Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, JJ.
Siddamreddy Chandrasekhar Reddy, Spsr Nellore – Appellant
Versus
P.P., Hyd – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1126 of 2015
Decided on : 16-11-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498, 34, 302, 201 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 161, 207, 209, 313 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106, 113 – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention – Punishment of Murder – Examination of witnesses by police – Power to examine accused – Burden of proving fact – Proof of cession of territory – Learned counsel for appellant learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent – Appeal came to be filed challenging conviction and sentence in Sessions Case on file of learned – Held, Argument of learned Additional Public Prosecutor that these two injuries are caused these two injuries are responsible for death of deceased cannot be accepted in absence of evidence to that effect cross-examination doctor states that external injuries on body of deceased are not only reason for death to be caused – Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that since deceased committed suicide because of harassment conviction may be altered to are not in agreement with same for reason that there was no charge for an offence punishable Apart from that as held by us earlier the evidence does not get any corroboration from P.W.2 with regard to harassment either for property or money – Argument of Additional Public Prosecutor to alter conviction from Section also cannot be accepted when death took place beyond seven years of marriage and no presumption can be invoked given set of circumstances – Court feel that it is a fit case where benefit of doubt can be given to the accused – Criminal Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
C. Praveen Kumar, J.
Heard Sri P. Badrinath, learned counsel for the appellant/accused and Sri S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent/State.
2. The present appeal came to be filed challenging the conviction and sentence dated 26.11.2015 in Sessions Case No.19 of 2013 on the file of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore.
3. Originally, A.1 to A.5 were tried for the offences punishable under Section 498-A r/w. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short, “I.P.C.”] while A.1 alone was tried for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C.
4. By its judgment, dated 26.11.2015, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted A.2 to A.5 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w. Section 34 I.P.C. But, however, convicted A.1 for the offences punishable under Section 302 and sentenced him to suffer Life Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months. He was further convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
5. The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that on 26.04.2012 at Nandigunta Village of Vinjamur Mandal, A.1 to A.5 subjected the deceased to harassment and thereafter on that day at 6.30 p.m. the accused beat the deceased on forehead and middle portion of the head, causing severe bleeding injuries and thereafter poured pesticide poison into her mouth to show it to be a case of suicide.
6. The facts, as culled out, from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, are as under:-
Thereafter, the deceased started residing at Nandigunta Village along with A.1 to A.5. It is said that both of them lived happily for six or seven years and thereafter disputes arose between them. It is said that the deceased was being harassed physically and mentally on the pretext that there are no issues to them. The accused also used to threaten the deceased stating that they would perform second marriage to A.1. Whenever the deceased was informing P.W.1 about the same, he used to advise her to adjust herself.
(b) On 24.04.2012, there was some function relating to inauguration of idol of God. P.W.1 invited the accused and deceased for the said function. The deceased stayed in the house of P.W.1 on 26.04.2012. It is said that on 26.04.2012, the deceased and P.W.3 went to their village, while P.W.1 stayed in Vinjamuru Village. At about 6.30 p.m., P.W.3 telephoned to P.W.1 stating that the deceased consumed poison. Immediately P.W.1 went to Seshagiri Hospital, Vinjamuru where he was informed by the doctor that the deceased died. It was informed by A.1 that the deceased died due to consumption of poison and A.3 was present beside her. They also noticed a bleeding injury above the forehead of the deceased and blood was oozing. P.W.1 proceeded to the Police Station at about 9.00 p.m. lodged a report with P.W.13-Sub Inspector of Police. Ex.P1 is the report. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.32 2012 came to be registered under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. Ex.P14 is the First Information Report [F.I.R.].
(c) On the next day i.e. on 27.04.2012, P.W.13 visited the scene of offence; prepared an observation report and also a rough sketch which are marked as Ex.P15 and Ex.P16 respectively. He also got photographed the scene of offence with the help of Photographer. He then, proceeded to Praja Vaidyashala, Vinjamuru and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 27.04.2012 in the p
The prosecution must prove the ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction. Cruelty is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 498A IPC and must be....
In a case arising out of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove each of the circumstances relied upon by them and the circumstances so proved should form a chain of events connecting t....
To convict under IPC Sections 498A and 306, credible evidence of cruelty and mens rea must be established; mere quarrels do not suffice.
Dowry death – Conviction upheld - Prosecution succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court rightly convicted the appellant.
Point of law : chemical analysis reveal existence of Endosulfan, an insecticide poison, in the viscera. Therefore, the medical evidence amply supports the case of the prosecution with regard to the c....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the intention of the accused to commit cruelty or abet suicide, and the evidence presented must be specific and cre....
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
