FAIR COPY
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, NALGONDA AT SURYAPET.
(DAETD, THIS, THE 26 th DAY OF JULY, 2021)
PRESENT: SRI K.KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY
II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:
SESSIONS CASE No.302 OF 2016
IN
P.R.C.No.21 OF 2016
(ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS, THUNGATURTHY)
IN
CRIME No.21 OF 2016 OF NOOTHANKAL PS Name of the Station:The Inspector of Police, House Officer Noothankal
Nameofthe:Judicial Magistrate of First Committal Court Class, Kodad, Thungaturthy Namesofthe:Kasoju Madhana Chary @ accused MadhuS/olPUllaiah, aged:24years,Caste: Wadrangi, Occ: Carpenter R/o. Peddanemila village of Noothankal Mandal Offences charged :Under Section 498-A IPC and Section 304-Part-II IPC
Pleaofthe:Pleaded not guilty. accused Finding of the:Found guilty for the
Judge offence under Section 498-
A IPC.
Sentence or order Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 304-Part II IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) cr.P.C.However,the accused is found guilty for the offence under Section
Page 2 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) 498-A IPC and accordingly he is convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.c. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergosimple imprisonment for one month. The bail bonds of the accusedshallstand cancelled. MO-1,shall be returned to the accused, after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked non valuable case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Whetherthe:Sri J.Sashidhar accused is defended during trial? By whom? N.B: Sri Grandhi Venkateshwarlu, Additional Public Prosecutor has conducted the prosecution case.
J U D G M E N T
The Circle Inspector of Police, Thoughtworthy filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.21/2016 of Noothankal P.S for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A and 304-Part II IPC
2.The facts of the case, in brief, are:
The deceased-Mounika is native of Sudanpally village, whereas the accused is native of Peddanemila
Page 3 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) village. In 2012 the deceased went to the house of
LW17/A.Narayanamma at Gurthur. In the same time the accused also went to Gurthur village to the house of
LW16/K.Narsaiah who is his relative. The LWs.16 and 17 are neighbors and they are relatives. During that time the accused and the deceased developed close acquaintance with each other and fell in love and proposed to marry. The deceased disclosed the same to her parents, but they did not agree. On 26.4.2013 the accused married the deceased at Bugulu
Venkateswara Swamy temple, Chilpurgutta village in the presence of LWs.16,18 to 20 viz., K.Narsaiah,
T.Janarchana Chary, I.Naresh and I.Sampath. Later the accused brought the deceased to his house at
Peddanemila village and stayed there for two months.
Previously the accused addicted to liquor and he developed illegal intimacy with another woman. The deceased noticed the same and questioned his bad habits and from then onwards the accused started harassing the deceased both physically and mentally.
There is no communication between the deceased and her parents as the deceased married the accused
Page 4 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) against will of her parents. Taking advantage of the same the deceased used to consume liquor and used to beat her indiscriminately.
Two months later the accused shifted his residence to Seetharmpuram of Suryapet town and there he stayed in the house of house of
LW5/K.Laxmamma for six months. During that period the accused continued to harass the deceased and also beat her indiscriminately. Unable to bear such harassment, on one occasion, the deceased attempted to commit suicide by consuming broken glass pieces, but fortunately LW5 observed the same and rescued her. Subsequently LW5 got vacated the accused from her house. Then the accused shifted to the house of
LW6/B.Laxmamma and stayed in that house for nine months and during that period they blessed with a female chile in 2014. During that time also the accused harassed the deceased and beat her indiscriminately. Vexed with the attitude of the accused the deceased attempted to commit suicide by hanging when she was seven months pregnant. Luckily LW6 and others observed the same and rescued her. After
Page 5 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) delivery, due to unbearable harassment of the accused, again the deceased tried to commit suicide by jumping into a well situated in the premises of that house, but however, the accused and others rescued the deceased.
Subsequently the accused shifted his residence to
Uppal, Hyderabad and took a room in the house of
LW8/J.Ramulu and there they stayed for three months and again he shifted to the house of LW9/G.Lavanya and there they stayed for seven months. Thereafter the accused shifted his family to the house of
LW10/S.Kashamma in Adarshnagar and there they stayed for seven months. During that period also the accused used to consume liquor frequently and continued his illegal intimacy with another woman.
When the deceased questioned the accused about the same the accused beat her indiscriminately. One day when the accused was quarreling with a neighbouring woman the deceased asked the accused as to why he was quarrelling, upon which the accused beat her due to the same the deceased fell on the ground and sustained severe head injury. After few days the
Page 6 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) deceased developed fits, as such she was treated in various hospitals, but it was not cured.
On 22.1.2016 during the night time at about 2.30 a.m. the deceased called LW2/T.Sreemanthamma, who is her mother, and disclosed about the harassment caused by the accused. Then
LW3/T.Praveen, who is the elder brother of the deceased, called 100 and informed the same to police, upon which the police took the deceased to the police station on the same night.
On 31.1.2016 the accused took the deceased to
Kakatiya Hospital, Uppal an got admitted as she was ill.
Thereafter the accused informed the same to LW2 over the phone and informed that the deceased fell down due to fits. Immediately LW2 went to Kakatiya Hospital,
Uppal and after giving treatment the deceased was discharged on 1.12.2016. Then the accused took the deceased to his house along with LW2. Later LW2 went to her village. On 2.2.2016 the accused again called
LW2 over cell phone and informed that the deceased is in serious condition and in panic situation and asked her to come to Maripeda Bungalow. On 3.2.2016 the
Page 7 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) accused brought the deceased to Maripeda bungalow and in the evening LW2 came to Maripedf Bungalow.
