Page 1 of 22 Judgment in SC.No.46/18, dt: 05-05-2022 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Nizamabad.
IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD
Present:- Smt.M.Kiran Mahi, Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Dated this the 5th day of May, 2022
Sessions Case No.46 of 2018
Name of complainant:The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, PS Makloor.
Name of AccusedA1:Kandakurthy Ranjith S/o Late Narsaiah, age 33 yrs., Caste: Avusula, Occ: Cable Technician, R/o. Madhapoor village of Makloor Mandal.
A2:Kandakurthy Laxmi Bai W/o Late Narsaiah, age 55 yrs., Caste: Avusula, Occ: House Wife, R/o. Madhapoor village of Makloor Mandal.
Charge:Under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 IPC.
Plea of Accused:Not guilty.
Finding:Found guilty of the offences punishable U/s.498-A and 306 r/w 34 of IPC.
Sentence or Order:The accused Nos.1 and 2 are found guilty of the offences punishable Under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are convicted Under Section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Prosecution conducted by:Sri A.Ram Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad.
Accused defended by:Sri M.Naresh Kumar, Advocate for the accused Nos.1 and 2.
This case was committed by the II-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, in PRC No.39 of 2017 (Crime No.114/2017 of PS Makloor).
This case came before me on 02-05-2022 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri A.Ram Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri M.Naresh Kumar, Advocate for the accused Nos.1 and 2 and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:
Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Page 2 of 22 Judgment in SC.No.46/18, dt: 05-05-2022 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Nizamabad.
:: J U D G M E N T ::
The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station Makloor filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable Under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2.Brief facts of the case are that on 17.07.2017, at 4.00 p.m., PW1-
Veggalam Anandam lodged complaint with PW13-P.Ramu Naidu, SI of Police, stating that he had three daughters and one son and the marriage of his second daughter by name Kandakurthy Annapurana @ Lavanya (hereinafter referred as the ‘deceased No.1’) was performed with accused No.1 on 05.04.2010, as per their traditions and customs. Accused No.2 is the mother of accused No.1. Deceased No.1 was working as ANM on contract basis even prior to her marriage. Accused No.1 looked after the deceased No.1 in well manner only for some days after the marriage and he was addicted to liquor, stopped work and spent money lavishly, used to demand and take money from deceased No.1 to consume liquor and used to beat her and harassed her physically and mentally. Deceased No.1 was unable to bear the harassment and she came to the house of PW1 four to five times and PW1 discussed about it with the deceased No.1 and also his village elders Vadla
Lingam, Sakali Gangadhar, used to compromise and A1 used to assure that he would look after the deceased No.1 in well manner. A1 and deceased No.1 were blessed with a daughter, who was aged 5 years and also a son, who was aged one year nine months (hereinafter referred as the ‘deceased No.2’) and inspite of his birth, accused Nos.1 and 2 used to harass the deceased No.1 and whenever deceased No.1 came to the house of PW1, he used to convince her and send her back. On 15.07.2017, at 8.00 p.m., deceased No.1
Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Page 3 of 22 Judgment in SC.No.46/18, dt: 05-05-2022 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Nizamabad.
telephoned to PW1 and stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 were harassing her physically and mentally to give her three months salary and to bring gold for deceased No.2/Lucky as promised by PW1. PW1 told her that he would give gold on next day. On 16.07.2017, at 7.30 a.m., accused No.1 telephoned to
PW1 and stated that deceased No.1 was missing from the house and asked if she came to their house and PW1 questioned accused No.1, on which, he told that there was a quarrel between them and that he slapped deceased No.1 and that both of them watched Television upto midnight 12 and went to bed at 12.30 a.m., when he woke up, he found deceased Nos.1 and 2 missing.
PW1 along with his family members searched for deceased Nos.1 and 2 and on 17.07.2017, at 7.30 a.m., they found the dead bodies of deceased Nos.1 and 2 in the well of Kommera Bheem Rao. PW1 suspected the death of deceased Nos.1 and 2 and that deceased No.1 committed suicide along with deceased No.2 due to the mental and physical harassment of accused Nos.1 and 2. Hence, he requested to take action into the matter as per law.
