. Further, there is a delay of 24 hours in reporting the matter. The doctor who said to have recorded the dying declaration was not in accordance with the procedure as mentioned in Rule 33 of Criminal Rules of Practice. Even if the said dying declaration is considered, it is totally different to that of the case of the prosecution. As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased was harassed by the accused as she was not begetting children. But, coming to the said declaration, the accused beat her due to money dispute, which is totally against the case of the prosecution. As such, the entire case of the prosecution is false. The dying declaration suffers from the procedure lapses of recording the statement in question and answer form which is mandatory as per the judgments of the
Hon’ble Apex Court, as such it cannot be believed.
13.He further argued that the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased deposed that the rigor mortis will start two hours after the death. But in this case, the postmortem was conducted 17 hours after the death. As such, 7 the report of the PW.11 does not clearly indicate that there were injuries on the dead body of the deceased as the dead body was already stood decomposed. None of the Investigating Officers have seized the plastic pipe or poison bottle which are incriminating evidence in this case. None of the Investigating
Officers have also not examined any of the elders of the panchayaths and no written resolutions were passed in the panchayaths. Further, there is no abetment of the deceased as defined u/Sec.107 IPC to attract the offence u/Sec.306 IPC. As per the case of the prosecution the deceased died due to infertility and not begetting the children which was clearly admitted by her own father PW.3. Hence, the case of the prosecution bristles with major contradictions and improvements and also suffers from serious lacunas with regard to non-seizure of incriminating material and the dying declaration also cannot be believed.
Hence, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt against any of the accused for the charges levelled against them. Hence, he prayed to acquit the accused.
14.Now the point for consideration is :
Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused/A1 to A3 for the charges u/Secs.498-A and 306 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
15.POINT: Pws.5 and 6 are the mediators for inquest panchanama. Pw.5 deposed that in the year 2017, one day deceased Shailaja committed suicide by consuming poison due to family disputes. In that regard, a case was registered against the accused and police conducted inquest panchanama on the dead body of the deceased at MGM Hospital, Warangal vide Ex.P2 wherein she signed and Lw.9 and Pw.6 were also present at that time. In the cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that 8 due to stomach pain Shailaja committed suicide. Pw.6 another mediator has also stated in the same lines and she further stated that the deceased consumed poison due to harassment of her in- laws. She also denied the suggestion in the cross-examination that Shailaja committed suicide due to stomach pain.
16.Pws.8 and 9 are the mediators for scene of offence panchanama. Pw.8 stated that about 7 or 8 years ago, one day in the evening, police came to the house of accused at
Brahmanapalli where the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison and police conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence and in the presence of Pw.9. They both signed the panchanama. In the cross-examination, he stated that by the time of signing Ex.P3, it was drafted by the police and he signed on it at the request of police, however he has failed to give the boundaries of the house of A1, except the
Western boundary. Pw.9 another mediator for scene of offence has clearly deposed about conducting of scene of offence panchanama by the police in the month of April, 2017 at the house of accused at Brahmanapalli. Though, he was cross examined by the learned counsel for defence, nothing is elicited to dispute the conducting of panchanama in his presence.
17.Pw.11-doctor who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, deposed that on 24.04.2017 in between 3.15 p.m., to 4.45 p.m., he conducted the postmortem over the dead body of
Smt Kalva Shailaja and found two anti-mortem parallel contusions over mid right thigh with size 13 x 2 cms., on cut sections and blood clots were present. He sent the viscera to the FSL and also found mucosa deeply congested and there was smell of pesticide.
After receiving the FSL report, he gave final opinion vide Ex.P5.
From the evidence of Pws.5, 6, 8, 9 and 11, it is clear that the death of the deceased due to consumption of organophosphate 9 poison is not in dispute and she committed suicide. Death of the deceased due to consumption of poison is not in dispute. Now it is to be seen whether such commission of suicide is due to harassment of accused and abetment thereof.