There the accused called a sorcerer over the cell phone
No. 8185098287 and he got evil treatment to the deceased with Bhuthavaidyudu. After that on the same night the accused brought the deceased to
Pedanemila, then the LW2 requested the accused to take the deceased to the hospital for better treatment.
On the request of LW2 on the same night the accused shifted the deceased to Mamatha Hospital through 108
Ambulance and got admitted there for treatment. The hospital authorities stated that it may take 20 days for recovery, but on 6.6.2016 the accused brought the deceased to Maripeda Bungalow without intimation to the hospital authorities and took her to a sorcerer, and as the sorcerer was not available the deceased was taken to Pedanemila village. Again on 11.2.2016 the accused admitted the deceased in Mamahta Hospital,
Khammam for treatment and subsequently on 18.2.2016 the deceased was shifted to MGM Hospital.
From there on 21.2.2016 the deceased was shifted to
Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad on the advice of the
Page 8 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) doctors and got admitted on 22.2.2016 at 12.48 Hours.
While undergoing treatment the deceased died on 24.4.2016 at 6.30 p.m, then the deceased was shifted to Pedda Nealla village.
On 24.2.2016 at 2 p.m. LW1/T.Bixapathi, who is the father of the deceased, gave complaint to the police against the accused and basing on the same
LW34/S.Abhilash, S.I of Police registered crime
No.21/2016 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and took up the investigation. He recorded the statement of LW1 at the police station and proceeded to Peda Nemila village to the house of K.Pullaiah where he observed the dead body of the deceased and in the presence of LWs.22 and 23 viz., S.Yadagiri Reddy and S.Narsi Reddy observed the scene of offence and therafer sent the dead body to mortuary at Area Hospitals, Suryapet for post-mortem examination under escort of PC 3330 and informed LW30/D.Dasharatha, Tahsildar, to conduct inquest over the dead body. Accordingly, LW30 went to the Area Hospital, Suryapet and he conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of LWs24 and 25 viz., A.Bhagyamma and Y.Ravidner Reddy and later
Page 9 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) dead body was sent for post-mortem examination.
LWs.31 and 32 viz., Dr.C.Sravanthi and Dr.Chandra
Shekar conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and collected the viscera to forward the same to FSL, Hyderabad. On 10.3.2016 LW34 forwarded the viscera to FSL vide lr.No.TOX/831/2016 dt.10.3.2016.
On 3/5/2016 LW34 collected FSL report wherein it was opined that item Nos.1 to 3 were analyzed but no poisonous substances were found in them.
During the course of investigation LW34 recorded the statements of LWs.2 to 4 viz.,T.Sreemathamma,
T.Praveen and T.Rajesh on 24.2.2016. He also recorded the statements of LWs.5 to 7 viz.,K.Laxmamma, B.Laxammma and S.Andalamma on 7.4.2016 and also recorded the statement of Lws.8 to 10 vz., R.Ramulu, G.Lavanya and S.Kashamma on 16.4.2016. Basing on the statements on 22.7.2016
LW34 altered section of law from 174 Cr.P.C to 498-A and 304-II IPC and forwarded express FIR to all the concerned and handed over the case file to
LW35/D.Laxman, Inspector of Police for further investigation.
Page 10 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept)
On 22.7.2016 LW35 went to Noothankal Police station and re-recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 4 and visited the 1st scene of offence i.e. house of the accused at Pedanemilla village and caused discrete enquiry about the occurrence and re-recorded the statement of LW7/S.Andalamma.
On 29.7.2016 LW35 visited the houses of LWs.5 and 6 situated at Seethrampurm along with LW3 and observed the 2nd and 3rd scene offence in the presence of LWs.26 and 27 viz.,K.Krishna Reddy and Y.Samba
Reddy and prepared scene observation reports and rough sketch. He also recorded the statements of LWs.5 and 6 and recorded their statements. LW35 further examined inhabitants of Setharampuram i.e. LW11 and 12 viz., N.Naresh and P.Upender and recorded their statements, wherein they disclosed that the deceased is a womanizer and he addicted to liquor and used to harass the deceased both mentally and physically.
Thereafter LW35 proceeded to the 4th scene of offence, which is the house of LW8/J.Ramulu and there in the presence of same panchas i.e. LWs.26 and 27 conducted scenes of offence and prepared scene
Page 11 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) observation report and rough sketch. There also he rerecorded the statement of LW8. From there LW35 proceeded to the 5th scene of offence, which is house of
LW9 at Adashnagar, Uppal and observed the scene of offence and prepared scene observation report and rough sketch and re-recorded the statement of LW9.
From there he visited to the 6th scene of offence, which is the house of LW19 at Uppal, where he conducted scene of offence in the presence of same panchs and observed the scene offence and prepared scene observation report and rough sketch and rerecorded the statement of LW10/S.Kashamma.
While the investigation was in progress on 8.8.2016 LW35 proceeded to Pedanemila village there he apprehended the accused at his house.
As the accused was in the mood of confession LW35 secured the presence of LW.28 and 29 viz.,
M.Mallikarjun and K.Srinivas and in their presence the accused was interrogated and during the course of interrogation the accused confessed about the commission of offence and produced mobile phone
No.85998287 which he used for commission of offence.
Page 12 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept)
Accordingly, confession and seizure panchanama was prepared and cell phone was seized. The accused was arrested and produced before the JFCM.
