1
IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS: SESSIONS DIVISION::
SRIKAKULAM.
BEFORE THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-III ADDL.DISTRICT &
SESSIONS COURT, SRIKAKULAM.
PRESENT: K.SUDHAMANI,
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT –CUM-III ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS
COURT, SRIKAKULAM.
Thursday, this the 4th day of April, 2019.
SESSIONS CASE No.103 of 2017
(PRC No.08/2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Ponduru arising out of Crime No.55 of 2015 of
G.Sigadam Police Station)
NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT: The State, represented by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Palakonda.
NAME OF THE ACCUSED : 1. Kuppili Ramappadu, Son of late Kurmayya, aged 40 years, caste by S.C.Mala, Gobburu village of G.Sigadam mandal.
2. Kuppili Papayamma @ Papamma, Wife of late Kurmayya, aged 72 years, caste by SC-Mala, Gobburu village of G.Sigadam mandal.
Date, time and place of : On 23/24.06.2015 at 0400 hrs, at S.C. colony, in the tiled house of Kuppili Ramappadu, Gobburu village of G.Sigadam mandal.
Charge : Under sections 302, 304-B read with 34 and Section 354-A of I.P.C. against accused No.1 and Section 304-B read with 34 of I.P.C. against accused No.2
Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not guilty.
Finding of the Court : Guilty of A.1.
2
Sentence or Order : In the result, I find accused No.1 is guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code, 304-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 354-A of India Penal Code and he is convicted under Section 235 (2) Criminal Procedure Code and I find Accused No.2 is not guilty for the offence under Section 304-B read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and she is acquitted under Section 232 Criminal Procedure Code.
Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life of the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and Accused No.1 sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only), in default of which, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 (six) months and accused No.1 further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years for the offence under Section 304(B) of Indian Penal Code and Accused No.1 is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years for the offence under Section 354-A of Indian Penal Code. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period of accused No.1 is set off as per Section 428 Criminal Procedure Code i.e., from 26.06.2015 to 19.12.2015 i.e., 177 days and M.O.1 to M.O.6 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of Accused No.2 shall stands cancelled.
Prosecution was conducted by: Sri P.Anjani Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Srikakulam. Accused was defended by : Sri T.Radha Krishna and Sri K.B.Rao, Advocates, Srikakulam.
3
This Sessions case is coming on 28.03.2019 for hearing
before me in the presence of Sri P.Anjani Kumar, Additional Public
Prosecutor, Srikakulam for State-complainant and of Sri T.Radha Krishna and Sri K.B.Rao, Advocates for accused and the matter is having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
01. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Srikakulam filed a charge-sheet against the accused No.1 and 2-Kuppili Ramappadu and Kuppili Papayamma @ Papamma respectively alleging that the accused No.1 and 2 committed an offence punishable under sections 302, 304-B, r/w 34 IPC and 354(A) of the Indian Penal
Code in Cr.No.55/2015 of G.Sigadam Police Station.
02. The case of prosecution is that the marriage of daughter of Mandal Adilaxmi i.e., Kuppili Bala (deceased) took place with
Kuppili Ramappadu (accused No.1) who is a resident of Gobburu village, G.Sigadam mandal. Accused No.2-Kuppili Papayamma is mother of A.1. At the time of marriage, which was took place on 09.08.2009, the parents of Kuppili Bala gave cash of Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry, gold weighing about 2 tulas and sarisamanulu. During wed lock, accused No.1 blessed with two children named by
Tanushya Lakshmi aged about 5 years old and Pardhasaradhi aged about 3 years old as on the date of death of accused No.1’s wife. Accused No.1 along with his wife (deceased) lead conjugal life joyfully for some time. Accused No.1 was going to his house in late nights by consuming alcohol without doing any works and it was questioned by his wife, due to which, accused No.1 harassed his wife mentally and physically and driven her to her parents home for getting additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- towards his bad vices.
4
Subsequently, accused No.1 harassed his wife mentally and physically by demanding additional dowry. The in-laws of accused
No.1 raised a dispute before the village elders, while conducting panchayat by the village elders, accused No.1 suspected the fidelity of his wife and his son was not born to him. The village elders pacified the matter and sent the wife of accused No.1 to the matrimonial home. Again, in the month of May, accused No.1 driven out his wife to her parents house.
02(a). The case of prosecution is that, on 25.05.2015, accused
No.1 went to Guyyanavalasa village along with elders of Gobburu village and raised a dispute. Meanwhile, his wife raised a doubt that, if she goes to her in-laws house, then accused No.1 might have killed her. Then, the village elders and her parents pacified the matter and sent her to her husband’s house at Gobburu village on 28.05.2015.
02(b). The case of prosecution is that, on 24.06.2015 at about 5 hours, Bonu Appanna (LW.5) noticed through a phone call that
Kuppili Bala (wife of accused No.1) died. This was informed to her mother-Manda Adilaxmi (LW.2) and Gunapu Pratap (LW.1). Then, immediately they went to Gobburu village and found that accused
No.1’s wife died and she was in a pool of blood at the house of accused No.1 towards southern side of said house. Accused No.1 and 2 harassed her physically and mentally by demanding
additional dowry. On 23/24.06.2015 at about 05-00 hours,
accused No.1 beat with a spade over the head and face of his wife.
As a result, she sustained bleeding injuries over her face, head, on 5 the left eye, left nose and also the accused No.1 bite with his teeth on the left side of her breast as a result, she died instantaneously.
02(c). Based on the report of Gunapu Pratap (LW.1), the case was registered by G.Bhaskara Rao, Sub Inspector of Police,
G.Sigadam (LW.38) registered a case in Cr.No.55/2015 under
Sections 302, 304(B) read with 34 of Indian Penal Code of
G.Sigadam Police Station. On 24.06.2015 at 08-00 hours, he informed the facts through a telephone to Ch.Adinarayana (LW.39), Sub Divisional Police Officer, Palakonda a requisition was issued to Sri D.V.Brahmaji Rao (LW.33), Tahsildar, G.Sigadam
Mandal on the instructions of Sub Divisional Police Officer for conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased.
02(d). During the course of investigation, Sub Divisional
Police Officer, Palakonda visited the scene of offence in the presence of panchayatdars-Rakoti Suryanarayana, V.R.O.,
Gobburu (LW.8) and Konchada Venugopala Rao, V.R.O., Penta-II (LW.30) and examined 25 witnesses and recorded their statements in detailed under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. and arrested accused
No.1 on 25.06.2015 and accused No.2 on 26.06.2015 and sent them for judicial remand. He filed a memo before Judicial
Magistrate of 1st Class, Palakonda with a request to record
statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements for strengthening the prosecution.
02(e). The Tahsildar, G.Sigadam mandal (LW.33) conducted an inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and blood relatives of deceased.
6 02(f). Dr.G.S.Ravi Prasad (LW.34) and Dr.Y.Hema Chowdary (LW35) are the team of Doctors, CHC, Rajam, conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued a postmortem report opined that the deceased died due to “intra cerebral bluntly temporal hemorrhage due to head injury body to cardiorespiratory arrest” 02(g). K.Vivekananda Srinivas (LW.36), Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Palakonda recorded the statement of Kuppili Tanushya
Laxmi (LW.7) under section 164 Cr.P.C.
02(h). Ch.Adinarayana (LW.39) forwarded the material objects to the RFSL authorities and obtained opinion and on completion of the entire investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused
No.1 U/Sections 302, 304-B, r/w 34 IPC and 354-A of Indian
Penal Code and Accused No.2 under Section 304-B read with 34 of
Indian Penal Code.
03. The case was taken on file of the offence punishable under sections 302, 304-B, read with 34 IPC and 354-A of Indian
Penal Code and against accused No.1 and Sections 304-B read with 34 of Indian Penal Code against accused No.2 by the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Ponduru. Copies of documents were
supplied to the Accused No.1 and 2 under section 207 of Cr.P.C.
04. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions,
Sessions Division, Srikakulam since the offence is punishable
under sections 302, 304(B), read with 34 IPC and 354(A) of Indian
Penal Code and which is exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions under section 209 Cr.P.C.,
05. The case was made over to this Court for trial.
7
06. Charges under section 302, 304-B read with 34 IPC and 354-A of Indian Penal Code were framed against accused No.1 and
Sections 304-B read with 34 of Indian Penal Code was framed against accused No.2, read over to them and explained to them in
Telugu and they did not plead guilty and they claimed for trial.
07. During the course of trial, out of 39 listed witnesses, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 29, Exs.P1 to P.50, Exs.D.1 and
Ex.D.2 and M.Os.1 to 6 are marked.
07(a). The witnesses-Pelkluri Lokesh (LW.12), Mata Simma
Rao (LW.13), Koppara Adinarayana (LW.27), Addanki Laxmana Rao (LW.28), Gunapu Bharathi (LW.29), Bhupathi Narsinga Rao (LW.32), Dr.Y.Hema Chowdary (LW.35) and Additional Witness
MS.Geetha Madhuri claimed exemption u/sec.293 Cr.P.C., Sri
G.H.S.Ravi Babu (LW.37) are given up by the Additional Public
Prosecutor and their evidence is closed by the Court on different dates and as per memo filed by Additional Public Public Prosecutor the evidence of K.Vivekananda Srinivas (LW.36) is closed.
08. After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating evidence and they denied the same. They reported no evidence. The plea taken by the accused No.1 and 2 is total denial of the incident and they are innocent.
09. Heard arguments on both sides.
10. Now, the point for determination is;
Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of accused for the offence under sections 302, 304-B read with 34 IPC and 354-A of Indian Penal Code against accused No.1 and Section 304-B read with 34 against accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt?
8
POINT:-
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that, accused No.1 married Bala who is daughter of PW.2-M.Adilaxmi on 09.08.2009. At the time of marriage, parents of Bala (deceased) presented cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and gold of two tulas and
Sarisamanulu to accused No.1. They were blessed with two children i.e., Tanushy Lakshmi (PW.7) and Pardhasaradhi.
10(a). The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that accused No.1 started to come to home at late hours by consuming alcohol and it was questioned by his wife (deceased), due to which accused No.1 harassed his wife mentally and physically and driven her to her parents house by demanding additional dowry of
Rs.50,000/- from her to meet his bad vices. The matter was placed
before the elders and at that time, accused No.1 suspected her
fidelity that his 2nd child was not born to him. The village elders pacified the matter and daughter of PW.2 was sent to the house of accused No.1.
10(b). The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further argued that, on 23/24.06.2015 at about 0400 hours, accused No.1 beat his wife with a spade over the head and face and she sustained bleeding injuries on her face, head, on the left eye, left nose and also the accused bite with his teeth on the left side of her breast. As a result, she died instantaneously.
10(c). Based on the report of PW.1, the Police carried away the investigation in this case and they filed a charge sheet against accused No.1 under Section 302, 304-B and read with 34 of I.P.C 9 and 354-A of Indian Penal Code and Accused No.2 under Section 304-B read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.
10(d). The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further argued that the material witnesses, medical officers and investigation officers, all of them are supported with each other and
Prosecution has proved the case against the accused.
10(e). The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further argued that the citations which are relied by counsel for accused are not helpful to the present on hand. He requests the Court to punish the accused as per the charges leveled against them.
11. The counsel for accused raised the following contentions at the time of arguments are as follows:
a)This is a case based on extra judicial confession and
Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
b)The presumption under Section 113-B of Indian
Evidence Act can be drawn when prosecution able to prove main ingredients of Section which are charged against the accused. The duty of prosecution is that to prove that A.1 is present in the house at the time of offence.
c)Here in this case, prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW.8, who was Village Revenue Officer and his evidence is not supported by other witnesses, who are examined by prosecution in this case with regard to recovery of weapon and shirt.
d)The material witnesses in this case is PW.7 and she did not depose anything against the accused herein and she 10 is a child witness and she is daughter of Accused No.1.
Her presence was not deposed by Tahsildar at the time of inquest and she is in the care and custody of her father now.
e)Learned counsel for accused further argued that, there are no specific overtacts against accused No.2 and she was not present in the house when the offence was occurred.
f)The mother-in-law of accused No.1 i.e., PW.2 and her version is not supported by opinion of Panchayatdars.
g)The prosecution is relied upon two versions and it is settled law that which version is beneficial to the accused that version has to be taken into consideration.
h)The prosecution has to prove main ingredients of
Section 304-B IPC, then only presumption can be drawn u/sec.113-B of Indian Evidence Act.
i)PW.12 to 18 not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile.
j)The evidence of medical officer is that, spade is a short edged weapon, but no incise wounds on deceased.
