Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
G. SHYAM PRASAD, M. VENKATA RAMANA, JJ.
Vemula Peda Sankara Rao - Appellant
Versus
State of A.P. - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 113 of 2014
Decided On : 31-08-2019
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Sentencing to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay fine - Defence neither examined any witnesses nor marked any exhibits on his behalf - Trial Court found the appellant/accused guilty of charge - On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined by putting the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same as false - On consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court held that the conduct of the accused in picking up quarrel with the deceased due to suspecting her fidelity is established - Accused was seen while coming out from the house after causing injuries on the body of the deceased by bolting the door from outside the house, immediately entered into the house and found the house in a disturbed condition - Held, FSL report reveals that the blood of human origin was detected on Blood-stained shirt, seized in pursuance of confession of the accused, mediators report, which is pointing guilt of the accused - Learned trial Judge had considered the circumstantial evidence and basing on the circumstantial evidence, convicted the accused - Four circumstances raised by the learned Judge clearly prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt - Series of events establish the nexus between accused and the deceased - Motive for commission of the offence is proved by the evidence that accused used to suspect the fidelity of the deceased and there were frequent quarrels between them, one and half year prior to the incident, even one year prior to the incident and also just prior to the incident on the fateful day - Burden is on the accused to explain the circumstances under which the deceased received injuries when they were together in the house - Reason for leaving his wife with injuries inside the house, and bolting the doors and leaving the place being witnessed by P.W. 1 is a strong circumstance - Conduct of the accused speaks volumes, particularly - Appeal Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
G. Shyam Prasad, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.08.2013 in S.C. No. 234 of 2013 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Guntur, convicting him for the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay fine.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased is the wife of the accused and they have three sons by names, Vemula Rambabu (L.W. 1), Vemula Thirupathi Rao (L.W. 3) and Vemula Sateesh Kumar (L.W. 4). The accused was eking out his livelihood by selling 'Masala' on a push cart. One year prior to the incident, the accused started to suspect the fidelity of the deceased and harassing her by picking up quarrels with her. About 45 days prior to 09.02.2013, after quarrelling with the deceased, the accused went to Hyderabad. He returned home about a week prior to the incident and staying in the house idle without attending to any work. He used to quarrel with the deceased frequently and was waiting for an opportunity to put an end to her life. On 09.02.2013 his three sons went out to attend coolie work as usual. At about 8 p.m. while the deceased was watching a programme over T.V., taking advantage of her loneliness in the house, the accused attacked her with a chutney pounder, causing bleeding injuries on her head, and came out, and bolted the door from outside and went away. Balisetty Seeta (L.W. 5), Vankayala Baby (L.W. 6) and Bandaru Anjaneyulu (L.W. 7), who are the neighbours of the house of the deceased noticed the accused hurriedly going away from the house by bolting door from outside. At that time Vemula Rambabu (L.W. 1), the son of the accused noticing the same entered into his house by removing the bolt and found the deceased with injuries on her head lying on the cot. He informed Vemula Bhargav (L.W. 2) and they have shifted the injured to GGH, Guntur, where she was declared dead. On the report of Vemula Rambabu (L.W. 1), the Police registered a case in Crime No. 85 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC on 10.02.2013, issued FIR/Ex. P10, submitted copies to all concerned. P.W. 11, the Inspector took up investigation and conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of P.W. 8-Banka Jayarao and listed Witness No. 12-Kallam Satyanarayanareddy, drafted observation report. He seized blood stained chutney pounder MO. 1 near the cot of Varalaxmi, also seized dried blood at the scene with cotton swabs MOs. 2 and 3, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence Ex. P11 and got the scene of offence photographed by P.W. 7-Bhimavarapu Vemareddy, and held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of mediators and sent the dead body for autopsy. P.W. 9, Assistant Professor, Guntur Medical College, Guntur, conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased and opined that the cause of death was due to head injury. During the course of investigation, P.W. 11 arrested the accused on 14.02.2013 in the presence of mediators. He voluntarily confessed about commission of murder of his wife suspecting her fidelity. In pursuance of his confession, P.W. 11 seized blood stained shirt M.O.6, and sent the accused for judicial remand and forwarded the material objects to the Assistant Director, RFSL, Guntur for analysis. On completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC before the court of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Guntur.
3. The IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur took cognizance of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Guntur and the Sessions Judge, registered as S.C. No. 234 of 2013.
4. The prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 11 and got marked Exs. P.1 to P. 12 and MOs. 1 to 11. The defence neither examined any witnesses nor marked any exhibits on his behalf.
5. On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by putting the inc
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