On 26.8.2016 LW35 proceeded to Suryapet, where he examined LWs,13 to 15 viz., K.Saida Chary,
K.Sarbaiah Chary and G.Nagabhushnam. They also disclosed that the accused is a womanizer and addicted to liquor and used to harass the deceased both mentally and physically. On 23.9.2016 LW35 proceeded
Gurthur village of Warangal District, where he recorded the statements of LWs.16 ad 17 vz., K.Narsaiah and
A.Narayanamma. From there LW35 went to
Kaashubugga colony of Warangal town, where he recorded the statement of LW18/T.Janardhana Chary.
LWs.16 to 19 disclosed that the marriage of the accused and the deceased was performed on 26..2013 at Bugulu Vekatewsara Swamy temple and it was witnessed by LWs.16, 18 to 20.
On 26.9.2016 on the requisition of LW35,
LW33/P.Aruna Kumari, JFCM, Nakrekal recorded the 164
Cr.P.C statements of LWs.2.3,5 and 6. On the same day LW35 proceeded to Bugulu Venkateswara Swamy
Page 13 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) temple, Chilpurguta and collected the marriage details and documents from LW21/Ch.Jaya Shankar and as per the same the marriage of the accused with the deceased was performed o 26.4.2013 vide Marriage register page No.1483 and receipt 3446.
Thus, the investigation established that the accused harassed the deceased both mentally and physically and due to the same the health of the deceased deteriorated and that the accused did not provide sufficient treatment to the deceased, as such the deceased died. The accused must have done an act which caused death of his wife with the knowledge that by such act she was likely to die, in those circumstances to punish the accused under Sections 498-A and 304-II IPC.
3. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Thungaturthy took cognizance for the offences under
Sections 304-II and 498-A IPC and issued summons to accused. On appearance of the accused the learned
Magistrate furnished the copies and as the offence
under Section 304-II IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions committed the case to the Principal
Page 14 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept)
Sessions Court, Nalgonda , who in made over the case
to this Court for disposal according to law.
4. After appearance of the accused, he was examined under Section 228 (1) Cr.P.C., charges for the offence punishable under Sections 304-II and 498-A
IPC were framed, read over and explained to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution PWs.1 to 17 are examined, Ex.P1 to P-32 and MO1 marked.
6. After the prosecution side evidence was closed the accused was examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C for which he denied the incriminating material and as a part of defence he examined DW1 and through him Exs.D1 and D2 are marked.
7. Heard Both sides.
8. Now the points for determination are:
1. Whether there is sufficient material to show that the accused committed the offence under Section 304-II IPC?
2. Whether the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty within the definition of cruelty defined under Section 498-A IPC, and thereby committed the offence under Section 498-A IPC as alleged against him?
Page 15 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept)
3. Whether the police of Noothankal have power to investigate the case?
4. To what result?
9. Point No.1
Whether there is sufficient material to show that the accused committed the offence under Section 304-II IPC?
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in this case even though the accused had love marriage with the deceased, since the beginning he subjected the deceased to harassment, because he addicted to liquor and became womanizer. He further submitted that in this case the accused from time to time changed his residence and lived at various places and he lived at Pedanemila,
Seetharampuram and Uppal, Hyderabad and in those places the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty and this is apparent from the evidence of PWs.3 to 9, and not only that because of such harassment thrice the deceased attempted to commit suicide by swallowing grinded glass granules, by hanging to a ceiling fan and as well as by jumping into a well. He further submitted that while the deceased and accused lived at Uppal, Hyderabad, the accused continued his
Page 16 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) harassment and on one occasion he hit the head of the deceased to a wall due to the same the deceased sustained injury and suffered seizures, as such she was admitted in various hospitals, but however, the accused intentionally did not provide treatment and got discharged her from the hospital and took her to a sorcerer (Bhootha Vaidyudu) fully knowing that if he did so, there is likelihood of death of the deceased, but he did not take care health of the deceased. He further submitted that because of such act of the accused the deceased while undergoing treatment at Gandhi
Hospital died and had the accused provided proper treatment the deceased would have been recovered, as such the accused committed the offence under Sections 304-II IPC and the evidence of PWs.3 to 9 is sufficient to show that the accused harassed the deceased at various places. He further submitted that, no doubt, the police did not examine one Aruna, who is resident of Peddanemila village to show that at Pedanemila the accused harassed the deceased, but the accused cannot take advantage of the same to seek acquittal on that ground. In this case the both the investigation
Page 17 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) officers recorded the statements of witnesses, but however, subsequent statements recorded by PW17 are not filed because whatever stated before PW17 already stated before PW16. He further submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly established that the accused, with knowledge that if the treatment is not given the deceased may die and intentionally he did not give proper treatment, as such the accused committed the offence under Section 304-II
IPC.
10. The learned Counsel the accused submitted that even according to the admission made by PW15, the doctor who conducted autopsy, there is nothing unnatural in the death of the deceased and in fact the family of the deceased got epilepsy and as such the deceased is also suffering from epilepsy. He further submitted that the according to the prosecution at
Pedanemila village also the accused harassed that deceased, and the same is witnessed by one Aruna, who is resident of Pedanemila village, but however, she was not examined by the police. He further submitted that the accused had love marriage with the deceased
Page 18 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) against the wish of the PWs.1 and 2 and because of the same after the death of the deceased, to take revenge against the accused, PW1 gave a false report as if the accused caused death of the deceased. He further submitted that the evidence of PWs.3 to 9 that the accused harassed the deceased at various places do not show that there is intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased, however at best, their evidence can be considered only with regard to alleged cruelty. He further submitted that it is the case of prosecution as if the accused did not give proper treatment to the deceased and got discharged from the hospital and lastly took the deceased to a sorcerer, but in fact PWs.1 and 2 they took the victim to the hospital.