3.Basing on his complaint, PW13 registered a case in Cr.No.114/2017,
Under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of IPC. During course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of PW1, gave requisition to PW11-
G.Prasad, Tahsildar, Makloor to hold inquest over the dead body of the deceased No.1, PW13 visited the scene of offence and in the presence of PW7 and LW12-K.Rajeshwar Rao, drew rough sketch of the scene and got photographed the scene and dead bodies by LW5-M.Janardhan, shifted the dead bodies of deceased Nos.1 and 2 to mortuary of Govt. General Hospital,
Nizamabad. On 18.07.2017, PW11 in the presence of PW7 and LW12, held inquest over the dead body of deceased No.1 and then subjected to autopsy.
PW13 seized the clothes of deceased No.1 i.e., saree, blouse and blue colour
Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Page 4 of 22 Judgment in SC.No.46/18, dt: 05-05-2022 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Nizamabad.
petticoat in the presence of PW7 and LW12 under cover of seizure panchanama, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased No.2 in the presence of PW8 and LW15-K.Ravindher Rao and thereafter, subjected the dead body for autopsy, examined and recorded the statements of PW2, PW4 and LW5, visited Madhapur village, examined and recorded the statement of
PW3, collected sample water from the well for FSL analysis in the presence of
PW7 and LW12, examined and recorded the statements of PW5, PW6, PW9,
LW10-G.Poshetty and LW11-B.Balvanth Rao. On 19.07.2017, at 9.30 a.m., on credible information, he rushed to the house of accused No.1 and apprehended A1 and on interrogation, A1 confessed his guilt in the presence of PW10 and LW17-N.Narsaiah and recorded the confession panchanama of
A1 in their presence, later, on interrogation, accused No.2 confessed to have committed the offence along with accused No.1 in the presence of same panch witnesses and the confession panchanama of A2 was also recorded.
He affected arrest of accused Nos.1 and 2 and produced them before the
Court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable Under
Sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 IPC. Hence, the charge sheet.
4. The learned II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, took cognizance of the offences Under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 IPC against the accused Nos.1 and 2. On appearance of accused persons before the
Court, the learned II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, furnished the copies of documents to them as contemplated Under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and later, committed the case to the Court of Sessions,
Nizamabad, Under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., and the Hon'ble Prl. Sessions Judge,
Nizamabad, took the case on file for the offences punishable Under Sections
Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Page 5 of 22 Judgment in SC.No.46/18, dt: 05-05-2022 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Nizamabad.
498-A, 306 r/w 34 of IPC and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to Law.
5.On appearance of the accused Nos.1 and 2, charges for the offences punishable Under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of IPC are framed against the accused persons, read over and explained to them in vernacular language, who having understood the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, got examined PW1 to PW13 and got marked Ex.P1 to P12 documents.
7.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.
8.Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.
9.Point for consideration:
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the
accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable Under
Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all
reasonable doubt?
10. POINT:-
It is the case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 is the husband and accused No.2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased No.1. The deceased
No.1 working as ANM in Govt. Hospital on contract basis even prior to her marriage with A1 on 05.04.2010 and they lead happy marital life for few days and blessed with a daughter and a son/deceased No.2. Thereafter, A1 was addicted to consume liquor and smoking, used to take the salary of deceased
Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Page 6 of 22 Judgment in SC.No.46/18, dt: 05-05-2022 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Nizamabad.
No.1 and spent it for his lavish expenses and he beat her indiscriminately and harassed her physically and mentally. Deceased No.1 intimated the same to her parents and several panchayaths were also held in this regard, but there was no change in the attitude of accused Nos.1 and 2. On 15.07.2017, at about 8.00 p.m., accused Nos.1 and 2 picked up quarrel with deceased No.1 and accused No.1 beat her and accused No.2 abused her with regard to her three months salary and also gold. As such, deceased No.1 was fed up over her life and committed suicide by jumping into the well of Kommera Bhoom
Rao along with her son i.e., deceased No.2 and died by drowning.
11.In order to prove the above case, the prosecution has placed reliance on the oral testimony of PW1 to PW13 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 documents. The learned Addl. P.P. gave up the evidence of remaining rest of witnesses.
