SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(AP) 322

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
G. SHYAM PRASAD, D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, JJ.
Gopisetty Harikrishna - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 414 of 2015
Decided On : 15-11-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Seelam Siva Kumari, Advocate Legal Aid.
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1960 - Section 498-A/201 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 239/161 - Harassing the deceased demanding additional dowry - , hanged the dead body of the deceased to the ceiling fan with the aid of the saree and raised hue and cry - Neighbours rushed to the house of the accused and they were informed that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself in the house by bolting the house door - Allegation against the accused Village, he subjected the deceased to cruelty and committed murder intentionally by beating her with stick and also tried to cause disappearance of the evidenced and thereby hanged the dead body of the deceased to the ceiling fan with her saree with an intention of screening the offence of murder - Held, Accused denied the charges; pleaded not guilty of the offences and claimed to be tried - Crucial to this case as he is the Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased and opined that the cause of death was due to head injury and issued post-mortem report - It is not the case of the appellant that when they have beat the deceased, she had received injury over her head and thereafter, she went inside and committed suicide - Injury on the head of the deceased has not been explained by the accused though, they are residing in the same house - Head injury is the cause of death according to the Medical Officers evidence - Version of the prosecution that A1 killed the deceased by beating on her head is proved - It is not a case of hanging, but it is only to screen the offence of murder, that defence was taken - There is no proof to say that it is a case of hanging - All the injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report are anti-mortem in nature - Fatal wound as per the injuries mentioned in the post-mortem certificate is the injury on the left side of temporal region - Accused denied the charges; pleaded not guilty of the offences and claimed to be tried - Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

G. Shyam Prasad, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.9.2014 in SC No. 325 of 2012 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, SPSR, Nellore.

2. The appellant/A1 was convicted for the offences under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 498-A IPC in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month, and also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment of one month, and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 201 IPC and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows:

4. The appellant is A1 in SC No. 325 of 2012. The deceased is the wife of A1 and their marriage took place about eight years prior to the death of the deceased. At the time of their marriage, the parents of the deceased gave an amount of Rs. 55,000/- and 20 sovereigns of gold. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two male children. The accused/A1 with the support of A2 has been harassing the deceased demanding additional dowry. On the date of offence i.e., on 8.5.2011 at about 6.00 p.m., a quarrel took place between A1 and the deceased and A1 beat her with stick. LWs. 9 and 20 witnessed the said incident. A1 with an intention to hide the offence, hanged the dead body of the deceased to the ceiling fan with the aid of the saree and raised hue and cry. On hearing the cries, LWs. 5 to 10 neighbours rushed to the house of the accused and they were informed that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself in the house by bolting the house door. LWs. 3 to 10 were there and found the dead body of the deceased, and placed it on the ground. LW 5 informed the incident to the father of the deceased. LW 1 alongwith LWs. 2 to 4 came to the scene of offence and found the dead body of the deceased and gave a report to the Dagadarthi Police, and it was registered as a case in Crime No. 36/2011 under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. The Police, after completion of investigation, filed the charge-sheet before the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kowur. The learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore.

5. Based on the material available on record, the accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and charges under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 IPC were framed against the accused. The allegation against the accused is that on 8.5.2011 at about 6.00 p.m., in Ulavapalla Village, he subjected the deceased to cruelty and committed murder intentionally by beating her with stick and also tried to cause disappearance of the evidenced and thereby hanged the dead body of the deceased to the ceiling fan with her saree with an intention of screening the offence of murder. The accused denied the charges; pleaded not guilty of the offences and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 9 and marked Exs. P1 to P15 documents, besides the case property MO 1. On behalf of defence, no witnesses were examined, but Exs. D1 to D7 were marked.

7. Heard arguments of both the Counsel.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant mainly argued that this is a case of suicide. The deceased had died by hanging herself to the ceiling fan. The version of prosecution that this is a case of homicide is not proved by medical evidence. The injury on the forehead of the deceased is not supported by the inquest report. The inquest report does not disclose that the deceased had any injury on her forehead. Therefore, the medical evidence is not in accordance with the ocular evidence of the punch witness. It is further argued that A1, who is the mother of the deceased was acquitted, on the same allega

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top