He further submitted that in this case the so-called sorcerer, to whom the deceased alleged to have taken, is not examined. He further submitted that the recovery of MO1 from the accused do not serve any purpose because there is no evidence to show that with that mobile phone the accused made phone call to the sorcerer and no call data is filed to prove such conversation. He further submitted that when PWs.1
Page 19 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) and 2 took the deceased to the hospital for treatment, the accused getting her discharged from the hospital and taking to a sorcerer cannot be believed. He further submitted that even according to the admission made by PWs.15 show that when the deceased admitted in the hospital the deceased herself got discharged from the hospital with an apprehension that somebody may kill her husband and daughter which shows that the deceased is not mentally sound. He further submitted that there is no evidence at all to show that the because of the acts of the accused the deceased died to attract the offence under Section 304-II IPC.
12. As can be seen from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the evidence of PWs.3 to 9 is to show that the accused hit the head of the deceased to wall, but also to show that the accused subjected the deceased to harassment at various places. So far as offence under Section 304-II IPC is concerned there is no necessity to discuss about the part of harassment caused by the accused.
13. It is the allegation against the accused that when the deceased was suffering from epilepsy the
Page 20 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) accused instead providing proper treatment took her to a sorcerer and in fact the investigation Officers admitted that they did not examine the so-called sorcerer. It is the claim of the prosecution as if basing on the confession of the accused MO1 cell phone was recovered from him. However, the Investigation
Officers admitted that they did not ascertain that mobile phone belongs to the accused. Not only that the investigation officers did not file the call data record to show that from that mobile phone the accused made call to the so-called sorcerer. In those circumstances, recovery of MO1, even if believed, do not serve any purpose.
14. PWs.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased and in their chief examination they deposed as if they witnessed the harassment, but in fact coming to their cross-examination they admitted that after the marriage of the deceased with the accused they never met the deceased for about three years and that only while the deceased was in the hospital at Uppal they met the deceased. They both admitted that they do not have personal knowledge of accused shifting
Page 21 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) houses to various places and about harassing the deceased. However, they claimed that only through others they came to know about the harassment. So, their evidence regarding so-called harassment is only hearsay evidence. In the chief examination of PW1 he claimed as if when the accused and the deceased lived at Pedanemila the accused and his parents started harassing the deceased for dowry and he came to know about the same through one Aruna. In fact when the accused had love marriage with the deceased the question of demanding additional dowry do not arise and not only that the so-called Aruna is not examined by the police. Even though PW1 claimed in his evidence that the complaint as given to the police at Hyderabad no such copy of complaint is filed and the present case was registered by Noothankal Police.
15. In the cross-examination of PW2 she claimed as if when they received phone call about the condition of the deceased they went to the house of the accused at Uppal and at that time the accused demanded
Rs.20,000/-, but in fact this is not stated before the police and this is a later development for the purpose of
Page 22 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) the case. Even though PW.2 claimed as if when the accused hit the deceased to wall the deceased sustained injuries, admittedly she is not eye witnesses to the so-called incident, as such her evidence is also hearsay evidence. Even though PW2 admitted in her cross-examination that so-called Aruna is her sister, she was not examined by the police. She claimed as if police examined Aruna, but in fact the police did not examine her and she is not even cited as witness.
16. In this case PWs.3 to 9 are the eye witnesses to the alleged harassment caused by the accused when they lived in Seetahrampuram and Uppal. According to the evidence of PW3, when and the accused and deceased lived in her house as tenants, the accused addicted to liquor and used to keep the photos of girls in his mobile phone with whom he used to move, but however, PW16 during cross-examination admitted that
PW3 did not state so, as such it is clear that this is a later development in the evidence. However she deposed that on one occasion the deceased grinded glass and tried to swallow to commit suicide and on seeing the same she stopped the deceased and that on
Page 23 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) her demand the accused vacated the house. She further deposed as if later on one day the deceased and the accused came to her house and at that time when she observed injury around the neck of the deceased she asked the deceased about what happened and came to know that tee deceased attempted to commit suicide. During her cross-examination she claimed that when the accused was beating the deceased, apart from her two others also came and admonished the accused. Her evidence is that she used to talk with
PWs.1 and 2 as and when she met them in the market and that she never informed them that the accused was harassing the deceased. Basing on such admission the learned counsel for the accused argued that, if there is any such harassment PW3 would have informed to
PWs.1 and 2 about the same when they met her.
However, this court is not accepting that contention because there may be several reasons for PW3 not informing about the harassment to PWs.1 and 2, more particularly when the accused and deceased married against the will of PWs.1 and 2 and PWs.1 and 2 never visited the house of the deceased after the marriage.
Page 24 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept)
PW3 further deposed that she did not state before the police or Magistrate that when the deceased came to her house she observed the injury around her neck and when she asked her she informed her that she attempted to commit suicide by hanging. This portion cannot be taken into consideration because she did not state the same before the Police or Magistrate.
17. PW4 is another house owner, where the accused and the deceesad lived as tenants. According to her evidence also after the deceased delivered a baby girl one day because of the disputes with the accused the deceased attempted to commit suicide by jumping into a well and on seeing the same the neighbuors rescued the deceased. According to her evidence the accused addicted to alcohol and used to move with girls and also used to beat the deceased, and whenever the deceased questioned him about the same he used to beat her. She further deposed that after suicide attempt by the deceased, on her demand the accused vacated her house and went to Hyderabad.
