; Date of
: | Description of Document Rviaendin filing of P
_| Document
. Copies of Photo ID cards of
the Petitions and the
. Respondents
> IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE
STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
I
CRLR.C.M.P.NO. 1°. OF'2015
CRILR.C.No. OF 2012
RUNNING INDEX
ge
=
EL
ie |
Copy of Memo of =~
Comrpromise with
traslation ‘
Copy of the affidavit of the 03-11-2015
Respondent No.1 | vo,
03-11-2015 | 93-11-2015
“
g-.
V0)
-
5. | Death certificate of the xa "99-06-2012
respondent“ | _.
J.
DATE: 03-11-2015 ae
Hyderabad Counéel for the Pétitioner
-Kirlampudi Mandal, East Godavari District.
MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL REVISION MISCELLANEOUS PETITION
(UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. ) ;
IN THE HIGH: COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD:
for the State of Telangana a and the State of Andhra Pradesh
CRL.R.C.M.P.NO. : : OF 2015
oN |
CRL.R.CNO. - 812 OF 2012
. . |
BETWEEN :
1. Penaganti Somaraju S/o. Narsayya, aged
About 69 years,
2. Penaganti Ramanamma W/o. Somaraju, I.
aged about 64 years, \
both r/o. H.No. 3-59, Kotla Ramalayam Street,
Peddanapalli, Yeleswaram Mandal, .
East Godavari District. ; .. Petitioners.
And
1. Sarakanam Ganga @ Gangababu, S/o. late Venkata Rao
Aged about 37 years, r/o.H.No.1-35, Kummaria Street,
2. Sarakanam Achiraju W/o. late Venkatarao,
Aged about 57 years, r/o.H:No.1-35, Kummarla Street,
Kirlampudi Mandal, East Godavari District.
3. Sarakanam Venkatarao (died)
4. The State of AP, through SHO, Kirlampudi PS,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, ;
...Respondents/Petitioners-Respt.
- ©? For'the retsons stated in the implead petition, the petitioners herein pray that this
Honourable Court may be pleased to permit: the petitioners to compromise with the
respondents 1 to 3 herein in the above CrLR.C. by withdrawing the accusations made
I .
against them in terms of Memorandum of Compromise dated. 25.9.2015, and to acquit
them, and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and propet.
RESPONDENTS _ , PETITIONERS
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS 1&2 _ COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS
EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT
] co HIGH COURT : HYDERABAD.
CRLR.CMPNO. —, - OF 2015
IN
CRL.R.C.NO. 878 OF 2012
PERMISSION PETITION TO
COMPROMISE
1329
MR.LAXMAIAH KANCHANI ¢8833
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS.
ee?
works SSF aca WEN ANDHRA PRADESH .
Aj 073377
On 26g 4 hA0 ae ko Sece BBC. LaRetN
Rs~ (a0- , “Blo Bobs 0M i mo, LICENCED STAMP VENDOR
DT adits dasa |
| “Cell 85236-43917
4 Base passe beaks
KIRLAMPUDI - 533 431
LINO 04-08-04-2013.
“ey, EDep 5% Be WED:
~ mee aoe
oS oo dea oo
12 BD men orcas /f {ors
| an be desbin, ds romeo 8. 2S eae
bameed. ar Sweu Govk fs 64.9 eee: a
- Vp 2 Gated au. BU aes
Za GAnbris B avi
is Se aareasy oy .
a Sa ea dH of i
Y
&
Games x23 Pon hav
hoe Eee om
#4; Re Oy OS ree AR,
9s cag a sw £ fae
bas eve ees B wang rider mys
ae ve ow AOE SE RES dco oxo ond —
Rh zy Se Doo ws (S& =4o BBV Dw GOKE
eon h hsv bs Bo Kok } ex ahw 2. 01720 25
ase a sv Bodo (85 aw DIVES 3 RN
5 6 Ste ad 9% 5905 P05
x £ soigge sn: of Sa S Seas). ulory
2 BO a pS Os. Smee
Ores & 2 Q-e7e wl of Q ° FV 899 s\410. Bal BVO—
s 2. Ora oe— Gxnpon Oh Siar mao e 2 ©
ty2 a Ste ted x puree Sees
or Ra § De eo SK 4 ries
NE z Be REE Sons vi er BLUSE
AY) &, 28, se Wohin BV BigP Ceres Ds
Bt sv Bon on we ae
7X)
Sacro
ay Berks Le 33 SY Rn Fs aE
R On pen SOL Br yy Ce IVF ay 2
OG SV FQ 0 av BH SHY SUC ge,
ied dae wie santo oes
paxogeke HOLD LE RIAL sO BOOB
b deul Bs noe
®
This deed is executing on this the 25th day of
Seotember, 2015.
This deed is executéng on Saravanam Ganga Habu, S/o
Sri Saravanam Venkatarao, Ro Geddenapalli village, Phirangipuram
“andal, East Godavari District, Occ; 4griculture.
This deed is executing ny (1) Peddaga ti Narasiah's
Son “omaragu, (2) Ramanamma W/o Yoma Raju (3) Jojees2ara Raots
Sym are the agriculturists, R/o Peddanapalli village, Yeleswaram
Mandal, East Godavari District.
You are the nephew to the party No 1 and 2 of us,
Brother-in-law to the Party No 3 of us and brother to the
Appala Raju, Brother in law to the party No 1 ard 2 of us,
and Brother in law to the party No 3 of us. Sri Karanam
Appala Raju, and his wife Lakshmi are expired.
In this regard the Kei*lampudi Mandal police was registered
the case on those days. Novy the case is under pending.
At present our family members are depending upon the agricultural
works and residing at Hyderabad, it is not possible to us to
move from this village to the Hyderabad. Hence, on the advice
of the well wishers, and you are also agreed for our proposal,
hence, we are executing this compromise deed,
Bue to the court expenses, and other problems, due to
incurred losses from the properties, on the advise of the
elders and before the given below witnessed persons, we
received an amount of Ks .2,100,000/- (Rupees Two lack only),
Hence received from your ent.
Hence, from teday onwards, we are not create any
disputes against you and we are not going to fight on the
property basis, We are also not going to file any police
cases, at the same time we are promising you that we can
: 2 3
not/ will not file any police cases against you in future.
Hence, we read: out all the contents of this compromise
geed and before the given below witnesses pers ons we put
our signatures, &
LT I OF Penaganti “oma Raju
L T I OF Penaganti
Sd /=xxx
Sd /=xxx t
Sd /=xxx : x
WITNYSSES ; :
01 Sdsd/-xxx
02 Sa /-xxx
Document prepared by ;_
“Sd /=xxx
IN THE Hii c court OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh
CRL:R.C.NO OF 2012
BETWEEN 4.
Sérakanam Ganga & Ort ...Petitioners.
And
Penaganti Somaraju & others. .
: os _-»-Respondents/Petitioners-Respt.
I, Sarakanam’ Gage S/o. Hate. Venkatarao , aged about 37 years, r/o. H.No. 1-35,
Kummarla Street, Kirainpudi Manda, East Godavari District, having now temporarily
come down to Hyder ‘do fby solemnly affirm and sincerely state on oath as
follows:
, Iam the 1* petitioner herein and as such am well acquainted with the facts of the
”. “case. Iam swearing to tis afidavit on behalf of other petitioner also who i is my wife.
7 I submit that on’ a + compl lodged by the Retired V.R.O., the PW1, the 4
respondent Police have registred, a crime in Cr. No. 41 of 2006 initially for an offence
U/s. 174 of Cr.P.C., in consequeic to the committal of suicide by my sister-in-law and
our her children owing t to the prespires brought out by the private financiers from whom )
my y brother taken loan fol agricultural operations and some part thereof was cleared off
by us. I submit that tv tn st the daughter, grand children and the son-in-law of
- the ie proposed respondents 2& 3 h rein, they were totally in a depressed mood as well in
trauma and has deposed before the Trial Court that all the deaths were because of the
harassment i in the hands of the Petitioners herein, But because of the time lapse and
: : having come to know that the pet it oners have not committed any harassment much less
and the deposition given by the 2 H respondent herein in the above CC was hear s say and
on ‘intervention of the village elders and the 3" petitioner herein has died on 29.6.2012
and as by reason we are. all basil eking out our livelihood by agriculture and after
’ respondents and the charge i is concerning our family.
recording our statements the Offence was amended to that ‘of Section 498-A and 306 of
IPC.
3. I submit that basing upon the evidences and the: material on record the Trial
Court has convicted all the petitioners herein. fi the ¢ offence Uls. 306 of IPC while
acquitting from the offence U/s. 498-A of. IPC at sentenced to undergo RI for 5: yet
each and to pay a fine by its Judgment dated 18. 4 2011. ‘Aearioved against the same we,
the petitioners herein have filed Crl.A.No. iignon. before the Court of Ive Addl .
Sesssions Judge, E.G.District at Kakinada and te. same ‘was, dismissed by a Judgment
dated 13.6.2012. Aggrieved by the samne, the we shave fi led the above Crl. R. C. and the
same is pending disposal before this Honourable Court
4. I submit that on intervention of the eldets and well wishers of both parties. and
after due negotiations and deliberations who suggested for an amicable settlement and
accordingly we ‘have arrived at a compromise ‘on 25, 92015 and the same was also
-reduced into writing in vernacular language, I subi tat the said compromise was. not
arrived at the behest of duress or coercion and
andthe 2" petitioner herein is aso at hér: sayanced stage and the A3 has died on
29.6.2012 after filing the present’, CHR. a, ‘Sopy of. death certifi cate is also filed
’ herewith for ready Perusal of this Court and the wold ike ‘to withdraw the accusations
made against us and as the initiation of proceedings are ‘not at their instance sil, the
alteration of offence was took place on the Bis of the Statements of ‘the Froposid
Hence this affidavit.
Sworn and signed before me on this’
the 3“ day of November, 2015 at Hyderabad.” : fd _ DEPONENT
ADVOCATE, HYDERABAD. -
hey were at their fag end of thet ves ,
\ (®)
4 as
= © Sree
wrod aoago
"Sard sows! Enrollment No. : 1088/56512/20861
|
To
Penaganti Somaraju
DMKod DLoore
S/O Narsayya
3-59
30/12/2011
Kotta Ramalayam Veedhi
Peddanapalli
Yeteswaram Mandalam
Peddanapalli,East Godavari
Andhra Pradesh - 533431
LAE ARE
UF037020722N D
3702012
= a wp Some 7 Your Aatihaar No. :
7. 3068 4040 77950 —
eas - PATHE) Sr827.
