Back
2016 Supreme(SC) 1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.
State of A.P. – Appellant
Versus
Patchimala Vigneswarudu @ Vigganna @ Ganapathi – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 436 of 2008
Decided on : 06-01-2016
IMPORTANT POINT
Husband is bound to explain homicidal death of his wife in his house.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder of wife – Circumstantial evidence – Reversal of conviction by High Court – Deceased subjected to ill-treatment on suspicion that she transmitted venereal disease to appellant-husband – Deceased was last seen in company of accused – Deceased died due to asphyxia caused by strangulation with ligature – Accused absconded from village after incident – Chain of circumstances is complete and leads only to conclusion that it was accused/ respondent and he alone who committed murder of deceased – View taken by High Court that chain of circumstances is not complete merely for reason that drunkenness of accused is not established and that accused cannot be said to have got sexually transmitted disease through his wife, is view based on irrelevant considerations and could not have been taken in present case after re-appreciating evidence on record – It is a fit case where order of acquittal recorded by High Court requires interference – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court set aside and order of conviction and sentence recorded by Additional Sessions Judge restored. (Paras 17 to 19)
Facts of Case:
Murder of wife. High Court allowed appeal and acquitted accused/respondent of charge on ground that chain of circumstances is not complete leading to a definite conclusion that accused alone was responsible for commission of offence. State has preferred this appeal against impugned order passed by High Court acquitting accused.
Findings of Court:
What is more important is that in his statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, when above evidence was put to accused, he has accepted said fact. What he denied is that he did not go to take his wife to her parents’ house. He further denied that he did not take her to night show of any movie, nor committed her murder. In above circumstances, we are of the opinion that in present case only view possible was one taken by the trial court. As such, it is a fit case where order of acquittal recorded by High Court requires interference. Therefore, on the basis of discussion on evidence we are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.
Result – Appeal allowed.
Judgment :
Prafulla C. Pant, J.
This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 24.2.2005, passed by the High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, whereby Criminal Appeal No. 1313 of 2002, filed by accused/respondent Patchimala Vigneswarudu @ Vigganna @ Ganapathi, is allowed, and he is acquitted of the charge of murder punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), and order of conviction and sentence, passed against him by II Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry in Sessions Case No. 363 of 2001, was set aside.
2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Pachimala Ganga, daughter of PW-1 Jithuka Nagooru and PW-2 Jithuka Veeramma, got married to the accused/respondent. Their marriage was solemnized some two years before the date of incident. After marriage deceased Pachimala Ganga joined company of her husband at Cheyyeru Agraharam, and started living with him. After some time the accused came to know that he was suffering from venereal disease. He suspected that he might have contacted it through his wife. This started souring of relations between the two. According to the prosecution, the accused thereafter started ill-treating his wife, on which she left him and went to her parents’ house. Sarojini, sister of the accused, went to the house of the parents of the deceased and promised that the deceased would not be subjected to ill-treatment. On this personation deceased went again to Cheyyeru Agraharam, i.e. village of her husband, but she was again allegedly subjected to harassment. As such, prior to ten days before her death PW-1 and PW-2 (parents of the deceased) took her back to their house.
3. On 5.8.2001 at 6.00 p.m. the accused himself went to the house of his in-laws (PW-1 and PW-2) and took his wife on the pretext that they were going to watch night show of movie ‘Eduruleni Manishi’ in Devi Ganesh theatre in neighbouring Mukteswaram village. According to prosecution, the couple went to the movie but the accused had a plan to kill her. After midnight while returning home, the accused took his wife towards coconut tope (grove of PW-8 Ponakala Satyanarayana Murthy) and murdered his wife by strangulating her. Thereafter, the accused left the place and absconded. PW-1 and PW-2, when their daughter did not return, started searching for her. On 6.8.2001 in the morning her dead body was found in the coconut tope. PW-7 Yalla Satyanarayana noticed the dead body and told about the same to PW-1 and PW-2.
4. PW-1 Jithuka Nagooru, father of the deceased, gave First Information Report on 6.8.2001 at 8.00 a.m., to the police on which crime No. 50 of 2001 was registered. PW-15 Inspector A. Subbarao investigated the crime. PW-9 Relangi Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, on instructions of the Investigating Officer, prepared inquest report (Ex. P-3) after the dead body was taken into possession. PW-12 Dr. A. Subbarao conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and prepared autopsy report (Ex. P-22). After recording the ante mortem injuries, the Medical Officer opined that the deceased had died due to asphyxia caused by strangulation with ligature. On 9.8.2001 the accused/respondent was arrested by the Investigating Officer near Kanakadurga Temple. After interrogating witnesses and on completion of investigation a charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer against accused Patchimala Vigneswarudu @ Vigganna @ Ganapathi for his trial in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
5. It appears that I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram, committed the case to the Court of Sessions of East Godavari Division of Rajahmundry. Learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, on 28.02.2002, framed charge of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC against accused Patchimala Vigneswarudu @ Vigganna @ Ganapathi and explained the same to him in Telugu to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution got examined PW-1
