1
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) ANANTAPUR.
Present: Sri.P.Subramanya Kumar, B.Sc., B.L.,., IVth Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapur.
Monday, the 29th day of April, 2013.
Sessions Case No.695/2012
(On committal by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg in P.R.C.No.24/2012 connected with Crime No.92/2012 of Kambadur Police Station).
Name of the Complainant: Circle Inspector of Police, Kalyandurg P.S.
Name and description of the Accused:Bestha Subbaiah, Aged 39 years. S/o Bestha Ramanjinappa. Nuthimadugu Village, Kambadur Mandal, Anantapur District.
Offence: 498-A and 302 of IPC
Plea of the accused: Not guilty.
Finding of the Court: Not guilty.
Sentence or Order: Accused is acquitted under section 235 (1) of
Cr.P.C for the offence under sections 498-A and 302 of I.P.C. The bail bonds on record shall be cancelled after appeal time is over. The unmarked non valuable case properties in CPR No.2/2013 are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.
The Sessions case coming on 26.04.2013 for final hearing
before me in the presence of Sri Mahaboob Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State and of Sri G.Chandrasekhar Reddy, Advocate for accused and on perusing the material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following;
J U D G M E N T
The Circle Inspector of Police, Kalyandurg has laid a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.92/2012 for the offence punishable under sections 498-A and 302 of I.P.C.
2.The brief averments of the charge sheet filed by the Circle
Inspector of Police, Kalyandurg are as follows:- 2
The deceased Bestha Nagalakshmi is the wife of accused. Their marriage took place about 15 years back. After the marriage they lived happily for some years. During their wedlock they were blessed with two children. Since three years the accused is suspecting the fidelity of his wife and use to harassing her both physically and mentally. Knowing about it,
P.Ws.1 to 3, L.W.4 Bestha Mallikarjuna and P.Ws.5 and 6 chastised the accused and also requested him to change his attitude. A panchayath was held and the elders also advised the accused to live amicably.
In the year 2010 the accused shifted his family to Kambadur and stayed in a rented house in S.C colony in Kambadur by running an auto. Even at
Kambadur also the accused again suspected the fidelity of his wife and harassing her mentally and physically.
On 11.9.2012 at about 2-00 P.M the deceased Nagalakshmi and the accused picked up a quarrel with each other, resulting that accused grew wild, pushed her down, took a rope and tide it around her neck tightly and due to that strangulation, she died on the spot. Later to screen the offence, the accused hanged the dead body to the ceiling fan with a saree to make the neighbours to believe that Nagalakshmi committed suicide by hanging herself.
On the report presented by P.W.1, L.W.20 H.Veeranna, Head Constable registered it as a case in Cr.No.92/2012 under section 174 of Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation inquest was conducted over the dead body of deceased Nagalakshmi in the presence of L.W.17 D.Ram Mohan. L.W.19 Dr
M.Rajendra Prasad, CAS has conducted postmortem examination and opined that the deceased died due to strangulation. The accused voluntarily appeared before P.W.12 and confessed about the commission of offence.
L.W.22 G.Ramakrishnaiah, C.I of Police arrested the accused and sent for remand. Hence, this case.
3
3.The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalyandurg has taken on file the above charge sheet under sections 498-A and 302 of IPC and numbered the same as P.R.C.24/2012 and committed the matter to the
Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur and from there the same is
made over to this court.
4.On appearance of the accused, he was examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C and a charge under sections 498-A and 302 of IPC were framed against the accused which have been read over to him in Telugu and he denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
5.The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused had examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.13 documents. No material objects are marked.
6.As there are no incriminating circumstances found against the accused in the prosecution evidence the examination of the accused under section 313 (1) of Cr.P.C is dispensed with.
7.Now the points for determination in the Sessions case are as follows:
1. Whether the deceased Bestha Naga Lakshmi was killed by the
accused suspecting her fidelity by harassing her mentally and
physically by tying a rope around her neck tightly on 11.9.2012 at
about 2-00 p.m by picking up a quarrel with the deceased
Nagalakshmi and thereby rendering the accused punishable under
section 302 of I.P.C.?
2. Whether the prosecution has been established beyond
reasonable doubt about the harassment meted out by the accused to
the deceased Nagalaksmi before her death in order to convict the
accused under section 498-A of I.P.C?
8.Points 1 and 2::-
P.W.1 Bestha Ramalakshmamma is the mother of deceased Naga
Lakshmi had disclosed that Nagalakshmi and the accused are wife and husband and they have two issues one son and daughter and they were living happily. P.W.1 has deposed that about four or five months back her daughter 4 hanged herself and died due to stomach pain and she has also deposed that she has not given any police complaint against the accused in respect of death of her daughter. She deposed that she put her thumb impression on the written paper prepared by the police and she does not know the contents of said written paper. Thus the person who is allegedly put the crime into motion has been remained hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.