She admitted during her cross-examination that he never informed the police about the accused beating
Page 25 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) the deceased. She also admitted that none of the constables came when the deceased jumped into the well.
18. PW5 is the circumstantial witnesses, because according to him when the accused and his wife were tenants in the house of his mother in law, the accused used to move with other ladies and also used beat the deceased as and when she questioned him.
Coming to his cross-examination he claimed that when the accused beat his wife while they were tenants in the house of his mother in law the police did not come to enquire, however, he claimed as if neighbours gave complaint. In fact no such complaint was given in this case. Further he claimed that they were not examined by the police basing on the complaint given by the neighbours.
19. PW6 is co-tenant of the accused at Uppal and she deposed as if when the accused did not attend any work his wife used to question him and because of the same the accused used to beat the deceased and 6 or 7 months later the accused vacated the house and went to Bharath Nagar. According to her cross-
Page 26 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) examination, except her family and family of the accused, there were no other tenants in the house of
Kalyani. She admitted that when the accused beat the deceased, she did not give any complaint to the police.
According to her police did not examine her or neighbours regarding that incident. Her evidence shows that through the wife of the accused she came to know that the accused beat her, which means she is only hearsay witness, but not direct witnesses. So her evidence cannot be given any credence.
20. PW7 is another co-tenant of the accused and the deceased at Bharathnagar, Uppal and her evidence is that the accused is addicted to liquor and did not attend work regularly and further used to move with girls, as such whenever the deceased questioned him about the same quarrels took place. She further deposed that when the accused beat the deceased, the deceased took shelter in the house of another tenant; that the accused brought the deceased to his room and hit her head to a wall and due the same the deceased suffered seizures. Coming to cross- examination she admitted that the police did not
Page 27 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) interfere when the accused and the deceased quarreled and that they did not attempt to report to the police about the quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased. Further she claimed that the deceased used to make phone call to her parents and report as when the accused beat her, but however, her evidence that the deceased used to make phone calls to her parents cannot be believed, because admittedly
PWs.1 and 2 are not in talking terms with the deceased right from the date of her marriage. She clearly deposed that she witnessed the accused hitting the head of the deceased to a wall and the deceased suffering fits. She further exaggerated her versions as if when the deceased suffered fits parents of the deceased came to see her and at that time she complained to the parents of the deceased against the accused. This portion cannot be considered because, when according to PWs.1 and 2 they met the deceased for the first time in the hospital after three years of marriage.
21. PW8 belongs to Seetharmapuram and according to his evidence the deceased used to work
Page 28 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) under him and that he leased his welding shop to the accused and that at that time the accused used to live in the house of PW3. He further stated that the deceased used to come to his house and complain about the accused and then he and LW14/K.Sharabaiah
Chary admonished the accused. He further deposed that on one occasion the deceased tried to commit suicide and on seeing the same PW3 rescued her and later on his demand the accused vacated his shop and also house of PW3. He claimed as if on couple of occasions the deceased came to his house and complained against the accused. Coming to cross- examination he claimed as if when the deceased attempted to commit suicide by swallowing the glass pieces the S.I of police came and recorded his statement, however, this is not correct because at that time no complaint was given to the police. He further deposed in his cross-examination that the parents of the deceased never visited her when the accused and the deceased lived in the house of PW3.
Further he added that even after vacating the house of
PW3 the deceased used to visit his house as such he
Page 29 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) knows that the accused continued to harass the deceased. His evidence is clear that through PW3 he came to know about the deceased tried to commit suicide by swallowing glass pieces, which means he has no personal knowledge of the same.
22. PW9 is the sister of PW2 and she deposed that the accused married the deceased after they meet at Gurthur. She deposed that after the marriage the accused and the deceased lived at Suryapet and at that time the accused addicted to liquor and used beat the deceased. She deposed as if when the deceased came to her house, she came to know about the same.
PW9 is none other than sister of PW2. In her cross- examination she deposed that she never informed
PWs.1 and 2 that the accused harassed the deceased.
If really the deceased used to meet PW9 as claimed by her in her evidence, PW9 who is none other than the close relative of PW2 she would have certainly informed about the alleged harassment, as such the evidence of PW9 that the deceased complained about the harassment caused by the accused cannot be accepted. Not only that the evidence of PW9 shows
Page 30 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) that parents of the deceased never visited her house and that she never met the parents of the deceased.
23. PW10 is the Executive Officer of
Venkateswara Swamy temple, Chilpur where the accused and the deceased got married and through him
Ex.P2 is marked. Even though in his cross- examination he claimed he did not file I.D card to show that he is Executive Officer of the temple, in fact the accused is not disputing his marriage with the deceased at Venkateswara Swamy temple. So, the evidence of PW10 regarding the marriage is to be accepted.
24. PW11 is the panch for inquest and according to his evidence in his presence and family members of the deceased inquest was conducted. His evidence is proving that the inquest was conducted in his presence over the dead body of the deceased.
25. PWs.12 and 13 are the panch witnesses for confession of the accused and seizure of MO1, but however, they both turned hostile.
26. PW14 is Tahsildar, who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and even though
Page 31 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) he admitted in his evidence that on 1st two pages of inquest report there are o signatures, he has no necessity to give false evidence because he is not interested in the matter. Not only that his evidence is corroborating with the evidence of PW11. So, conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased is proved.