11(b). To support the contentions raised by the counsel for accused No.1 and 2 they relied upon the following case laws:
In Jose Alias Pappachan Vs. Sub-Inspector of Police,
Koyilandy and another, reported in 2017 (1) Supreme
Courts cases (Cri) 171 (2016) 10 Supreme Court
Cases 519, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that:
11
It is a trite proposition of law, that suspicion however grave, it cannot take the place of proof and that the prosecution in order to succeed on a criminal charge cannot afford to lodge its case in the realm of "may be true" but has to essentially elevate it to the grade of "must be true". In a criminal prosecution, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof and in a situation where a reasonable doubt is entertained in the backdrop of the evidence available, to prevent miscarriage of justice, benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused. Such a doubt essentially has to be reasonable and not imaginary, fanciful, intangible or non-existent but as entertainable by an impartial, prudent and analytical mind, judged on the touch stone of reason and common sense. It is also a primary postulation in criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence available, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted.
It is further observed that,
In Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, 2013 12
SCC 406, this Court also in the contextual facts constituting circumstantial evidence ruled that in judging the culpability of an accused, the circumstances adduced when collectively considered must lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of a crime in question and the circumstances established must be of a conclusive nature consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
[61] In Dhan Raj @ Dhand vs. State of
Haryana, 2014 6 SCC 745, one of us (Hon.
12
Ghose,J.) while dwelling on the imperatives of circumstantial evidence ruled that the same has to be of highest order to satisfy the test of proof in a criminal prosecution. It was underlined that such circumstantial evidence should establish a complete unbroken chain of events so that only one inference of guilt of the accused would ensue by excluding all possible hypothesis of his innocence. It was held further that in case of circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by independent evidence excluding any chance of surmise or conjecture.
In State of Rajasthan Vs. Ramanand, reported in 2017 SAR (Criminal) 604, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex
Court held that:
The question then arises whether the respondent was guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 201 IPC. The fact that the deaths are as a result of culpable homicide is beyond any doubt but the question is whether the respondent could be said to be author of the crime.
The entire case of the prosecution on this count rests purely on circumstantial evidence. It is true that the deaths have occurred in a room occupied by the respondent along with wife, Anita and daughter Ekta. But no witness has been examined to suggest that the respondent was at or around his residence at the relevant time. The marriage was more than 10 years old and as such no statutory presumption on any count could be drawn, more particularly, when none of the prosecution witnesses had supported the case of prosecution as regards demands of dowry and harassment. Apart from strangulation marks nothing was found in the post-mortem report 13 regarding any other bodily injury. The absence of any evidence as regards dowry or related harassment also nullifies the element of presence of any motive on part of the respondent. None of the prosecution witnesses alleged anything against the respondent nor are there any other supporting circumstances such as discovery of any relevant fact.
In Boya Akuthota Nagaraju Vs. State represented by
Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.,
Hyderabad and another, reported in 2018(2) ALT (Crl.) 290 (DB) (A.P.), wherein it is held that:
Extra judicial confession, if inspires confidence of the Court and the true version of the accused is mentioned on extra judicial confession, conviction can be recorded, if corroborated by other circumstances. But, extra judicial confession itself alone cannot form the basis for conviction and such conviction is illegal. Before touching evidentiary value of extra judicial confession, the court must look into various circumstances like prior acquaintance with the person to whom the accused allegedly gave statement and whether it is voluntary in nature.
It is further held that,
The following guidelines emerged for deciding the evidentiary value of extra judicial confession and rely on such confession to record conviction of the accused:
(1) An extra-judicial confession to be admissible in evidence and one to be relied upon must fulfil the requirements of its voluntary character and truthfulness. The latter turns to be 14 more important and the former is read from it in cases of retracted extra-judicial confessions.
(2) It is required to be established from the fact and evidence produced as to whether the accused did make the extra-judicial confession or not.
(3) The inculpatory statement, when separated from the exculpatory statement of the accused, must constitute the confession when tested on the requirements of Section 24.
(4) The veracity of the extra-judicial confession is read from the credibility of the persons to whom made, the circumstances in which made and the explanations of the delay between the receipt of confession by a person and its transmission to the police.
(5) Extra-judicial confessions if voluntary and true can be sufficient evidence to base conviction of the accused, but if the same is corroborated with some additional independent evidence, the rule of prudence also gets thereby satisfied. In the case of retracted extra-judicial confession such a corroboration turns to the all the more important to take this rule of prudence, the place of a rule of law.
In Middela Parvaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, reported in 2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 373 (DB) (A.P.), wherein it is held that:
Silence of the eye-witnesses at the time of inquest could be a fatal to the case of prosecution.
15 In Sonvir @ Somvir Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in 2018 SAR (Criminal) 1045, wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court held that:
The mere matching of the blood-group of the blood samples taken from the bed-sheet at the scene of crime, and the blood-stained shirt recovered from Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused
No. 2) cannot lead to the conclusion that the appellant had been involved in the commission of the crime. On this issue, reliance can be placed on two decisions of this Court in Prakash v. State of
Karnataka, 2014 12 SCC 133; paragraphs 41 and 45] and Debapriya Pal v. State of West Bengal, 2017 11 SCC 31; paragraph 8] wherein this Court while deciding cases based on circumstantial evidence had held that mere matching of the blood group cannot lead to the conclusion of the culpability of the accused, in the absence of a detailed serological comparison, since millions of people would have the same blood group.
In S.Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Ganna Vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in 2013 SAR (Criminal) 863, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, held that:
Once the prosecution failed to prove the basic ingredients of harassment or demand of dowry and the evidence brought on record were doubted by the trial court, it was not open to the High Court to convict accused No.1 on presumption referring to
Section 113A or 113B of the Evidence Act. The presumption of innocence of the accused being primary factor, in absence of exceptional compelling circumstances and perversity of the judgment, it was not open to the High Court to interfere with the judgment of the trial court in a routine manner.
16 In Indrajit Suresh Prasad Bind and others Vs. State of Gujarath, reported in 2013 SAR (Criminal) 596, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that:
To establish the offence of dowry death under
Section 304B, IPC the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the husband or his relative has subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. Similarly, to establish the offence under Section 498A, IPC the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the husband or his relative has subjected the victim to cruelty as defined in Clauses (a) and (b) of the
Explanation to Section 498A, IPC.
In Sow.Chhya Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2018 SAR (Criminal) 915, wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court held that:
A perusal of the oral evidence of the parents of the deceased would indicate that only minor allegations are made against the appellant. Vague and cryptic allegations are found against her with no specific allegation in respect of demand for dowry or harassment in any manner. In the absence of definite evidence against the appellant, the Sessions Court and the High Court are not justified in convicting her even for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.
In Major Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2015 (2) Supreme Court cases (Cri) 768 (2015) 5 Supreme Court Cases 201, wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court held that:
17
To sustain the conviction under Section 304B
IPC, the following essential ingredients are to be established:-
The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a 'normal circumstance' * such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage; * she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; * such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry and * such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
It is further observed that:
[10] If any death is caused in connection with dowry demand, Section 113B of the Evidence Act also comes into play. Both these Sections 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act were inserted by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths.
In Hira Lal & Ors. vs. State(Govt. of NCT)
Delhi, 2003 8 SCC 80, in paragraph (9) it was observed as under:- "9. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the
Evidence Act and Section 304- B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of "death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances". The expression "soon before" is very relevant where 18
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-
B IPC are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by the prosecution. "Soon before" is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression "soon
before her death" used in the substantive Section
304-B IPC and Section 113- B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon
before" is not defined. A reference to the expression
"soon before" used in Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods "soon after the theft, is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for their possession". The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned.
19
If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence." In Baijnath and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2017 (2) ALT (Crl.) 266 (SC), wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court held that:
Main ingredient to attract Section 304-B I.P.C.
– To attract the provisions of Section 304-B of the
Code, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that “soon
before her death” she has subjected to cruelty and
harassment “in connection with the demand for dowry”.
It is further observed that,
In K. Prema S. Rao Vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao, 2003 1 SCC 217 to the effect that to attract the provision of Section 304B of the Code, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that "soon before her death" she was subjected to cruelty and harassment "in connection with the demand for dowry".
In Bakshish Ram and another Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2013 CRL.L.J.2052, wherein the Hon’ble
Apex Court observed that:
In M. Srinivasulu v. State of A.P., 2007 12 SCC 443 has observed thus:
... The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials:
(1) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (This means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is 20 being tried for the offence under Section 304-B
Indian Penal Code.) (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives.
(3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry.
(4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon
before her death.
In Dheshetti Rajesham and another Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad., reported in 2008 (1) ALT (Crl.) 148 (A.P.) wherein it is observed that:
(vi). In Sakatar Singh and others Vs. State of
Haryana 2004(2) ALT (Crl.) 174 SC. the Supreme
Court held that the testimony of witnesses about the harassment based on what deceased told them, but not based on their personal knowledge cannot be relied upon. Unless it is based on their personal knowledge, the conviction of the appellants could not be sustained.
In Karre Mohan Krishna Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh, reported in 2009 (2) ALT (Crl.) 344 (A.P.), wherein it is observed that:
(ii). In Rajbabu Vs. State of M.P.,2009 (1) ALT (Crl.) 348, wherein it was laid down that the mere facts that a woman committed suicide within seven years of her marriage and that she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband or any relative of her husband does not automatically give rise to the presumption that the suicide has been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband. The
Court is required to look into all the other 21 circumstances of the case. One of the circumstances which has to be considered by the Court is whether the alleged cruelty was of such a nature as was likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or healthof the woman.
In Bhairon Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2010 (1) Supreme Court cases (Cri) 955 (2009) 13 Supreme Court Cases 80, wherein, the
Hon’ble Apex Court observed that:
In Shiv Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 1966 Crl.APP of (SC) 281 has made similar observations that the circumstances must have some proximate relation to the actual occurrence, and that general expressions indicating fear or suspicion, whether of a particular individual or otherwise and not directly to the occasion of death will not be admissible.
In Anand Kumar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2009 (2) ALT (Crl.) 25 (SC), wherein it is observed that:
State of Punjab Vs. Iqbal Singh (1991) 3 SCC 1 and others to support her plea that a presumption had advisedly been raised against an accused in an offence relating to abetment of suicide in view of the malaise of dowry which had afficted Indian society and if this gross social evil had to be curbed, the Court must also lend a helping hand.
It is further held that;
The legislative intent in the introduction of
Sections 113-A and 113-B of the Evidence Act was to strengthen “the Prosecution hands by permitting a presumption to be raised if certain foundational 22 facts are established and the unfortunate event has taken place within seven years of marriage.”
The different terminology of Sections 113-A and 113-B itself brings out the real purpose behind the provisions and whereas Section 113-B places a heavier onus on an accused, the onus placed under
Section 113-A is far lighter.
11(c). The counsel for accused further argued that, no case is made out by the prosecution against the accused since the daughter of accused No.1 herself not deposed anything against the accused, who alleged to have been present in the house at the time of offence. Hence, counsel for accused further requests the Court to acquit the accused No.1 and 2 for the charges leveled against them.
The evidence available on record is discussed as follows:
12. It is the evidence of PW.27-G.Bhaskara Rao that, he worked earlier as Sub Inspector of Police at G.Sigadam Police
Station during the relevant period. According to him, on 24.06.2015, while, he was at Police Station, G.Sigadam, at 8.00 a.m., PW.1-G.Pratap came to the Police Station and presented a written report under Ex.P.1, based on that, he registered a case as in Cr.No.55/2015 under Section 302, 304-B read with 34 of Indian
Penal Code and issued Express F.I.R. under Ex.P.44 and he sent original F.I.R. to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Rajam and sent copies of Express F.I.R. to the concerned. The D.S.P.,
Palakonda took up investigation in this case. The contents of
Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.44 are self-explanatory in nature.
12(a). It is elicited in his cross examination that, there is an endorsement made on Ex.P.44 by the Court, Rajam received it on that day at 1.55 p.m. He denied the suggestions that the report, 23 which was presented to him by PW.1 is prepared at a later point of time after D.S.P. Palakonda came to the Police Station.
12(b). On that aspect, PW.1-Gunapu Prathap deposed that, he is a Mason and his senior maternal aunt is Manda Adilakshmi i.e., PW.2. PW.4-Manda Rambabu is his cousin and brother of deceased. PW.3-Battina Krishnaveni is sister of deceased. PW.7-
Kuppili Thanushya Lakshmi is daughter of accused No.1. Accused
No.2 is mother of accused No.1. PW.8-Rakoti Suryanarayana is one of the elders of his village. PW.9-Manda Paparao is brother of deceased.
12(c). According to PW.1, in the year 2009, the marriage between accused No.1 and daughter of PW.2 i.e., Bala took place.