Similarly, the other material witnesses have also remained hostile and did not support the prosecution. P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased Nagalakshmi has also did not state anything against the accused about killing the deceased
Nagalskhmi. He has also disclosed that about four or five months back his sister hanged herself and died due to stomach pain. P.W.3 is another sister of
Nagalakshmi has also deposed on the same lines as P.W.2 deposed. P.W.4 is father of deceased Nagalskhmi has also deposed on the same lines as P.Ws.1 to 3 have deposed. P.W.5 who belonged to Nuthimadugu village and related to deceased Nagalakshmi has deposed that Nagalakshmi died unable to bear with stomach pain and he deposed that he was not examined by the police.
P.W.6 has deposed that deceased Nagalskhmi is the wife of the accused and he does not know the family affairs of them and he heard that Nagalakshmi died due to stomach pain. P.W.7 also deposed on the same lines as P.W.6 deposed. Similarly, P.W.8 is also deposed on the same lines as P.W.6 and
P.W.7 has deposed. P.W.9 has also not supported the contention of prosecution and disclosed that she does not know the family affairs of
Nagalakshmi and he heard that Nagalskhmi died due to stomach pain. P.W.10 has disclosed that he stood as elder to pacify Nagalakshmi and the accused in respect of dispute between them and that the accused scolded her in a domestic affair and advised them to be peacefully lead life and thereafter they were living happily. He too heard that Nagalakshmi died due to stomach pain.
It is also deposed by him that the accused is not responsible for her death.
5
9.P.W.11 is daughter of deceased Nagalakshmi and accused has also not supported the prosecution and deposed that her parents were living happily without any disputes and she was not examined by the police. Thus, the own daughter of the deceased herself did not support the contention of the prosecution. P.W.12 is the V.R.O before whom the accused alleged to have been confessed about killing of his wife Nagalakshmi, but he has not supported the prosecution and contended that Ex.P.12 is his signature portion on the purported report given by him while handing over the accused to
Kambadur Police on 21.9.2012. At the instance of C.I of Police he subscribed his signature under the above document as per Ex.P.12 and he does not know the contents of the said Mahazarnama. P.W.13 is another V.R.O of Palur village who has also not supported the prosecution and contended that the accused has not committed any offence nor confessed about the commission of offence in his presence. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has marked 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.1 to 13 as Exs.P.1 to P.13. That except marking the 161 Cr.P.C statements the respective prosecution witnesses examined by the prosecution, nothing has been elicited from them incriminatingly against the accused by the prosecution and even kith and kin of the deceased Nagalskhmi have not supported the prosecution version and remained hostile. This would have been prompted the learned Addl.P.P to given up the rest of the witnesses i.e., L.Ws.16 to 22. Thus in view of no incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is not desirable to hold that the accused is liable to be punished for the offences under sections 498-A and 302 of I.P.C. Accordingly, I hold the points 1 and 2 against the prosecution.
10.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 302 of I.P.C and accordingly he is acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds on record shall be 6 cancelled after appeal time is over. The unmarked non valuable case properties in CPR No.2/2013 are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 29th day of April, 2013.
I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapur.
Appendix of evidence. Witnesses examined for Prosecution : Defence:
P.W.1: Bestha Ramalakshmamma. –None-
P.W.2: Bestha Venkataramana.
P.W.3: Bestha Venkatesulu.
P.W.4: Bestha Naganna.
P.W.5: Bestha Anjanappa.
P.W.6: Bestha Obulesu.
P.W.7: Bestha Siddaiah.
P.W.8: Golla Ramanna.
P.W.9: Boya Anjaneyulu.
P.W.10: Golla Narasimhulu.
P.W.11: Bestha Preethi.
P.W.12: V.Muthyalappa.
P.W.13: Gugudu Khaleel.
P.W.14: Guddala Sanjeevarayudu.
Documents marked for prosecution.
Ex.P.1: Relevant portion marked from the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1.
Ex.P.2: Relevant portion marked from the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2.
Ex.P.3: Relevant portion marked from the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3.
Ex.P.4: Relevant portion marked from the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4.
Ex.P.5: Relevant portion marked from the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5.
7
Ex.P.6: Relevant portion marked from the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6.
Ex.P.7: Relevant portion marked from the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.7.
Ex.P.8: Relevant portion marked from the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.8.
Ex.P.9: Relevant portion marked from the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.9.
Ex.P.10: Relevant portion marked from the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.10.
Ex.P.11: Relevant portion marked from the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.11.
Ex.P.12: Relevant portion marked from the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.12.
Ex.P.13: Relevant portion marked from the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.13.
Documents marked for Defence.
-Nil-
Material Objects marked on behalf of
Prosecution:Defence:
-Nil- -Nil-
IV A.S.J.
Anantapur.