Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
C. Praveen Kumar, B. Krishna Mohan, JJ.
Bommu Prasanth @ Prasanth Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Public Prosecutor, Hyd - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 718 of 2015
Decided On : 09-07-2021
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302, 201, 304-B, 498-A IPC - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 113A OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - APPLICABILITY - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 498A IPC - CRUELTY - BURDEN OF PROOF - SECTION 106 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - EXPLANATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the appellant strangled his wife and then hanged her to make it appear like suicide. The appellant denied the charges and claimed that his wife committed suicide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence against the appellant was circumstantial and not conclusive. The post-mortem report did not conclusively establish whether the death was a homicide or suicide. The court also found that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the offence under Section 498A IPC, which is cruelty by the husband or his relatives towards the wife. The court held that the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, which presumes that a suicide by a married woman within seven years of marriage was abetted by her husband or his relatives if cruelty is shown, could not be invoked in this case as cruelty was not established.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence against the appellant was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he murdered his wife? 2. Whether the prosecution proved the ingredients of the offence under Section 498A IPC? 3. Whether the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act could be invoked in this case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence against the appellant was circumstantial and not conclusive. The post-mortem report did not conclusively establish whether the death was a homicide or suicide. The court also found that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the offence under Section 498A IPC, which is cruelty by the husband or his relatives towards the wife. The court held that the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, which presumes that a suicide by a married woman within seven years of marriage was abetted by her husband or his relatives if cruelty is shown, could not be invoked in this case as cruelty was not established. 2. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the offence under Section 498A IPC, which is cruelty by the husband or his relatives towards the wife. The court found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was inconsistent and did not establish that the appellant had subjected his wife to cruelty. 3. The court held that the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, which presumes that a suicide by a married woman within seven years of marriage was abetted by her husband or his relatives if cruelty is shown, could not be invoked in this case as cruelty was not established.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, and acquitted him of the charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
JUDGMENT
C.Praveen Kumar, J. - Heard Sri. K. Srinivas, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Sri. S. Dushyanth Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor, through Blue Jeans video conferencing APP and with their consent, the appeal is disposed of.
1 Accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 183 of 2011 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, is the appellant herein. Originally, Accused Nos. 1 to 5 were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 and 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ['I.P.C.']. By its Judgment, dated 02.06.2015, the learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting Accused No. 2 to 5 of all charges, convicted Accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. He was also found convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C., and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. However, Accused No. 1 was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. The substantive sentences imposed against the appellant were directed to run concurrently.
2. The substance of the charges against the accused is that, on 15.06.2010 at about 8.00 P.M. at Tadepalli, Accused No. 1 is said to have caused the death of Smt. Patchala Suneetha @ Indira ['deceased'] by using a pillow, which lead to the instantaneous death and thereafter the Accused No. 1 is said to have hanged the deceased to the ceiling fan with a chunni, so as to make it appear as if the deceased committed suicide.
3. The case of the prosecution, as it unfolds from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, is as under:
i) PW1 is the father of the deceased, while PW2 and PW3 are the brothers of the deceased. PW4 is the owner of the house where the deceased was living. It is said that, the deceased was working as a computer operator in Manipal Hospital. She fell in love with A1 and married him on 18.05.2010. The marriage was performed by one Seelam Prabhudas who is a marriage convener. On the next day of marriage, A1 telephoned to PW1 and demanded Rs.3,00,000/- as dowry and further informed that had he married another girl, he would have got Rs.3,00,000/- as dowry.
ii) On 19.05.2010 PW1 went to the house of A1 at Sundaraiah Nagar and handed over a sum of Rs.30,000/-. After handing over the said amount, PW1 informed A1 that it is not good to live in a rented house and asked him to join his parents or live with PW1. On that, A1 replied that their marriage was not to the liking of his parent's and that he wants to live in the said house. At that time, PW1 came to know that his daughter was pregnant.
iii) About four days after marriage, PW3 went to the house of A1 and gave Rs.1,000/- as A1 wanted to go to Hyderabad for training. This amount was adjusted basing on the request made by the deceased to PW3. It is said that both of them lived happily for 10 days and thereafter the deceased telephoned to PW1 informing that the amount of Rs.30,000/- given, is not sufficient and all the accused have been demanding her to get Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry and along with A1 they have been harassing and threatening her. This phone call was said to be on 14.06.2010. It was said that if the amount is not paid, A1 threatened to leave her alone in the house and go to other State by changing his cell phone number.
iv) On 15.06.2010 at about 8.00 A.M., PW4 the owner of the house found deceased sitting in the veranda, which is common to both the houses. When asked as to why she is sitting like that, she informed that she is not feeling well as she got her pregnancy terminated. At that time, ten persons from Spandana Group came there to talk with PW4. Seeing them, the deceased went inside the house. After discussing with Spandana Group people, PW4 went back to her house. By then,
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
