IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, JJ.
Kottu Subrahmanyam, Spsr Nellore Dt. – Appellant
Versus
The State Of AP., Rep PP. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.536 of 2016
Decided on : 25-01-2023
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 207 and 209 - Offence of Murder - Harassment - Charged- After marriage, deceased No.1 completed her Engineering Course and thereafter, started working as a Lecturer in Krishna Engineering College - Ten days prior to incident, she joined M.Tech at N.B.K.R. Engineering College - In evening, deceased No.1 left to Village along with deceased No.2 - On next day morning at about 7.00 a.m., P.W.1 received a phone call from Village stating that her daughter and grand daughter received injuries and fallen on \ ground - She informed P.W.2 and thereafter, both of them proceeded to the house of accused where they found dead bodies of deceased Nos.1 and 2, with burn injuries lying, in kitchen room. Some people gathered there informed that deceased Nos.1 and 2 died due to leakage of gas while some others informed that accused had killed both deceased while others informed that deceased No.1 committed suicide - Whether prosecution has proved guilt of accused for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt? - Held, Apart from that, it is also to be noted that version of D.W.1 that accused was not present in house at relevant point of time as he has gone out for walk was never suggested to any of witnesses including Investigating Officer - For first time, version, as spoken to by D.W.1, was brought into existence - Things definitely would have been different had accused had come out with such defence by suggesting either to prosecution witnesses or to Investigating Officer about version spelt out by D.W. - Leaned counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that such a version was never suggested to any of prosecution witnesses - Judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant that evidence of defence witnesses has to be given equal weight as that of prosecution witnesses may not apply to facts of the case - Having regard to the evidence of Doctor coupled with false explanation given by accused to effect that he was not present in house at relevant point of time and that he was present before and after incident in house, Court feel that defence taken by the accused cannot be accepted - Court see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court - Criminal Appeal is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
C.Praveen Kumar, J.
Sole accused in Sessions Case No.210 of 2012 on the file of the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gudur, S.P.S.R. Nellore District is the appellant herein. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 I.P.C.
2. Vide judgment, dated 12.05.2016, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 I.P.C., and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.; to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C.; and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The graveman of the charge against the accused is that in the early hours of 15.01.2012, the accused caused the death of one Kottu Madhumanjari (hereinafter, referred to as “deceased No.1”) by throttling her to death and Kottu Isha Madhumani (hereinafter, referred to as “deceased No.2”), who is his daughter, by hitting her face against the cot and subsequently, setting fire to their bodies.
4. The facts in issue are as under:-
Deceased No.1 is the wife of the accused. Deceased No.2 is the daughter of accused and deceased No.1. P.W.1 is the mother of deceased No.1 and P.W.2 is the brother of deceased No.1. P.W.5 is a co-employee of the accused, who was working in Loyal Textiles Factory situated at Menakuru Village. P.Ws.3, 4 and D.W.1 were living adjacent to the house of the accused. D.W.2 is the mother of the accused and living along with the accused and deceased Nos.1 and 2. The accused was initially working in a sugar factory at Naidupet and now and then, used to visit the shop of P.W.1, who was eking out her livelihood by selling tea. The accused developed acquaintance with deceased No.1 and both of them got married in the year 2008. They were blessed with a daughter - deceased No.2, who was aged about 3 years at the time of death.
It is the case of the prosecution that the accused developed illicit intimacy with P.W.5, who was a co-worker in Loyal Textiles Factory. Deceased No.1 is said to have seen some messages sent by P.W.5 and as such, suspected illegal intimacy between the accused and P.W.5. It is the case of the prosecution that after marriage, deceased No.1 completed her Engineering Course and thereafter, started working as a Lecturer in Gokula Krishna Engineering College, Sullurpet. Ten days prior to the incident, she joined M.Tech at N.B.K.R. Engineering College at Vidya Nagar. On 14.01.2012, in the evening, deceased No.1 left to Menakuru Village along with deceased No.2. On the next day morning i.e., on 15.01.2012, at about 7.00 a.m., P.W.1 received a phone call from Menakuru Village stating that her daughter and grand daughter received injuries and fallen on the ground. She informed P.W.2 and thereafter, both of them proceeded to the house of accused where they found the dead bodies of deceased Nos.1 and 2, with burn injuries lying, in the kitchen room. Some people gathered there informed that deceased Nos.1 and 2 died due to leakage of gas while some others informed that the accused had killed both the deceased while others informed that deceased No.1 committed suicide. Suspecting some foul play by the accused, P.W.1 went to Naidupet Police Station and lodged a report with the Sub Inspector of Police/P.W.14. Ex.P-1 is the report given by P.W.1 to P.W.14. On the basis of Ex.P-1, a case in Crime No.10 of 2012 was registered
Dying declaration - Corroboration from the oral dying declarations made by the deceased, coupled with the evidence of Doctor.
Point of law : In the absence of the same, a doubt arises as to whether really P.W.1 is speaking the truth in the Court. It is not a case where P.W.1 was declared hostile having regard to his version....
The judgment emphasizes the high standard of proof required in cases based on circumstantial evidence and the need for a complete chain of events connecting the accused with the crime.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.