Back
2004 Supreme(AP) 1171
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.BIKSHAPATHY, S.R.K.PRASAD
Rachaputi Nageswararao, Nagaraju - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 10-12-04
Headnote:
Criminal Law – Criminal Trial – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 and 304-B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 174 – Offence of Murder – Demand of dowry and additional dowry – Appeal against conviction – Marriage of the deceased and the accused took place about 6 months prior to the date of the incident – Case of prosecution that at time of marriage, P. W. 4 gave rs. 3,00,000/- cash and 20 Sovereigns of gold and silver articles as dowry, the accused used to harass deceased for getting additional dowry – Subsequently also P. W. 4 gave Rs. 50,000/- to accused as additional dowry – Deceased also informed P. W. 4 about harassment of accused in the month of January, 1993 – Deceased was sent to her in-laws house as mother of accused was bed ridden due to leg fracture. The mother-in-law of the accused s brother informed about the death of the deceased – Held, Scene of offence and medical evidence, Court find that none of the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn were established – The Supreme Court in catena of decisions held that where the case rests squarely on the circumstantial evidence, the inference of the guilt can be justified only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found incompatible with the innocency of the accused or guilt of any other person – No motive whatsoever was forthcoming – As already observed that evidence of p. Ws. 4 to 7 is most unreliable and even lower Court found that the offence under section 304-B IPC was not established. In the circumstantial evidence, one of the important incriminating material to be considered is the motive and that is totally absent – Prosecution has miserably failed to bring home guilt of the accused under Section 302 IPC on basis of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt and court find that accused is entitled for benefit of doubt – Criminal Appeal is allowed.
( 1 ) THE sole accused Rachaputi Nageshwara rao @ Naga Raju in S. C. No. 40 of 1996 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions judge, Ongole is the Appellant. He was tried by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 304-B IPC. He was found guilty of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50. 000/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. Out of Rs. 50,000/-, a sum of Rs. 45,000/- was directed to be paid to P. Ws. 4 and 5 towards the compensation. However, he was acquitted for the charge under section 304-B IPC.
( 2 ) THE substance of the charge against the accused was that on the intervening night of 4/5 of February, 1993 in the house of the accused, he caused the death of his wife rachaputi Swarajyalakshmi (hereinafter called the deceased ).
( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution as unfolded at the trial is as follows: p. W. 4 is Chapram Rama Mohana Rao, father of the deceased, P. W. 5 is Chapram nageswaramma, mother of the deceased, p. W. 6-Venkata Satya Veerupaksha Prasad is brother of the deceased. The parents of the deceased belonging to Piduguraffa while the parents-in-law of the deceased are residents of Markapur. Marriage of the deceased and the accused took place about 6 months prior to the date of the incident.
( 4 ) IT is the case of the prosecution that at the time of the marriage, P. W. 4 gave rs. 3,00,000/- cash and 20 Sovereigns of gold and silver articles as dowry, the accused used to harass the deceased for getting additional dowry. Subsequently also P. W. 4 gave Rs. 50,000/- to the accused as additional dowry. The deceased also informed P. W. 4 about the harassment of the accused in the month of January, 1993. The deceased was sent to her in-laws house at Markapur as mother of the accused was bed ridden due to leg fracture. The mother-in-law of the accused s brother informed about the death of the deceased. On hearing the news p. Ws. 4 to 7 rushed to the house of the accused and they saw the dead body of the deceased. It was laid on cot and they found face swollen and ligature marks on the body. The accused and deceased used to reside in the room in which the deceased died. They used to dine along with the family in the down stairs. P. W. 1-Village Administrative Officer came to know that the deceased died by hanging and gave a report to Mandal Revenue officer, who in turn sent Ex. P-1 report to p. W. 13 Sub-Inspector of Police. On 5-2-1993 at about 6 p. m. P. W. 13 received the report Ex,p-1 lodged by P. W. 1. Basing on the said report, the Sub-Inspector of Police registered a Crime in Crime No. 13 of 1996 under Section 174 Cr. P. C. He issued express f. I. R. Ex. P-13. He handed over the investigation to S. D. P. O. On 6-2-1993, at about 7. 30 p. m. P. W. 8 conducted inquest under Ex. P-7 and he sent dead body to p. W. 9 Civil Asst. Surgeon, Markapur for post-mortem examination. She conducted autopsy and opined that the death was due to asphyxia due to strangulation by ligature. Ex. P-8 is the Post-mortem report, Ex. P-9 is the report of Hyoid bone and Ex. P-10 is the forensic Science Laboratory report. On 9-2-1993 as per instructions of S. D. P. O. P. W. 3 altered the section of law from 174 cr. P. C. to Section 302 I. P. C. and 304-B IPC. He submitted the copies of F. I. R. Ex. P-14 is altered F. I. R. Aftercompletion of investigation, the Circle Inspector of Police filed the charge- sheet.
( 5 ) THE charge sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Markapur, who registered the same as P. R. C. No. 36 of 1993. As the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, he committed the same to the Sessions Division. The learned sessions Judge registered the same as s. C. No. 40 of 1996 and made over the same to the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, ongole for trial and disposal according to
