Back
2016 Supreme(AP) 163
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, M.S.K. Jaiswal, JJ.
Sannikanti @ Saniganti Srinu @ Srinivasa Rao - Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Inspector of Police, Rep. by Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 860 of 2010
Decided On : 29-02-2016
For the Appellant : S. Surender Reddy
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor (AP)
Headnote:
Criminal Law – Criminal Trial – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 161 and 174 – Offence of Murder – Appeal against conviction – Complaint to Police stating that she is residing in her own house at Street and she is also working as a Sweeper in Dwakra Group – She has let out upper portion of her house to deceased who was residing along with her husband Srinu (accused) and their children – Accused was working as mason and also doing marble work – P.W.1 went to her work and her daughter telephoned to her at about death of deceased and on her returning home, she found the body of deceased lying down on floor of house – She has stated that deceased belonged to Nellore and that she met with suspicious death – Based on her report (Ex.P.1), P.W.11 – Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Vijayawada, registered the case in Crime of under Section 174 CrPC, describing the death as ‘suspicious death’ took up investigation and issued First Information Report (Ex.P.7). After dispatching the FIR, P.W.11 recorded statements of P.Ws.1 to 7, conducted inquest over dead body of deceased and sent same to Government Hospital, for post-mortem examination – Medical officer (P.W.5) after conducting the autopsy over dead body, issued post-mortem certificate and opined that death was due to asphyxia due to ligature strangulation – Held, Does not shift burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon prosecution and that it lays down the rule that when accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specifically within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes chain – When deceased has met with an unnatural death at her house where accused was last seen with her, onus lies on him under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act to give satisfactory explanation to incriminating circumstances specifically within his knowledge – Principle in Naina Mohd., Re (4 supra), was quoted with approval by Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram [(2006) 12 SCC 254]. Applying this principle of law to facts of this case, this Court has no hesitation to hold that appellant failed to discharge onus lying on him to satisfactorily explain as to incriminating circumstances under with his wife was done to death – Prosecution was able to successfully complete the chain of events to prove guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt and he was rightly convicted and sentenced by lower Court, as stated above – This point is accordingly answered against the appellant – Appeal is dismissed. (Paras 19 to 21)
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.
1. The prosecution laid charge sheet against the appellant, sole accused in S.C. No.119 of 2009, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by judgment, dated 26.3.2010, passed in the said case, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant - accused for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months, this appeal is preferred by the accused.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is stated hereunder. One Dasari Bujji, W/o. Raju, (P.W.1) lodged a complaint to the Police stating that she is residing in her own house at Sadhu John Street, Chittinagar, Vijayawada and she is also working as a Sweeper in Dwakra Group. She has let out the upper portion of her house to one Sunnekanti Padma (deceased), who was residing along with her husband Srinu (accused) and their children, since 05.06.2008. The accused was working as mason and also doing marble work. On 10.07.2008, P.W.1 went to her work and her daughter telephoned to her at about 9.30 a.m., about the death of the deceased and on her returning home, she found the body of the deceased lying down on the floor of the house. She has stated that the deceased belonged to Nellore and that she met with suspicious death. Based on her report (Ex.P.1), P.W.11 – Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Vijayawada, registered the case in Crime No.250 of 2008 under Section 174 CrPC, describing the death as ‘suspicious death’ on 10.07.2008, took up the investigation and issued First Information Report (Ex.P.7). After dispatching the FIR, P.W.11 recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 7, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the same to the Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, for post-mortem examination. The Medical officer (P.W.5) after conducting the autopsy over the dead body, issued post-mortem certificate and opined that the death was due to asphyxia due to ligature strangulation. Basing on the opinion of the Medical Officer, P.W.12 altered the Section of law to Section 302 of IPC on 15.07.2008.
3. During the course of investigation, P.W.12 arrested the accused and after completing the investigation, he has filed the charge sheet. As the plea of the accused was total denial, the trial was held during which the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9. The prosecution has also produced M.Os.1 to 4. The accused has not examined any witness in support of his defence, but marked Ex.D.1.
4. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the lower Court has found the appellant guilty of the offence with which he was charged with and sentenced him as stated above.
5. Mr. S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and that the prosecution failed to prove any motive for the appellant to kill his own wife. He has further argued that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was sketchy, ambiguous and inconsistent and therefore the appellant was not liable to be convicted based on such evidence.
6. Opposing the above submissions, Mr. Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Public Prosecutor, argued that the appellant developed suspicion of illegal contact between his wife and P.W.6 and this suspicion has led the appellant to resort to kill his wife. Though there were no eyewitnesses to the incident, the circumstantial evidence brought out by the prosecution through P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 6 and 10 proved the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore the lower Court has rightly convicted the appellant and imposed the sentence of imprisonment for life.
7. Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the point that arises for con