12.PW1-V.Anandam, who is the father of deceased No.1. Accused No.1 is the husband of deceased No.1 and A2 is the mother of A1. The deceased
No.2 is the son of deceased No.1 and A1. The marriage between deceased
No.1 and A1 is not disputed. PW2 is the brother of deceased No.1. PW1 in his chief examination affidavit, reiterated the contents of the charge sheet. He stated about the performing of marriage of deceased No.1 with A1 and that
A1 started harassing deceased No.1 in demand for additional dowry, gold and other articles and that deceased No.1 informed to him about the same, he admonished deceased No.1 and sent her back to her in-law’s house, but there was no change in the attitude of accused Nos.1 and 2 and accused
No.1 used to take away all the salary of deceased No.1 and he was addicted to alcohol. He stated that on 15.07.2017, at 6.00 or 7.00 p.m., deceased
No.1 telephoned him and told him that accused Nos.1 and 2 were harassing
Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Page 7 of 22 Judgment in SC.No.46/18, dt: 05-05-2022 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Nizamabad.
her and demanding for additional dowry and gold ornaments and that PW1 told her that he would come and settle the matter on the next day. He also stated about the holding of three to four panchayaths before the elders
before birth of deceased No.2. On 15.07.2017, accused No.1 called him in
the morning and asked if the deceased Nos.1 and 2 came to his house and he told him that they did not come to his house, he rushed to the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 and enquired with accused No.1, on which, A1 told him that they quarreled with each other and that A1 beat deceased No.1. He further stated that he along with his relatives searched for the deceased
Nos.1 and 2 and on next day, he went to Police Station and he also received information from his village Sarpanch that deceased Nos.1 and 2 bodies were found in the well of one Bhooma Rao at Madhapur village. That deceased
No.1 committed suicide due to unbearable harassment of accused Nos.1 and
2. He lodged the complaint and the same was marked as Ex.P1. Ex.P1 also explains about the harassment of accused Nos.1 and 2 against deceased
No.1 and demand for additional dowry and for amount and gold from deceased No.1.
13.PW2-V.Rajashekar also deposed in similar terms of PW1. He further stated that on 15.07.2017, deceased No.1 called PW1 and told him that her in-law’s were demanding deceased No.1 to get gift of gold to the new born deceased No.2 and also to give her salary for three months and that they were harassing her, abusing her and beat her for want of additional dowry and gold and that PW1 told her that he would settle the matter on the next day morning. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 is corroborating with each other.
PW1 directly came to know about the harassment of accused Nos.1 and 2 from deceased No.1 and also that deceased No.1 immediately before
Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Page 8 of 22 Judgment in SC.No.46/18, dt: 05-05-2022 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Nizamabad.
missing, called him and told him about the harassment by accused Nos.1 and 2 in demand for her salary and gold and dowry. PW1 in his cross-examination stated that Ex.P1 was scribed in the PS and he did not draft it, but that he has signed upon it. He admitted that he did not state in Ex.P1 that he suspected accused Nos.1 and 2 for the death of deceased Nos.1 and 2. He stated that he went to Saudi for about 10 years and earned sufficiently and performed marriage of his children and that he was not present in India when the marriage of deceased No.1 was performed. He came back to India after birth of daughter of deceased No.1. He also admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the dispute, as he was in Saudi and that he was deposing on the information given by his wife/LW2. He also stated that the death ceremony of deceased Nos.1 and 2 was performed at his village and that accused Nos.1 and 2 gave Rs.10,000/- towards cremation charges. He also admitted that in Ex.P1 and in his statement to the police, it was not recorded that deceased No.1 was subjected to harassment by accused Nos.1 and 2 in demand for additional dowry. He denied the suggestion that deceased No.1 informed to her mother that she was not happy with accused No.1, as he was a farmer. He also admitted that he demanded accused Nos.1 and 2 to register the agricultural land of 3/4th acre on the name of his granddaughter, who is residing with him and staying and that they are bearing her expenditure. He denied the suggestion that accused No.1 informed him about the quarrel between accused No.1 and deceased No.1 and that he beat her. He also admitted that deceased No.1 committed suicide, as she was suffering psychologically and he again added that she died due to unbearable harassment. Though, PW1 was cross-examined, nothing could be elicited to establish that deceased No.1 died, as she was suffering psychologically. The
Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Page 9 of 22 Judgment in SC.No.46/18, dt: 05-05-2022 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Nizamabad.
evidence of PW1 and PW2 establishes that accused Nos.1 and 2 harassed the deceased No.1 in demand for additional dowry and for gold and also in demand for her salary.
