Back
2009 Supreme(AP) 590
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
B. Chandra Kumar, J.
D Vijay Kumar : Appellant
Versus
State Of A P : Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 1307 of 2005
Decided On : Aug 28, 2009
C. Padmanabha Reddy, C. Praveen Kumar,
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code - Section 227, 161 – Examination of witness by police – Indian Penal Code,1860 Sections 306 and 506, 482, Sections 302 and 498-A – Offence of murder – Punishment for Criminal Intimidation - Indian Evidence act - Section 32 (1) – Petitioner and petitioners will be referred filed petitions under Section praying to discharge them for the offences punishable under Sections IPC respectively learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions judge Manila Court by separate orders dated dismissed those petitions – Aggrieved by same they have preferred these revisions – Facts of the case are as follows: the deceased aged about years was a Advocate - Court She was married to one Kumar Sharma of year 1982 and was blessed with who was aged about 14 years by the date of the unfortunate incidet - It appears that differences arose between the deceased and her husband and she had obtained divorce from through the Family Court in the year 1988 and she was staying with her parents along with her son - Father of the deceased by name is working as General Manager His son Sunil is doing business at Bangalore was studying class during relevant period deceased after completion of LLM Course started as junior Advocate initially in the office joined the office were also working as juniors under deceased worked as junior advocate in the office of deceased owning a flat bearing Plaza apartments – Held, Main distinction between the case is that the acts committed by A1 appear to be relating to the cause of her death and the circumstances in the transactions leading to they are admissible under Section 32 of Evidence Act – But as far is concerned the charge against him is that he committed an offence under Section IPC – Section IPC appears to be a distinct offence oral or written statements of the deceased appear to be not admissible in evidence and have to be treated as hearsay evidence as far as the offence punishable under Section IPC is concerned - Other circumstance is that deceased did not mention the name of A3 in her suicide note prepared just prior to her death. She did not reveal the name of A to her mother just prior to her death though she revealed the names to her mothes said to have been made against ths prior to her death with regard to the offence under section IPC cannot be treated as admissible under Section of the Indian evidence Act – Petition stands dismissed.
(1) Since both these Revisions in crl. R. C. No. 1307 of 2005 and Crl. R. C. No. 1351 of 2005 are directed against the orders both dated 19. 07. 2005 in Crl. M. P. Nos. 116and 115 of 2005 respectively and arise out of the same s. C. No. 690 of 2004 on the file of the V Additional metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, hyderabad, they are being disposed of by this common order.
(2) The petitioner in Crl. R. C. No. 1307 of 2005 is A-1 and the petitioner in crl. R. C. No. 1351 of 2005 is A-3. The petitioners will be referred as A1 and A3 hereinafter. A1 and A3 filed petitions in Crl. M. P. Nos. 116 and 115 of 2005, under Section 227 Cr. P. C praying to discharge them for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 506 IPC respectively. The learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions judge, Manila Court, Hyderabad, by separate orders dated 19. 07. 2005 in S. C. No. 690 of 2004 dismissed those petitions. Aggrieved by the same, they have preferred these revisions.
The brief facts of the case are as follows: the deceased Smt. Sangeetha Sharma, aged about 33 years, was a practising Advocate in A. P. High Court, Hyderabad. She was married to one Pramod Kumar Sharma of akola (Maharashtra) in the year 1982 and was blessed with a son Nitesh Sharma, who was aged about 14 years by the date of the unfortunate incident. It appears that differences arose between the deceased and her husband and she had obtained divorce from herhusband through the Family Court, Secunderabad in the year 1988 and she was staying with her parents along with her son. The father of the deceased by name Bhiharilal Sharma is working as General Manager in Alluminium india, Secunderabad. His son Sunil is doing business at Bangalore. Master Nitesh Sharma was studying 10th class during relevant period. The deceased, after completion of LLM Course, started practise as junior Advocate initially in the office of Sri Challa Kodandaram. Subsequently she joined the office of A-1. A-2 and A-3 were also working as juniors under A-1. The deceased worked as junior advocate in the office of A-1 from 23-06-1999 to 22-12-1999. The deceased wasalso owning a flat bearing No. 304, Gandham Plaza apartments, Chinna Thokatta, New bowenapally, Secunderabad.
(3) It is alleged that though A-1 treated the deceased well initially, later on he started making sexual advances towards her and proposed to her to be his mistress and to develop sexual relationship with him. It is also alleged that he had promised her to secure the post of Assistant Government Pleader by virtue of his prospective elevation to the post of judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh. He had also asked the deceased to provide her flat to him fororganizing weekend parties and otherimmoral activities. He had also demanded her to give money on one occasion. It is further alleged that A-3 also pressurised her to accept the proposal of A1. It is further alleged that a-1 threatened the deceased not to disclose his attempts to anybody, otherwise he would kidnap her and her son. It is also alleged that on 24-12-1999, A-3 threatened the deceased over telephone to accept the proposal of A-1 failing which they would kidnap her and her son or cause harm to her parents. He had also wanted her not to take any action against them. The further case of the prosecution is that the deceased informed about the harassment of the accused to her parents and her brother and her family friends P. Vijaya kumar (LW-25), P. A. Kamaleswari, Advocate (LW-8), T. Suresh Babu (LW-12), Hon'ble sri Justice S. Parvatha Rao (LW-14), a. Venkata Sai Prasad (LW-15)and Gomaram bitchapathi Reddy, Lecturer, Law College, (LW-16). When Smt. P. A. Kamaleswari took the deceased to Smt. Kalpana Kannabiran (LW-9), Sri K. G. Kannabiran (LW-10) and smt. Vasantha Kannabiran (LW-11), smt. Kalpana Kannabiran and Smt. Vasante kannabiran, who were the President and advisor of ASMITHA (Resource Centre for women), advised the deceased to give a written complaint. Then a w