PenagantiSomaraju -
SY GOSS yo! ear of Birth : 1946. ig
Sptiotzoeto / Male
H 3068 4040 7950
Serb - PET RgD wresy
= : aodco
SAr& Sows/ Enrollment No. : 1111/25016/0 1892
To
Sarakanam Achiraju
= — S080 edorer . .
a yay Venkatarao “"
5 _KUMMARALA VEEDHI '
: " ‘KIRLAMPUDI MANDALAM
| Geddanapalli
' ! East Godavari :
ty Andhra Pradesh - 833431 ey
i
—
| ZawaMeor a |
7080809
| & w@& Somg / Your Aadhaar No.,;
7778 2391 3404:
wars - POTLID rH)
| naeeassmennemcenietenad -_ . See we we
WEN.
F - ‘Sarakanam Achiraju
’ SAS S085 y501Vear of Binh : 1958 LR.
| eS). / Female ieee:
7778 2391 3404
SEE - PSPS sr&p
Name ne ae :
2 ath
Sarco Sows / Enrollment No. : 1111/25113/04793
To - :
Sarakanam Gangababu
BOSSo Korreray oo :
S/O Venkatarao %
1-35 '
Kumarala vari veedhi
Kirlampudi mandatam
Geddanapalii
East Godavari,
Andhra Pradesh - 533431
17/11/2011
A
UF198623566IN @
19862356
er of
; 5}
o wa Some / Your Aaidhaar No. :
7984 9296 0393 -
ead - aPaT NGA) why. .
SBSS0 Kormeren
Sarakanam Gangababu
S945 S058 Wo'Vear of Bith: 1978. $
‘SBax / Male 2
7984 9296 0393 #
ears - POTD rsp
oa
SBro Sops/ Enrollment No. : 055/5551 2/20652
2912/2011
Oe eased
2» eed %0@§ / Your Aadhaar No. :
To
Penaganti Ramanamma
DAN SSoraisoy
WIO Somaraju
3-59
Kotta Ramalayam Veedhi
Peddanapallt . iG :
Yeleswaram Mandalam : F
Peddanapalli,East Godavari ‘
Andhra Pradesh - 533431
| mT
(a
3708009
8363 4295 2178
SAYS $058 ySo/Vear of Birth: 1954
89 /Femate ”
Penaganti Ramanam na ~ H
|
FORM No. 6
See Rule - 13
GOVERNMENT OF ANDERA PRADESH
KAKINADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
MEDICAL & HEALTH DEPARTMENT
ca. wots... CERTIFICATE OF DEATH «cores:
(Issued under Section 12/17 of the Registration of Births ard Deaths Act 1969 and Rules 8/13 of the
Andhra Pradesh Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 1999)
This is to certify that ‘the following information has been taken from the original record of death,
which is the register for ...3...... division of Municipal Cotporation, Kakinada of Hast Godavari
District of State Andhra Pradesh . |
Name
“Sex
Date of Death
Place of Death
Name of the Mother Ha .
Name of the Father / :
Husband
Address of the Deceased at the time of Death Perma aent Address of Deceased.
ssvssseesesnencecencaunasssseleceeeesesesscuasesseceneerstsnasersseseeses an c EDDANAPALLI E.G. DIST, AP
seeaesdeesenenesessceneseneneatseoscesenusetusnsnencsserassussseraredatarane ——” cuauaceses sresenngenensanandnceeerecnnstatuscnscnnnnnensnasnesene
"2370 , 11107/2012
Registration NO. .escssccsssssssssssssessaseerseserverenies Date Of Registration .........ccsccsssssssscsssccesess
. 4
| Remarks. ” : : ;
Prepared by Compared by SS ‘ /
x\ =f, IPAL. /g
mh nets’ MUIC FR
Sub-Rédistrar ’ Dy. Statistical Offi F BIRTH & DEATHS
Asst. Statistical Offi L. CORPORATION
Sw” AKAKINADA
* Seal 7 \
Date Of ISSUE 5 .......ssssssssssssssetscessrssssersssrsesse poe
| Ensure registration of every birth and death
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh
CRL.R.C.M_P.NO. / OF 2015
iN .
CRL.R.C.NO. 812 OF 2012
BETWEEN : |
Penaganti Somaraju & another \ : '_,,.Petitioners.
And \
Sarakanam Ganga & Others.
| . ...Respondents/Petitioners-Respt.
1, Penaganti Somaraju S/o. Narsayya, aged about 69 years, r/o. H.no.3-59, Kotla
Ramalayam Street, Peddanapalli village, Yeleswaram Mandal, East Godavari District,
having now temporarily come down to Hyderabad, do hereby solemnly affirm -and
sincerely state on oath as follows: - a ;
1. Tam the 1* petitioner herein and as such am well acquainted with the facts of the
case. I am swearing to this affidavit on behalf of other petitioner also who is my wife.
2. I submit that on a complaint lodged by the Retired V.R.O., the PW1, the 4"
respondent Police have registered a crime in Cr. No. 41 of 2006 initially for an offence
’ Us. 174 of Cr.P.C., in consequence to the committal of suicide by our daughter and our
grand daughter and son owing to the pressures brought out by the private financiers from
whom our son-in-law taken loan for agricultural operations and some part thereof.was
cleared off by the petitioners in the above Crl.R.C. I submit that having been lost the
daughter, grand children and the son-in-law and were in totally in a depressed mood as
well in trauma and I being the kartha of the family has deposed before the Trial Court
that all the deaths were because of the harassthent in the hands of the petitioners herein.
But because of the time lapse and having come to know that the petitioners have not
committed ‘any harassment much less and the deposition given by He in the above CC
was hear say and on intervention of the village elders and the 3" petitioner herein has -.
died on 29.6.2012 and as by reason we are all basically eking out our livelihood by
4
agriculture and after recording our statements the Offence was amended to that of —
Section 498-A and 306 of IPC. .
3. I submit that basing upon the evideinces and thematerial on record the Trial Court
has convicted all the petitioners herein for the offence U/s. 306 of IPC while acquitting
from the offence U/s. 498-A of IPC ard sentenced to undergo RI for > years each and to
pay a fine by its Judgment dated 18.3.201 1 Aggrieved against the same the respondents
1 to 3 herein have filed Crl.A.No.1°9/2011 before the Court of IV Addl. Sesssions
Judge, E.G.District at Kakinada and the same was dismissed by a Judgment dated
13.6.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 1 to 3 herein have filed the above
Crl. R.C. and the same is pending disposal before this Honourable Court.
4. I submit that on intervention of the elders and well wishers of both parties and
after due negotiations and deliberations who suggested for an amicable settlement and
accordingly we have arrived at a compromise on 25.9.2015 and the same was also
reduced into writing in vernacular language. 1 submit that the said compromise was not
arrived at the behest of duress or coercion and we being at our fag end of our lives and
the 2 respondent herein is also at her advanced stage and we would like to withdraw
the accusations made against them and as the initiation of proceedings are not at our
instance still, the alteration of offence was took place on-the basis of our statements and
the charge is concerning our family we-may be permitted to come on record and to
compromise the said offence by withdrawing the accusations’ made against the
respondents 1 & 2 herein.
Hence it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to permit the
petitioners herein to come on record as respondents 21 and 3 in the above Crl.R.C., and
pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper.
Sworn and signed before me on this
the 3 day of November, 2015 at Hyderabad. DEPONENT
ADVOCATE, HYDERABAD.
I
MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL REVISION MISCELLANEOUS PETITION
(UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR-P.C.) I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh
CRLR.CMPNO. . OF 2015
CRL.R.CNO. 812 OF 2012
BETWEEN : .
|
1, Penaganti Somaraju S/o. Narsayya, aged
* About 69 years, ae
2. Penaganti Ramanamma W/o. Somaraju, : -
aged about 64 years, : j
both r/o. H.No. 3-59, Kotla Ramalayam Street,
Peddanapalli, Yeleswaram Mandal, ’
East Godavari District. —- gee __ ,,.Petitioners.
1, Sarakanam Ganga @ Gangababu, S/o. late Venkata Rao
Aged about 37 years, r/o.H.No.1-35, Kummarla Street,
Kirlampudi Mandal, East Godavari District.
2, Sarakanam Achiraju W/o, late Venkatarao,
Aged about 57 years, r/o.H.No.1-35, Kummezla Street,
Kirlampudi Mandal, East Godavari District.
3. Sarakanam Venkatarao (died)
4. The State of AP, through SHO, Kirlampuci PS,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court.at Hyderabad,
See ...Respondents/Petitioners-Respt.
. 4
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioners herein pray
that this Honourable Court may be pleased to permit the petitioners to come on record as -
1
respondents 2 & 3 in the above Crl.R.C., anc pass such other order or orders as are
deemed fit and proper.
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS
Hyderabad : . |
03-11-2015 |
EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT
HIGH COURT : HYDEP.ABAD..
CRL.R.C.M.E.NO.. . «77° OF 2015-
IN
CRL.R.C.NO. 878 OF 2012
PETITION TO IMPLEAD
$328
MR.LAXMAIAH KANCHANI kg32
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS.
Fa
Te. gett
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad,
.. ..-Respondents/Petitioners-Respt.
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS 1&2 .
\
i
MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL REVISION MISCELLANEOUS PETITION
Kira Aloe
(UNDER SECTi {182 OF CR.P.C.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD.
for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh
CRL.R.C.M.P.NO.
IN
CRL.R.C.NO. ~ 812
BETWEEN :
1. Penaganti Somaraju S/o. Narsayya, aged
About 69 years,
2. Penaganti Ramanamma W/o. Somaraju,
aged about 64 years,
both r/o. H.No. 3-59, Kotla Ramalayam Street,
Peddanapalli, Yeleswaram Mandal,
East Godavari District.
And
1, Sarakanam.Ganga @ Gangababu, S/o. late Venkata Rao
Aged about 37 years, r/o.H.No.1-35, Kummaria Street,
Kirlampudi Mandal, East Godavari District. :
2. Sarakanam Achiraju W/o. late Venkatarao,
Aged about 57 years, r/o.H.No.1-35, Kumsnaria Street,
Kirlampudi Mandal, East Godavari District. °
3. Sarakanam Venkatarao (died)
4, Tne State of AP, chrough SHO, Kirlampudi PS,
OF 2015
OF 2012"
..-Petitioners. .
or For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum of Compromise dated
. ‘ . | .
25.9.2015, the petitioners herein pray that this Honourable Court may be pleased to
permit the petitioners to, withdraw the accusetions made against the respondents | to 3
herein in the above Crl.R.C.,‘and to acquit them, and pass such other order or orders as
are deemed fit and proper.
t
PETITIONERS
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS
EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT
HIGH COURT : HYDERABAD. |
CRL.R.CMP.NO. 399 qs OF 2015
IN
CRL.R.C.NO. 878 - OF 2012
Compemmise?