14.In second limb of Section 498-A of IPC, the accused should have unlawfully demanded for amount or should have subjected the woman to cruelty and that there should be any willful conduct, which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical of the woman or harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
15.PW1 is not an eye witness to the incident. However, he came to know about the harassment directly from the deceased No.1 and even a day before the incident. The evidence of PW1 establishes that accused Nos.1 and 2 demanded the deceased No.1 to get gift of gold for deceased No.2 and also demanded for additional dowry and also subjected the deceased No.1 to harassment in demand for her salary. The same establishes the second limb of Section 498-A of IPC. Due to the said harassment of accused Nos.1 and 2, deceased No.1 had to commit suicide and as such, the first limb of Section 498-A of IPC is also established by the prosecution. The conduct of accused
Nos.1 and 2 was of such a nature that deceased No.1 had no other scope except to commit suicide. Though, PW1 admitted that accused Nos.1 and 2 gave cremation charges, but same does not establish that they were kind enough and did not subject the deceased No.1 to cruelty. Moreover, it
Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Page 10 of 22 Judgment in SC.No.46/18, dt: 05-05-2022 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Nizamabad.
appears that the death ceremony of deceased Nos.1 and 2 was performed at the village of PW1 and not at the village of accused Nos.1 and 2. If accused
Nos.1 and 2 looked after the deceased No.1 with love and affection, the death ceremony would have been performed at the village of accused Nos.1 and 2. The counsel for accused himself suggested that accused No.1 has informed PW1 about the quarrel between accused No.1 and deceased No.1 and that accused No.1 beat her. The said suggestion itself establishes that there was quarrel between accused No.1 and deceased No.1 prior to the day of incident. The deceased No.1 after the quarrel was last seen with accused
No.1 in their house and thereafter, was found missing. Her dead body along with the dead body of the deceased No.2 was traced in the well of K.Bhum
Rao. PW1 though admitted that, he demanded accused Nos.1 and 2 to register the agricultural land, it appears to be a subsequent demand after the death of deceased Nos.1 and 2, since deceased No.1 also had a daughter and since her daughter was living along with the parents of deceased No.1, PW1 for the security of their granddaughter, would have demanded for the agricultural land. Infact, it is the duty of accused Nos.1 and 2 to look after the daughter of accused No.1, but since PW1 is looking after her, at-least accused No.1 should provide some means for the development of his daughter and this Court finds no fault of PW1 in demand for agricultural land from accused Nos.1 and 2. PW1 also admitted that deceased No.1 committed suicide, as she was suffering psychologically and added that she died due to unbearable harassment. If deceased No.1 was suffering psychologically, the reason for her suffering could not be established and it appears that she was suffering psychologically only due to the harassment of accused Nos.1 and 2.
Accused could not establish any other cause for her to suffer psychologically
Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Page 11 of 22 Judgment in SC.No.46/18, dt: 05-05-2022 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Nizamabad.
even if accused No.1 was a farmer and if deceased No.1 was not interested to live along with accused No.1, as he is a farmer, but she lived along with him from year 2010 to 2017 for about more than 7 years and was also blessed with two children and this Court finds that the accused failed to establish that she was not living happily with accused No.1, as he was a farmer. By the suggestion given to PW1, it is also found that accused No.1 was working in private and earning Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month apart from cultivating his land.
16.PW2 in his cross-examination, denied the suggestion that he had illegal relation with Sumalatha and that the said Sumalatha lodged a complaint against him. He admitted that his engagement was canceled. He denied the suggestion that all his sisters were psychologically disturbed due to the issues developed by him and that the deceased No.1 committed suicide because of personal issues of PW2. PW2 also denied the suggestion that accused No.1 informed him about the quarrel between accused No.1 and deceased No.1 and that he beat her. He also admitted that deceased No.1 died, as she was suffering psychologically. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 is consistent, cogent and trust-worthy and inspite of cross-examination of PW1 and PW2, no contradictions or any other developments or improvements could be established by the counsel for accused. The evidence of PW1 and
PW2 clinchingly establishes that deceased No.1 had to commit suicide along with deceased No.2 only due to the harassment of accused Nos.1 and 2 in demand for additional dowry, gold and salary. Since the deceased No.1 herself informed about the harassment, there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 and more particularly when it is corroborated by the evidence of PW2 and Ex.P1.
Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Page 12 of 22 Judgment in SC.No.46/18, dt: 05-05-2022 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Nizamabad.