At the time of marriage, the parents of deceased presented
Rs.1,00,000/- cash, 2 tulas gold and Lanchanams towards dowry to accused No.1. Accused No.1 blessed with two children i.e.,
Thanusya Lakshmi (PW.7) and Parthu and they are aged about five years old and three years old by the date of death of deceased. Till the birth of two children i.e., accused No.1 and his wife were lived happily. After birth of son of accused No.1, he used to consume alcohol and beat his wife and he demanded for additional dowry of
Rs.50,000/- from his wife and the matter was placed before the elders twice or thrice and he and other elders convinced wife of accused No.1 and sent her to the house of accused No.1. After that, accused No.1 beat his wife and sent her to her parents house at
Guyyanavalasa village. This is happened three years ago. After one month, accused No.1 came to the Guyyanavalasa village along with three elders of his village, at that time, they called Pelkluri Lokesh, 24
Padala Suresh (PW.11), Potala Apparao (PW.10). Even at that time, accused No.1 promised before elders that he will look after his wife properly. At that time, accused No.1’s wife told that, if she was sent to the house of accused No.1, they will see her dead body.
12(d). The version of PW.1 is that, deceased-Bala joined with her husband after the said panchayat. After one month, he received a phone call from Bonu Appanna (PW.5) and he informed that, Bala died. Then, he intimated the same to his senior paternal aunt
Manda Lakshmi (PW.2), then, he along with PW.2 and other elders rushed to Gobburu village and went to the house of accused No.1.
By that time, accused No.1’s wife was already dead and they noticed injuries on her face i.e., on forehead, left eye brow, near left nostril of her nose and on her chest and back side of head. Nobody informed in the village to them that how she died. Then, they enquired with daughter of deceased i.e., PW.7 and she told that accused No.1 beat his wife with Paramatti (spade) and she died.
12(e). His eversion is that, on seeing dead body of deceased,
PW.2 fell unconscious. Then, he gave a report to the Police. He identified the contents of report and his signature on Ex.P.1, during his evidence. Police examined him and he was present at the time of inquest conducted over the dead body of the deceased by the Police. The contents of Ex.P.1 are self-explanatory in nature.
12(f). It is elicited in the cross examination of PW.1 that, his mother’s mother and his senior paternal aunt’s mother are sisters.
They are four brothers. His senior paternal aunt has two sons and two daughters and all of them are married. Manda Rambabu (PW.4) and Manda Paparao (PW.9) are the sons of his senior paternal aunt 25 and they are Masons and they are living with their mother. His senior paternal aunt has no properties. She is dependant of the income of her sons. Prior to two months of marriage of A.1 with
Bala, the elders visited the house of his senior paternal aunt. He is also Mason. He studied up to 8th class. Manda Rambabu’s father has no brothers. There was a demand of two lakhs of dowry and the same was fixed at one lakh for the marriage of A.1 with Bala (daughter of PW.2).
12(g). His cross examination reveals that, he was not present at the time of marriage and at that time he was in Chennai. He stated that, he attended the marriage of A.1 with Bala and on that he came to know that Rs.50,000/- was given on the date of marriage and prior to that Rs.50,000/- was given to A1. The marriage took place in the month of June, 2009 at Gobburu village.
By the date of marriage of A.1 with Bala, Manda Rambabu (PW.4) was working in Vizag and his brother Paparao (PW.9) was in Rajam.
He denied the suggestion that, his paternal aunt has no capacity to presented dowry, gold and other lanchanams as stated by him for the marriage of her daughter-Bala with A1 and the same was created for the purpose of the case.
12(h). It is further elicited in his cross examination that,
A.1 blessed with daughter in the year 2010. He cannot say exact date of birth of daughter of A.1, so also son of A1. The deceased used to inform him that A.1 used to beat her, but he has no personal knowledge of it. He cannot say the details of beatings of
A.1 to his wife and he cannot say the details of elders meets were held between A1 and his wife and when she joined with A1 after 26 the meetings. To his knowledge, one meeting was held in the year 2015 but, he cannot say the details of said meeting. They did not give any report to the Woman P.S. with regard to demands made by
A1 to his wife about Rs.50,000/-. He cannot say in which month and year said demand made by A.1 to his wife.
12(i). It is further elicited in his cross examination that,
A.1 is a painter. He used to attend the works of paintings in and around the Visakhapatnam. A.1 has immovable properties i.e., house etc. He admitted that, A.1 used to handover his income to his wife. He denied the suggestion that, A1’s wife used to support her mother’s family since she has no income and the same was placed before elders by A1 and at that time deceased promised that she will not support her mother in future and on that his senior paternal aunt bore grudge against A.1.
12(j). His cross examination reveals that, he received a phone call from Bonu Appanna (PW.5) on that day at 5-00 PM. The village
Guyyannavalasa will come under the jurisdiction of Rajam mandal.
He stated that, Gobburu village is under the jurisdiction of
G.Sigadam mandal. One has to pass through G.Sigadam village to reach Gobburu from Guyyannavalasa village. There is police station at G.Sigadam village. Before reaching Gobburu village they do not give report at G.Sigadam P.S. They reached Gobburu village on that day at 6-30 PM., by that time they reached the house of A1, people were gathered.
12(k). It is further elicited in his cross examination that, he does not mentioned either in his report or in his statement to the police that, when they enquired with villagers about the death of 27
Bala (deceased) none of them stated anything to them. He does not accompany by the daughter of A1 to the police station. He went to the police station on that day at 8-00 AM. By the time they reached the house of A.1 in Gobburu village the police were present. He was advised by police to give report at police station and on that he gave it at police station. He denied the suggestion that, after discussion with village elders and police he gave report at police station. The children of deceased were in their house when he gave report at police station. Police examined the daughter of A.1 (PW.7) when they came to scene of offence and Tahsildar was also present at that time he conducted inquest and at that time Tahsildar examined the witnesses. At that time, Ramappadu (A.1) was not present. Police observed the entire house of A.1. He does not know whether police seized clothes of A.1 and Spade at that time. He denied the suggestions that, A.1 never demanded for additional dowry from his wife at any point time and no panchayats were held between A.1 and his wife before the elders and daughter of A1 never stated that A.1 beat with spade his wife and the same was created since the family members of his paternal aunt is depended on the income of A1 through his wife and that the false case was foisted against accused since we bore grudge against him and he is deposing false.
12(l). It appears that, PW.1 supported the version of PW.27 with regard to report given by PW.1 to PW.27.
13. The version of PW.29-Ch.Adinarayana, Sub Divisional
Police Officer, Palakonda during the relevant period deposed that, on 24.06.2015 at about 8.45 hours, he received copy of Ex.P.44 28 from PW.27. He issued instructions to PW.27 to send the requisition to Tahsildar, G.Sigadam mandal and also clues team,
Srikakulam. Immediately, he rushed to the place of offence, which is situated at Gobburu village i.e., tiled house of Kuppili
Ramappadu (A.1) located at S.C. colony of said village. There, he secured the presence of mediators-R.Suryanarayana (PW.8) and
K.Venugopala Rao (PW.23) and examined the scene and dead body of the deceased in their presence and PW.29 seized blood stains from the floor of the scene and controlled earth of the floor, blood stains from the doors, controlled swab of the doors, blood stains from the deceased and broken bangle pieces of deceased which are lying adjacent to the deceased i.e., M.O.1, blood stains from the wall, controlled swab of the wall with the help of clues team in the presence of mediators under the cover of scene observation report i.e., Ex.P.2 and it was duly attested by him and said mediators. He drew a rough sketch i.e., total place of offence under Ex.P.46 and he also drew another rough sketch, which discloses the location of the dead body at the place of offence under Ex.P.47. The contents of Ex.P.22, Ex.P.46 and Ex.P.47 are self-explanatory in nature. He also got photographed the scene of offence with the help of clues team.
13(a). On that aspect, PW.8-Rakoti Suryanarayana deposed that, on 24.06.2015 at about 8.30 a.m., he received a phone call from D.S.P., Srikakulam and on his request, he reached the house of accused No.1, which is situated in S.C. colony in the village, at that time Konchada Venugopala Rao, Village Revenue Officer (PW.23) from Penta village was accompanied by him to the said 29 place. They saw that the dead body was found in the kitchen of the house of accused No.1 and she is wife of accused No.1 by name
Bala. They also noticed injuries over the dead body of the deceased i.e., on fore head, near the left eye brow and left side nostril of the nose and on the back side of head of deceased. At that time, police observed the scene of offence in their presence and in the presence of clues team and seized pieces of bangles (MO.1) which are blue and red in colour and collected samples i.e., controlled Earth, swab etc., under the cover of scene observation report. He stated that, the contents of scene observation report prepared at the place of offence in their presence and he identified the same and himself, said Venugopala Rao (V.R.O) and D.S.P. signed the same. Ex.P.2 is scene observation report, dated, 24.06.2015. M.O.1 is pieces of bangles which are blue and red in colour. The contention of Ex.P.2 are self-explanatory in nature.
13(b). PW.8 further deposed that, on the same day inquest report was prepared in the presence of Tahsildar and he prepared the contents of said inquest report. PW.8 was confronted to inquest report by Additional Public Prosecutor denying his evidence and he identified the contents of it and he signed the same along with
Venugopala Rao, K.Adiyya (V.R.O.), Addanki Lakshmana Rao and others attested the same. Ex.P.3 is inquest report, dated 24.06.2015. The contents of Ex.P.3 are self-explanatory in nature.
13(c). PW.8 further deposed that, based on injuries found on the dead body of deceased and they mentioned their opinion in the inquest report in column No.15. The Police also took photographs over the dead body of deceased. PW.8 was confronted to the 30 photographs by Additional Public Prosecutor during his evidence and he admits the same. Ex.P.4 is C.D., Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.28 are positives of Ex.P.4. The contents of Exs.P.4 to Ex.P.28 are self- explanatory in nature.
13(d). PW.8 stated in cross examination that, on verifying the record he deposed before the court at the time of recording evidence. He prepared the scene observation report on the instructions of D.S.P., Tahsildar so also inquest report.
14. PW.23-Konchada Venugopala Rao deposed that, on 24.06.2015, while, he was at the office of MRO, G.Sigadam, at about 9-00 AM, he received a call from G.Sigadam police station.
He obtained permission from MRO, G.Sigadam and on that he proceeded to Gobburu village and reached the house of A1, at that time, R.Suryanarayana, VRO of Gobburu (PW.8) was present.
There, they noticed a dead body of woman in the kitchen of A1’s house and they noticed that she sustained injuries on her forehead, and on the right side nostril and on the back side of head of her. At that time the police and Photographer also present. The photos were taken at the place of offence and over the dead body of deceased by the photographer. The clues team were also present at that time. The broken pieces of bangles (MO1) were seized by the police at that time. The clues team collected the earth at the place of offence. At that time R.Suryanarayana (PW.8) (VRO) prepared the report. Himself, Suryanarayana (PW.8) and DSP, subscribed their signatures on that report. PW.23 identified his signature on Ex.P2 when it was confronted to him by Addl. P.P during his evidence.
31 14(a). It is elicited in cross examination of PW.23 that, there are five villages in Penta II cluster. He went to the office on that day at 9-00 AM. The office hours starts from 10-30 AM to 1-30 PM and 2-00 PM to 5-00 PM. He obtained permission by phone from MRO on that day. He was informed that MRO was at Gobburu village.
There may be 150 houses in Gobburu village and he has no idea of total houses of Gobburu village. Gobburu village is situated towards East to West. A1’s house is situated towards Eastern side of the village. By the time they reached there, there are number of persons gathered and they observed the same. After completion of the report, he subscribed his signature on it. He denied the suggestion that, he signed at police station and but not at place of offence and he is deposing false.
14(b). It appears that, PW.8 and PW.23 were present at the time of scene observation report and seizure of M.O.1 by PW.29 at the place of offence and both of them supported the version of
PW.29 with regard to seizure of M.O.1.
14(c). The version of PW.29-Ch.Adinarayana is that,
Tahsildar, G.Sigadam visited the scene of offence along with his staff and issued summons to the panchayatdars to act as panchayatdars for the inquest to be held over the dead body of the deceased. Tahsildar conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses at the scene of offence i.e., near by the house of deceased from 10.30 to 13.00 hours. During the inquest, Tahsildar also recorded the statement of witnesses and sent dead body of the deceased through
Woman Police Constable-1413 to the Medical Officer, Government 32
Hospital, Rajam with a request to conduct Autospy over the dead body of the deceased with a team of doctors as the deceased is died within 7 years of the marriage with A.1.
14(d). On that aspect, PW.26-D.V.Brahmaji Rao deposed that, he worked as Tahsildar earlier at the time of offence. According to him, on 24-06-2015, D.S.P. Palakonda (PW.29) and through concerned police he received a requisition to conduct inquest over the dead body of deceased Bala and on that he went to S.C.
colony, Gobburu village and reached the house of A1 at 10-20 AM.
Where, he found the dead body of deceased-Bala. At that time, he along with panchayatdars and VRO conducted inquest proceedings over the dead body of the deceased. At that time the panchayatdars expressed their opinion that A.1 beat with spade and on that his wife died.
14(e). The counsel for accused objected to record the panchaytdars opinion expressed by witness and it is recorded.