Dismissek
poSt wieh
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS.
fore yaca
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE :: ANDHRA PRADESH
: AT HYDERABAD " oo
|
i
" CrlLR.C.No. OF 2012
. RUNNING INDEX
HPN) boatment [occa] fing
Document Document | filing of
Document
es
eel oe
. Certified copy of 13.06.2012 3-l
Cri.A. No, 119/2011 \
Certified Copy of 18.03.2011
, the judgement in . 16-2
SC. No. 129/2008
Pemogen | | | 88 |
ee eee
ee ee
ee ee
oO.
BS
Nn
a
r
DATE: 18.9.2012 ) Wy
Hyderabad Counsel for the Petitioner .
'
4
Page
N
©
f MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL REVISION CASE
UNDER SECTION 397 & 401 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
| IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE :: ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD |
Cri.R.C.No. OF 2012 1
IN
CRLA.No. 119 OF 2011 .
ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI
DISTRICT
IN
S.C.No. 129 OF 2008
ON THE FILE OF THE ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE: PEDDAPURAM
BETWEEN:
1. Sarakanam Ganga, S/o. Venkatarao
age 35 years, R/o. Geddanapalli, Kirlampudi Mandal
Kakinada, East Godavari District.
2. Sarakanam Atchiraju, W/o.Venkatarao
age 55 years, R/o. Geddanapalli, Kirlampudi Mandal
Kakinada, East Godavari District.
3. Sarakanam Venkatarao, S/o.Appanna
age 60 years, R/o. Geddanapalli, Kirlampudi Mandal
Kakinada, East Godavari District. |
..Accused/Petitioners
AND 1429 |
The State of A.P., through SHO Kirlampudi PS |
Rep., by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P.,
High Court Building, Hyderabad. ...Complainant/Respondent
The address for service of all notices and process on the above named
Appellant is that of his counsel M/S.D.V. CHALAPATHI RAO (10294) &
ANTJAYALAKSHMI, ADVOCATES, #16-11-1/6 & 1/6/1, Flat #201, Above Reebok
Show Room, Opp:Vasavi Bank, Saleem Nagar, Main Road, Malakpet, Hyderabad-
500 036.
The above named Appellant begs to file the against the, judgment and
sentence passed by the learned IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Kakinada, East
Godavari District Dt. 13.6.2012 in Crl.A.No. 119 of 2011, for the following
grounds among other: \
GROUNDS
@
& 1. The judgment of the learned IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Kakinada is illegal,
improper and incorrect. |
2. That Both the Courts below have placed much reliance on Ex.P2 leading
to an erroneous conclusion ignoring the have settled principles of law as laid
down by the Hon’‘ble Appex Court to terms to the act U/Sec.32 of Indian
Evidence Act.
3. That Both the Courts below having appreciated that the contents of
Sec.498-A are not proved but have come to an erroneous conclusion that the
ingredients of U/Sec.306 IPC are fulfilled basing on the witness of the interested
parties.
4. That Both the Courts failed to appreciate to fact that the accused were
helpful to the deceased's family in clearing of their debts by selling away of their
own properties and coming to a conclusion that the accused drove the deceased
|
5. That Both the Courts below failed to follow the guide lines laid down by
to commit suicide is erroneous and perverse.
the Hon’ble Supreme Court for coming to a conclusion of U/Sec.32 of Indian
Evidence Act with respect of Ex.P2 and erroneously convicted the petitioners.
6. The learned Judge should have seen that the ingredients to constitute the
said offences are not made out by the prosecution. ;
7. The learned Judge should have seen that the medical evidence does not
corroborate with the prosecution case.
8. The other reasons given by the learned Judge are unsustainable.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The sentence is
unduly severe.
Other grounds will be urged at the time of hearing.
HYDERABAD
DATE:18.9.2012 Counsel For eleva”
yw
:
_ EAST GODAVARI :: District ‘A
HIGH COURT : HYDERABAD
Crl.R.C.No. - OF 2012
IN
Crl.A.No. 119 OF 2011
ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI
IN
SC NO. 129 OF 2008
_ ON THE FILE OF THE ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
PEDDAPURAM
MEMORANDUM OF GROUNDS
Filed By:
M/s D.V. CHALAPATHI RAO (10294)
& .
A.NVDAYALAKSHMI
Advocates
Counsel for Appellant
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, £.G., KAKINADA
Present: Sri B.Girija Manoher, B.Sc.. B.i.,
iV Addi. Sessions Judge
Wednesday, the 13” day of: June, 2012.
al CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 119 of 2011
this doe is : Asst. Sessions Judge,
Peddapurant
&,
g/in that court =: $.C.No.129/2008
Namé”afid"cescription of the : 1. Sarakanam Ganga, s/o Venkatarao,
Appellants : 35 years, Geddanapaili, Kirlampudi Mandat
' 2, Sarakanam Aichiraju, w/o Venkatarao,
55 years, Geddanapalli, Kirlampudi
Mandai,
3. Sarakanam Venkatarao, s/o Appanna,
80 years, Geddanapalli, Kirlampudi
Mandal.
‘Name ane description of the : State’ S.H.C., Kirlampuci P.S.,-
respondents represented by Addi. PP.
Section of law unde which the > U/s. 306 iPC
Appeliant was convicied in the ‘
lower court
Whether confirmed, reversed or
modified. 'f modified, what is the
macificatior ; : Confirmed.
In the result, appeai is dismissea confirming the judgment passed py the
learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Peddapuram in §.C.No.129/2003 at. 13-3-201 7.
Detention period from 19-1-2007 tc 30-3-2007 and 18-3-2011 to 25-3-2011 of accused
1 to 3 is ordered to be given sel off under Sec.42% Cr.P.C.
DATES ON VVHICH:
Presentation of appeal 1 22-3-2011 -
Filing - + 22-3-2011
Bail bonds, i? ary, : Yes, at.25-3-2011,
Hearing : 4-6-2012
Judgment + 136-2012
This appeal coming before me on 4-6-2012 for final hearing in the presence of
Sri N.Ravikrishna, Advocate for eppelfant and of Smt. MPrafulia Prasuna Kumari,
Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent/State, and upon perusing the material
woe
. 2 7
A JUDGMENT IN CA 119/11 DT.13-6-2012.
available on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sices and the matter
having stood over for consideration til this day, the Court delivered the foliowing:
JU E
Succinct summary of the case of prosecution is that the ceceased !vo.1 Smt.
Sarakanam Lakshmi was married with Appelaraju @ Abbai through wiiom she begotten
one daughter and two sons. 1" deceased studied upto 9" standard. Marriage was
performed about 18 years back 1" accused was the younger brother and accused 2
and 3 are parents of Appalarajii. At the time of marriage, parents of 1" deceased
agreed to give Rs.15,000/- towards dowry, but paid only Rs.10,000/- After
consummation of the marriage, she was sent to Geddanapalli village to her in-laws
house. During that period, accused 1 to 3 anc the husband of 1% deceased were
harassing her for payment of balance of dowry amount of Rs.5,000-. The in-laws are
having a tiled house bearing Door No.2-27 in Kurmrarava street cf Geddanepalii.
village and Ac.0-96 cents of land by the time of marriage. Subseauently, they aiso
acquired Ac.0-70 cents of land. Since the date of marriage, they are aisc residing
jointly in the said tiled house. while so, seven years back, marriage of 1® accused
was performed and so, deceased No.1 with her husband and chiidrer are resicing in
" southern portion of the said tiled house while 1° accused and his wife are residing in
northern side portion and accused 2 and 3. are resizing in western: side rooms
separately. One year after the marriage of 1" accused, cisputes arose among the co-
daughter-in-laws. So, accused’ 2 and 3 divided the tiled house and Ac.0-70 certs of
land equally among the sons. 1" accused sold away his land and tiled house portion
to his brother Appalaraju for Rs.1,25,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively. 1% accused
purchased vacant site with the sale consideration and constructed a terraced house
and living with his parents and wife. Husband of 1® deceased purchased Ac.0-65
cents of lane by cbtaining loans. He also used to cultivate Ac.4-00 of land as tenant
under Pantham Gandhi Mohan. While so, due to crop failure, husband of 1*
deceased could fot discharge the debts and sunk with heavy debts and altogether, he
has to pay cebis to a tene of Rs 4,50,000/-. Ultimately, he committed suicide by
hanging prior to 27-4-2006 in ithe’ makam shed and a case in Cr.No.41/2006 under
. 1
3 I
5 : JUD u MIL DT. £3-6-29.
Sec, 174 Cr.P.C. of Kirlampudi P.S. was registerea. Ageir, disputes arose between ire
deceased No.1 and accused 1 to 3 to clear off the cebts of her husband. As per the
* advise of elders, accused 2 ana 3 sold away their Ac. 0-96 cents of land for
Rs. 3,30,000/- and discharged the debis except society loan and gold joan. Accused 1
to 3 are ill-treating the 1° deceased and she places the matter before village elders,
She was subjected to cruelty in the hands of accused 1 to 3 and she wes also
harassed by 1 accused Sexually and crove her to commit suicide along with her
children. On a complaint lodged by Panchayat Secretary of Geddanapalii, case was
registered and investigated into.
|
t
“Whether prosecution preved that accused 1 to 3 abetted the deceased No.1 ©
Point for determination is:
to commit suicide as per ingredients of Sec.306 |.P.C.?" |
t
2. POINT:- One Appalaraju @ Aboai was the eldest son of Sarakanam Atchiraju
(2 accused) and Sarakanam Venkata Rao rt accused). Sarakanam Ganga (1% -
accusec) is" the youngest son. Sarakanam Lakshmi (deceased No.1) was given in
marriage to Appalaraju about 18 yeers back: through whom, she was: blessed with a
daughter and two sons, ‘by names, Venkanna @ Venkatesulu, Aged about 10 years,
Sarakanam Sai Ganesh, aged about 8 years and Sarakanam Sridevi, aged about 15
years. _Heyveir-after, . they will be referred as deceased Nos.2 to 4 respectively.
According to prosecution that 1* Ceceesed committed suicide along ‘with her children
deceased Nos.2 to 4. tt is an admitted fact that husband of 1% deceased committed
suicide as he coule not liquidate the debts, in that connection, a Case in
Cr.No.47/2006 under Sec.174 CrP.C. of Kirlampuci P.S. was registered on 24-7-2006,
The circumstances leading to the death of Appaiaraju is not seriously disputed. Fact
remains that Appalaraju committee suicide by hanging as he could not liquidate the
debts. ‘t is the case of Prosecution that during te life time. of Appaiaraju, he along
with accused 1 to 3 were residing jointly under- one roof in the tiled house bearing
Door No.2-27 of Geddarapalli anc used to harass deceased No.1 demanding to pay
b
the balance of Rs.5,000/- dowry amount. * is allegec by the prosecution thai. the
parents of deceased No.1 agreed to give Rs.?5,000/- towards cowry at tre time of
‘marriage and they could pay only Rs.10,000/- and sent for conjugal tite. So, for the
balance of Rs.5,000-, they used to harass is the case of the prosecution. However,
the trial. Court after elaborate discussion, arrived at right conclusion that no case was
made out for ihe offence under Sec.4¢2-A LPC. All the accused were convicted tor
the offence under Sec.306 |.P.c. . Assailing the conviction, the present appeal is
preferred by accused 1 10 3. The above case facts are undisputed and apparent on
the face of the record.