17.There is a delay in lodging Ex.P1 with the police, as the quarrel took place between the deceased No.1 and accused No.1 on 15.07.2017 and Ex.P1 was lodged on 17.07.2017. The quarrel took place in the night on 15.07.2017 and deceased Nos.1 and 2 were informed to be missing to PW1 in the morning of 16.07.2017. Since deceased Nos.1 and 2 are said to be missing, it is quite natural that they would search for the deceased and on failure to trace them, would lodge complaint, since accused No.1 himself has informed about the missing of deceased No.1, PW1 would expect the deceased to be alive, as she also came to their house for about four to five times and since they convinced her and sent her back to the house of accused, similarly, PW1 and his family members would have thought of searching for deceased Nos.1 and 2 and to send her back and would have not expected her to have committed suicide along with her son. Hence, this Court finds no delay in lodging complaint with the police.
18.PW3-K.Hanmanth Rao is one of the panchayath elders, who stated that deceased No.1 gave a complaint at Velugu Office, Nizamabad that she was subjected to harassment in the hands of accused No.1 and the panchayath was held before the birth of deceased No.2 and in the said panchayath, they admonished accused No.1 and deceased No.1 and sent deceased No.1 to her in-law’s house. He stated that he does not have personal knowledge about the family issues between accused No.1 and deceased No.1. He stated that after the panchayath, he does not know what happened and that he did not give his name to police as list of witnesses.
19.PW4-Metpally Vani deposed that she lives in the same locality of accused Nos.1 and 2 and she stated that about two years ago, at about 1.00
Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Page 13 of 22 Judgment in SC.No.46/18, dt: 05-05-2022 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Nizamabad.
p.m., she went to the well of Kummari Bhoomaiah in whose house, she was attending to wash clothes and could sense foul smell from the well and she peeped into the well and found the dead bodies of deceased Nos.1 and 2 were floating and also observed the head of deceased No.1. She stated that she does not know the reason behind the death of deceased Nos.1 and 2. She also stated in her cross-examination that she did not state anything to police except giving her name.
20.PW5-Akula Lingam is also resident of the same village of PW1. This witness also deposed about the deceased No.1 working in the Govt.
Department and that accused No.1 was idle and never brought any grocery and that a panchayath was held in their village and that accused No.1 accepted in the panchayath to provide grocery and household items and that accused No.1 was in the habit of consuming alcohol, the same was also reported by deceased No.1 to the panchayath elders. Deceased No.1 also stated before the panchayath that accused No.1 used to harass and beat her if she does not give money to accused No.1 and that the elders of accused
No.1 gave assurance that they would take care of deceased No.1, on which, they sent the deceased No.1 to the house of accused No.1. He further stated that accused No.1 did not change and the dispute continued and again an other panchayath was held near Collector’s Office, Nizamabad, but inspite of it, there was no change in the behaviour of accused No.2, due to which, deceased No.1 along with her son deceased No.2 committed suicide. He admitted in his cross-examination that he got information from the parents of deceased No.1 and the same was stated before the police. That he has not personally seen the accused harassing deceased No.1 and came to know about it from the parents of deceased No.1 and that he went to Collectorate
Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Page 14 of 22 Judgment in SC.No.46/18, dt: 05-05-2022 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Nizamabad.
Office at the instance of parents of deceased No.1. He also stated that he came to know about the harassment by accused Nos.1 and 2 against the deceased No.1 from one Balwanth Rao. The evidence of PW5 is also corroborated with the evidence of PW1 and PW2. This witness in his cross- examination, stated that in the panchayath, deceased No.1 has informed them about the harassment of accused No.1 and that at the instance of elders of accused No.1, deceased No.1 joined the company of accused No.1.
Subsequently, he stated that the parents of deceased No.1 informed him about the harassment of accused No.1. It appears that both deceased No.1 and the parents of deceased No.1 informed about the harassment to PW5.
PW5 is a villager of PW1 and since deceased No.1 was residing along with accused Nos.1 and 2 at their village, except in the panchayaths, she would have no chance to discuss about the harassment of accused No.1 or accused
No.2 with PW5. PW5 is an independent witness and his evidence is found corroborating with the evidence of PW1 and PW2.
21.PW6-K.Gangadhar is an other independent witness, who also spoke about the harassment of accused No.1 against deceased No.1. He also belongs to the village of PW1 and of the same community. He deposed in similar terms of PW1 and also stated that accused No.1 used to demand deceased No.1 to give her salary, due to which, there were family disputes.
