HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K. SURESH REDDY, T.C.D. SEKHAR, JJ.
K. Vardan, S/o. Kannapan – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of AP., represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 819 Of 2017
Decided On : 17-02-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 201, and 498-A - Conviction for murder and destruction of evidence - The accused was convicted for murdering his wife and subsequently attempting to destroy evidence by burning her body - The trial court found sufficient evidence of harassment and ill-treatment leading to the crime. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 16, 19)
(B) Burden of proof - The accused failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the death of the deceased, which was crucial given the circumstances of the case - The court emphasized the importance of the accused's conduct post-incident and the absence of a credible defense. (Paras 14, 16, 18)
Facts of the case:
The accused was charged with murdering his wife after a history of domestic abuse, culminating in her death on 27-07-2014, whereupon he attempted to conceal the crime by burning her body.
Findings of Court:
The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment and additional rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
Issues: The main issues included the adequacy of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the accused's failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution proved the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the lack of a reasonable explanation from the accused and the incriminating evidence presented.
Result: The criminal appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence.
JUDGMENT :
(K.Suresh Reddy, J.)
Sole accused in Sessions Case No. 305 of 2015 on the file of the Court of learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati (for short, 'the trial Court'), is the appellant in the present criminal appeal before this Court. He was tried by the trial Court under the following three charges :
I charge was under Section 498-A IPC;
II charge was under Section 302 IPC; and
III charge was under Section 201 IPC
2. Substance of the charges is that the accused used to harass and ill-treat his wife by name Smt. V.Deepa (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') by demanding her to get additional dowry from her parents and on 27-07-2014 at about 2.30 p.m., the accused quarrelled with the deceased, beat her with hands, put a towel on her mouth and nose forcibly and pressed her nose and mouth and he tied the same towel around her neck, pulled forcibly and caused her death and in the same process, he poured kerosene on the body and set fire with a matchstick to screen away the evidence, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 IPC.
3. After completion of trial, the trial Court by judgment dated 06-02-2017 convicted the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The trial Court also convicted the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 201 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The trial Court acquitted the appellant-accused of the charge under Section 498-A IPC.
4. Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
The accused is none other than husband of the deceased. P.W.1 is father and P.W.2 is elder brother of the deceased. P.W.3 is owner of the house in which the accused and the deceased were residing and P.Ws.4 and 5 are neighbours of the accused and the deceased. Marriage of the deceased and the accused was performed about 13 years prior to the date of incident and they were blessed with two children. After marriage, the accused worked in TVS Company at Hosur, Tamil Nadu State, for a period of five years and thereafter shifted to Chennai. Again, the accused shifted his residence to Renigunta. The accused used to work in a private company near Renigunta and the deceased was working in a battery manufacturing company. As both the accused and the deceased were working, P.W.1 along with his wife used to take care of the children and joined them in a school nearby their village in Vellore District, Tamil Nadu State. The accused and the deceased led happy marital life while they were residing at Hosur Town. After shifting their residence to Chennai, the accused addicted to consume liquor and used to quarrel with the deceased. The accused continued the said quarrel even after shifting their residence to Renigunta.
Two days prior to the date of incident, the deceased over phone informed P.W.1 that the accused was harassing her suspecting her fidelity. Thereafter, P.W.1 along with his wife went to Renigunta on the early hours of 27-07-2014 and advised the accused to live happily with the deceased and left Renigunta by train at about 2.30 p.m. on the same day. When P.W.1 reached Chittoor at about 4 p.m., he was informed over phone that his daughter was burnt and smoke was coming out from the house. Immediately, P.W.1 returned and reached Renigunta at about 8 p.m. When P.W.1 entered into the house, he observed that the deceased was completely burnt except her left leg and her body was lying on a cot. Then, P.W.1 went to Renigunta Urban Police Station and lodged a report-Ex.P1 to police.
On the same day at about 9.30 p.m., P.W.11-the then Inspector of Police, Renigunta, received Ex.P1-report from P.W.1 and registered a case in crime No. 129 of 2014 under Section 174 Cr.P.C.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder and destruction of evidence, emphasizing the accused's failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the death of his wife.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in dying declarations led to acquittal for murder while confirming conviction for cruelty.
The court reinforced the principle that when a death occurs in a domestic setting, the burden of explanation lies on the accused, particularly under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The court determined that the accused's actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder, based on the nature of injuries and intent, leading to a conviction under Section 304 Part-II IP....
The court established that actions leading to death can be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on the circumstances and intent.
The court established that inconsistencies in witness testimonies and dying declarations can lead to reasonable doubt, necessitating the acquittal of the accused.
The court affirmed that corroborated dying declarations are reliable for establishing guilt in homicide cases, especially when the accused fails to provide a plausible explanation under Section 106 o....
The judgment establishes that child witness testimony, if credible and corroborated, can be sufficient for conviction, alongside the admissibility of extra-judicial confessions.
The court established that credible child witness testimony, when corroborated, can support a conviction, alongside the admissibility of extra judicial confessions.
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.