3. Ex.P-17 is ihé rough sketch of scene of offence. Scene of offence is tiled
house bearing Door No.2-27 of Gecdanapatii village. As can be seen from the rough
sketch, scene of offence i.e., tiled house is located in thickly residentiai locality. There
is no dispute regarding the scene of offence. For the first time, the dead bodies were
seen by P.W.4 Smt. Konthala Venkatalakshmi. Her evidence is that the accused and
ceceased were residents of same street. About five years ago, in between 2-00 and
2-30 pm., her she-buffaio was clashing with the buffaio of deceased. She could not.
separate them and so she called 1" deceased, but there was no response. ' She
found the door was locked inside. She went and knocked the coor, but there was no
response. So, she has peeped through the winduw and four ceceasec 1 to 4 were
hanging and found dead. On hearing her cries, neighbours gathered. The then
Village Revenue Officer/P.W.1 received information through his Village Servant on 17-
1-2007 about the suicide of four persons by hanging. He went to the spot and found
them cead end lodged &x.P-1 before Kirlampudi P.S. Police initially registered the
case in Cr.No.2/07 under Sec.174 Cr.P.C. as “death due to hanging’. €&x.P-15 is
‘FALR. On 18-1-2007,. basing on the inquest repert of the deceased, section of law
was altered to Secs.498-A and 395 riw 34 .P.C. Ex.P-16 is altered FIR.
4. Ex.P-4 is 16 photographs with corresponding negatives showing the dead bodies
of deceasec 1 to 4 and the suicide nofe under Ex.P-2 written by deceased No.1 was -
5 .
yi MEN’ 3A. 119/11 D1,13-6-20
kept beneath the photograph of her deceased husband. pws is the photographer.
He deposed, on 17-1-2007 at the instance of police, he took photographs of tne scene
of offence with dead bodies. Ex.P-3 is scene observation report under which Ex.P-2
- letter was seized. P.W.7 is one of the mediators to Ex.P-3. He is Sarpanch: of the
said village. He deposed that the husband of 1* deceased cammitted suicide due to
debts. Subsequently, his debts were discharged by selling the land. Initially he
deposed that he does not know the cause of death of deceased 1 to 4 and he was
declared as hostile, But in the cross-examination by the prosecution, he admitted that
he statec before police that subsequent to the discharge of debts, accused 1 to 3
used to harass 1% deceased as they were forced to clear off the debts of her
husband and as such, they committed suicide by hanging. No doubt, he deposed that
no panchayat was heid for harassment towards deceased No.1 by the accused and no
villager complained the same inclucing deceased No.1; But prosecution did not
confront Ex.P-3 to this witness. Whatever it is, he being the Sarpanch, he cannot
deny his signature under Ex.P-3 as mediator. P.W.1, the then Villege Reveriue Officer
of Geddanapalli is the scribe of Ex.P-3 and deposed to that effect . He also deposed
about his lodging Ex.P-1, visiting the scene of offence by the police, observing the
scene of offence, seizure of Ex.P-2 letter, drafting Ex.P-3 scene observation report,
photographing the scene of offence etc.
|
5. Ex.P-5 is the inquest report of Smt. Sarakanam Lakshmi (deceased No.1).
Ex.P-12 is the postmortem report. Ex.P-18 is the inquest report of Master Sarakanam
Venkanna @ Venkatesh, aged 10 years (deceased No.2). Ex.P-14 is the postmortem
report. &x.?-9 is the inquest report of Master Sarakanam Sai Ganesh, aged 28 years
(deceased No.3). &x.P13 is the posimortem report. Ex.P-10 is the inquest report of
Miss. Sarakanam Sridevi, aged 15 years (deceased No.4). Ex.P-11 is the postmortem
report. P.W.13 is the then Senior Assistant of Community Health Centre, Prathipadu
who conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of deceased 1 to 4 on 18-1-2007 and
issued the above postmortem certificates. Pieces of stomach, intestines, fiver and
kicney of the deceased were forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory and the report
|
6 .
. bs d 3 SA 119, 'E.15-6-2012.
was, “The above jtems are analyzed, but poisonous substance was not found in
them’. On receipt of the said report, doctor opined that ine cause of deat “was
“Asphyxia due to hanging". P.W.11 ig the scribe of inquest report under E»:.P-10 for
deceased No.4 Sridevi. His evidence is; on 17-1-2007 at ihe request of Sub-Inspecior:
of Police, Kirlampudi, he wrote Ex.P-10 from 10 p.m to 1 am. Konathaia Veera
Apparao @ Naidu and S.Samuel Raju are the other parichayatdars. They opined that
4% deceased died due to sexual harassment and other mental harassment of the
_ accused against 1" deceased. He also asserted that suicidal note was read over in
their presence after commencement of writing Ex.P-10, He denied the sugcestion that
he has not scribed Ex.P-10 and that it was prepare in the police station. P.\W.9 is
the Village Revenue Officer, Srungarayanipaiem. His evicence ig: on 17-1-2007 at 10
p.m., at the request of Kirlampudi P-S., he jwent to Geddanapalli village, visited the
scene of offence and found four persons dead. Ex.P-8 inquest proceedings were nei
over the dead body of 2") deceased in his presence and in the presence of
Kondalarao and Trimurthulu. The apinion was that the mother of 2" deceased died
due to sexual harassment of 1" accused by committing suicide after hanging the other
deceased. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P-8 was drafted to the cictation of police
and that it was prepared in the police station. P.W.10 is inquest panchayatdar for 3°
deceased which was conducted on 17-1-2007, trom 10 p.m, to 1 a.m. in the presence
; of other panchayatdars, by names, Apparao and Gangarao. He is the scribe of Ex.
P-9. They opined that 1" deceased died due to sexual haressment of 1% accused
and accused 2 and 3 instigated. P.W.1 is the scribe of Ex.P-5 inquest report of 1%
deceased. Other panchayatdars are Karri Ganeswara Reo and Sanasi Immanuel.
They opined that the deceased died due to harassment of the accused.
é. P.W.1 is the crucial witness to the case of prosecution. He is the then Village
Revenue Officer, Geddanapalli who lodged Ex.P-1, visiting the scene of offence and
dead bodies.. He was also one of the mediators under Ex.P-3 not only for the scene.
observation report but as well seizure of ExP-2 suicide note. He is also the scribe
be
7 iS) J 1 IN CA 119/; 2012, *
and panchayatdar of Ex.P-5 inquest report for deceased No.1. in the cross-
examination, nothing was thrashed out.
7 P.Ws.5 anc 6 are the neighbouring witnesses; But they did not support the
case of prosecution. Their contradictory portions of 161 Cr.P.C. statements are
marked as -Exs.Po8 anc P-7 respectively. P.W.12 is the Member of Legislative
Assembly of Peddapuram Constituency. He is one of the mediators. His evidence is
that the husband of the deceased No.1 diec due to debts. So, 3" accused sold his
Property to discharge the depts through this witness. He distributed the sale proceecs
“with 96% ratio of the cebts to the creditors. On receipt of information ‘about the
Suicide, he rushed to the scene where a suicide note was left by the deceased No.1
addressed to him and the Sarpanch of village i.e.. P.W.7. He identified Ex.P-2 letter.
He further deposed, troubles arose between them when he sold the property of 3°
' accused to discharge the debts of the husband of 1 deceased. She asked to sell
the property of her husband instead of selling the property of 3 accused. After
perusing the contents of Ex.P-2, he can’ say that pledging her leg chains, debts owed
to Vice President, Barber, washer men are correct. Police examinec him on that night
while he was at the scene of offence. Folice had shown Ex.P-2 to him while he was
at the scene. He aamitied that he did not State before police that the letter was
shown to him. He did not state before’ police that deceased No.1 asked him to sell
her land to clear off the debts instead of selling the land of 3 accused, He denied
the other suggestions. So, by examining this witness, prosecution abie to establish
that through this witness, the debts of husband of 1% deceased were discharged by
selling the tand of 3" accused. it is Pertinent to note that these aspects are not at all
disputed by the defence.
8. P.W.74 is the then Sub !nspector of Police, Jaggampeta P.S. who conducted
inquest over .the dead body of ceceased No.2 on 17-1-2007 as per the instructions of
Inspector of Police in the presence of P.W.9 and other panchayatdars. P.W.15 is the
then Sub Inspector ci Police, Gancepalli P.S. who conducted inquest over the dead
$ 16 | sere uss
body of 3" deceased on 17-1-2067 as per the instructions of Inspector of Police, in
the presence of P.W.10 and other Panchayatcars. P.W.16 is the then Sub inspector
‘of Police, Kirlampudi P.S. His evidence is that P.W.1 came to the police station and
submitted Ex.P-1 who registered as a case in Cr.Nc.2/07 uncer Sec.174 Cr.P.C. and
) issued Ex.P-15 and later, Inspector cf: Police came to the police station along with Sub
Inspector of Police, who receivec copy of F.I.R. from him, went to the scene of
offence, conductec inquest and as per the instructions of Inspector, he went to the
police station, altered the section of law and submitted. altered EIR, to the Court.
P.W.17 is the Investigating Officer and the then Inspector of Police, Jaggampeta circle.
His evidence is; on receipt of phone message from P.W.16, he collected Sup Inspector
of Police, Gandepaili and Jaggampeia, reached Kiralmpudi police station, received copy
of Ex.P:1, took-up investigation, visited the scene of offence which is tiled house of )
deceased No.1, Secured the presence of P.W.7, observed the scene of offence,
drafted Ex.P-3, prepared Ex.P-17 rough sketch, got Photographed the scene through
P.W.8, removed the dead bodies from the hooks, conducted inquest in the presence of
mediators, seized Ex.P-2, read over the contents to the mediators, collected white
power in the -polythene cover, examined and recorded the statements of Exs. P.1 to ° ,
P-6 and others, forwarded the dead bodies for postmortem examination with a request
to preserve the viscera, instructed P.W.17 to alter section of jaw, again visited the
scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.7, 12 and others,
seized Ex.P-18 rules notebook containing 60 Pages from the father of 1° deceased
which is in the handwriting of deceased, seized the wearing apparel of deceased 1 to
4, arrested the accused at their house at Gandepaili, forwarded them to judicial
Custody, secured the presence of P.W.8 on 19-1-2007 and recorded his statement,
. forwarded the viscera to R-F.S.L., Vilayawada on 14-2-2007 and aiso Exs.P-2 and P-
18 to F.S.L., Hyderabad through S.D.P.0., Peddapuram, received reports and also
. postmortém certificates and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet. in the
cross-examination, the omissions through P.Ws.2, 3 and 12 were eiicited; But they
are Not material in nature. The .other part Of cross-examination did not shaken the
version of prosecution.
x.
