THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.925 OF 2018 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

The appellant, having been aggrieved by the conviction dated 05.10.2017 recorded by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar in SC No.237 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC, filed the present criminal appeal.

2. Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned legal aid counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

3. The appellant is the husband of the deceased, viz. Kanduri Indiramma. Their marriage was performed 11 years prior to the death of the deceased. They were blessed with one daughter and one son. According to the prosecution case, the appellant suspected the character of the deceased, that she was having an affair with someone, and harassed her. The appellant used to beat her indiscriminately for the said reason. A panchayat was held in the presence of the elders to console the appellant, and he was asked to take care of the deceased and to live together. However, the appellant continued to harass the deceased.

4. On 19.10.2015, at about 09.00 PM, the deceased returned home, and the appellant picked up a quarrel with her for coming late and also abused her for having relationship with someone else. The appellant beat her with a stick, thereby causing a fracture to her right leg, and when she fell down, the appellant allegedly strangulated her, resulting in her death.

5. A complaint was filed by PW1/brother of the deceased. He narrated that the deceased was being harassed by the appellant, since the appellant suspected the deceased of having relationship with someone else. The appellant used to beat her severely. On 20.10.2015 at about 09.30 AM, he received information that the deceased died. Immediately, he rushed to the house of the appellant and found the deceased dead. According to PW1, he was informed by both the children of the appellant that the appellant had beaten the deceased and strangulated her. On the said basis, Ex.P1/report was field by PW1.

6. PW2 is the paternal aunt of the deceased. PW3 is the younger sister of the deceased. PW4 is a relative of the deceased. They all spoke about the differences between the deceased and the appellant. Further, they also spoke about the appellant harassing the deceased and beating her severely on several occasions, suspecting her character.

7. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs.5, 6, 7, and 8, who are circumstantial witnesses, who spoke about the presence of the appellant in the house and beating the deceased in their 161 Cr.P.C. statement to police. However, PWs.5 to 8 turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW9 is the scene of offence panch, who turned hostile. PW10 is the inquest panch and stated that, during the inquest, it was informed that the appellant had beaten the deceased with a stick, resulting in her death. The said beating was on account of the suspicion that the appellant entertained about the character of the deceased.

8. PW11 is an elder person in the locality. PW11 also narrated the differences between the deceased and the appellant, and that the appellant was continuously harassing the deceased. PW12 is the confession and seizure panch, and stated about the recovery of MO1/stick at the instance of the appellant. PW13 is the scene of offence panch, and he turned hostile. PW14/doctor found the following injuries on the body of the deceased :

1) Fracture of the right limb at hip region.

2) Fracture of the Hyoid bone.

3) Finger marks seen around the neck.

4) Abrasion on the left foot with a measurement of 2x1cms. 5) Abrasion on the right cheek with a measurement of 3x1 cms.

6) Abrasion of the left side of the chest with a measurement of 1x1 cms.

Evidence of PW14 further shows that, upon internal examination, he found a facture of Hyoid bone on the right side of the neck. According to PW14, the