14(f). PW.26 further deposed that, the inquest report was prepared at that time for the proceedings conducted by him over the dead body of deceased. Himself concerned VRO and other villagers and another VRO subscribed signatures on that report.
PW.26 identified the contents of inquest report and his signature on Ex.P.3 when it was confronted to him by the Addl. P.P. during his evidence.
14(g). It is elicited in cross examination of PW.26 that, he did not record the statements of persons. He stated that, V.R.O.
recorded the statements of the persons. The opinion was given based on the statements as well as on noticing the dead body. He 33 did not examine witness by name Thanushya Lakshmi (PW..7).
There is no specific mention in the opinion of Panchayatdars and
Ex.P.3 that the witnesses were informed by Thanushya Lakshmi that her father i.e., A1 beat his wife with spade and on that she died.
14(g). His cross examination reveals that, there is a mention in panchayatdars opinion under Ex.P.3 that after coming to know the death of wife of A1, they went to the house of A1. He denied the suggestion that, at the instance of police they prepared the opinion and mentioned the same under Ex.P.3 and he is deposing false.
15. PW.22-Bonu Eswara Rao deposed that, he is a resident of Guyyanavalasa village. He accompanied by Koppara
Adinarayana, Addanki Lakshmanarao, Ganapu Bharathi went to the house of A.1 on 24.6.2015 and at that time they saw the dead body of wife of A.1. The Tahsildar came there and prepared a report at that place in their presence. Himself and said persons subscribed their signatures on that report and he identified his signature on inquest report dated 24.6.2015 i.e Ex.P.3 and when it was confronted to him by Additional P.P. during his evidence. The panchayatdars expressed their opinion and the same was mentioned in that report about the death of wife of A.1.
15(a). It is elicited in cross examination of PW.22 that, he denied the suggestions that, he does not know anything about
Ex.P.3 report prepared by Tahsildar on that day and he signed in that report at police station and he is deposing false and that 34 himself and other panchyatdars i.e, Adinarayana, A.Lakshmanarao and G.Bharathi are related and he is deposing false.
15(b). It appears that the testimony of PW.26 supported by
PW.8 and PW.22 in respect of inquest conducted over the dead body of the deceased at the place of offence.
15(c). On that aspect, PW.25-Dr.G.Ravi Prasad, Civil
Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Rajam deposed that, on 24-06- 2015 at 3-45 PM, he received a requisition from S.H.O, G.Sigadam to conduct Post mortem examination of Kuppili Bala (deceased).
Accordingly, himself and Dr. Hema Chowdary conducted P.M.
examination over the dead body of deceased on the same day at 4-00 PM and he found the following external injuries.
i.A lacerated wound of size 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep over the forehead in the mid line most probably due to sharp object.
ii.A lacerated wound of size 3 cm x 2cm x 2 cm over the left side of upper lip beside the nose.
iii.A lacerated wound of size 3 cm x 2 cm x half c.m. over the temporal region of skull on the left side along with fracture of left mastoid bone.
iv.An abrasion injury above the left eyebrow.
v.Bite marks of 7 teeth over the left breast.
The above injuries 1 to 5 are anti mortem in nature.
On internal examination PW.25 found the following injuries.
i.Hemotoma which is in diffuse in nature is present over the left temporal region of brain.
15(d). Post mortem is concluded at 5-00 PM on 24-06-2015.
35
The approximate time of death is within 12 to 24 hours prior to
P.M. Examination. The cause of death to the best of his knowledge is Intra cerebral bleeding and temporal lobe hematoma due to head injury leading to Cardio respiratory arrest.
15(e). The injuries can be possible by using spade (M.O.3).
PW.25 and Dr. Hema Chowdary subscribed their signatures on
P.M. Examination report issued by them. PW.25 identified his signature as well as signature of Dr. Hema Chowdary on P.M.
report dated 26-06-2015 i.e., Ex.P.43 when it was confronted to him by Addl. P.P. during his evidence. The contents of Ex.P.43 is self-explanatory in nature.
15(f). It is elicited in cross examination of PW.25 that, in stomach portion of deceased they found partly digested food particles were found. It may be possible that the deceased died one or two hours after taking last meals. Among Injury No.4 i.e., abrasion can be caused by come into contact with rough surface and Injury No.1 to 3 can be possible by blunt object. Injury No.1 can be caused if a person fell down on the floor during dark. He stated that, incised wounds can be caused by sharp edged weapons only. He does not find any incised wounds on the dead body of deceased. Spade is a sharp edged weapon.
15(g). It appears that, PW.25 supported the version of PW.29 with regard to postmortem examination conducted by him and other Doctors over the dead body of the deceased.
16. The version of PW.29-Ch.Adinarayana is that, he secured the presence of Gunapu Pratap (PW.1), Manda Adilaxmi (PW.2), Bathina Krishna Veni (PW.3), Bonu Appanna (PW.5), 36
Gunapu Kondamma (PW.6), Kuppili Tanushya Laxmi (PW.7) and recorded their statement.
16(a) On that aspect, PW.1’s evidence clearly shows that, his statement was recorded by PW.29.
17. PW.2-Mandal Adilaxmi deposed that, she is a resident of
Guyyanavalasa village, Pw.1 is her sister's son. She performed the marriage of her daughter-Bala with A.1 in the year 2009, A.2 is mother of A.1. At the time of marriage of A.1 with her daughter, she presented Rs.1,00,000/- cash, two tulas of gold and lanchanams to A.1.
17(a). PW.2 further deposed that, A.1 and her daughter Bala were blessed with two Children i.e., Thanushya Lakshmi, Patru. Till the birth of two children, A.1 lived with her daughter-Bala happily.
Subsequently, A.1 used to beat her daughter and A.1 used to tell that son of A.1 not born to him through her daughter-Bala and A.2 used to instigate A.1 to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- by her daughter from them, and on that A.1 sent wife of A.1 to her house. The matter was placed before the elders of both villages and it happened about 3 years ago. At the intervention of the elders,
PW.2 sent her daughter to the house of A.1, but, her daughter expressed that she will be killed if she was sent to the house of A.1.
17(b). PW.2 further deposed that, subsequently, Bonu
Appanna got a phone call about the death of her daughter and this was informed to him through Pw.1-G.Pratap at about 4 pm., and she got this information about 3 years ago. After that she sent her daughter to the house of A.1 and after three days, she got information about her death, then she went there along with 37 others. She went to the house of A.1 and found the dead body of her deceased daughter Bala. Then, PW.2 enquired with her grand- daughter what happened to her mother (deceased), then she told that A.1 beat her daughter with paramatti (spade) and on that she died. On hearing the same, she became unconscious.
17(c). PW.2 further deposed that, she noticed the injuries on the dead body of her deceased daughter i.e., on forehead, near left eyebrow, near right nostril of nose, and backside of her head. Police examined her and recorded her statement. She was present at the time of inquest conducted over the dead body of the deceased.
17(d). It is elicited in cross examination of PW.2 that, she has no properties. She denied the suggestions that, she has not presented cash of one Lakh, Two tulas of gold, and lanchanamas to
A1 at the time of marriage of his daughter with A1 and same was created by them for the purpose of the case and that her daughter used to give money to them which was earned by A1 and that, since her daughter stopped giving money to them and on that they bore grudge against the family of A.1 and that the children are residing with A1’s brother when he was arrested and till he get bail and even the date of her evidence, they are living with A1’s brother only and that, since her daughter is not giving money to them and after her death she does not come forward to look after the children of A.1 and on that A1’s brother is taking care of them and that after accused got bail, the children of A1 are living with accused only and she is deposing false. She cannot say the month in the year 2009 when the marriage of her daughter marriage with 38
A.1. She does not remember after how many days of marriage of her daughter, her grand-daughter K.Thanusya Lakshmi was borne.
After 3 years after birth of Thanusya Lakshmi her daughter blessed with son.
17(e). It is further elicited in her cross examination that, she has no personal knowledge about the demands of additional dowry made by accused through her daughter. The elders meet was held in their village but she cannot say the details of date and month and year of said meeting. They did not give any report when A.1 beat her daughter and suspected her about the birth of son.
17(f). It is further elicited in her cross examination that, when they reached Gobburu village on that day at 5-00 PM. On seeing the dead body of her daughter immediately he fainted. When she regained conscious, police and Tahsildar were present. At that time her grand-daughter told her what happened to her mother. Till then nobody knows how her daughter was died. She denied the suggestions that, her grand-daughter not told anything about how the death of her mother took place to them and the same was created for the purpose of the case and that, A.2 residing at
Visakhapatnam with her eldest son but not with A1. She stated that, A2’s eldest son is residing at Visakhapatnam. She stated that, A.2 used to reside at Visakhapatnam as well as at Gobburu village. She denied the suggestion that, A.1 never harassed her daughter at any point of time and A.2 never instigated A.1 to bring
additional dowry from them and the same was created for the
purpose of the case.
39
18. PW.4-Manda Rambabu deposed that, deposed that he is a resident of Guyyanavalasa village. PW.1 is his junior paternal uncle’s son. PW.2 is his mother. Deceased-Bala is her sister. Her marriage is performed with A.1 during the month of August, 2009.
A.2 is mother of A1. At the time of marriage of her sister with A.1, they gave Rs.1,00,000/- cash, Two tulas of gold and Sari samanu to A.1. They were blessed with one son and one daughter and daughter's name is Tanushya Lakshmi and son’s name is Parthu.
A.1 and her sister lived happily till the birth of daughter and subsequently A.1 started harassment towards wife of A.1 (deceased) after birth of son and A.1 also demanded for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- from wife of A.1. A.2 also sailed along with
A.1 for the said demand.
18(a). PW.4 further deposed that, the matter was placed
before the elders twice and his sister returned to their home. The
village elders on behalf of A.1 came to their village and at that time they sent their sister (deceased) to the house of A.1 on the advice of elders. His sister expressed that she will not be peaceful in the house of A.1 and they will see her dead body. It is happened about 3 years ago.
18(b). PW.4 further deposed that, after the one month of said incident, they received information that his sister died. All of them went there and they found the dead body of his sister in a pool of blood and she sustained injuries. He noticed the injuries on her forehead and on her left eye brow. Police examined him and he was present at the time of inquest conducted over the dead body of deceased.
40 18(c). It is elicited in cross examination of PW.4 that, he was examined by the police at the time of inquest and subsequent to the inquest. He is residing at Kerala. He does not know the matters which are happened in their area. He cannot say the details of date and month and year when his sister revealed the same to him about the harassment faced by her in the hands of A1. He denied the suggestions that, he has no personal knowledge about incident took place in their family and he came to the same through his mother. The house of A.1 consists two portions. He saw the dead body of the deceased towards western side portion of the accused i.e., in the portion of kitchen. He denied the suggestions that, nothing was happened as stated by him and he is deposing at the instance of his family members and that his mother has no capacity to provide cash, gold and Sarisaman to A.1 at the time of his marriage with his sister.
18(d). His cross examination reveals that, he does not state
before police in his statement that his mother has no financial
status i.e. Ex.D1. He denied the suggestion that himself and his brother not looked after his mother and on that the deceased who is his sister used to give money to his mother from the income of
A.1. A.1 demanded for additional dowry for first time in the month of May, 2015. After the said demand and after three months the matter was placed before the elders. After 10 days of the elders meet his sister died.
18(e). His cross examination reveals that, prior to one month of marriage, they gave Rs.50,000/- to A.1 and at the time of marriage they gave Rs.50,000/- to A.1 and after the marriage they 41 gave gold, and Sarisaman to A1. He denied the suggestion that, since his sister is fair in complexion and on that A.1 married her without dowry and he is deposing false. A.1 is having well furnished house.
19. PW.3-Battina Krishnaveni deposed that, she is a resident of Regidi Amadalavalasa village. PW.1 is her cousin. Pw.2 is her mother. Deceased-Bala is her own sister. A.1 is husband of her sister Bala, and A.2 is A.1’s mother. Marriage between A.1 and her sister took place in the year 2009. At the time of marriage of her sister with A.1, her parents presented cash of Rs.1,00,000/- 2 Tulas of gold and Sarisamans to A.1.
19(a). PW.3 further deposed that, A.1 blessed with two children i.e., one daughter and son. After birth of two children to
A.1, A.1 started harassment towards her sister. The deceased used to inform her about the harassment faced by her in the hands of accused whenever she met her at her parents’ house. A.1 used to beat her sister and demanded for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- by her sister. A.2 also followed A.1 in respect of harassment faced by deceased.
19(b). PW.3 further deposed that, A.1 did not accept the 2nd child who was born to her sister. The matter was placed before the elders and at that time her sister i.e., deceased Bala told that if she was sent to her husband’s house, she will not alive in this world.