? }) JUDG! ; IN CA 119/11 DT.13-6-2012.
9, The other oral evidence on record is; P.Ws.2 and 3 who are father and
younger sister of deceased No.1. The evidence of P.W.2 is that his son-in-law Abbai
@ Appanna died by committing suicide due to debts nine months prior to this offence.
At the time of marriage, he gave Rs.i0,000/- out of Rs.15,000/-. 1° accused used ‘to
sexually ‘harass deceased No.1 and asking her for intercourse and that he would give
money if she obliges. 2 accused used to support 1" accused in this regard.
Deceased No.1 compiained the same to him, who in turn, compiained to the eiders. °
1" deceased also informed to the elders. Then, at the intervention of elders, ‘house of
1" accused was shifted; But there is no change in the demand of 1° accused against
her daughter and continuous sexual harassment. " Later, she got hanged her children
and she herself hanged to death by committing suicide by leaving suicide note.
Ultimately, his evidence is, due to harassment of accused. and unable to bear
humiliation, she committec ‘sticide. it ds admitted that the marriage of 1* deceased
. . 1
took place 18 years ago. Beiance of dowry amount was also paid within one year of
the marriage. He denied the suggestion. that she did not state before police that 1%
accused sexually harassed the deceased, and that she informed the same to him.
Exceot that, nothing more was elicited, from the cross-examination, much less, with
regard to abetting to commit suicide, humiliation and the harassment caused by
accused 1 to 3 against 1“ deceased. P.W.3 also deposed on the same lines to the
-effect that 1° accused sexually harassed her sister to come with him to satisfy his
desire since her husband died. Her sister compiained to the parents about 1*
accused and the matter was placed befcre elders.’ Unable to- bear such harassment,
her sister killed’ her children by hanging and later, she ‘also committed suicide ‘by
hanging. The endeavour in the cross-examination about the marriage of 1* accused is
in no way concerned for the offence under Sec.306 |.P.C. She denied the suggestion
that she was deposing about the sexual harassment for the first time. The other part
of cross-examination, in any way, defeat the case of prosecution. -
10. To sum up the cral evidence on record, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 in one
hand .coupled with the opinion of ingest panchayatdars, as discussed above, clearly
me IZ - : SMENT IN CA 119/11 D'113-6-26.
' shows that 1% accused used to harass deceased No.1 to have sexual intercourse with
him and that he offered morey as @ consideration for which 2” accused is
encouraging 1° accused and 3 accused also joined ands.’ The evidence of
Member of Legislative Assembly/P.W.12 is circumstantial in nature and supports the
,case of prosecution. It is in the evidence that the properties of 3 accused were
sold and discharged the debts of the husband of 1“ accused; - But at the same time, .
under Ex.P-2, deceased No.1 categorically made a mention tha: she cid not like to
sell the properties of 3 accused and on the other hand, she requested P.W.12 and
the Sarpanch to sell the property of her fustiand to. discharge the debts. However,
ultimately the properties of 3% accused were sold and discharged the debts; : But
some how, after discharge of debts, accused 1 to 3 startec #-treating and harassing
the deceased No.1 for selling the property of 3 accused and discharging the debts
of her husband: In addition thereto, 1 accused with the support of accused 2 and
3, encouraged and instigated 1* accused to participate in sexual intercourse with
deceased No.1, for which he will pay some money to ceceased No.1. In fact, that
was the evidence of the family members of the deceasea No.1, namely, P.Ws.2
and 3.
11. The learned counsel for appellants argued that Ex.P-2 does not contain any
whisper about the abetment of accused towards the deceased No.1. His further
argument is that there is no evidence of attracting the offence of Sec.306 |.P.C. He
placed reliance on 2001(2) ALD (Cri) 683 AP. (C.NEHRU BABU VS. STATE OF AP.).
That was a case of Secs.306 and 107 |.P.C, ana the presumption under Sec.113-A of
Indian Evidence Act was also referred to. The Har:bie High Court, ir: that paricuiar
case observed, such presumption under Sec.113-A cannot be invakec for the mere
fact that the deceased committed suicide within seven years of marriage; But in the
case in hand, the marriage was performed 18 years ago by the date of offence. The
charges framed were Secs.498-A and 306 [.P.C. in the said case. In para 9, it was
observed:
37
LINC. )T.13-6-:
“Admittedly, there is no abetment on tha part of her husband to commit suicide and
merely because the deceased commitied suicide within a period of seven years from
‘the date of her marriage, the iegal presumption cannot be drawn that the deceased
has committed suicide ty reason of thé abstment by her husband etc.”
But in the case in hanc. it is not at all the case of absence of abetment. On the
other hand, it is the specific case of prosecution that there was abetment on the part
of accused 1 to 3 towards deceased No.1 which led her to take extreme step of
committing suicide not only by herself. but as weil her children.
12. Coming to Exs.P-2, P-16 and P20, ExP-18 is an exercise notebook in the
handwriting of deceased No. 1. . This handwriting and this Ex.P-18 is not disputed.
This book shows, petty amount appears rs have been borrowed from various debtors
right from Rs.1G/- upto ihe maximum of Rs.350/-. Admittedly, deceased No.1 studied
upto 9" standard. This Ex.P-2 suicide note written by deceased No.1 was disputed by
the defence on the ground that it was fabricated. Investigating Officer, even during
the course of investigation has taken a very right and good step to seize Ex.P-18
exercise rotebock containing the handwriting of deceased No.1 and sent disputed
Ex.P-2 to the handwriting expert. The standard handwriting of the deceased No.1 are
marked as S1 to S15 while the questioned handwriting under Q1 to a3 under Ex,P-2
were compared. After giving reasons under Ex.P-20, the opinion is: “The person who
wrote tie red enclosed writings marked s7 to S15 also wrote the red enclosed
writings marked Q? to Q3.”
13. Coming to Ex.P-2, it is a suicide note written by deceased No.1 addressed to
P.W.12 and P.W.7 M.L.A and Sarpanch ‘Tespectively. The first. portion of the
document is with reference to accused No.2 referring her as Demon (Raakshasi).
Further referring the 2" accused, she steted that she played 2n intelligent drama for ©
money, she made the deceased No. believe and she was cheated in her hands.
After the death of her husband, all the accused hurled several abuses against her and
that she felt unbearable harassment in their hands since the date of death of her
husband till the date of present offence for nine months and that her problems and
—lle ®
difficulties were taken advantage by 2” accused and told lies against her to the
villagers, instigated 1 accused against her, went to her house, made her believe with
sweet tongue to have sexual intercourse with 1° accused and that he will pay
Rs.100/- on every occasion if she obliges and that 1* accused himself killed her
‘husband, or otherwise, he would not have such bad intention against her being the
sister-in-law and she could not reveal this absurd desire, plan and intention of accused
1 to 3 to the villagers and even if she revealed, the villagers may not believe and as
such, she cannot bear the torture and decide to commit suicide and as well to see
that her children also could not go into the hands of accused, she decided to kill them
also and that she cursed herself by entering into the world as a woman etc. She
further mentioned the names of the debtors and the amounts including Dhobi, barber
etc,
14. Though simply it is submitted ‘that, ‘Ex.P-2_ is fabricated, no suspicious
circumstances were brought to the notice of the Court. There is also no evidence and
nO. cross-examination in this regard. On the other hand, Ex.P-2 was seized from the
scene of offence, namely, fromthe house of the deceased which was kept ‘beneath :
the photograph of her husband. In fact, this can be seen from one of the
photographs under Ex.P-4. Ex:P-2 was seized in the presence of Mediators under the
cover of Ex.P-3, Further, the Investigating Officer has rightly sent the document to
the handwriting expert and the report is in favour of prosecution. Thus, viewed in
any, Ex.P-2 need not be doubted and it need not be viewed with the aid of
spectacies. There is’ nothing on record to dispel or discard Ex.P-2 for the simpie
reason that the bald contention of the defence that it is fabricated, Moreover, there
was no necessity for the prosecution to fabricate this Ex.P-2, much less against the
accused. It is to bear in mind that the deceased died at her house at Geddanapalii
and not in the house of parents. One can understand that Ex.P-2 is fabricated if tne
deceased committed suicide at her parents house or other than the residence and out
of Geddanapalli village. So, this contention has no force. The trial Court rightly
observed that Ex.P-2 suicide note is relevant in terms of Sec.32 of Indian Evidence
Bo }S- } AN CA 119/11 DT.13-
Act. Here is a case where the deceased No.1 took an extreme steps of going to the
extent of even killing her infant children and killing herself by committing Suicide by
hanging with the iron hooks. Hence, Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt. The trial Court elaborately discussed all the aspects, marshaled the facts,
appreciated the law in Prospective manner, appreciated the evidence rightly and gave
reasons for decision basing on the legai evidence on record. Hence, this Court finds
no irregularity and illegality in the judgment passed by the trial Court. Conviction
recorded by the trial Court is fit in the given circumstances of the case. Hence, this
Court feels that no interference is required in the judgment passed by the trial Court,
Answered accordingly.
1
In the result, appeal is dismissed ‘confirming the judgment passed by the
learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Peddapuram in S.C.No.129/2008 dt.18-3-201 1.
i
Detention period from 19-1-2007 to 30-3-2007 and 18-3-2011 to 25-3-2011 of accused
1 to 3 is ordered to be given set off under S80.428 Cr.P.C. ;
W.- ; |
, \
Dictated to the Personal Assistant,“ transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court, this the 13% day of June, 2012.
‘Sd/- B.Ginja Manohar,
Vv ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
KAKINADA.
/Atrue copy//
. _- IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
1 KAKINADA,
Si NER
7 (e
RT OFS 4 SESSIONS J JUDGE : PEDDAPURAM..
TTATREYULU, M.Com.,8.L., ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE
Friday the 18" day of March 2013
Sanne CASE NO.129/2008
Bit 28/2007 on the file of 1.F.C Magistrate,
-2/2007 of Kirlarmpudi P $.}
DATE OF . 7 :
Offence. 3701-2007 7 See |
Receipt of record 7 : 19-04-2008 :
Appearance of accused — . ot 04-07-2008
Nature’of offence - 5 Under Sec.498-A & 306 1P.C.
Commencement of trial = :—g3-02-2011 . oe |
Close of triai > 21-02-2011 i
Explanation for delay tics D Due to non production of 3
_ . witnesses,
Plea of the accused > ° Not guilty j
Finding of the Judge . ot Found not guilty under | ;
. : : : Section 498-A I.P.c, against .