18.In this case, A1 to A3 are charged with the offence u/Sec.498-
A, 306 r/w 34 IPC. PWs.1 and 2 the adoptive parents of the deceased deposed that they adopted Shailaja who is the daughter of PW.3 as they have no children and 14 years ago they performed the marriage of Shailaja with A1. PW.1 further deposed that 7 years after the marriage, Shailaja committed suicide by consuming poison as A1 beat Shailaja with a plastic pipe alleging that she did not conceive children, as such she committed suicide. In that regard, he filed a complaint-Ex.P1
before the police. PW.2 deposed that accused/A1 used to beat
her daughter alleging that she did not conceive and he beat her daughter with a water pipe due to which she consumed pesticide poison. PW.3 natural father of the deceased also deposed that in the year 2010 PW.1 performed the marriage of his daughter
Shailaja with A1. According to him, A1 used to beat his daughter as she did not conceive. His daughter used to inform the same to him. According to him, due to beatings and harassment of A1, his daughter consumed poison and committed suicide.
19.PW.4 has only stated about shifting of the deceased on his motorcycle with the help of A1 to Government Hospital,
Mahadevpur when she consumed poison. PW.7 one of the elders of panchayath has deposed that the marriage of Shailaja was performed with A1 about 10 to 15 years ago. About 7 or 8 years ago one day, when there were disputes between A1 and the deceased, she consumed poison and died and he does not know the details of the disputes.
10
20.PWs.1 to 3 are none other than the adoptive and natural parents of the deceased and though Pw.7 one of the elders of the panchayath has deposed about commission of suicide by the deceased he has not stated anything about against the accused, except that there were disputes between the deceased and A1.
Even according to PWs.1 to 3 also, A1 used to beat and harass the deceased and he beat her with plastic pipe. From the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 and 7 nothing is alleged against A2 and
A3. Even as per the dying declaration said to have recorded by
PW.10 vide Ex.P4, the deceased has not stated anything against
A2 and A3. She has only stated that she consumed poison as her husband beat her in respect of money issue. Hence, there is no evidence against A2 and A3 with regard to any of the charges levelled against them. Hence, I find that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused/A2 and A3 for any of the charges levelled against them and they are entitled for acquittal.
21.Coming to the complicity of A1 in the offence levelled against him. PWs.1 to 3 have only stated A1 used to harass her alleging that she is not begetting children. PW.1 stated that 7 years after marriage, the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison as A1 beat her daughter with a plastic pipe alleging that she did not conceive the children. PW.2 has also stated in the same lines. PW.3 also corroborated the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 with regard to the harassment of A1 and beating her stating that his wife did not conceive.
22.Section 498-A IPC reads thus:
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
11
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
23.As per the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 it is their allegation that the accused used to harass her and beat her as she did not conceive.
But, coming to the dying declaration of the deceased as recorded by PW.10 in Ex.P4, she stated that she consumed poison as the accused beat her in respect of money issue. It is the argument of the learned counsel for defence that the dying declaration recorded by PW.10 is not valid as it was not recorded in question and answer form and the doctor has also not mentioned about the mental fitness of the deceased at the time of recording the dying declaration. In this regard, PW.10 deposed that on 23.04.2017 the patient by name Kalva Shailaja was brought by her parents and admitted in Community Health Center,
Mahadevpur and at that time the patient consumed poison and gasping, as such he recorded the dying declaration in the presence of Sub Inspector of Police, Mahadevpur. He made preliminary enquiry with the patient and she stated that due to money disputes, her husband beat her due to which she consumed poison. Ex.P4 is the same dying declaration which was recorded in question and answer form. She stated about her residence particulars, husband name and she has no children and the reason for consuming the poison when the doctor asked her 12 in question form. Ex.P4 was recorded in question and answer form. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for defence that the dying declaration was not recorded in question and answer form; is false.
24.Coming to the non mentioning of mental fitness in the dying declaration, Pw.10 has admitted that he has not mentioned about the same. But according to him, at that time the patient was gasping which made him to record dying declaration. In the cross-examination, he has clarified that before recording the dying declaration, the patient did not talk to her relatives.
25.Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act reads thus:
Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant. When it relates to cause of death; or is made in course of business; or against interest of maker; or gives opinion as to public right or custom, or matters of general interest; or relates to existence of relationship; or is made in will or deed relating to family affairs; or in document relating to transaction mentioned in section 13, clause (a); or is made by several persons, and expresses feelings relevant to matter in question. Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the case appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases:
(1) When it relates to cause of death - When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted 13 in his death, in cases in which the cause of that persons death comes into question. Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question.