After one month of the said panchayat, they received information from her brother-Rambabu (PW.4) stating that her sister died. She went to Guyyannavalasa village from there, they went to the place of offence. By that time she saw that her sister was died and she 42 sustained injuries. On her enquiry, her sister's daughter told her that A.1 killed the deceased with Paramatta (Spade). She also saw the injuries on the dead body of deceased i.e. near left eye brow, forehead, and back side of her head. Police examined her and she was present at the time of inquest over the dead body conducted by the police.
19(c). It is elicited in cross examination of PW.3 that, she was examined by police twice i.e., at Gobburu. She does not know that the date of her marriage. Her in-laws village is Regidi
Amadalavalasa. She has two children and his husband is alive and he is doing coolly work. After he gave birth for two children, later her sister’s marriage took place with A1. To her knowledge Manda
Rambabu (PW.4) worked at Hyderabad, Guyyanavalasa and Kerala.
Her another brother M.Paparao (PW.9) is attending works in
Guyyanavalasa village. Both of her brothers are married and they are living with their families separately. She denied the suggestions that, since all of them are living separately from each other and on that there is no possibility of knowing of family affairs of each other. She stated that, whenever they met on festivals they will share their family matters.
19(d). Her cross examination reveals that, she does not know remember exactly on which festival her deceased sister revealed her family matters with him. Her sister for the first time informed her about her family matters and after one month of it she died. A.1 married her sister in the year 2009 but she cannot say the exact date and month. Their marriage took place at night time. At that time the dowry amount, gold and Sarisaman were presented by her 43 parents to her sister. Her father was no more by the date of marriage of her sister with A1. She denied the suggestions that, her mother has no capacity to give such amount as dowry including gold and Sarisaman to A.1 and the same was created for the purpose of the case and that her deceased sister used to give some money to her mother which was earned by A.1.
19(e). It is elicited in her cross examination that, two months prior to death of her sister A.1 demanded for additional dowry of
Rs.50,000/- to her sister. The elders conducted meeting three years ago prior to this day. She was present at the time of meeting held by elders. She stated before the Police that the demand of
additional dowry by A1 was informed to her by her deceased sister
and her mother. Her brother-Rambabu got phone call on that day at 6-00 AM about the death of her sister. Her husband accompanied by her to her parents village from there they went to
Gobburu village. They took one hour to reach Guyyannavalasa village from their village and they took 15 minutes to reach
Gobburu village from Guyyannavalasa village. Her brothers did not go to G.Sigadam police station to give report before going to
Gobburu village. Nobody was there at the place of offence except the dead body of her sister. The house of A1 consists of three portions and all of them are situated on the same row. She found the dead body of her sister in 2nd portion of the house of A1.
19(f). Her cross examination reveals that, she denied the suggestions that, she does not visit the house of A1 at any point of time and that her deceased sister never informed her anything and that she does not know the family affairs of her sister and that all 44 of them are created for the purpose of the case and that her sister’s daughter not informed her anything to her about the death of her deceased sister that A1 beat her sister with Paramatta (Spade) and that her deceased sister never informed her anything about her family life when she met her during the festivals and she is deposing false and that she does not know anything about the case facts and she is deposing false at the instance of her family members.
20. PW.5-Bonu Appanna deposed that, he is a resident of
Guyyanavalasa. Deceased-Bala is his niece, and her marriage took place with A1 in the year 2009. A.2 is mother of A.1. A.1 blessed with two children. After birth of children, A.1 started to consume liquor. Till the birth of children, A.1 and wife of A.1 lived happily and subsequently some disputes arose between them. On enquiry, deceased revealed that her husband (A.1) started harassment towards her and demanded for additional dowry and A.2 also supported A.1 for the said demand. Once or twice A.1 beat his wife and sent her to her parents’ house. At the intervention of elders again she joined with A.1.
20(a). PW.5 further deposed that about 3 years ago i.e., in the year 2015 on one day, they received information by phone about the death of deceased. Immediately, they along with village elders and villagers went to the house of A.1 and he noticed that the dead body of deceased was found in the kitchen of A.1’s house and she sustained injuries on her forehead as well as left eye brow and she was found in a pool of blood. Police examined him and he was examined by Tahsildar at the time of inquest.
45 20(b). It is elicited in cross examination of PW.5 that, the village elders advised orally, but not written anything on papers.
PW.1 belongs to their caste and he has no relationship with PW.1.
He denied the suggestions that, the matter was not placed never
before elders and that he is deposing the same for the purpose of
case. He has no personal knowledge about drinking habit of A1.
PW.5 stated that, A1’s wife told the same to him. He cannot say the details of demand made by A.1 with his wife, but it is started after birth of 2nd child to A1 and deceased-Bala. He received Telephonic message about the death of deceased on that day at 5-30 A.M. They started at 6-00 A.M.,from their village to go to Gobburu and they reached there within half an hour. Some persons came through passing G.Sigadam and some persons came through short cut without passing G.Sigadam.
20©. His cross examination reveals that, he went to Gobburu village through G.Sigadam village. By that time, he reached the place of offence, A.2 and A1’s brothers family and villagers were present. The police were proceeding by Jeep in between G.Sigadam and Gobburu village and they were on the way and noticed them.
The Tahsildar came in between 9-30 AM to 10-00 AM to the place of offence. Police asked them about the relationship with deceased and mother of deceased and others went by Jeep and he proceeded to the place of offence on his own. He denied the suggestions that, he does not go to the place of offence on receipt of information and that he does not know the family matters of PW.2 and A.1 and deceased and that he is deposing false since he belong to the caste of deceased.
46
21. PW.6-Gunapu Kondamma deposed that, he is a resident of Guyyanavalasa. She is a resident of Guyyanavalasa, Pw.1 is her son. Deceased-Bala is her sister’s daughter. PW.2 is her sister. A.1 married deceased-Bala i.e., wife of A.1 in the year 2009, A.2 is mother of a.1. Prior to the marriage of A.1, PW2 presented
Rs.50,000/- to A.1 and at the time of marriage PW2 presented another Rs.50,000/-, gold and Saresaman to A.1. A.1 blessed with two children through his wife. Till the birth of two children A.1 and wife of A.1 lived happily. After birth of 2nd child, A.1 started harassment towards wife of A.1 and demanded to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- from the parents of deceased-Bala and the same was informed to her by deceased-Bala.
21(a). PW.6 deposed that, twice A.1 sent wife of A.1 to her parents’ house. The elders conducted meeting between A.1 and wife of A.1 in the village and at the intervention of elders of A.1’s village, deceased joined with A.1. At that time, deceased told that she will not return to home alive if she was sent to the house of
A.1. It happened 3 years ago.
21(b). Pw.6 further deposed that after one month of elders meeting, they received a phone call about the death information of deceased-Bala. Immediately, all of them went there. PW.6 noticed that the deceased was in pool of blood and sustained injuries and she found injuries on her back side of head, forehead and on her left eye brow. The daughter of A.1 (PW.7) informed her that A.1 beat his wife with Paramatta (Spade) and on that she sustained injuries and died. Police examined her and she was also present at the 47 time of inquest conducted by Tahsildar over the dead body of deceased.
21(c). Her cross examination reveals that, she denied the suggestions that, she did not state before police Rs.50,000/- was paid to A1 by her sister prior to marriage and another Rs.50,000/- , gold and Sarisaman were presented to A1 at the time of marriage.
She stated before police that at the time of marriage cash of
Rs.1,00,000/-, gold and Sarisaman were given to A1. She denied the suggestions that, no such cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and gold, and
Sarisaman are given to A1 at the time of marriage and the same was created for the purpose of case. PW.2 is her own sister and that her house is not situated near the house of PW2 and she is deposing false. Her sister’s husband died. Her sister is living in a thatched house. She denied the suggestion that, her sister has no capacity to pay dowry, gold and sarisamans as stated by her and she is deposing false for the purpose of the case.
21(d). Her cross examination reveals that, she cannot say the details of demands made by A1 about additional dowry. She cannot say the details of meetings were held in between PW2, deceased and A1. They started in their village on that day at 8-30 or 9-00
AM. They proceeded to Gobburu village through short cut way to reach the house of A1. PW1 also accompanied to the house of A1 through short cut way of Guyyannavalasa to Gobburu village. One can reach to Gobburu village from their village it will take one hour.
DSP and other police were present along with Tahsildar and on her enquiry with the daughter of A1, she revealed that A.1 killed his wife. Police examined her twice i.e., at the time of inquest by D.S.P.
48 and other police. She denied the suggestion that, she did not go to the place of offence and she enquired with A1’s daughter and she does not state anything to her and A.1 never demanded any
additional dowry as stated by her and elders never conducted any
meeting as stated by her and she is deposing false since she is related to PW.2.
22. The evidence of PW.7-Kuppili Thanushya Lakshmi is recorded by the Court after the answers given by her for the questions put to her by the Court and after that, PW.7-Kuppili
Thanushya Lakshmi deposed that, A.1 is her father and her mother deceased-Bala. She has one brother by name
Pardhasaradhi. She does not know how her mother died and how many days ago shed died. Herself, her mother and her brother slept in their house. She does not know what happened on that night. Her father was not there in the house and he went to do painting work. Her grandmother was at Vizag. She is residing with her father. Earlier she lived at her senior’s paternal house by name
Seethaih. She cannot say when she came to her father’s house.
Her mother’s parents came to Gobburu village when her mother died and she went to Palakonda Court. She stated in cross examination that police gave a chocolate when the she went to
Palakonda.
23. It appears that, PW.1 to 6 supported the version of
PW.29 with regard to their examination and recording statements by PW.29.
24. It is the version of PW.29 that, on 25.06.2015 while he was present in the G.Sigadam police station at about 15.45 hours 49
Pw.8-Rakoti Suryanarayana, the then VRO of Gobburu village came to the G.Sigadam police station and produced A.1-Kuppili
Ramappadu before him with a report together with the statement of
A.1 stating that said A.1-Kuppili Ramappadu committed murder of his wife-Kuppili Bala in the tiled house at Gobburu village.
Immediately, PW.29 received the report along with statement of
A.1-Ramapadu and recorded the confessional statement of A.1-said
Ramappadu, after securing the mediators by name Bura
Yerakayya(PW.24) and Bhupathi Narasingaro.
24(a). PW.29 further deposed that, in confessional statement of A.1, A.1 confessed that “he murdered his wife and if PW.29 come with him, he will show the spade which was used in commission of offence” and he also produced one blood stained shirt which wore by A.1 at the time of offence.
24(b). Pw.29 further deposed that he seized the shirt of A.1 which is light rose colour and shaded the colour as wheat coloured full hands shirt (M.O.2) and it contains blood stains, then he confirmed as A.1 is accused in this case and arrested A.1 at 17-00 hours on the same day after appraising the grounds arrest of A.1.
24©. PW.29 further deposed that himself along with his staff, mediators and A.1 left the G.Sigadam police station at about 17-15 hours and went to the Gobburu village to seize the crime weapon.
Then, they reached one grass heap which is at a distance of 200 meters from the scene of offence. At about 17.45 hours, the accused of A.1 searched the crime weapon in the presence of mediators and took a spade from the back yard of the said grass heap and produced before PW.29 and mediators which is having 50 blood stains in the presence of mediators, PW.29 examined and measured the spade which is length of wooden handle is 19 ½ inches, iron part spade is 14 inches and width is 6 ½ inches (M.O.3).
24(d). PW.29 further deposed that, he seized the said spade in the presence of mediators under the cover of Mediators report duly attested by him and mediators. Ex.P.30 i.e., report of VRO along with statement (Ex.P.29) of A.1 and A.1 produced by VRO under
Ex.P.30 report before him. Ex.P.42 is mediators report for seizure of
M.O.3 prepared by mediators and he attested confessional statement of A.1 i.e., Ex.P.41 and Ex.P.42. Then, PW.29 brought
A.1 to G.Sigadam police station along with property. Then, he secured the presence of Rakoti Satyanarayana (VRO, Gobburu) and recorded his statement.
24(e). On that aspect, PW.24- Bura Yerakayya is VRO of
Laveru village deposed that, previously, he worked as VRO, Gedda
Kancharam village of G.Sigadam mandal from April, 2012 to May 2017. On 25-06-2015, he was called by D.S.P., to go to G.Sigadam
P.S and he reached there at 4-00 PM on that day. By that time
D.S.P. and accused No.1, V.R.O., Bhupathi Narasingarao also present at the police station at that time. D.S.P. informed him that to record the confession statement of A.1 and on that said confession statement of A1 was recorded by police. At that time A1 confessed about the commission of offence before them. Then, DSP enquired about the blood stains on A1’s shirt and the same was seized at that time from A1. He identified the shirt which was 51 confronted to him by Addl. P.P. and it is marked as M.O.2 i.e. shirt of A1.
