IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K SURESH REDDY, SUBBA REDDY SATTI, JJ.
Guruvendapalli Nagaraju - Appellant
Versus
State Of Ap, Rep. By The Public Prosecutor - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1438 of 2018
Decided On : 03-11-2025
JUDGMENT :
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
The sole accused in Sessions Case No.68 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Sessions Judge under the following charges:
The first charge was under Section 302 IPC,
The second charge was under Section 201 IPC and
The third charge was under Section 498-A IPC.
2. Substance of the charge is that on the intervening night of 30/31.10.2014 the accused committed murder of his wife viz., Gurvendapalli Radha (hereinafter referred to as deceased), by placing saree around her neck and forcibly pulled it through the window, as the deceased did not prepare food and she demanded gold Pusthula thradu to her and later with an intention to screen the evidence, the accused tore the saree and hide it in the garments and shifted the dead body to Ramanagar village, Challapalli Mandal, Krishna District and the accused also subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassed her physically and mentally. Thereby, the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 498-A IPC.
3. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.4,00,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. Learned Sessions Judge also convicted the accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 201 IPC. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Out of total fine amount, the son and mother of the deceased were awarded Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively towards compensation.
4. Case of the prosecution, as seen from the evidence available on record, is:
(i) The accused, a resident of Muvva village, lives by executing contract works of BSNL, and he married the deceased in May, 2006. Out of wedlock, they were blessed with a male child viz., Ramcharan. The accused used to harass the deceased physically and mentally, and also demanded to leave him to have marriage with his relative's daughter. The accused and deceased lived in Hyderabad, and thereafter, the accused shifted the family to Vizianagaram. The accused left for the camps without attending daily needs of the deceased and her son. The deceased went to her mother and took shelter. The accused went to his in-laws' house and brought back the deceased to Vizianagaram on 27.10.2014 by leaving their son. On 31.10.2014 at about 5.00 a.m., the accused informed Vijaya Krishna Babu-P.W.1, brother of the deceased, over the phone that the deceased was found dead by the doctors, and he was bringing the dead body to Ramanagar in an Ambassador car and reached Ramanagar at about 4.30 p.m.
(ii) P.W.1 and Vijaya-P.W.5, mother of the deceased, found swelling on the left cheek, abrasion on the throat, and contusion on the left ribs on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was buried according to Christian customs on the same day. After the arrival of the elders and on thorough enquiry, the accused disclosed the quarrel between him and the deceased. PW.1 came to Vizianagaram and enquired with P.Ws.2 to 4 and learnt that the deceased died at about 3.00 a.m. and the accused screened the same and informed P.W.1 that death occurred at about 5.00 a.m. and shifted the dead body without informing anyone. Thereafter, P.W.1 reported on 02.11.2014 at II Town Police Station, Vizianagaram. Ex.P1 is a report. The Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.21, registered the same as a case in Crime No.277 of 2014 under Section 302, 201 and 498-A IPC and forwarded the same to all concerned. Ex.P10 is F.I.R.
(iii) P.W.22 Inspector of Police, I Town PS, Vizia
Circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory and failure to explain incriminating circumstances, can establish guilt in murder cases.
Failure to establish a chain of circumstantial evidence requires acquittal in criminal cases.
(1) Section 106 of Evidence Act does not directly operate against either a husband or wife staying under same roof and being last person seen with deceased.(2) In a case of circumstantial evidence, m....
(1) Murder – If in a case based on circumstantial evidence, accused evades response to an incriminating question or offers a response which is not true, such a response, in itself, would become an ad....
The prosecution must establish circumstantial evidence linking the accused to a crime beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion alone is insufficient for conviction.
In order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the gui....
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.