That accused No.1 was not working and was addicted to alcohol, used to take money from deceased No.1 to consume alcohol and failed to provide household articles. He stated that he came to know about the dispute from deceased No.1 and a panchayath was held at Pragathi Bhavan, Nizamabad, where accused No.1 and deceased No.1 was admonished and they lived together, but there was no change in the behaviour of accused No.1, due to
Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Page 15 of 22 Judgment in SC.No.46/18, dt: 05-05-2022 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Nizamabad.
which, deceased No.1 committed suicide by jumping into the well. He denied the suggestion that accused Nos.1 and 2 are noway concerned with the death of the deceased Nos.1 and 2.
22. PW9-T.Prameela deposed that she was working in Social Action
Committee of Madhapoor village and she used to attend at Velugu Office on every Monday to solve the family disputes. That deceased No.1 was working as ANM in Govt. Department and that deceased No.1 made a complaint against her husband/A1 as he was harassing, beating and scolding and demanding money from her and that accused No.1 was addicted to alcohol and was not working anywhere. Accused Nos.1 and 2 along with their elders appeared before Velugu Office at Nizamabad, and PW1 along with the deceased No.1 also attended, wherein, accused Nos.1 and 2 assured that they would not trouble deceased No.1. She stated that subsequently she also called deceased No.1 and on enquiry, deceased No.1 told her that she was staying in her in-law’s house. She later, came to know about the committing of suicide by the deceased No.1 along with deceased No.2. She could not say the reason behind the death of deceased Nos.1 and 2. She admitted that she stated to police, accused Nos.1 and 2 did not change their attitude and continued harassing the deceased No.1, due to which, deceased
No.1 committed suicide. The evidence of this witness also shows about the family disputes between the deceased No.1 and accused Nos.1 and 2, due to which, a panchayath was held. The evidence of this witness is also found corroborating with the evidence of other prosecution witnesses. This witness in her cross-examination, stated that she stated to police as stated by PW1 and PW2 and that she does not know about the family affairs of deceased
No.1 and her husband. But she denied the suggestion that deceased No.1
Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Page 16 of 22 Judgment in SC.No.46/18, dt: 05-05-2022 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Nizamabad.
never complained before her against accused Nos.1 and 2. PW9 is resident of village of accused Nos.1 and 2 and it would be a general tendency for her to support accused Nos.1 and 2, but this witness in her chief examination, did not support the version of accused Nos.1 and 2, but subsequently in her cross-examination supported accused only to certain extent of to have stated
before the police as stated by PW1 and LW2 and that she has no personal
knowledge about the family affairs of deceased No.1 and accused No.1.
Hence, the version of PW9 is also found supporting to the prosecution case, though she belongs to the village of accused Nos.1 and 2.
23.PW7-G.Madhavi is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama and inquest panchanama. She stated that on 17.07.2017, at about 4.30 to 5.30 p.m., she went to the scene of offence and found two dead bodies floating in the well and that the police collected sample of the water from the well in a water bottle and to have prepared scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama in her presence and then, obtained her signatures along with the signatures of LW12 on the scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama.
She also stated that on 18.07.2017, at about, 8.00 a.m., to 10.00 a.m., police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased No.1 and then, obtained her signatures upon the inquest panchanama. She denied the suggestion that she signed on Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 on blank papers on the request of PW13. She added that she read over the contents of Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 and thereafter, signed upon it.
24.PW8-V.Devidas is the other inquest panch, who also deposed about the inquest panchanama of deceased No.2 at Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad. The
Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Page 17 of 22 Judgment in SC.No.46/18, dt: 05-05-2022 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Nizamabad.
death of deceased Nos.1 and 2 is not disputed and also their death due to drowning is not disputed.
25.PW10-T.Kishore Kumar is the panch witness for confession panchanama of accused Nos.1 and 2. This witness stated that on 19.07.2017, police interrogated accused Nos.1 and 2 at the house of Komati Narsaiah, wherein, accused No.1 confessed before him that he was addicted to alcohol and demanded money from deceased No.1 and demanded for dowry and accused
No.2 confessed that she demanded dowry from deceased No.1, on which, deceased No.1 along with deceased No.2 committed suicide by jumping into the well and that police recorded confession panchanama of accused Nos.1 and 2 in his presence and obtained his signatures upon it. He stated that he had shown his identity as VRA to the police, but he does not know whether it was filed in the Court and that the S.I. of Police summoned him through phone call. He stated that he did not file any document to show that he was on duty on the day of panchanama. He denied the suggestion that police obtained his signatures on Ex.P5 when it was blank. He also denied the suggestion that accused Nos.1 and 2 never confessed before him and that he was deposing false at the request of Investigating Officer. It is not necessary that only a Government employee has to be secured as a panch witness and any independent local witnesses would be the best panch witnesses. Though
PW10 is VRA, he is resident of Oddetpally village of Makloor mandal and even if he fails to show his identity card, it does not deprive him from acting as a panch witness and would not be fatal to the prosecution case. However, this witness could only speak about the confession of accused Nos.1 and 2, but the police have not discovered anything on the basis of confession of accused Nos.1 and 2. The confession of accused Nos.1 and 2 did not lead to
Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Page 18 of 22 Judgment in SC.No.46/18, dt: 05-05-2022 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Nizamabad.