24(f). Pw.24 further deposed that he identified A.1 who is present before the court, identified the report i.e., confession statement of A.1 dated 25-06-2015 which contains his signature on it when it was confronted to him by the Addl. P.P. during his evidence and admissible portion of confession of A.1 marked as
Ex.P.41 and at that time A.1 stated that he will show the spade which was used for commission of offence and A.1 lead them to the house of A.1 and from there, they went to the field of Konna
Surayya which is situated at Gobburu village, then A.1 produced spade (Paara) and on that, it was seized the same under a report at that time. PW.24 identified the spade which was confronted to him by Addl. P.P. and it is marked as M.O.3 i.e., Spade and PW.24 identified the report for seizure of M.O.3 on that day and he also identified his signature as well as the signature of another VRO who accompanied by them. Ex.P42 is mediators report dated 25- 06-2015 for seizure of M.O.3. The contents of Ex.P.41, Ex.P.42 are self-explanatory in nature.
24(g). It is elicited in cross examination of PW.24 that, he worked as VRO, of Gedda Kancharam village of G.Sigadam mandal as on 25-06-2015. The distance between Gedda Kancharam to
G.Sigadam is 6 to 7 KM. There are some revenue villages in between Gedda Kancharam and G.Sigadam villages. When he was called by DSP in between 3-15P.M. to 3-30 PM and he was at
Yenduva village at that time. He took 15 minutes to reach
G.Sigadam from Yenduva village. After A1 gave entire statement it 52 was reduced into writing. A1 took 15 minutes time to state about the statement. First one report was prepared and later another report was prepared. He stated that, one report was prepared at
Police station. Half an hour was taken for preparation of said report at police station.
24(h). It is elicited in cross examination of PW.24 that, again the police asked A.1 and he stated the same. Said report was completed at police station at 4-00 PM on that day. They reached
Gobburu village from G.Sigadam police station within half an hour.
He does not know whether said field belongs to Konna Surayya or not. Police did not secure the presence of said Konna Surayya at that time. None of the persons were there by the time we reached the land of Konna Surayya. No crop was there in the field of Konna
Surayya. The contents of Ex.P.42 were prepared at the field of
Konna Surayya at 6-00 PM and it was prepared by police. He and another VRO, Bhupathi Narasinga rao are literate persons. He denied the suggestion that, he was not called by police on that day to the station and at that time A.1 confessed about the commission of offence before them and at that time police seized
M.O.2 under the report and the same was reduced into writing and he signed the same on that report and from there all of them accompanied by A.1 to Gobburu village and at the field of Konna
Surayya mediators report was prepared for seizure of spade which was produced by A1 at that time and all the reports i.e., Ex.P41 and P42 prepared at police station and he simply signed on it and he is deposing false.
53 24(i). His cross examination reveals that, the time which was mentioned under Ex.P.42 is at 17-45 hours and the time which was mentioned under Ex.P41 is at 16-00 hours. He denied the suggestion that, nothing was seized from A1 on 25-06-2015 in his presence on that day and he is deposing false at the instance of police.
24(j). On 25-06-2015 at about 2-30 P.M while he was at office in G.Sigadam, A.1 came to him and confessed about the commission of offence and at that time VRA-Kuppili Seethayya was also present and the same was reduced into writing by him. PW.8 identified the contents of said statement of A.1 when it was confronted to him by Addl. P.P. i.e., Ex.P.29 is statement of A.1.
24(k). PW.8 further deposed that, then PW.8 produced A.1 along with statement of A1 before the G.Sigadam police on the same day along with his report i.e., Ex.P.30 is report dated 25-06- 2015. Police examined him.
24(l). It is elicited in cross examination of PW.8 that he mentioned the English words in Ex.P.29 on the instructions of police. He took one and half hour to complete Ex.P.29 on 25-06- 2015. All VRO’s are having offices in villages also. He prepared report i.e., Ex.P.30 at the office of G.Sigadam. The contents which are mentioned in Ex.P.30 clearly shows that he was present at
Gobburu office and at that time A.1 came to him along with VRA
Seethayya and they are correct.
24(m). His cross examination reveals that, in general whenever they prepared any report they will send those reports through VRA of the village. He denied the suggestion that the 54 statement of accused No.1 i.e., Ex.P.29 prepared at Gobburu office, but not prepared in the office of G.Sigadam. The contents of
Ex.P.29 and P.30 were prepared by him at the office of MRO,
G.Sigadam. At that time police were present and all of them were prepared at police station. He denied the suggestion that, at the instance of police he is deposing false.
25. The contents of Ex.P.29 discloses that,
K.Ramappadu (A.1) is resident of Gobburu village,
G.Sigadam mandal. He studied up to 10 th class. He is doing agricultural, coolie works and painting works and eaking out his livelihood. He married Bala who is resident of Guyyannavalasa village, Rajam mandal on 09.08.2019. They have one girl child by name Thanushy
Lakshmi, 5 years old and son Pardhasaradhi, 3 years old. They are living on their own. His mother (A.2) left with him for some days. They lived happily for some days. Whenever he goes for painting works, he got habituated of take alcohol. His wife questioned him how the maintenance of house took place and on that, he sent his wife to his parents house. After some days, the matter was placed before the elders and on the advise he brought his wife to his house and again, he used to quarrel with her.
25(a). It further discloses that, during the month of
May, he beat his wife and on that, she went to her parents house at Guyyanavalasa, which is situated at
G.Sigadam mandal. On 25.05.2015 he took the village 55 elders and went to Guyyanavalasa village and place the matter before the elders and he promised that, he will look after his wife properly. On that, on 28.05.2015 his wife-Bala came to his house. After she returned to home as usual, he consumed alcohol, she was not allowed him to have sexual intercourse with him.
25(b). It further discloses that, on 23.06.2015 at morning hours, he completed his field work and came to home at G.Sigadam. He consumed alcohol by that time and purchased vegetables and went to home, himself and his wife and children had dinner while watching
T.V., his children were slept. At 9.00 p.m. electricity was cut-off. Himself and his wife shutdown of T.V. and slept in the middle room of the house. He called his wife to participate in sexual intercourse, she told that he consumed alcohol and on that, she refused, then he also slept.
25©. It is further discloses that, at about 3.45 a.m., he woke-up, himself and his wife both of them attended natural calls and went to inside of the house, at that time, he called his wife to have sexual intercourse, but then, she refused. Then, he dragged his wife, on that she went to southern side of the house of room and he also followed her to the room and caught hold her and she did not accept the same, he got angry with her and he took spade, which was there in the shelf and beat on her head and she fell un-conscious. Then, children woke up 56 and weeping and he took spade along with children and brought them out of the house and told them to go to his mother and meanwhile along with spade, he went to the fields situated towards northern side of his house and kept the spade near the heap of grass, which is situated at near channel and he got apprehension that, he will be beaten and on that, he went to fields and he was there in the topes. Later, he felt that he should surrender before the Police and it will good for him and on that, he went to his brother who is V.R.A. and he took him to PW.8.
26. It appears that the evidence of PW.29 is supported by
PW.8 about production of accused No.1 along with the statement of accused No.1 before G.Sigadam Police.
27. It is the evidence of PW.29 that, on 28.06.2015, while he was present in G.Sigadam Police Station, accused No.2 who is mother of accused No.1 came to Police Station and surrendered
before him after confirming her as accused No.2 in this case. He
arrested her at 12.25 hours at G.Sigadam Police Station after appraising he ground of her arrest, after making necessary entries in the record, he followed the guidelines of Supreme Court and he sent accused No.1 and 2 for judicial custody.
27(a). It is not denied by the counsel for accused about producing of both the accused for judicial custody by PW.29.
28. The version of PW.29 is that, on 28.06.2015, he visited
Guyyanavalasa village of Rajam mandal and secured the presence of Manda Paparao (PW.9), Pothala Apparao (PW.10), Padala Suresh (PW.11), P.Lokesh, Matha Simma Rao, M.Venkata Rao (PW.12), 57
Pydi Appalasuri (PW.13) and examined them and recorded their detailed statements.
28(a). During examination of Mandal Paparao (PW.9), he produced marriage wedding card of deceased-Kuppili Bala and accused No.1 and the same was seized by PW.29 i.e., Ex.P.48 and the same was identified by PW.29 during his evidence.
28(b). On that aspect, PW.9-Manda Papa Rao deposed that, he is a resident of Guyyana valasa village and he has one sister and one brother. Deceased-Bala is his sister. They performed the marriage of deceased-Bala with A.1 and he is a resident of Gobburu village. At the time of marriage of A.1 with his sister they presented
Rs.1,00,000/- cash, gold to A.1. After the marriage, they lived happily till the birth of 2nd child. After the birth of 1st child, his brother in law i.e., A.1 got suspicion on his sister and he demanded for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and sent her to their house.
28(c). Pw.9 further deposed that the village elders on either side conducted meetings and on that they sent their sister to the house of A.1. At that time, his sister told them that this is the last time and will go to the house of A.1.
28(d). PW.9 further deposed that, about three years ago on one day while he was in work, he received a phone call from PW1 stating that his sister died. Immediately, he went to Gobburu village along with villagers and others. Where, they saw the dead body of his deceased sister in the kitchen of the house of A.1 with injuries. By that time VRO, police, and villagers were present. On enquiry, he came to know that through the elders, A.1 killed his sister. Police examined him.
58 28(e). It is elicited in cross examination of PW.9 that, he is an illiterate person, he cannot say when he married. He has two children. He is doing coolly work and it is his livelihood. He stated that, his mother living in a small thatched house. He admitted that, they are not having capacity of presenting one lakh cash and gold to A1. They took the help of his brothers and others and gave that money and gold to A1. He does not state the same before police that his brothers and other gave money and gold to A1. When the marriage fixed they gave Rs.50,000/- and again they gave
Rs.50,000/- at the time marriage with the help of his junior paternal uncle.
28(f). His cross examination reveals that, after one month of marriage they paid Rs.50,000/- to A.1 with the help of his junior paternal uncle. Two tulas gold was given to A1 at the time of fixation of marriage along with Rs.50,000/- cash. He cannot say the date of birth of first child of A1 so also 2nd child of A1. He cannot say the details of demands of A.1 i.e., in which month and which year so also the details of mediation held by villagers on either side. They were there in Guyyannavalasa village when Pw1 gave telephonic message about the death of his deceased sister.
They went to Gobburu village on that day at 10-00 AM.
28(g). It is further elicited in his cross examination that, he stated before police that they gave One lakh rupees cash and two tulas of gold at the time of marriage to A.1. He does not state before police that while he was at Visakhapatnam he received a phone call about the death of his deceased sister and from there he went to
Gobburu directly and it is marked as Ex.D2. He did not state 59
before police that on that day he was at Guyyannavalasa village
and on receipt of information he and others went to Gobburu village.
28(h). It is further elicited in his cross examination that, he does not state before police that on his enquiry the elders told that
A.1 killed his deceased sister. In general he used to work in different places. He denied the suggestions that, he is working different places and he does not know about their family affairs and that he is deposing false on the instance of police and that they did not present any amount and gold to A1 at the time of marriage and no demands were made by accused and the elders never held any meetings between them and accused and all the above things were created for the purpose of the case.
29. PW.10-Pothala Apparao deposed that, he is a resident of
Guyyanavalasa. A.1 came to their village to do work in their fields.
A.1 used to come to their house and marriage of A.1 is fixed with
Bala in the presence of elders. A.1 married with Bala and they lived happily and they were blessed with two children.
29(a). PW.10 further deposed that, A.1’s wife came to their village and she told him that A.1 harassed her and beat her. Then, he convinced her that he will talk to A.1 and sent her to her mother.
29(b). PW.10 further deposed that, after 10 days A.1 came to
Guyyannavalasa village and at that time the elders questioned behavior of A.1 towards wife of A.1, then he advised him to go to his village. After 10 days A.1 brought the elders to their village.
Himself and other villagers conducted meeting and wife of A.1 told 60 that she is not willing to go to A.1 and she expressed that she will be killed by A.1.
29(c). Pw.10 further deposed that they gave an assurance that they will look after her and on that she went to along with A.1 to Gobburu village. After 10 days, after said mediation, they received information that wife of A.1 died. On that, all of them went to Gobburu village and enquired with the villagers, then, they told that they do not know what happened and they came to know that
A.1 went to G.Sigadam police station. Police examined him.
29(d). It is elicited in cross examination of PW.10 that, he does not know whether police recorded that A.1 came to him after marriage fixed with Bala etc. He cannot say the details of elders meetings took place in the village. A.1 alone came to his house on that day. He does not know whether A1’s wife used to contribute the income of her husband to her mother or not. No document was written when A1 took his wife before the elders to his house. They did not give any report to the police when A1’s wife informed that her husband was harassing her and beat her. He cannot say the details in which day A1’s wife went to house of A1 after the elders meet from Guyyannavalasa village to Gobburu.
29(e). His cross examination reveals that, they themselves went to Gobburu village on their own after the family members of deceased went to Gobburu village from their village.
