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

2025 Supreme(AP) 1035

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K.Suresh Reddy, T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ.
Vattipalli Suresh, Vijayawada – Appellant
Versus
The State Of AP., Rep PP. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 754 of 2017
Decided On : 29-01-2025 

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant : P.Y KIRANKUMAR
For the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AP

JUDGMENT :

K.Suresh Reddy, J.

Sole accused in Sessions Case No. 100 of 2013 on the file of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada (for short, 'the trial Court'), is the appellant in the present criminal appeal before this Court. Initially, the accused was tried by the trial Court under the following two charges:

I charge was under Section 498-A IPC; and

II charge was under Section 306 IPC

Thereafter, an additional charge was framed under Section 304-B IPC.

2. Substance of the charges is that prior to 11-04-2012, the accused used to harass his wife by name Vattipalli Nagamani (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') both physically and mentally demanding her to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,000/- accrued to her credit in Agri Gold Savings and being unable to bear the harassment, the deceased consumed acid on 11-04-2012 in her house situated at Peter Street, Pejjonipet, Vijayawada, and thereafter succumbed to internal burns, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B IPC.

3. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months, for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The trial Court also convicted the accused and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. Case of the prosecution in brief is thus:

The accused, the deceased and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Pejjonipet, Vijayawada. The deceased is none other than wife of the accused. Their marriage was performed in the year 2006. After one month from the date of marriage, the accused started to quarrel with the deceased to withdraw Rs.10,000/- accrued to her credit in Agri Gold Savings. The accused used to subject the deceased to cruelty both physically and mentally. Unable to bear the harassment, the deceased consumed acid, which is used for cleaning bathrooms, on 11-04-2012 at about 11 p.m. Later, P.W.1 woke up and observed the deceased while she was vomiting. When P.W.1 questioned the deceased, the latter informed that the accused used to quarrel with her and harass her for the sake of money and unable to bear the harassment, she consumed acid. Immediately, P.W.1 informed the same to P.Ws.2 and 3. P.W.1 took the deceased to Vijeta Hospital, Vijayawada, and from there to Government General Hospital, Vijayawada. On receipt of Ex.P4-intimation from the hospital, P.W.8- Head Constable, Outpost Police Station, Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, went to casualty ward and recorded statement of P.W.1- Ex.P1 and sent the same to Satyanarayanapuram Police Station on the point of jurisdiction. Having received Ex.P1, P.W.12-the then Sub Inspector of Police, Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, registered the same as a case in crime No. 204 of 2012 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. FIR was marked as Ex.P9. While undergoing treatment, the deceased died on 15-04-2012. Subsequently, P.W.12 altered the section of law from 174 Cr.P.C. to Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. Altered FIR was marked as Ex.P10. P.W.12 sent a requisition to P.W.10-the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Vijayawada Urban, for holding inquest. Accordingly, P.W.10 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.9 and another. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P5. On 17-04-2012, P.W.12 visited the scene of offence and prepared an observation report- Ex.P3 in the presence of P.W.7 and another. P.W.12 seized M.O.1- plastic acid bottle at the scene of offence. P.W.12 also prepared a rough sketch-Ex.P11 at the scene of offence. P.W.12 got the scene photographed through P.W.6. Photographs were marked as Ex.P2. P.W.12 secured the presence of P.Ws.1 to 6 and recorded their statements. P.W.12 sent the dead body for conducting po

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top