discovery and the confession itself would not be admissible in evidence except if it is in accordance with Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, the evidence of this witness could not establish anything against accused
Nos.1 and 2 and more particularly, when it was conducted in the presence of the police. Hence, the evidence of this witness is not admissible in evidence and not relevant.
26.PW11-G.Prasad is the Tahsildar, who held inquest panchanama of dead body of deceased No.1 and he stated that on 18.07.2017, on the request of
S.I. of Police, PS Makloor, he conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased No.1 in the presence of PW7 and LW12 and observed the dead body with swelling all over and also opined that deceased No.1 died due to drowning in the well. He also stated that deceased No.1 died due to harassment of her husband and her mother-in-law. The evidence of PW11 is corroborated by the evidence of PW7.
27.PW12-B.V.Nagamohan Rao is the Professor and Head of Department of
Govt. Medical College, Nizamabad, who held PME over the dead bodies of deceased Nos.1 and 2 on 18.07.2017 and to have found 450 CC of water in pleural cavity of lungs of deceased No.1 and 100 CC of water in pleural cavity of lungs of deceased No.2 and he collected sternum, viscera for chemical examination and diatom test and after receipt of report, he filed FSL report opining that the cause of death of deceased Nos.1 and 2 is due to asphyxia due to drowning.
28.PW13-P.Ramu Naidu is the Investigating Officer, who deposed in terms of his investigation. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that accused Nos.1 and 2 are no way concerned to this offence and that they
Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Page 19 of 22 Judgment in SC.No.46/18, dt: 05-05-2022 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Nizamabad.
confessed to have committed the offence and that they were falsely implicated in this case.
29.As already discussed, the evidence of PW1 is corroborated by the evidence of other prosecution witnesses and their evidence could establish that accused Nos.1 and 2 together have harassed deceased No.1 in demand for additional dowry and for her salary and gold, as she was unable to meet their demand, she was also unable to bear their harassment and their harassment was of such a nature, which has driven her to commit suicide along with deceased No.2. The harassment of accused Nos.1 and 2 was of such a nature that deceased No.1 not only thought of committing suicide by herself, but also committed suicide along with her infant son, which itself establishes the cruel nature of accused Nos.1 and 2, which has forced deceased No.1 to have no other scope except to commit suicide. The prosecution could establish the motive of accused Nos.1 and 2 in subjecting deceased No.1 to cruelty and the same leading to the suicide of deceased
Nos.1 and 2. The defence failed to establish that deceased No.1 was suffering psychologically, due to which, she herself has committed suicide without any harassment of accused Nos.1 and 2. The evidence of all the prosecution witnesses was cogent and coherent and clinchingly establishes that accused
Nos.1 and 2 were responsible for the suicide of deceased No.1 along with deceased No.2. The prosecution could establish the guilt of the accused
Nos.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt.
30.On the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable Under Sections
Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Page 20 of 22 Judgment in SC.No.46/18, dt: 05-05-2022 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Nizamabad.
498-A, 306 r/w 34 of IPC against accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt.
31.In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found guilty of the offences punishable Under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are convicted Under Section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Partly dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her and partly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 5th day of May, 2022.
Asst Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
32.The accused Nos.1 and 2 are questioned with regard to quantum of sentence. Accused No.1 reported that he has one daughter and accused
No.2, who is his old aged mother and are depending on him and that he is the sole bread winner of his family and pleaded for mercy. Accused No.2 reported that she is old aged and pleaded for mercy. It is not a fit case to be dealt with under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and taking into consideration the plea of mercy by the accused Nos.1 and 2, I find that it is not a fit case to take a lenient view. In the circumstances, accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Two (02) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees FIVE THOUSAND only), in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six (06) months for the offence punishable Under Section 498-A of IPC. Further, accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Five (05) years and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees FIVE THOUSAND only), in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six (06) months for the offence punishable Under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC. Accused
Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Page 21 of 22 Judgment in SC.No.46/18, dt: 05-05-2022 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Nizamabad.