27. PW15 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. According to her evidence LW32/Dr.J.Chandra Sehkar also participated in the autopsy. She deposed that no external or internal injuries are found on the dead body of the deceased and that she gave opinion that no unnatural cause of death can be ascertained. In fact, her evidence is in favour of the accused because the post- mortem examination did not reveal that the death of the deceased was unnatural. During the cross- examination she admitted that if the patient suffers with meningo encephalitis the patient will have seizures. She further admitted that in Ex.P6 she did not observe any abnormality in the head and neck portion of the deceased. The evidence of PW15 is supporting
Page 32 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) the case of the defence, but not the case of prosecution.
28. PWs.16 and 17 are the investigation officers.
PW16 admitted that as per the post-mortem examination no un-natural death can be ascertained.
During his cross-examination an important information is elicited. When he was questioned about the questionnaire sent to Medical Superintendent after post mortem examination he admitted that he sent the questionnaire to Medical Superintended, Area Hospital,
Suryapet along with the copies of medical record and post-examination report, but however, claimed that he did not receive any report from Medical Superintendent.
He further deposed that in the C.D he nowhere mentioned that he sent the questionnaire to the
Medical Superintendent. During his cross examination the omissions from the evidence of PWs.2,3 and 6 were elicited.
29. PW17 is the 2nd investigation Officer and during his cross-examination he admitted that the deceased died while undergoing treatment in Gandhi
Hospital and before the deceased was taken to Gandhi
Page 33 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept)
Hospital, she was given treatment in kakatihia Hospital,
Mamatha Hospital and MGM Hospital, Warangal. He also admitted that the deceased suffered seizures and she was given treatment in various hospitals for that propose. He admitted that as per the record the mother of the deceased went to Kakatiya Hospital when the deceased was admitted there and later the parents of the deceased never visited the hospital where the deceased was admitted. He also admitted that when the deceased was admitted in Mamatha Hospital on 4.2.2016 the deceased developed suspicion that her husband and child will be killed if she is in the hospital and tried to leave the hospital by taking away her child.
This means the deceased is suffering from psychological problem. It is further elicited in her cross-examination that when the deceased was in
Mamatha Hospital the father of the deceased signed consent letter a guardian. This means when the deceased was admitted in Mamatha Hospital, the parents of the deceased have knowledge of such admission. He admitted that as per the case record of
Mamatha Hospital, the family history of the deceased
Page 34 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) shows that grandmother and maternal aunt of the deceased suffered psychiatric problem and they were given treatment in M.G. Hospital, Secunderabd. So, it appears that there is hereditary psychiatric problems in the family of the deceased.
Regarding the charge sheet, PW17 claimed that when the accused beat the deceased while at
Hyderabad LW3 made phone call to 100 and then
Uppal police called the deceased on the same night, but however, no such report was given to the police and he did to collect report given to Uppal Police Station and he did not examine Uppal. P.S., So, giving complaint in
Uppal Police station on 22.4.2016 when the accused beat the deceased cannot be accepted.
30. In this case according to the prosecution at
Pedanemila village the accused harassed the deceased and that PWs.1 and 2 came to know about the same from one Aruna, who is relative of PWs.1 and 2, who also belongs to Peda Nemila village, but however, PW17 admitted that he did not examine said Aruna. Further, as mentioned earlier, according to the prosecution the accused took the deceased to the sorcerer for giving
Page 35 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) treatment, but in fact PW17 did not examine the so- called sorcerer and did not ascertain to whom that mobile belongs to. He admitted that in the post- mortem examination report there is nothing to show that the death is unnatural. When he was questioned about questionnaire, he admitted that PW16 sent the questionnaire to the Medical Superintendent and he claimed as if he do not know if report was received. He admitted that he did not collect the report from the
Medical Superintendent and further according to him
PW16 informed him that he did not collect the report from the Medical Superintendent, He also claimed that he did not make any effort to collect the report from the
Medical Superintendent.
31. As mentioned earlier, the evidence of the doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination is in favour of the accused, and admission made by PW15 shows that there are hereditary psychiatric problems in the family of the deceased. The admission made by
PW17 shows that before the deceased was shifted to
Gandhi Hospital, the deceased was treated in Kakatiya
Hospital, Mamatha Hospital and MGM hospital, but the
Page 36 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) claim of the prosecution is that the accused got discharged from Mamatha Hospital, Kahammam and took her to sorcerer is not established. The so-called sourer is not examined and there is no record to show that with MO1 cell phone the accused contacted the sorcerer. The post-mortem examination report is making it clear the death of the deceased is not unnatural and further there is evidence to show that
before death of the deceased she suffered seizures. If
All these facts are taken into condition the very claim of the prosecution that the accused with the knowledge that it may result in death of the deceased and intentionally got her discharged from the hospital and took her to sorcerer is not established. Further when the death is not unnatural the very of case of the prosecution that the accused with the knowledge that it may result in death of the deceased intentionally got discharged from the hospital and took her to the sorcerer cannot be accepted.
32. As part of defence evidence the accused got examined DW1 i.e. Dr.B.Chandra Shekar, who is the
Medical Superintendent of Area Hospital. The purpose
Page 37 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) of his examination is to show that PW16 sent him the questionnaire and that as answers to the questionnaire he submitted report. In fact, the investigating agency suppressed about such questionnaire and the questionnaire came into light only during the cross- examination of PW16. During the cross-examination
PW16 admitted that along with the questionnaire he sent the medical record to the Medical Superintendent,
Area Hospital, Suryapet. DW1 during the evidence produced Ex.D1 which is attested copy of questionnaire and he also deposed that he gave reply to the questionnaire that the deceased died due to viral meningoencephalitis and that there are no findings to support the physical harassment of the victim. He also deposed as if before giving Ex.D1 he verified the case sheets of the hospitals, where the deceased took treatment. During the cross-examination he admitted that the doctors who conducted post-mortem examination are qualified and well experienced. In fact, this is not material fact because even the post- mortem examination report is in favour of the accused.