After they reached there, Tahsildar of Palakonda and D.S.P. came there. He does not state before Tahsildar, and DSP what he deposed in his chief examination on that day when he gave evidence. On the same day, police examined him. He denied the 61 suggestions that he was examined by police on 28-06-2015 but not on the day i.e., 24-06-2015 and that since himself and other villagers in their village are in unity and on that to help the family members of deceased he is deposing false.
30. PW.11-Padala Suresh deposed that, he is a resident of
Guyyana valasa village of Rajam mandal. He knows that marriage of daughter of PW2-M.Adilakshmi (deceased) took place with A1 in the year 2009. After the marriage, PW2’s daughter joined with A1 and subsequently, she gave birth for two children. After birth of 2nd child, the disputes arose between A.1 and his wife.
30(a). PW.11 further deposed that, after that the elders on both sides conveyed meetings and advised her to live with A.1 happily and she joined A.1 on the advice of elders. After one month of said joining, he came to know that she died. He along with others went there and they heard that A.1 killed wife of A.1. The disputes arose between A.1 and wife of A.1 with regard to suspicion by A.1 against wife of A.1. Police examined him and recorded his statement.
30(b). It is elicited in cross examination of PW.11 that, there is sarpanch in their village. He stated before police that in the year 2009 the marriage of A1 took place with the daughter of PW2 and they were blessed with two children. He cannot say the details of meetings held by elders between A1 and his wife. By that time they went to the house of A.1 Tahsildar, DSP and others were present.
He does not state the above things before Tahsildar or D.SP. After 3 or 4 days after the death of deceased, police examined him. He denied the suggestions that he does not state the above things 62 which are deposed in his chief examination before Tahsildar, or
D.S.P when he visited the house of A.1 after the death of deceased since they were created and that he never acted as one of the elder in the village at any point of time and for purpose of case he became one of the elders and deposing false to help the family members of Pw.2.
31. PW.12-Mahadasyam Venkatapparao deposed that, he is a resident of Gobburu village. He is doing cultivation. He knows
A.1, A.2 and the wife of A.1 (deceased), and lived in their village.
His house is situated at faraway place from their house in the village. He turned hostile and he denied the contents of 161 Cr.P.C.
statement recorded by Police as in Ex.P.31.
32. PW.13-Pydi Appalasuri deposed that, he is a resident of
Gobburu village of G.Sigadam mandal. He is doing cultivation and he knows A.1 and A.2 in this case and they are residents of their village. He knows that A.1 married Bala (deceased). PW.12 and
Matta Simmarao are residents of their village. He knows that A.1 got two children through wife of A.1. Wife of A.1 is no more. She died about 3 years ago. He turned hostile. He denied the contents of 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded by Police as in Ex.P.32.
33. It appears that, PW.12 and 13 not supported the version of PW.29 with regard to their examination by him and recording their statements by PW.29, but PW.9 to 11 support the version of
PW.29 with regard to their examination and recording statements by PW.29.
34. It is the version of PW.29 that, on the same day, he also forwarded material objects which were seized at the scene of 63 offence i.e., blood stains etc., after postmortem examination over the dead body, he collected the clothes from the dead body i.e.,
Polyester saree contains blood stains and jacket contains blood stains, red coloured petty coat contains blood stains, blood stained shirt belongs to A.1 which are seized under Ex.P.41, spade which contains blood stains seized under Ex.P.42 to RFSL,
Visakhapatnam. After the seizure of said clothes and other articles, he sent them to RFSL, Visakhapatnam and he received the report from RFSL which is marked as Ex.P.49 dated 03.08.2015. The contention of Ex.P.49 are self-explanatory in nature.
34(a). Pw.29 further deposed that the Expert opined that the item Nos.1 to 12 are examined, human blood is detected on item
Nos.1, 3, 5, 6 and 8 to 12. Blood group of blood stains on item
Nos.8, 9, 10, 11 and 122 is of “B” blood group of blood stains on item Nos.1, 3, 5 and 6 could not be determined. Blood is not detected on item Nos.2, 4 and 7 which is received as controls for item Nos.1, 3, and 6 respectively.
34(b). Pw.29 further deposed that he identified blood stained clothes of deceased i.e., Saree, jacket and petty coat, shirt of A.1 (M.O.2), Spade (M.O.3), Broken bangles (M.O.1) seized at the scene of offence when they were confronted to him by Addl. P.P. M.O.4 is red colour petty coat. M.O.5 is jacket and M.O.6 is saree and he sent said properties to the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Rajam.
34©. It is the version of PW.29 that, on 05.07.2015, he visited
Gobburu village and secured the presence of witnesses i.e., Battina
Narayana Rao (PW.14), Jarajana Thavudu (PW.15), Nethala
Surayya, Nethala Ramayya (PW.16), Jarajana Eswaramma (PW.17) 64 and Nethala Appalanarasamma (PW.18) examined them and recorded their statements.
34(d). PW.24Battina Narayana Rao deposed that he is a
Mason. He knows A.1 and A.2 and wife of A.1 and A.1’s children.
According to him A.1’s wife is no more. He turned hostile. He denied the contentions of 161 cr.p.c. statement recorded by police as in Ex.P.33.
34(e). On that aspect, PW.15-Jarajana Thavudu deposed that, he is a resident of Gobburu village, he is doing cultivation. He knows A.1 and A.2 in this case and they are residents of his village.
He knows the wife of A.1 by name Bala. He is residing in
S.C.Colony of the village, and wife of A.1 is no more. He went to the house of A.1 at evening hours on that day, by that time the dead body of wife of A.1 is shifted. He turned hostile and he denied the contents of 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded by Police as in Ex.P.34.
34 (f). PW.16- Nethala Ramayya deposed that, he is residing at Gobburu village, he is doing coolie work. He knows A.1 and A.2 in this case, and are residents of their village. He knows the wife of
A.1 by name Bala and she is no more. He turned hostile and he denied the contents of 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded by Police as in Ex.P.35.
34(g). PW.17-Jarajana Eswaramma deposed that, she is a resident of Gobburu village, she is doing coolie work. She knows
A.1 and A.2 in this case, and they are residents of their village. He knows the wife of A.1 by name Bala and she is no more, she and
A.1 lived in the same street in S.C.colony of their village. She 65 turned hostile and she denied the contents of 161 Cr.P.C.
statement recorded by Police as in Ex.P.36.
34(h). PW.18- Nethala Appalanarasamma deposed that, she is a resident of S.C.colony in Gobburu village, she knows A.1 and A.2 and both of them are residing in the same colony of village. She knows wife of A.1 and she is no more now. She turned hostile and she denied the contents of 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded by
Police as in Ex.P.37.
35. It appears that, PW.14 to 18 are not supported the version of PW.29 about their examination by him and recording statements by them.
36. The version of PW.29 is that, on 05.07.2015, he filed a memo before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakonda with a request to record the statement of PW.7-Kuppili Thanushya
Lakshmi and accordingly her statement was recorded by learned
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakonda.
37. The contents of 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.7 recorded by Magistrate on 3.8.2018 are follows:
It discloses that, preliminary questions were put to PW.7 by the Magistrate before recording her statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. and the answers given by PW.7 were satisfied by the
Magistrate and he recorded her statement further as follows:
i. “On one day, herself and her father, her brother were in the house. Her father (accused No.1) beat her mother with a spade on her mother’s head and murdered her.
Later, her father left her and her brother at the house of her senior paternal aunt and went to the Police station.
66
Prior to beating her mother by her father, the quarrel took place. She does not know why it happened.
37(a). It is the version of PW.29 that, on 23.09.2015, he visited
Gobburu village and secured the presence of witnesses i.e., Kuppili
Seethayya (PW.19), Kuppili Ramalakshmi (PW.20), Battina
Ramulamma (PW.28), Kanna Surayya (PW.21) and examined them and record their detailed statements.
37(a). On that aspect, PW.19-Kuppili Seethayya deposed that, he is working as a VRO, Thandyam village of Ponduru mandal since 22.05.2017. Previously, he worked as VRA, Gobburu village from 2001 to 2017. A.1 is his younger brother and A.2 is his mother. The deceased is wife of A.1. Rakoti Suryanarayana (PW.8) worked as a VRO, Gobburu village. There is a panchayat office in
Gobburu village. Wife of A.1 is no more. He turned hostile and he denied the contents of 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded by Police as in Ex.P.38.
38. PW.20- Kuppili Ramalakshmi deposed that, she is a resident of Gobburu village. A.2 is her mother-in-law and A.1 is her brother-in-law. PW.19 is her husband. The wife of A.1 is her co- sister and she is no more. Four days prior to death of wife of A.1, she went to Visakhapatnam to see her children who are at
Visakhapatnam. They are residing at the end of the street in the village and A.1 are living along with your family in the same street.
She returned to the village along with her children on that day at 12.00 noon from Visakhapatnam in view of receipt of death information of her co-sister i.e., wife of A.1. She turned hostile and 67 she denied the contents of 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded by
Police as in Ex.P.39.
39. PW.28-Battina Ramulamma deposed that, she is residing at Gobburu village. She knows both accused and the daughter of PW.1-Bala (deceased). She does not know how the wife of A.1 died. She does not go to the house of A.1 to see the deceased
Bala. She turned hostile and denied the contents of 161 Cr.P.C.
statement recorded by Police as in Ex.P.45.
40. PW.21-Kanna Surayya deposed that, he is a resident of
Gobburu village. He knows A.1 and A.2 in this case and both of them are residents of their village. He and A.1 are living in separate streets in that village. He knows the wife of A.1 (deceased) and she is no more. He turned hostile and she denied the contents of 161
Cr.P.C. statement recorded by Police as in Ex.P.40.
41. It appears that, PW.19, PW.20, PW.28 and PW.21 not supported the version of PW.29 and all of them are turned hostile.
42. PW.29 deposed that, on 16.10.2019, he filed a memo
before Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Palakonda with a request to
accord permission to add section 354(A) against A.1, as during the course of investigation the bite marks on the breast of the deceased caused by A.1 which suggested the ingredients of the sexual harassment of A.1. Ex.P.50 is memo dated 16.10.2015 to add section 354 A of I.P.C. filed before Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,
Rajam.
42(a). Pw.29 further deposed that after receipt of Postmortem examination report of deceased, F.S.L. report and copy of the 164 statement of PW.7, he filed a charge sheet against A.1 under 68 section 302, 304-B, R/W 34 of IPC and 354 (A of IPC )and A.2 under section 304 B r/w 34 of IPC in this case.
42(b). PW.29 further deposed that, whatever Pw.7 stated
before him and he recorded the same in her statement. Pw.12 to
Pw.21 and Pw.24 stated before him as in Ex.P.31 to Ex.P.40 and
Ex.P.45 respectively. The contents of Ex.P.31 to Ex.P.40 are self- explanatory in nature.
42(c). It is elicited in cross examination of PW.29 that, he was not present at the time of inquest over the dead body of deceased conducted by Tahslidar, after inquest, he examined the witnesses.
Since, he received the copies of statements of witnesses recorded by
Tahsildar and on that he came to know the same. As per Col.No.1
B of inquest report Tahsildar examined 6 witnesses. He received copies of witnesses statements recorded by Tahsildar who are mentioned in Col.No.1 B of inquest report. Said witnesses who are mentioned in Col.No.1 B of inquest report not stated about the name of Tanushya Lakshmi. As per his investigation, said
Tanushya Lakshmi is an eye witness of the incident. He does not know whether Tahsildar taken steps to examine said Tanushya
Lakshmi who was an eye witness as per the FIR at the time of inquest conducted by him.
42(d). His cross examination reveals that, he is not concerned to conduct inquest in this case. He stated that it is the responsibility of Tahsildar to conduct the inquest over the dead body of the deceased and he is away to the inquest place. To his knowledge, the original statements of witnesses sent to the court by the Tahsildar. He denied the suggestions that, he dictated the 69 contents of inquest report and that till the completion of inquest no one knows that Tahusya Lakshmi is not an eyewitness and on that none of the witnesses stated about her name at the time of inquest conducted by Tahsildar over the dead body of the deceased and that the first report which was given to the police the name of
Tanushya Lakshmi was not shown as eye witness and subsequently at his instance her name was mentioned in the report and that report was given to the police.
42(e). His cross examination reveals that, he denied the suggestions that, they suppressed the first report given to the police and at the instance of Guyyannavalasa people the report was prepared and it was given to the police. As per his investigation except Tanushya Lakshmi, there are no other eye witnesses to the incident. Based on the scientific evidence, he filed a memo under the Ex.P.49. He stated that, none of the witnesses stated about the injury which was mentioned RFSL report i.e, under Ex.P.49 on the dead body of the deceased. He denied the suggestions that, to explain the things he purposely filed Ex.P49 even though none of the witnesses stated about the injury mentioned on the dead body of deceased under Ex.P.49.