No.2 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Two (02) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees FIVE THOUSAND only), in default of payment of fine, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six (06) months for the offence punishable Under Section 498-A of IPC. Further, accused No.2 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Three (03) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees FIVE THOUSAND only), in default of payment of fine, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six (06) months for the offence punishable Under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC. Both the sentences of accused Nos.1 and 2 shall run concurrently.
The period of remand undergone by the accused No.1 from 19.07.2017 to 24.08.2017 and the period of remand undergone by the accused No.2 from 19.07.2017 to 07.08.2017 shall be set off U/s. 428 Cr.P.C.
33.The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after the appeal time.
34.The accused Nos.1 and 2 are informed that they have right to prefer appeal against this judgment and if they have no means to engage an
Advocate in the appellate Court, they would be provided legal aid at the expense of the State and also furnished copy of Judgment upon them.
Partly dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her and partly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 5th day of May, 2022.
Asst Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:
PW1/LW1:V.Anandam.Defacto complainant & - None - father of the deceased No.1 PW2/LW3:V.Rajashekar.Witness. PW3/LW6:K.Hanmanth Rao.Witness. PW4/LW4:Smt.Metpally Vani.Witness & first seen the deceased No.1. PW5/LW8:Akula Lingam.Witness. PW6/LW9:K.Gangadhar.Witness.
Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Page 22 of 22 Judgment in SC.No.46/18, dt: 05-05-2022 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Nizamabad.
PW7/LW13:Smt.Gangoni Madhavi.Panch for scene, inquest of D1 and seizure. PW8/LW14:V.Devidas.Panch for inquest of D2. PW9/LW7:Smt.T.Prameela.Witness. PW10/LW16: Tkishore Kumar.Panch for confession of A1 & A2. PW11/LW18: G.Prasad, Tahsildar, Held inquest over the dead Makloor.body of deceased No.1. PW12/LW19: Dr.B.V.Naga Mohan Held inquest over the dead Rao.body of the deceased Nos.1 and 2. PW13/LW20: P.Ramu Naidu, SI of Investigating Officer. Police.
EXHIBITS MARKED
(On behalf of) FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:
Ex.P1:Complaint.- Nil - Ex.P2:Scene of offence along with rough sketch-cum-seizure panchanama. Ex.P3:Inquest panchanama of deceased No.1. Ex.P4:Inquest panchanama of deceased No.2/Lucky. Ex.P5:Confession panchanama of A1 and A2. Ex.P6:Postmortem report of Kandakurthi Annapurna. Ex.P7:Final opinion of Kandakurthi Annapurna. Ex.P8:Postmortem report of Kandakurthi Lucky. Ex.P9:Final opinion of Kandakurthi Lucky. Ex.P10: Diatoms test report. Ex.P11: Chemical analysis report. Ex.P12: First Information Report.
MOs. MARKED
- Nil -
Asst Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Page 23 of 22 Judgment in SC.No.46/18, dt: 05-05-2022 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Nizamabad.
:: C A L E N D E R ::
IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, AT NIZAMABAD
Sessions Case No.46 of 2018
Police Station : The State through Sub Inspector of Police, PS Makloor.
1. Sessions Case No.: 46 of 2018.
2. Name of the P.S. & Cr.No.: 114 of 2017of PS Makloor.
3. Full description of Accused :
A1:Kandakurthy Ranjith S/o Late Narsaiah, age 33 yrs., Caste: Avusula, Occ: Cable Technician, R/o. Madhapoor village of Makloor Mandal.
A2:Kandakurthy Laxmi Bai W/o Late Narsaiah, age 55 yrs., Caste: Avusula, Occ: House Wife, R/o. Madhapoor village of Makloor Mandal.
4. Date of offence: From 15.07.2017 to 17.07.2017.
5. Date of complaint:17.07.2017.
6. Date of apprehension:A1 and A2: 19.07.2017.
7. Date of release: A1 on 24.08.2017 & A2 on 07.08.2017.
8. Date of commitment:02.02.2018.
9. Date of commencement of trial:11.06.2019.
10. Date of closure of trial:06.04.2022.
11. Date of Judgment:05.05.2022.
12. Explanation of delay: -
Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Copy submitted to:
The Hon'ble Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.