A.1 to A.3.
Found guilty under Section
306 , against Ad to
Period of detention of the a af 5
Accused Nos.1to3 _ Se . From 4.9: 2607 to Y
- Sentence or order:
.In the result, A.1 to A.3 are ‘found not guilty for the charge
under Section 498-A LP.c. and they are acquitted for the same under
‘Section 235(4) Cr.P.c. But A, Wi fRA,3 A ‘are fount bility, for the- charge
under Section 306 1.P.c. ait imeyrar Eonvitted ‘for’ ‘the same under
Section 235(2) Cr.P. c. a penne Na: .
When questioned with regard to. quantum of sentence, A.1 to
A.3 pleadea mercy. . .
ey ‘the result, A.1 to A.3 ara sentenced tc suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 5 (five) years each and d they at are also sentenced to
further three
months 5 each!
period of one month... Copy of grr
. the accused. The accused were in Sait custody from, 19- ‘O4- 2007
2 30-03-2007, ry Tee,
Asst.Sessions Judge:
eddapuratn .
‘1. The Hon’ ble Registrar (ual, ), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, |
Hyderabad.
2. The Hon'ble District & Sessions judge, E. G., -Rajahmundry..
' Copies to ;
i . 1. The Director of prosecutions, D.G.P. Office Complex, Salfabad,
- Hyderabad. :
. The J.F.C. Magistrate, Prathipadu.
. The District Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada.
- The Superintendent of Police, .East Godavari, Kakinada. -
. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajahmundry. .
. The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Asst. Sessions Judge’ s Court,
Peddapuram, :
. The accused.
wi au Wy
os Nagra steebon +
5 tw Addi, Distr Court
. KAKINAD
Application No. ... he
Application Made... mS
SiamPs Cate fr . Sel"
__ Stamps Depoeited on Ses ,
Made Ready ..:. mca
Delivered ....sesscsenee
n . Certified pat Pris sap stamp WOM go”
ee . peges at 86.25.
a , een le widen tac in
SERRE
— loli
boybsented by Inspector of Policé, Jaggarmpeta circle
--Complaipa
Vs,
’
Accused: i. Sarakanam Ganga S/o. Venkatarao, age 35 years, te
Loo. . , Gavara, Agri. coolle, Geddanapalli village, Kirlampudi ,
Mandal.
2. Sarakanam Atchiraju, W/o.Venkata Rao, age 55. years,
Gavara, Housewife, Geddanapalli village, Kirlampudi
Mandal.
3. Sarakanam Venkata Rao, S/o.Appanna, 60 years,
Gavara, Agri. Coolie, Geddanapalli village, Kirlampudi
Mandal.
Accused.
; This case coming on 16-03-2011 for final hearing before me in
the presence of Sri Chik, Durgarao,: Addl. Public Prosecutor, . and of
Sri N.Ravikrishnarao,. advocate for. accused and upon hearing the
arguments of both sidés and the matter having ‘stood over for
consideration, till this date, this Court delivered the following : :
JUDGMENT . .
1. ‘The state represented by Inspector of: Police, Jaggampeta laid -
"charge sheet in Cr.No. 2/2007 -of.. Kinard P.S. to punish the
. accused under S Sec. 498(A) and 308, IP, C.
AL
~ . ‘ i
. t
oe eye
2. Shorn of unnecessary details the case of the prosecution as set
out in the charge sheet is as follows: A.2 and A.3 are parents of A.1.
One Sarakanam Lakshmi was aged about 35 years and her children
Venkanna @ Venkateswarlu was aged about 10 years, Saiganesh
aged about 8 years and Sridevi .was aged about 15. years.. They
were deceased persons in this case as such’ they are herein after
referred as D.1 to D.4 for the sake of convenience and brevity. The
- husband of D.1 viz., Appalaraju wan-elder brother-of A.1 and elder
son of A.2 and A:3. The marriage of D.1 took place with her
husband about 18 years ago. At the time of- marriage the parents: of
DL agreed ‘tO payRs.15,000/- towards dowry but paid
-
S uAmetet arm eo
tee dinaccae Mate Mente a
¥ lead marital life in the house of’ her:
her husband and accused used to harags. her-fo
os
oe
I9 3
ee
“e
"onlyRs. 10,005/- due to paucity off
fhapalli - When
rhaining’ balance
amount of Rs.5,000/-, his father paid the amount" to A.2 and A.3. .7
years prior to the date of offence the marriage of A.1 took place as
such D.1 with her family members used to reside soiltherni. portion of
tied house and A.i and his wife used to reside in the northern
portion of the same tiled house. A.2 and A.3 used to” resite in the
western side small rooms of the same house.
3. When disputes arose between D.1 and wife of A.1, A.2 and A.3
_ divided their properties arnong them, husband of D.i and A.1.. In
turn A.1 soid his share of properties to the husband of D.1 and with
that amount he got constructed his own house at some distance from
the tiled house and has been’ residing in it. | Subsequently, the
husband of D.1 died by committing suicide when he sunk in pool of
debts and when he was unable to discharge the same, when
- agricuttural expenditure exceeded than the Income from agriculture.
In that connection, @ case In Cr.No.41/2006 was registered under
Saction- 174 of Cr.P.C. on the file of Kirlampudi police station on 27-
04-2006. After death of her.husband disputes arose between D.1
and accused with regard to liquidation of the debts owed by the
husband of D.i to various. persons incutred by him during his
lifetime. On the advise of the elders A. 2 and A.3 disposed off their
ancestral property and cleared off some of those debts. As such A.1
to A.3 used to tease 0.1 since she and her husband were responsible
for selling their ancestral property to discharge their debt. As ‘such
D.1 put the matter before village elders for ‘settlement. As’ such they
further bore grudge and used to harass her about disposal of
ancastral property of 4.2 and A.3 and A.1 in, particular used to harass
her to fulfil his sexual lust, Unabie to bear those harassments meted
out to her from the side of thé accused on 17-01-2007 the deceased
along with 0.2 te D.4 minor children went for extreme step and killed
themselves by self immolation by’ hanging to the iron hooks in their
house after leaving a death or suicidal note. When such extreme
steps taken by D.1 to D.4 in their. house was noticed by neighbours
and the same was informed the defacto complainant who was
—
ae
_ panc Hs Gavsettetary of Geddanapaiti village put the criminal iaw inte
‘motion with his report. In turn the Investigating officer after receipt -
of the report of .the defacto comptainant swung into. “action
investigated into and after culmination, of investigation; the oy
Investigating Officer charge ‘sheeted the accused for tne. ? offence
stated supra. Hence the charge.
4. The committal court i.e., Judicial First class Magistrate, -
Prathipadu took cognizance for the offence punishable under
Sec.498(A) and 306 I,P.C. against the accused and registered it as
“PARC. 29/2007.
5.: After appearance of accused copies of. documents supplied
under Sec.208 Cr.P.C. by committal court and after hearing and
; 7 perusing the record the case was. committed to court of Sessions,
. Rajahmundry, East Godavari District under Sec.209(a) Cr.P.c. as the
offences involved in this case ‘under Sec. 498(A) and 306 LP.C. are 7
"exclusively ; triable Py. ‘Court of Sessions and Sent thé record.
L
ine 03)
6. The ‘Hon’ble Sessions Court, registered the same, as
S.C.No.129/2008 and made over the same to this Court.
7. - After receipt of the record and after securing the presente of
the accused, they were examined. Heard. _ Charges under
Sec,498(A) and 306 LP.C. agaihst the accused were framed, read
over and explained to them in telugu in which they abjured the guilt
and. claimed. to have been tried. ,
8. paring course of trial on behalf of ‘prosecution P.Ws.1 to 17
were examined and Exs.P.1 to.P.20 were exhibited.
9. After completion of prosecution side evidence the accused were
“examined ‘under Sec.313 Cr.P.¢. to enable them to explain the
incriminating material found against them in the evidence of
. prosecution withesses. Having understood the incriminating materia
available on record, they denied the same and reported no defence.
ee ee eee +
reek #10, Heard arguments of both sides.
: cy the points for determination in this case are:
‘h, Whether the ‘prosecution-. has Placed such. material to
d 45 connect the accused with the charge under Section
306 Z.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt?.
accused is that they as brother-in- “jaw, mother-in-law and father-in-
: iaw of deceased No.1 meted out cruelty in the form of domestic
: Rs.5,006/-, that when after death of husband of D.1 when A.1 used
, to harass her with sexual reiated ‘violence and A.2 and A.3 ‘harassed
her related to domestic violence with regard to selling of their
; property to discharge the debts of husband of 0.1 incurred during his
; ife time and that those, harassments abetted D.1 not only her to
commit suicide but also along with her minor chitdren D.2 to D.4 as
such it: Is alleged by the prosecution that they are iiabie for
punishment under Section 498(A) and 306 1.P.Cc.
12. The case of the accused is. one of total denial. Their specific
defence was they were no way concerned.with those debts and they
have been living separately much prior to death of husband of.D.1,
but this case was foisted even though they were innocents to the
core. In this back drop this court has carefully sifted the entire
material available on record to see whether the same. is sufficient
enough to connect the accused with the charge leveled against them.
13. ‘in order to substantiate its case the prosecution in all examined
12 witnesses as P.Ws.t to 17 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.20.
Among them “P.W.1 was the defacto complainant cum Village
Revenue Officer whe put the criminal (aw into motion with his Ex.P.4
re ‘4! OBA IP.C.? .
he? . Whether the prosecution was sueceeded in brining
home the guilt to the accused. under eoes-498(A) and.
it. Shortly stated the gravamen of the charge alleged against the —
violence for payment of remaining agreed amount of dowry ‘of
[
\
report ES g was aiso present when €&x.P.2 suicidal: note.,
purportedly written by deceased. No. 1 was seized and who was also:
present during scene observation proceedings as in Ex.P,3 and. who: _
was also present during inquest proceedings held over the déadbody
OF DT as in Ex.P.5.
i4. P.Ws.2 and 3 are father and sister. ®.W.4 was neighbour of
the scene of offence who for the first time noticed the deaths of 0.3
to D.4 by hanging in their house. P.w.5, 6, 7 and 8 were neighbours
“and who knew about the reason or cause which abetted D.4-to D.4 to
go for such extreme step by hanging. P.W.9 was one of the
Panchayatdars who was present during inquest proceedings held over
the deadbody of 0.2 as in Ex.P.8. P.W.10 was another panchayat
dar who was present during inquest proceedings held over the dead
body of D.2 as in Ex.P.9.° P.W.12 was‘one of the panchayat dar who
was present during inquest proceedings heid over the dead body of
D.4-as in Ex.P. 10. P.W.12 was present M.L.A, Peddapuram -
constituency to whom D.1 addressed Ex.P.2 suicide -note revealing
her triais and tabulator which led-het and her children to go to such
extreme step. P.W.13 was the Medical’ ‘Officer who conducted autopsy
on. the dead bodies of D.1 té D.4 and who opined after p.m.
examination that deaths were due to, ‘aSpyxia with hanging. P.W.14
was inspector of police who was presént during inquest. proceedings
held. over the dead body of D.2 as in Ex.P.s. | P.W.15 was S.1. of
police who was present during” inquest proceedings held over the
dead body of D.3 under.the cover of Ex.p.9. P.W.16 was the then
$.H.O of Kirlampudi police station who registered Ex.P.1 at the first
‘instance under Section 174 Cr.P.C.and handed over the investigation
to his inspector and also registered altered F.I.R. under Section 498-
A and 306 I.P.C. on the instructions of his inspector and P.W.17 was ~
_ the inspector of police who did materiat part of invnestigation in this
fh
i
case and who laid charge ‘sheet against the accused when his
‘investigation discloses culpability and complicity of the accused in the
form of abetment which led D.1 to D.4 to go for such extreme step.