26.Section 32 (1) of Indian Evidence Act deals with the statements with regard to the persons who cannot be called subsequently as the witnesses especially when relates to the cause of death.
27.In Jelly Chinna Buchaiah V/s. State of AP reported in 2009 (2)
ALT Criminal 315 (Division Bench) AP in a case dealing with the offence u/Sec.302 IPC while dealing with the validity of statement of deceased made to the witnesses. In the said case when
PWs.2, 3 and 5 rushed to the place of offence on hearing the cries and found the deceased were alive and on their questioning, he informed them that accused stabbed him with a knife. In the said circumstances the Hon’ble High Court has held that the oral statement given to the deceased by PWs.2, 3 and 5 would amount to a statement made within the meaning of
Section 32 (1) of Indian Evidence Act and such statement is admissible. It is also held that once statement u/Sec.32 of
Evidence Act is found to be correct and not outcome of tutoring or prompting, then it can be based upon to convict the accused even without any corroboration.
28.In Lakhan V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal
No.2297/2009, dt.09.08.2010, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that:
“if the dying declaration is true made voluntarily by the deceased, the conviction can be based solely on 14 the said dying declaration without any further corroboration and it is also held that it is neither a rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be relied upon without corroboration”.
29.In this case also, though Ex.P4 recorded by the doctor it can be said that, it is a voluntarily statement made by the deceased to PW.10. There is no hard and fast rule that the dying declaration should be recorded by the Magistrate only, but the procedure for recording the dying declaration by a Magistrate is mentioned in Rule 33 of Criminal Rules of Practice. According to
PW.10, at the time when the deceased was brought to the hospital, she was gasping as she consumed poison. In those circumstances, the doctor made a preliminary enquiry with regard to the consumption of poison, as such she stated the reason for consuming poison. But however, the doctor has recorded the same in question and answer form.
30.The dying declaration is called as “Latern Mortem” which means a word said before the death. It is settled law that “Truth sits on the lips of a person who is about to die” it means that a person who is about to die will not lie. In this case also, though the case of the prosecution is a different that A1 used to harass the deceased on the ground that she did not conceive, however the voluntary statement made by the deceased to PW.10 that she consumed poison as A1 beat her in respect of money issue.
31.In the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in Jelly
Chinna Buchaiah reported above and also the evidence of PW.10 that before recording the dying declaration, the deceased did not talk to her relatives and PW.10 recorded the dying declaration as she was gasping due to consumption of poison. Thus, on enquiry she made voluntary statement to the doctor, as such the said 15 statement can be considered as a voluntary statement of the deceased made to PW.10 and it can be believed to the extent of the reason for consuming poison by the deceased.
32.Coming to the evidence of Pws.1 to 3, A1 beat the deceased with plastic water pipe. However, none of the PWs.12 to 15 the
Investigating Officers have seized the water pipe and also the poison bottle. Since the death of the deceased by way of consuming poison is not in dispute as discussed above non seizure of the poison bottle is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
33.Coming to non seizure of water pipe, it is settled law that the latches on the part of the investigation officer cannot be given benefit to the accused. In C. Muniappan and others Vs., State of
Tamilnadu reported in 2010(9) SCC 567, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
"There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the 1.0 and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal.
If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of 16 the investigating agency or omissions, etc., which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation."
34. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Shyamlal Ghosh V/s. State of
West Bengal reported in 2012 (7) SCC 646 has held that:
“even if there are any minor discrepancies, they cannot be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of trustworthiness.
Minor contradictions, omissions or inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and they should not be taken as a ground to reject the case of the prosecution unless the omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfullness and credit worthiness of the witnesses”.
35.In Rakesh and another V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in 2021 (7) SCC 188 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that recovery of weapon is not a sine quanon for convicting an accused and the non recovery of weapon is not a ground to reject 17 the entire case of the prosecution, when there is consistent ocular evidence of eye witness which is trustworthy.
