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

2023 Supreme(AP) 150

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, JJ.
S. Balakrishna Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 2016
Decided On : 24-01-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M. Chalapati Rao.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Offence of Murder - Charged - Appeal against conviction - PW-1 is daughter of accused, while accused is the son of deceased - PWs. 2 to 6 are residents of village and living nearby the house of the accused - Accused had three children - It is said that accused married one Sarada, a native of village and was blessed with two daughters and one son - Son of accused died, while PW-1, daughter of the accused was married and living elsewhere - Second daughter of accused is said to be residing with PW-1 - Accused was in the habit of consuming alcohol and was attending to agricultural work - Though accused was having cardinal relationship with his wife, but they used to quarrel with each other, whenever accused consumed liquor - It is said that accused killed his wife by strangulation at village, which lead to his arrest and remand - Whether prosecution was able to bring home guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt? - Held, Firstly, there was no enmity or ill-will between accused and the deceased - Secondly, it was deceased, who stood as surety for accused and got him released on bail and it was deceased, who was taking care of accused by providing all necessities, while accused was not doing any work. Since the accused was addicted to alcohol, he was quarreling with deceased and in that quarrel, incident in question took place - Therefore, as held by Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not number of injuries on body and place where the injuries are caused is the matter in deciding nature of offence, but the manner in which incident took place also has to be looked into - Under those circumstances, taking into consideration the manner in which the incident took place and having regard to fact that the incident took place in a spur of moment and in absence of any ill-will, motive or prior enmity between accused and the deceased - Appeal is allowed in part.

JUDGMENT :

C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri M. Chalapati Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

2. Sole accused in Sessions Case No. 102 of 2015 on the file of X Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, is the appellant herein. He was tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘I.P.C’) for causing the death of his mother by name S. Desamma on 20.05.2014 at about 7.30 P.M in Eguva Muddikuppam village, S.R. Puram Mandal, with a stick. Vide judgment dated, 13.10.2015, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal came to be filed.

3. The facts in issue are as under:

(i) PW-1 is the daughter of accused, while accused is the son of deceased. PWs. 2 to 6 are residents of Eguva Muddikuppam village and living nearby the house of the accused. The accused had three children. It is said that accused married one Sarada, a native of Routhuvanigunta village and was blessed with two daughters and one son. The son of the accused died, while PW-1, the daughter of the accused was married and living elsewhere. The second daughter of accused is said to be residing with PW-1. The accused was in the habit of consuming alcohol and was attending to agricultural work. Though the accused was having cardinal relationship with his wife, but they used to quarrel with each other, whenever accused consumed liquor. It is said that the accused killed his wife by strangulation at Routhuvanigunta village, which lead to his arrest and remand. In respect of the said case, a charge sheet came to be filed and thereafter on committal, came to be tried in Sessions Case No. 8 of 2012, wherein the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life. Challenging the same, an appeal was filed before this Court and it was found that the said appeal was dismissed. After registering the crime against the accused, in respect of causing death to his wife Sarada, the accused was released on bail on surety given by the deceased herein. Thereafter, the accused and his mother (deceased) were residing in one house at Eguva Muddikuppam village. The deceased was looking after the welfare of the accused, as the accused was not doing any work except consuming liquor. It is said that the accused used to quarrel with the deceased to give money and also used to beat her.

(ii) On 20.05.2014 at about 7.30 P.M. the accused quarreled with his mother in a drunken state and during the course of the said quarrel, the accused picked up a stick which was lying and beat on the head of the deceased, causing head injury, as a result of which, the deceased fell down with injuries. PWs. 2, 3 and 6, who saw the incident, rushed to the house of the accused and questioned his act, for which accused told them that it was their family affair and asked them not to interfere. After some time, the accused threw the stick in his house with which he beat his mother and left the house.

(iii) Information about the incident was given to PW-1, who came to the scene of offence. As it was raining, a report was lodged on the next day morning before PW-11 Sub-Inspector of police, S.R. Puram Police station, which lead to registration of a case in Crime No. 70 of 2014 under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P12 is the First Information Report.

(iv) Investigation in this case was taken up by PW-12 Inspector of Police, Karvetinagar Circle, who visited the scene of offence and prepared a panchanama of the scene, which is marked as Ex.P6. He also prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence, which is marked as Ex.P13. At the scene of offence, he examined PWs. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he conducted inquest over the de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top