Even though he admitted that he did not see the dead
Page 38 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) body of the victim and did not conduct post-mortem examination and that he did not mention the case sheets of which hospitals he verified, the evidence of
PW16 itself is enough to show that the deceased died due to viral meningoencephalitis. In those circumstances the very case of prosecution that because the accused hit the head of the deceased to a wall she suffered epilepsy and that the accused prevented sufficient medical treatment to the deceased and thereby caused death of the deceased cannot be accepted. In those circumstance, even if for a moment it is believed that earlier the deceased attempted to commit suicide by swallowing glass granules or by hanging or by jumping into a well, they can at best can be considered as cruelty and cannot be considered to decide whether the accused committed the offence under Section 304-II IPC. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is not showing any intention or knowledge on the part of the accused to cause death of the deceased and thereby prevented medical care to the deceased. Hence, the offence under Section 304-II IPC is not made out. Accordingly this point is answered.
Page 39 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept)
33. Point No.2
Whether the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty within the definition of cruelty as defined section 498-A IPC and thereby committed the offence under Section 498-A IPC as alleged against him?
In the light of discussions made in point No.1, it is clear that PWs.3 to 9 deposed as if the accused harassed the deceased at various places where he lived. As mentioned earlier, the evidence of PW5 that the accused hit the head of the deceased cannot be believed, because he came to know about the same, which is nothing but hearsay evidence. Similarly, the evidence of PW.6 also cannot be considered because she is also hearsay witness and according her also she came know about the accused hitting the head of the deceased to a wall. The evidence of PW8 also hearsay evidence because according to him also the deceased complained to him about the harassment caused by the accused. PW9 is also hearsay witnesses of the alleged harassment. However, the evidence of PW3, who is an independent, showing that when the accused was tenant in her house, he subjected the deceased to harassment and unable to bear the same the deceased
Page 40 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) tried to commit suicide by swallowing glass pieces and on seeing the same she prevented the incident. She further deposed that she also witnessed the accused beating the deceased and two others also witnessed the same. Similarly, the evidences of PW4 showing that the deceased attempted to commit suicide by jumping into the well and she witnessed the same.
Admitted fact is that PWs.3 and 4 did not report the incident to the police and did not report to the parents of the deceased, but however, that itself is not a ground to suspect their version as they have no motive to make false allegation against the accused. The evidence of PW7 that he witnessed the accused hitting the head of the deceased to a wall cannot be believed, because the medical evidence is not supported her evidence and the evidence of PW15 shows that she did not observes any abnormality in the head or neck proton of the deceased. If really the accused hit the head of the deceased to a wall as deposed by PW7 certainly there will be contusions on the forehead portion, but according to PW15 there is no such abnormality. So, the evidence of PW7 that she
Page 41 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) witnessed the accused hitting the head of the deceased to a wall cannot be believed.
34. As mentioned earlier, the evidence of PW8 and 9 is only hearsay evidence because they did not witness such alleged harassment and they came to know either through others or through the deceased.
So, hitting the head of the deceased to the wall by the accused cannot be believed, but however, the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 shows that the accused subjected the deceased to harassment and unable to bear the same while the deceased was in the house of PW3 the deceased attempted commit suicide by swallowing the glass granules and while she was in the house of PW4 the deceased attempted to commit suicide by jumping into the well. PW.3 and 4 have no necessity give false evidence against the accused and further they stood test of cross-examination.
35. The definition of 498-A IPC shows that, cruelty must be in connection with demand for property or valuable security, or which is such a nature as it likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger
Page 42 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) to life, limb or health. So, the facts of the case attract the offence under Sections 498-A IPC because due to the harassment caused by the accused the deceased on one occasion tried to commit suicide by swallowing glass granules and on another occasion by jumping to the well. So, the offence under Section 498-A attracts in this case. Accordingly, this point is answered.
36. Point No.3:
Whether Nothanakl Police have power to investigate the case?
As per the prosecution case first the accused and the deceased lived at Peda Nemila village and later they shifted to Seethrampuram locality of Suryapet and later to Uppal, Hyderabad. It is further allegation against the accused that the accused harassed the deceased while they were at Peda Naemila village. The admitted fact is that after the death of the deceased the dead body was brought to Peda Nemila village and thereafter complaint was given to the Police at
Noothanakal and the Noothankal Police registered the case on the ground that the harassment started at
Page 43 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept)
Peda Nemila village. As mentioned earlier, according to the prosecution case one Aruna, who is the sister of
PW2 and who is also resident of Peda Nemila village complained such harassment to PWs.1 and 2 , but admitted fact is that the said Aruna is not cited as witness. In fact, there is no evidence to show that while the accused and the deceased lived at Peda
Nemila village, the deceased was harassed by the accused. The claim of PW.1 that at Pedanemila the accused and his parents harassed the deceased cannot be believed, because he is not witness to the alleged offence and moreover the marriage of the accused and the deceased is a love marriage against the will of
PWs.1 and 2. So, there is no proof that part of offence took place at Peda Nemila village as claimed by the prosecution. In such case, even if such offence took place at Seethramapuram of Suryapet or Uppal, either
Suryapet police or Uppal police have to register the case and do the investigation. Even if police of
Noothanakal registered FIR they ought to have forwarded the same to Suryapet Police Station or to
Uppal police station for the purpose of investigation and
Page 44 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) in fact the Police of Noothankal have no power to investigate the case except to register the First
Information Report.