36.In this case, there is a dying declaration of the deceased with regard to beating her by A1, as such the non-recovery of water pipe by the Investigating Officers PWs.12 to 15; is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further, the said non recovery by the
Investigating Officers is their lapse and such lapse cannot be a ground for rejecting the entire case of the prosecution in the light of the judgments referred above.
37.Coming to the argument of the learned counsel for defence that there is a delay of 24 hours in filing the complaint, as seen from the complaint-Ex.P1, the incident of consuming poison by the deceased was occurred on 23.04.2017 at 7 p.m., and she died on the same day at 10.10 p.m., at MGM hospital, Warangal and the complaint was lodged on the next day in the morning at 9.30 a.m. Thus the argument of the learned counsel for defence that there is a delay of 24 hours in filing the complaint is utterly false and cannot be considered. In this case, the deceased was initially shifted to Community Health Center, Mahadevpur for her treatment immediately after consuming poison and she was shifted to hospital, Mahadevpur after 7 p.m., and as evident from the cross examination of PW.10 he recorded her dying declaration at 7.30 p.m., and she was shifted from Mahadevpur to MGM hospital, Warangal which is almost more than 100 kms., away from Mahadevpur, which clearly shows that by the time she reached the hospital she died.
38.The every person will try to give priority to the life of a person rather than rushing to the Police Station to file complaint. In this case, the complaint was lodged on the next day in the morning itself at PS., Mahadevpur by PW.1. As seen from Ex.P6 the FIR 18 was immediately dispatched on the same day on 24.04.2017 at 10.30 a.m., duly obtaining the thumb impression of PW.1 on the
FIR. Thus, there is no delay in filing the complaint. The Hon’ble
Apex Court in Sahebrao and another V/s. State of Maharastra reported in 2006 (9) SCC 794, has held that the delay in loding in complaint is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
39. On analysis of the evidence of material witnesses Pws.1 to 3 and Pw.7 coupled with the evidence of Pw.10 and Ex.P4 dying declaration, it can be said that the deceased consumed poison due to beating by A1, with plastic water pipe. However, the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 is not corroborating with the dying declaration of the deceased Ex.P4 with regard to the reason for her death. The dying declaration can be given more weightage than the evidence of material witnesses, as such the reason for the death of the deceased is only due to beating her by A1 with regard to money issue. As such, the harassment of the deceased by A1 for not conceiving as stated by Pws.1 to 3; is not proved beyond doubt. Further, as seen from the dying declaration of deceased, there was no abetment for her by A1 to commit suicide. Hence, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of A1 for the offences u/secs.498-A and 306 IPC.
40.When the medical evidence of Pw.11 is considered, he found two anti-mortem parallel contusions on the mid-right thigh measuring about 13x2 cms., each horizontal on cut sections, blood clots were also present and those injuries are anti-mortem in nature. In Ex.P5 postmortem report also, it is clearly mentioned about the nature the injuries sustained by the deceased. In the cross examination, the doctor deposted that the postmortem was conducted after 17 hours of the death and the rigor mortis were present all over the body.
19
41.The learned counsel for defence has argued that as the decomposition of body started, the evidence of the doctor with regard to the injuries also cannot be considered as the dead body stood decomposed, but the said argument is false. As seen from the Ex.P5, the postmortem was conducted 24.04.2017 at 3.15 p.m., and concluded at 4.45 p.m. As per the evidence of the witnesses and the case of the prosecution and as evident from
Ex.P5, that she died on 23.04.2017 at 10.10 p.m., in MGM
Hospital, Warangal. PW.11 has clearly deposed in his cross examination that the postmortem examination was conducted 17 hours after the death of the deceased and the decomposition will start after 24 hours. However, there were rigor mortis present over the dead body that does not mean that the dead body started decomposition. Except, suggesting that there were rigor mortis, nothing is suggested to PW.11 that the said injuries were not caused by the plastic water pipe which said to have been used by A1 in this case.
42.From the evidence of doctor/PW.10 and Ex.P4 it is clear that the deceased was gasping as she consumed poison in such circumstances, she could not have revealed the entire episode for consuming poison, except stating that she consumed poison as her husband beat in respect of money issue. She also did not give the weapon used by A1 for beating her, but from the evidence of PW.11, it is clear that he found contusion of 13 x 2 cms., on right thigh which was not disputed by the defence in the cross-examination of Pw.11.