42(f). His cross examination further reveals that, after 10-30
PM , he examined the witnesses on that day i.e. after inquest. By the time of examining witnesses some of the witnesses from
Guyyannavalasa village were already left and on that he examined them subsequently. Due to administrative work, the statement of
Thanusya Lakshmi was recorded by the Magistrate, Palakonda on 03-08-2015. He denied the suggestion that, since Thanusya 70
Lakshmi is in tender age and on that they gave Chocolates to her and tuned her and later her statement was recorded by them before the Magistrate, Palakonda. He does not know who prepared the report of VRO, when he produced A1 before him. He stated that, when he recorded statement of VRO, he stated that he scribed the report and he recorded the statement of A.1.
42(g). It is further elicited in his cross examination that, he was not present personally when VRO scribed the report and recorded the statement of A1 by him. The confessional statement of A1 recorded at police station since he was surrendered before him along with VRO and his report and statement. One of the mediators scribed the confession statement of A1. He does not remember the name of mediator who scribed the confessional statement of A1. He denied the suggestion that at his instance the report of VRO and statement of A1 and confessional statement of
A1 and seizure reports pertaining to spade and shirt were prepared at police station only.
42(h). His cross examination further reveals that, he arrested the accused after seizure of shirt and later he seized Spade. He arrested the accused at police station. Before seizure of spade he confirmed and arrested the A1. He knows the evidentiary value of 164 Cr.P.C. statement of accused. He cannot say based on the 164 statement of accused Court can convict the accused or not. He has not taken steps to record 164 statement of accused before the
Magistrate since he came to the police station along with VRO and
report and statement of A1. He denied the suggestion that since A1 not stated anything and on that he did not take steps to record his 71 statement under 164 Cr.P.C. and all of them are created against him.
42(i). His cross examination further reveals that, he sent material objects and seizure material to RFSL, Visakhapatnam on 28-06-2015, but, they were received on 02-07-2015 by RFSL,
Visakhapatnam. There is a store room in G.Sigadam police station and all the material kept there. He stated that, there is no separate store room available in his office and on that he kept those materials at G.Sigadam police station. There is no specific mention of affixing identification slips at the time of seizure of material objects at scene of offence and at the time seizure of spade and shirt in the reports. He denied the suggestion that there is every possibility of tampering the material seized by them prior to sending them to RFSL. He stated that, the keys of store room are in his custody.
42(j). His cross examination reveals that, he denied the suggestions that, VRO never produced A1 along with report and statement of A1 before him on 24-06-2015 at evening hours and
A1 was attending painting works at some other place and they called him by phone and his presence is secured by them and they created all the reports against him and that at the instance of
Guyyannavalasa village people they suppressed the earlier report and investigation and subsequently they foisted the false report against accused herein and filed charge sheet against the accused and he is deposing false.
43. On a careful scrutiny of testimony of prosecution witnesses i.e., PW.1 to PW.29 coupled with contents of Ex.P.1 to 72
Ex.P.31, Ex.P.41 to Ex.P.50 and M.O.1 to 6 and Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 clearly shows that the daughter of PW.2 i.e., Kuppili Bala’s marriage was performed with accused No.1 and accused No.1 and his wife lived happily for some time and blessed with two children i.e., PW.7 and one Pardhasaradhi. They lived happily for some time after birth of two children to them.
44. It is further manifest that, accused No.1 is earning person in his family and he has to work every day. As per the version of elders, once or twice the elders chastised accused No.1 and at that time, his wife joined with him. As per the evidence of medical officer, it is manifest that the death of deceased is not natural death and her age was shown as 28 years old. It is not in dispute that, her death took place within 7 years of her marriage as per the contents of Ex.P.48. Admittedly, the offence occurred inside of the house of door No.2-29 which belongs to accused No.1 and it is not disputed, and other houses are situated here and there as per contents of Ex.P.46. The inmates of the house are accused
No.1, his wife, (deceased) and both the children slept as on the date of of offence as per contents of Ex.P.29. All the witnesses are at one voice that there were some disputes arose between accused No.1 and his wife soon before death of deceased, due to bad vices of accused No.1.
45. Further, the matter was placed before the elders and again the daughter of PW.2 (deceased) was joined with accused
No.1 on the advice of elders.
46. The testimony of Medical Officer (PW.25) is obvious that the death of wife of accused No.1 is not natural and he noticed 73 injuries over the dead body of the deceased during postmortem examination. Admittedly, the presence of accused No.2 was not deposed by the witnesses who were examined by the prosecution in this case. The prosecution case is that, soon before death of wife of accused No.1 in the house and accused No.2 harassed wife of accused No.1 while she was alive. No material is placed by prosecution to prove the charge against accused No.2 under
Section 304-B read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.
47. It is further manifest that, as per the version of village elders, wife of accused No.1 (deceased) joined with accused No.1 along with children and they are living in the house of accused
No.1.
48. It is an admitted fact that the daughter of PW.2 (deceased) has no enmity in the village and her parents also residing in another village by the date of death of deceased.
49. At this juncture, Court reads the provisions of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act as follows:
Burden of providing fact especially within knowledge: When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of providing the fact is upon him.
50. Court also reads at Page No.1283, the law of Evidence
Act, 1872, Sarkar’s Commentary on Fourth Edition is that:
In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of
Mandhya Pradesh. The ration in Govind, quoted in
AIR para 5, p.30 of the Report in Govinda Reddy, are:
“5….10….in case where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances (which lead to the conclusion of guilt should be in the first 74 instance) fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilty of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be (shown) that within all human probability the act must have been (committed) by the accused.
51. Herein this case, the statement of accused No.1 i.e.,
Ex.P.29 recorded by PW.8 is stated by accused No.1 before PW.8 is voluntary one and PW.8 is an independent witness.
52. It is further manifest that, no one has enmity with the wife of accused No.1 in the village. Further, the offence occurred inside of the house of accused No.1, which is not accessible to any one apart from accused No.1.
53. As per the Section 106 of Evidence Act, there is a duty on the part of accused to explain how the death of his wife took place in his house and the same is not explained by accused No.1 herein. In the absence of such, prosecution has made out a case against accused No.1 that wife of accused No.1 died with injuries in the house of accused No.1 and it is not natural death.
54. It is further manifest that, PW.7 is daughter of accused
No.1 and she is child witness in this case. By the date of her evidence, she was 8 years old and by the date of death of her mother, she was 5 years old, but she stated that, she went to the
Court at Palakonda and it is part of her evidence supports the case 75 of prosecution that her statement was recorded by learned
Magistrate i.e., after learned Magistrate satisfied the answers given
by her to the questions put to her by him before recording her statement and it is part of the record available in this case.
55. The facts on hand are not applicable to the facts mentioned in the above citations as relied by counsel for accused, as well as observed by the Court as stated supra. Applying the principles laid down in the above citations as relied by counsel for accused and observed by this Court to the facts of this case and considering circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that, I do not find any force in the contentions raised by counsel for accused.
56. Considering the circumstances of the case, I believed the testimony of evidence of PW.1 to PW.8, PW.22, PW.23, PW.24 to
PW.27 and PW.29.
57. Hence, PW.7’s evidence is considered along with the statement of her recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the
Magistrate. Hence, I find accused No.1 is guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 304-B of
Indian Penal Code and Section 354-A of Indian Penal Code and he is liable for punishment for the said charges and I find Accused
No.2 is not guilty for the offence under Section 304-B read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.
This point is answered against the accused.
58. In the result, I find accused No.1 is guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code, 304-B of
Indian Penal Code and Section 354-A of India Penal Code and he is 76 convicted under Section 235 (2) Criminal Procedure Code and I find
Accused No.2 is not guilty for the offence under Section 304-B read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and she is acquitted under Section 232 Criminal Procedure Code.
Dictated to the Typist, qualified in shorthand writing, acting
as Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this, the 4th day of April, 2019.
JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT-CUM-
III ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
SRIKAKULAM.
When he was informed about quantum of sentence, accused
No.1 pleaded that he has children and he has to maintain them and he has to feed them, if he goes to Jail, they will become orphans and pleaded mercy.
Considering the circumstances of case and gravity of offence, lenient view cannot be taken in this case, since wife of A.1 died within 7 years of marriage with Accused No.1 and Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life of the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and Accused No.1 sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only), in default of which, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 (six) months and accused No.1 further sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years for the offence under Section 304(B) of Indian Penal Code and Accused No.1 is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years for the offence under Section 354-A of Indian Penal
Code. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period of accused No.1 is set off as per Section 428 Criminal Procedure 77
Code i.e., from 26.06.2015 to 19.12.2015 i.e., 177 days and M.O.1 to M.O.6 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of Accused No.2 shall stands cancelled.
Dictated to the Typist, qualified in shorthand writing, acting
as Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this, the 4th day of April, 2019. Sd/Smt.K.Sudhamani.
JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT-CUM-
III ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
SRIKAKULAM.
Appendix of evidence.
Witnesses examined
For Prosecution: PW.1:04.12.2018Gunapu Pratap (defacto complainant)
PW.2:12.11.2018Manda Adilaxmi (Mother of deceased)
PW.3:13.11.2018Battina Krishnaveni (eldest sister of deceased)
PW.4:14.11.2018Manda Rambabu (cousin of deceased)
PW.5:14.11.2018Bonu Appanna (relative of deceased)
PW.6:14.11.2018Gunapu Kondamma (aunt of deceased)
PW.7:15.11.2018Kuppili Tanushya Laxmi (daughter of deceased)
PW.8:16.11.2018Rakoti Suryanarayana (V.R.O.)
PW.9:16.11.2018Manda Paparao (brother of deceased)
PW.10:16.11.2018Potala Apparao (elder of the village)
PW.11:19.11.2018Padala Suresh, (elder of the village)
PW.12:20.11.2018Mahadasyam Venkatapparao (neighbor of the village)
PW.13:22.11.2018Pydi Appalasuri (neighbor of the village)
PW.14:22.11.2018Battina Narayana Rao (elder of the village)
PW.15:26.11.2018Jarajana Tavudu (elder of the village)
PW.16:26.11.2018Netala Ramayya (elder of the village)
PW.17:26.11.2018Jarajana Eswaramma (neighbor of the village) 78
PW.18:27.11.2018Netala Appalanarasamma (neighbor of the village)
PW.1927.11.2018Kuppili Seethayya (V.R.A.)
PW.2028.11.2018Kuppili Ramalaxmi (brother-in-law of A.1)
PW.2129.11.2018Kanna Surayya (elder of the village)
PW.2229.11.2018Bonu Eswara Rao (elder of the village)
PW.2303.12.2018Konchada Venugopala Rao (V.R.O.)
PW.2404.12.2018Bura Yerakayya ((V.R.O.)
PW.2505.12.2018Dr.G.Ravi Prasad (Civil Assistant Surgeon) (Medical Officer)
PW.2605.12.2018D.V.Brahmaji Rao (Investigation Officer)
PW.2706.12.2018G.Bhaskara Rao (Investigation Officer).
PW.2813.12.2018Battina Ramulamma (neighbor of village)
PW.2913.12.2019Ch.Adinarayana (Investigation Officer) (Sub Divisional Police Officer) For Defence : None
Documents Marked
For Prosecution: Ex.P.1:24.06.2015Original report.
Ex.P.2:24.06.2015Scene observation report.
Ex.P.324.06.2015Inquest report.
Ex.P.4-Compact Disk.
Ex.P.5 --Positive photographs of Ex.P.4. to Ex.P.28 Ex.P.29:25.06.2015Statement of Accused No.1.
Ex.P.30:25.06.2015Report of V.R.O.
Ex.P.31:28.06.2015161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.12.
Ex.P.32:28.06.2015161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.13.
Ex.P.33:05.07.2015161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.14.
Ex.P.34:05.07.2015161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.15.
Ex.P.35:05.07.2015161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.16.
79
Ex.P.36:05.07.2015161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.17.
Ex.P.37:05.07.2015161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.18.
Ex.P.38:05.07.2015161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.19.
Ex.P.39:23.09.2015161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.20.
Ex.P.40:23.09.2015161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.21.
Ex.P.41:-Admissible portion of confessional statement. Ex.P.42:25.06.2015Mediators report.
Ex.P.43:26.06.2015Post Mortem Certificate.
Ex.P.44:24.06.2015First Information Report.
Ex.P.45:23.09.2015161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.28.
Ex.P.46-Rough Sketch (1).
Ex.P.47-Rough Sketch (2) location of dead body.
Ex.P.48-Wedding card.
Ex.P.4903.08.2015RFSL Report.
Ex.P.5016.10.2015Memo filed by Sub Divisional Police Officer, Palakonda.
Ex.D.1-Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4. Ex.D.2-Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.9. For defence:- -Nil-
Material Objects marked
M.O.1:Pieces of bangles in blue and red colour. M.O.2 :Shirt of Accused No.1 M.O.3 :Spade (Para) M.O.4 :Red colour petty coat. M.O.5 :Jacket. M.O.6 :Saree. Sd/Smt.K.Sudhamani.
JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT-CUM-
III ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
SRIKAKULAM.