37. However, now it is to be seen whether basing on such contention that the Noothankal police have no jurisdiction to investigate the case the accused can escape punishment when the commission of offence is otherwise is proved.
As can be seen from Section 156 (ii) Cr.P.C., no proceedings of a police of officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. So at the stage of investigation it cannot be challenged on the ground that the police are not empowered to investigate the case and this legal position is confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rishikalalal
Dalapathram Thakkar Vs.State of Guajarath and
others in Criminal Appeal No.2041/2009, and in that judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while quoting Section 156 (2) Cr.P.c., reiterated that at the stage of investigation the power of police cannot be
Page 45 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) challenged on the ground that he is not competent to investigate that case.
Similarly in the decision between Satvinder
Kaur Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), in Criminal Appeal
No.1031/1999 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also made same observation and held that at the stage of investigation the investigation cannot be quashed on the ground that police are not competent to investigate the case. In the Rishikalal decision, reffered supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India further observed that if at all the investigation officer investigates the case without jurisdiction it is for the trial court to decide further course of action.
At this stage, we have to see section 190 Cr.P.C., also because under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., even the
Magistrate can order investigation under Section 190
Cr.P.C. Under Section 190 (c) Cr,.P.c., the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence under Sections 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.c., In this case admittedly at the time of taking cognizance no objection was taken by the
Magistrate Court. Further at that time the accused did
not raise any plea of lack of juridiction for Noothankal
Page 46 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept)
Police either before the concerned court or before any forum. Section 460 (c) says that if any Magistrate erroneously in good faith took the cognizance of offence under Section 190 (1) (a)(b) Cr.P.C., those proceedings shall not be set aside merely on the ground that he was not so empowered. So, if all the sections are considered together with the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above decisions now the accused cannot challenge the investigating power of the Noothankal P.S because part of offence did not took place in Peda Nemila village.
Further, as mentioned earlier, in this case, there is evidence to show that the accused caused cruelty to the deceased while he was at Seethaampuram,
Suryapet and Uppal driving her to commit suicide. Just because Noothankal Police have no jurisdiction, on that ground the accused cannot escape from punishment for the offence committed by him. Accordingly this point is answered.
38. Point No.4:
To what result,
In the result,
Page 47 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept)
(i) The accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 304-II IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C.
(ii) The accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and accordingly he is convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C.,
The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time and MO1, which is claimed to be seized from the accused, shall be returned to him after expiry of appeal time and if the accused did not come forward the same shall be confiscated to the State after one year. Unmarked non- valuable case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26 th day of July, 2021
II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
NALGONDA AT SURYAPET.
Hearing of the accused on the quantum of
sentence
When questioned about the quantum of sentence the accused pleaded that he got a young daughter and
Page 48 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) that there are a nobody to look after his daughter. As the offence is against a woman and as the wife of the accused attempted to commit suicide twice because of attitude of the accused, this court is not inclined to apply P.O Act. Hence, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 498-A
IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
The remand period shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The accused is entitled for free copy of judgment and he is informed about his right of appeal.
II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
NALGONDA AT SURYAPET.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION: P PW1 T. T.BixapathiComplainant and father of the deceased PW2T.SreemathammaCircumstantial witness and mother of the deceased PW3T.PraveenCircumstantial witness and elder brother of the deceased PW4B.LaxmammaEye witness PW5J.RamuluCircumstantial witness PW6S.KashammaCircumstantial witness PW7S.KashammaCircumstantial witness PW8K.Saidiah CharyCircumstantial witness PW9A.NarayanammaCircumstantial witness PW10Ch.Jaya ShankarIssued marriage certificate PW11A.BhagyammaPanch for inquest PW12M.MallikarjunPanch for confession and seizure PW13K.SrinivasPanch for confession and seizure PW14G.DsharadhaConduced inquest over the dead body of the deceased PW15Dr.C.SravanthiConducted autopsy over the dead
Page 49 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept) body PW16B.Abhilash, S.I of Police1st investigation officer PW17D.Laxman, C.I of Police2nd investigation officer
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE: DW1Dr.B.Chandra Shekar
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 Complaint Ex.P2Information letter t./26.9.2016 Ex.P3Inquest report Ex.P4Signature on confession and recovery panchanama Ex.P5Signature on confession and recovery panchanama Ex.P6Autopsy report Ex.P7FSL report Ex.P8First information report Ex.P9Scene observation report Ex.P10Rough sketch Ex.P11Case sheet and discharge summary Ex.P12Case sheet and discharge summary Ex.P13MGM hospital case sheet Ex.P14Case sheet of Mamatha hospital Ex.P15Case sheet and discharge summary of Gandhi Hospital Ex.P16Section alteration memo Ex.P17Scene observation report Ex.P18Rough sketch Ex.P19Photograph Ex.P20Scene observation report Ex.P21Rough sketch Ex.P22Photograph Ex.P23Scene observation report Ex.P24Rough sketch Ex.P25Photograph Ex.P26Scene observation report Ex.P27Rough sketch Ex.P28Photograph Ex.P29Scene observation report Ex.P30Rough sketch Ex.P31Photograph Ex.P32Relevant portion of confession panchanama
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE: Ex.D1Attested copy of letter Ex.D2Letter dt.10.2.2020
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:
MO1 Cell phone
II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
NALGONDA AT SURYAPET.
Page 50 of 50
SC No.302 of 2016
(II Additional Sessions Court, Suryaept)