43.It is the case of the prosecution and also the evidence of
Pws.1 to 3 that prior to the incident the accused beat her with a plastic water pipe. However, as observed above the non seizure of plastic pipe is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The evidence of doctor PW.11 and Ex.P5 coupled with the evidence of 20 doctor PW.10 and dying declaration-Ex.P4 stood unchallenged and unrebutted with regard to beating of the deceased by A1 with water pipe. Thus, from the above said evidence it can be said that the accused beat the deceased with plastic pipe causing injuries to her. Though the prosecution could though fail to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence u/secs.498-A and 306 IPC, but it could able to prove the guilt of A1 for the offence u/sec.324 IPC. In the light of Sec.222 Cr.P.C., A1 can be held guilty for the offence u/sec.324 IPC and there is no need to frame separate charge.
44.In the result, I find A2 and A3 are not guilty for the charges u/secs.498-A and 306 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/sec.235 (2) Cr.P.C. I also find A1 not guilty for the offences u/Secs.498-A and 306 IPC, but found him guilty for the offence u/sec.324 IPC and he is convicted u/sec.235 (2) Cr.P.C., for the said offence.
Dictated to Personal-Assistant, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 24th day of February, 2026.
Sd/-
(A.Nagaraj) Assistant Sessions Judge, JS.Bhupalpally.
45.The accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed on him. He stated that he is having parents and they are suffering with ill health and he has to take care of their health.
46.In the light of discussion made above and nature of injuries sustained by the deceased with contusions of 13 x 2 cms., horizantal cut and also presence of blood clots, it can be said that the accused was merciless towards his wife having lead 8 years of marital life with her and beat her indiscriminately. Hene, 21 considering the the circumstances, I feel imposition of sentence of imprisonment for a period of (2) years and fine of Rs.3,000/- will meet the ends of jsutice.
47.Accordingly, A1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (2) years and shall also pay a fine of Rs.3000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence u/Sec.324 IPC. The remand period undergone by A1 as under trial prisoner shall be set off u/sec.428 Cr.P.C., against the sentence of imprisonment now imposed. A1 is explained about his right to prefer appeal against the judgment.
Dictated to Personal-Assistant, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 24th day of February, 2026.
Sd/-
(A.Nagaraj) Assistant Sessions Judge, JS.Bhupalpally.
Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined.
For Prosecution: For Defence:
PW.1 - Ambala Venkataiah(Complainant) -Nil-
PW.2 - Ambala Mallamma (circumstantial witness)
PW.3 - Ambala @ Pulluri Sammaiah( Circumstantial witness)
PW.4 - Ambala Bapu( Supporting witness)
PW.5 - Athkuri Saraiah(panch witness for inquest)
PW.6 - Merijala Ramaiah( panch witness for inquest)
PW.7 - Ambala Lachaiah (Circumstantial witness)
PW.8 - Ambala Ranjith(Mediator for crime details form)
PW.9 - Kaluva Madhukar(Mediator for crime details form)
PW.10 - Dr.Jaipal (recorded the dying declaration)
PW.11 - Dr.S. Mohan Singh(conducted autopsy)
PW.12 - J.Ram Singh, A.S.I of police (issued FIR)
PW.13 - P.Thirupathi Rao, SI of Police (1st I.O) 22
PW.14 - V.Uday Kumar, SI of Police (2nd I.O)
PW.15 - B.Satyanarayana, SI of Police (3rd I.O)
Exhibits marked for prosecution
Ex.P.1 Complaint, dt: 24.04.2017.
Ex.P.2Inquest panchanama, dt.24.04.2017.
Ex.P.3 Scene of offence panchanama in crime details form,
dt:24.04.2017.
Ex.P.4 Dying declaration, dt.23.04.2017.
Ex.P.5 Postmortem report, dt.24.04.2017.
Ex.P.6 FIR, dt.24.04.2017.
Exhibits marked for Defence.
-Nil-
Material objects marked.
- Nil -
Sd/-
(A.Nagaraj) Assistant Sessions Judge, JS.Bhupalpally.