15. Here is a case where a mother along with her three children -
renounced the world when she was unable to live on this mundane
wet tages tients iat
P.Ws.4 to 8 to dismay. of the prosecution did not incline to support
the. case of the prosecution on one hand and to console the souls of
D.3 to D.4 though they knew'very cause or reason for the deaths of
D.1 to 0.4 by hanging ard. by self. immolation. The inquest
" panchayat dars who were present during inquest proceedings over
the dead bodies of D.i to D.4 categorically deposed that after
conclusion of Inquest proceedings they ‘opined that.D.1 died along
with her. children by hanging due to sexual harassment “of A.1 and
also harassment of A.2 and A.3. EX.P.2. was .the very crucial
document to the case of the prosecution and: it'can be likened as
sheet anchored document “stood _in ther quiver of prosecution.
Except oral evidence of P.W.2,3 and P.W.12, there was no other oral
or circumstantial evidence to substantiate the case of the prosecution
on one hand and at the same time to buttress the contents of Ex,P.2
suicide note. When the evidence of P.Ws.2 and. 3 was appreciated in
the light of contents of Ex. P. 2, it can be said without any hesitation
there was no whisper or whimper to. connect any one of the accused
with the charge under Section ‘498-A LP.C.
16. it is the case of prosecution the husband of D.1 and accused
used to meted out cruelty toD.1 for payment of remaining amount of
Rs.5,060/- out of. agreed amount. of dowry of Rs.15,000/-.
Admittadly. even according to prosecution marriage between D.1 and
her husband took place about 18 years.ago. The marriage of A.1
tock place seven years prior to. the date of offence and he has been
living separately with his family members in a separate house got
constructed by him situated at sore distance from the house of D.1
_ 190 0.4, In those circumstances, how this Court. could cull out any
material to answer the charge under Section 498-A I.p.C. Even
though there were those incriminating evidence and circumstances
they were too remote in nature. In fact, absolutely there was no iota
of incriminating material on record ‘to answer the charge under
Section 498-A 1.P.C, against. the accused as. such this court can
prosecution.
17. Nextly this court has to’see whether there was such infallible
_ material in legaily acceptable definite terms to connect the accused
a
—_——
with the charge under Section 306 I.P.C. As already stated supra -
Ex.P.2 is the material and crucial document. Now this court has to
see what was stored in the oral evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 12. P.W.2
who was father of 0.1 and grand father of other deceased persons
categorically deposed that A.1 used to harass his daughter to ‘come
with him for intercourse and hé would’ give some money if ‘she
obliges, A.2-used to support A.1 and used to ask her to go with A.1,
that her daughter used to complain about the same to him, in turn he
complained about the same to the elders, that. after complaining to
the elders, A.1 shifted his house and even then there was no change
in the demand of A.1 against his daughter ‘and subsequently .D.1
hanged her children and: subsequently she herself Ihanged to death
by committing suicide leaving Ex. P.2 suicide note and her daughter
, studied upto IX class. in the last sentence of his chief examination he
vouched that D.1 died unable to bear the harassment and humitiation
meted out to her in the hands of accused. P.W-2 also categorically
‘deposed that A.1 used to ask her sister to come with him since her °
husband died to satisfy his desires and her sister complained to her
parents about A.1. As such P.Ws. 2 and 3 anointed entire culpability
and complicity on the head of A:4 by deposing incriminating material ~
that A.1 used to harass 9.1 to fulfil his sexual desires since -her
‘husband died on the other hand he would reciprocate by paying some
money. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is disclosing that D.1 killed
herself by self-immolation due to sexual harassment of Al. This
court has to see whether such fact was appeared or not in Ex.P.2 -
suicide note. Ex.P.2 was: purportedty in the hand writing of deceased
No.1.- According to the evidence of P Ww. 2 she studied upto IX. class.
So, it can be said she could read and write Telugu. Before asking this
Court to place total amount of reliance on Ex.P.2, the prosecution has
to prove that Ex.P.2 came only from the hands of D.1 and it was free
' from any doubt and also above board of suspicion. .
ve AAS To avoid any controversy or suspicion:the:h esto ii Officer
Beet ot sent EX,P.2 along with Ex. P.18 note book’ vie agtyt i
° ‘writing of deceased. No.1 available in the. “scahe’er ‘offence for
comparison and opinion to the hand writing ‘expert. In turn this
court court received Ex.P.19 report from hand writing expert opining
that the hand writing found in Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.18 were written by
one and the same person i.e.,D.1 according to the case of the
prosecution. Ex.P.18 was available In the. scene of offence. The
raport of hand writing expert was marked a and, admitted - ‘into evidence
when examination, of its, author is exempted. from examination or:
: ; | concession given to its author from examination-befére this Court in
“ Section 293 of Cr.P.C. If the tenor ands Janguage: Of. the ‘contents
* found in Ex.P.2 were appreciated with ‘Jittlecare; it-can be said that
basing on Ex.P.18 and P.19. it came from:the:hands of deceased Noi.
19. Itis the contention of the counsel: ‘for the accused that Ex. P.2
was fabricated one because of discrepancy found in the evidence of
P.W.2 and ‘the: Investigating Officer. in finding and tracing , out. the
same in the scene of offence. P.W.2 deposed that Ex.P.2 was found
ia the fist of deceased No.1. It was the, case.of prosecution or the
Investigating Officer it was.found on the: ‘table under the photo of ©
husband of 6.1. Such finding of Ex.P.2 on a table under the
- \could be seen in one ‘of photographs exhibited under’ Ex.P.3.
Whatever might.be the fact whether it was.in the fist of D.1 or on the
table the same-was traced in the scene. of offence itself. Further it
was fgound that it was in the hand writing of deceased No.1. Ex.P.2
suicide note was found on two pages completely and conjestedly. and
: on half of the third page. Admittedly D.1:.to D.4 were regiding
\ saparately in a room. At that time ‘if they were living with her
\ parents then there was some meaning It was a concocted one-P.W.4
categorically deposed: that she found D.1 to D.4 hanging to the iron
hooks in their house and the doors were closed inside.
|: 20. Further the evidence of Investigating Officer is disclosing that
: only after their arrival doors were opened and then only either
"mediators or panchayat dars or neighbours entered into the scene of
; purpose of this case immediately after noticing those hangings where
was the necessity to the S.H.O. of Kirlampudl Police .station to
register the case at the first instance under Section 174 Cr.P:C. on
the foot of Ex.P.1 report given by P.W.1. After registration of Ex.P.1
under Section .174 Cr.P.c. P. Wi17 took up investigation and swung
inte action and entered into the scene of offence then only Ex.P.2 was
found in the scene of offence. Such unchallenged circumstance is
sete a weiner,
lending any amount of credence ‘to the existence of Ex. P.2 In the
scene of offence. If EX. P.2 was ona chit or Sip with two or three
‘lines as if that the accused were responsible to their deaths then:
‘there was some meaning to hold that it was a brought up document
exclusively for the purpose of the case and to meet the interest of
“prosecution. After going through entire contents of Ex.P.2 in
between the lines it cannot be said that the same was brought up
document for the purpose of this case.
21. This court can rely upon Ex. P.2 suicide note. in view of its
relevancy in terms of. ‘Sectiqn_32. of Indian Evidence Act. At this
juncture this court is inctined to go back to the stage of discussion in
respect of the charge under Section 498- A I.P.C. in view of the sexual
: harassment of A.1 and harassment of A. 2 and A. 3 related to domestic
affairs in’ respect of selling their ‘Property ‘to discharge the debts of
’ husbarid of D. 1.
i
"22. Now this court has to see whether those incriminating n materiais
- could attract the definition of cruelty provided under Section 498-A
ILP.C. The answer will be certainly no.. Ina judgment reported in
2008(3) Law Summary 2004 ‘S.C, in State of AP. Vs,
M.Madusudhanarao, wherein it was held that “Every harassment does
not amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A I.P.C.,
that the said definition stipulates that harassment has to be with a
definite object of the coercing woman or any person related to her to
meet an unlawful demand for purpose of Section 498-A 1.P.C., that
harassment simpliciter is not cruelty andit is only when harassment is
committed for the purpose of coercing woman or any other person
‘
Ve?
19
a>
BLS.
23. - S6, the cruelty defined. under Section 498-A LP.C. was not
applicable to the charge’ under Section 306. 1.P.C. - There must be
specific demand for property or other valuable securities then only it -
amounts to cruelty under - Section 498-4 ‘LP.C. On the, foot of
incriminating material available in the oral evidence of P.Ws. 2, ‘and
Ex.P.2 suicide note, it is not possible to connect the e accused under
Section 498-A I.P.C.
24. Corning to the apprecjation of charge, under Section’ 306 LP.c,
iq can be said there was legal definite evidence on record. ; P.Ws.2
and 3 deposed there was such sexual harassment from the side of
A.1 against D.i. The same fact was appeared in the own hand
writing of D.1 in Ex.P.2. Deceased No.1 referred A.2 as ogress, A.3
‘as her husband and A.3 as her younger son, Admittedly, the
husband of D.1 died by hanging unable to liquidate his debts.9
months prior to the date of offence. Such fact was not at all denied
‘by the accused. It is not their case that the husband “of D.1 did not
die by hanging unable to discharge his debts. It is not further their ;
case that A.2.and A.3 did not discharge the debts of husband of D.1
by selling their ancestral property. Even according to the evidence of
P. W. 12 who was present M.A. Of Paddapuram constituency troubles
arose after death of husband of Db. 1 by self-immotation unable to
_ discharge the debts incurred by him.
25. P.AW.12 categorically deposed that AB Sold his” property and
clear red of the de debts. ‘of husband of D1 and he got ‘cleared off those -
debts and he also got written the property: fell to the share of
husband of D. i in favour of A. 3 white selling his property to clear off
those debts. and: he himself distributed the sale proceeds got from
sale of property of A.3 with90% ratlo of the debts to the creditors: So
according, to the evidence of P.W. 12 A3 ‘sold the property to’
discharge those debts of husband of D.1.and in turn P.W.12 got
written the property fall to the share of husband of D.1 in favour of
<
A.3 wh ios Ene property in discharging the debts. So, A.3 was
compensated with the property of her husband even ithough he sold
his property to discharge his debts. - - _ When there was such
compensation how they could harass D.1 in that regard. The very
‘uprightness and individuality of D.1 could be seen and the same fact
could be culled out from the contents of Ex, P.2 suicide note. He
mentioned the very debts due even washer man, barber etc., in’
Ex.P.2. She also mentioned in Ex:P.2 that none could accuse her oro
‘ blame on them that they died without discharging their debts.
26: She also cursed herself for coming on to this earth as a woman.
When with such uprightness atid individuality and when A.3 was
compensated with: ‘the property of her husband how they could harass:
her like SO as alleged by her in-the Ex.P.2 suicide note. P.W.12
categorically deposed that Dd. A asked-him not to sell the properties of
A. 3 to discharge the debts and requested him to seil the properties of
her husband to liquidate the ‘debts. If really she was responsible for
selling the properties of A. 3 then there was ‘some meaning to
presume that she. committed suicide due to utmost sensitiveness,
P.W.12 categorically deposed Ex. BP. 2 was addressed to him and vice
president of the village. -He also deposed that some of the facts
“mentioned in it were true since he made an enquiry in-that regard.
She. categorically mentioined in Ex.P.2 that A; 12 instigated A.1in turn
A.1 tried her with in sweet and good. words to subjugate her and A.1
did now know the difference between sister-in-law and wife. Such
sexual harassment was described by D.1 in’ Ex.P.2 that too at the
instigation of A.2. She concluded in Ex.P.2 ¢ that the accused were
all- “responsible to take such extreme step by her and her children. A ,
bare reading of Ex.P.2 is alone sufficient enough to hold that A.1 with
his sexua!) harassment and A.2 ang A,3 with their domesticaily related .
harassment abetted them to go for such. self immolation by preponing
_the date of death fixed by their maker. When Ex.P.2 can be Hkened
\ as dying declaration of D.1 and the same was. substantiated thr rougn
locutar evidence of P.W.2, 3 and 12 could it be wise to hold that it was -
nothing but a concocted and brought'by document for the purpose of
is case. ‘The accused did not elicit anything and they did not.
suggest anything atleast to improbablise the case of the prosecution
nn reer
4 Any amount of doubt into the case of ‘thé
| same through a glass of suspecian. How tebe:
r at least discussion sake. They did: nat sitaenok to inject
U shor view the
€uiiid be direct eye
-witness account when D.1 to D.4 took- such. extreme step within the
corners of four walls after. closing the doors inside. If Ex.P.2 was not
there then the case of prosecution could not be placed on a
believable pedestal. © It seems that there was a curse against the
entire family accordingly allof them including the husband of D.1
‘killed themselves by self-immolation. Admittedly, Ex.P.2 was not an
autobiography of deceased No.1. In such case how this.court could
bxpect vivid and lucid details of day-to-day incidents occurred during
her lifetime for a period of 9 months after. ‘death: of her- husband.
When there was such circumstantial. evidence coupleld: with ocular
evidence in the form of sworn deposition: So of P:Ws.2, 3.and 12 and
such material was appeared in the contents of -Ex.P.2, how this court
could say that there was no case at all to the case of prosecution
27. It is net the case of the accused that D.1.to D.4 did not die by
hanging in their house on the date of offence. It is not their case
| that D.1 to D.4 died for ‘another reason but not for the reason
“ - incriminated by the ‘prosecution. If everything ‘went on smoothiv
" without such alleged harassment where was the necessity to go for
extreme step not only. by her but also along with her minor children -
who were in toens and'tender ages. Without occurring anything’ and
when things went on commoniy and generally and when the accused
did not elicit any other material to presume otherwise, certainly, this
court has to hold such harassment meted out “by the accused was
abetted D.i ‘and her minor: children to renounce the world by self’
immolation at a time in thelr house. From the material available on
record there was no other option or possibility to view the case of the
prosecution otherwise,
28. The'mentioning of offance under Section 306 1.P.C. and 498-A
. LP.C. in the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer even
before altering the charge from 174 €r.P.C. has no bearing at all on
the case of prosecution. Even such omissipn or commission was
‘there, how the same could tilt this case in their favour.
7 nation of all these facts and circumstances is putting
the accused in the center of the charge under Section 306 I.P.C. from
the very beginning and at the same time the accused were unable to ;
thwart the case of the prosecution in any. manner even on minute
count.
' 30. For the. aforesaid reasons the inevitable conciusion has
succeeded in bringing the home the guilt of accused under Section
306 LP... beyond shadow of doubt.
‘ :
ve
In the result, A.1 to A.3.are fourd not guilty for the charge
under Section 498-A 1.P, C. and they are acquitted for the same under
Section 235(1) Cr.P.c. But A.1 to A.3 are found guilty for the charge
under Section 306 I.P.C. and they are convicted for the same under
Section 235(2).Cr.P.C. 7 Tbe
- Dictated to the personal assistant, transcribed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in! “the open Court on this the is®
day. of March 2011,” I
yt : Asst. Sheers Judge
“Peddapuram
When ‘questioned with regard. to quantum of séntence A.i-
‘submitted that he did not commit any offence, that he has two
children, that he has to maintain: nis parents, wife and children,
thereby pieaded mercy. A.2 submitted that she is a cancer ‘patient
since 15 years and she has to fook after her husband, thereby
pleaded mercy. A. 3 submitted that he do not know anything.
In view of the nature of the offence, this court is not inclined to
invoke provisions of A.P.P.0. Act. Further the accused did not assign
.any special reasons to take any lenient view. Though the deceased
No.4 was with such anguish and chagrin without considering her
- pathetic situation, without showing ‘at. least lip sympathy, they
harassed her and abetted therm to commit ‘suicide, even though her
husband left her In pool of debts. As such this court is not inclined to
to take any leniency. Accordingly, A.1 to A:3 are sentenced to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for 5 (five) years each and they are also
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) each
Lari. for further three. months aach; with benefit under Section 428
ie ee a ee te ae tte nee tbe ihe te
Sp hee
fF... - against substantive sentence ong The
‘a period of one month. Copy of judgment. ete Hforthwith to
the accused. The accused were in judicial custody from 19-01-2007
to 30-03-2007, oe ;
Dictated -to the personal assistant, transcribed by him, |
corrected and pronounced by me in the open .Court on this the xe
day of Maren 2011.
a ea MO Judge.
@ Peddapuram ;
Appendix of evidence — o
. Witnesses examined
For prosecution : : . ae
OW.1: - Fatavarthi Venkata uma Partheeswara Murthy.
PLW.2: Penaganti Somaraju.
PLW,3:- Karri Rupa, .
PAW 4: Konathala Venkata Lakshmi.
PIW.5: Molleti Srinivas,
P.W.6: ° Motleti Ammaji. -
'.. PW? Pantham Sitaramamurthy.
«=P W.8: Dodda Veeranna @ Babji.
wee Plw.g9: Avasarala Lakshmi narasimharao.
‘P.W.10:° Gudala.Srinivasarao. 2 og
P.W.i1: .. Marra Apparao. . :
LA P.W.12: — Pantham :Gandhimohan.
P.W.13: Dr. AV. Ramana, CAS.
PLW.14: S.Rambabu, Inspector of Police.
PW.1S:: * A. Rambabu, S.1. of Police.
PAW.A6: P.Ramachandrarao, S.1. of Police.
POW L?: KA.Satyanaravana, Inspector of Police.
For defence: None.
. bay
Documents ma rkag
Report given by P. W. 1 to Kirlamnpudi PLS.
Latter'written by deceased’ Lakshmi.
Scene observation report. ; ;
16 photos with negatives. .
Inquest report of deceased ‘Lakshmi dt. 17-1- 07 at 10- 00
p.m.
161 Cr.P.C, statement oF P.W.5,
161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.6 ~
Seane observation report dt.17-1-07(D.2)
Seane observation ragort.dt.17-1-07 (D.3)
Post Marten report af D4.
Post mortem senort of 5.1
Post mortem report of 0.3.
Post mortem report of 5.2 .
Original FLLR. in Cr.Ne.2/2007 of Kidamipudi B.S.
Altered FIR, .
Rough sketch of Scene of offence,
Rough ‘note bodk, :
R.F.S... raport dated 17 B-2307.
Opinion of the hand wiitlag expert.
For defence : NIL,
Materia! Objects marked
Ni.
‘Ing Ada: §
. KAKis
application No.0 S.\O.
lication iMac. wh 6.
DS Catiadtin> Ase ns
poe
MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION
UNDER SECTION 397(1) OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE :: ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD :
Cr.M.P.No. OF 2012
IN ;
Cri.R.C.No. , OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1, Sarakanam Ganga, S/o. Venkatarao
age 35 years, R/o. Geddanapalli, Kirlampudi Mandal
Kakinada, East Godavari District. -
2. Sarakanam Atchiraju, W/o.Venkatarao
age 55 years, R/o. Geddanapalli, Kirlampudi Mandal
Kakinada, East Godavari District.
3. Sarakanam Venkatarao, S/o.Appanna’
age 60 years, R/o. Geddanapalli, Kirlampudi Mandal
Kakinada, East Godavari District.
AND
The State of A.P., through SHO Kirlampudi PS
Rep., by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P.,
High Court Building, Hyderabad,
..Accused/Petitioner
...Complainant/Respondent
The petitioners are convicted under Sec.306 and sentenced to suffer R.I for a
period of 5 years. They are also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in
default suffer, RI for 3 months. The petitioners have paid the fine amount.
Further he was on bail pending appeal. .
It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the
petitioners on bail pending disposal of the above Cri.R.C., to the satisfaction of
the Asst. Sessions Judge, Peddapuram and may pass such other order or orders
as this Hon‘ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
HYDERABAD Qa a
DATE:18.9.2012 Counsel For pps
"Note: Accused in Rajahmundry Jail.
Bail to the satisfaction of the Asst. Sessions Judge, Peddapuram.
.-
Acknowedgerent No.
WANN
|
LI
TUE
co106
APH
Thursday, Jan 25, 2024 10:08:
>
86612012
APOLCMS -
MAB AM . .
a
vant
EAST GODAVARI :: District
" HIGH COURT : HYDERABAD
Crl.M.P.No. OF 2012
. IN
Crl.R.C.No. OF 2012)
:
\
* BAIL ON
Filed By:
M/s D.V. CHALAPATHI RAO (10294)
&
A.VIDAYALAKSHMI
‘Advocate
Back
