HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

****

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1314 OF 2016

Between:

Bolla Naga Malleswara Rao

… Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of AP Rep. by PP

...Respondent

* * * * *

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRO NOUNCED : 05.12.2024

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the Order? : Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Order may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the

fair copy of the Order? : Yes/No

JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

Page 2 of 33

* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

+ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1314 OF 2016

% 05.12.2024

# Between:

Bolla Naga Malleswara Rao

… Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of AP Rep. by PP

...Respondent

!

Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Sri S.M.Subhan

^

Counsel for the Respondent/

State

:

Public Prosecutor

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred: . . .

This Court made the following:

Page 3 of 33

APHC010277712016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3486]

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1314/2016

Between:

Bolla Naga Malleshwara Rao,

Rajahmahendravaram.

...APPELLANT

A N D

The State of AP Rep by PP ...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant:

1.

S M SUBHAN

Counsel for the Respondent:

1.

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following:

Page 4 of 33

J U D G M E N T: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy)

Accused in Sessions Case No.194 of 2015 on the file of the X

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam

(for brevity ‘learned Sessions Judge’), is the sole appellant.

2. Charge sheet has been filed against the accused for

the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’). Vide Judgment, dated

22.09.2016, learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused of the

offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 IPC and

sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six

(06) months for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC,

and further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a

fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default of

payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one

(01) month, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Both

sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The substance of the charge as against the accused is

that, one Bhulakshmi (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’)

was the wife of the accused. That prior to 14.09.2014 at

Lakshmanaraopuram colony and Pedakaragraharam village,

Bandar Mandal, the accused, in order to fulfil his vices, subjected

Page 5 of 33

the deceased to physical and mental cruelty and that on 14.09.2014

at about 5.00 a.m. hacked the deceased on the her left side of neck

with coconut cutting knife, resulting in her death and thereby,

accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 498A

and 302 IPC.

4. Brief facts of the case of prosecution, are as follows:

(a) P.W1 is the brother, and P.W2 is the son, of the

deceased and the accused; P.W3 is sister-in-law, and P.Ws.4 and 5

are sisters, of the deceased; P.Ws.6 to 8 are known witnesses to

the deceased and the accused. All the material prosecution

witnesses are residents of Pedakaragraharam, Bandar Mandal.

(b) Marriage of the deceased with accused was second

marriage, solemnized thirteen years prior to 14.09.2014; that first

marriage between the accused and his first wife ended with divorce;

that subsequent to second marriage with the deceased, the

accused and the deceased were blessed with P.W2 and a female

child, aged about eight (08) years; that the accused being addicted

to vices, used to suspect the deceased and beat her and restricted

her not to talk with anybody; that the deceased, due to unbearable

harassment of the accused, reached the house of P.W1 situated at

Peda Karagraharam village and lived in the rented house of

Page 6 of 33

L.W11/Katta Nancharamma and attended gold covering works and

maintained her family.

(c) That about one month prior to 14.09.2014, the accused

approached P.W1 and sisters of the deceased, assured that he

would lead marital life with the deceased and look after her and the

children, well; but there was no change in the attitude of the

deceased and he used to harass her by beating her; that on

12.09.2014 at about 7.00 p.m. the accused beat the deceased and

threatened her with dire consequences, on that, the deceased

reached the house of P.W1 and informed about the harassment of

the accused and subsequently, returned to her house on

13.09.2014 at about 6.00 p.m; that the accused continued his

harassment towards the deceased and when P.W1 and sisters of

the deceased chastised the accused, he left the house; that in the

midnight of 13.09.2014, the accused returned to home and slept in

the house; that the accused, on 14.09.2014, woke up early at about

5.00 a.m., beat the deceased, armed with knife, took the deceased

out from the house by catching hold her tuft; that P.W2 anticipated

danger, went to the house of P.W1 and informed the matter to

P.W1 and when P.Ws.1 and 2 and other material prosecution

witnesses reached the scene, accused was hacking the deceased

Page 7 of 33

with coconut cutting knife on the left side of her neck and caused

her death, on the spot.

(d) On 14.09.2014 at about 7.30 a.m. the case was

reported to police vide Ex.P1 and P.W12/Sub-Inspector of Police,

Bandar Taluq Police Station registered a case in Crime No.190 of

2014 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and issued

Ex.P6/FIR.

(e) P.W13/Inspector of Police, Bandar Rural Circle,

Machilipatnam secured the presence of P.W9-VRO and P.W10-

VRA of Pedakaragraharam, visited scene of offence at about 8.30

a.m. and observed the scene and got prepared Ex.P2-Scene of

offence Observation Report and got photographed the same vide

Ex.P8. P.W13 also prepared rough sketch of scene of offence

under Ex.P7-rough sketch.

(f) P.W13 secured the presence of P.Ws.1 to 8, relatives

of the deceased and P.Ws.9 and 10, panchayathdars and in their

presence, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased.

Ex.P3 is the Inquest Report. After completion of inquest, P.W13

forwarded the dead body of the deceased through police personnel

for conducting autopsy.

Page 8 of 33

(g) On 15.09.2014 at about 3.00 p.m. P.W13 arrested the

accused in the presence of P.Ws.9 and 10, at Chilakalapudi

Railway station and recorded the confessional statement of the

accused and the seized the weapon used in commission of the

offence. Ex.P4 is the Seizure Mahazarnama. M.O1 is the blood

stained knife and M.O2 is the blood stained clothes of the accused.

The accused was produced before the Court and he was got

remanded to judicial custody.

(h) During the course of investigation, P.W13 altered the

section of law by adding Section 498A IPC to Section 302 IPC and

issued altered FIR.

(i) P.W11-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital,

Machilipatnam conducted autopsy over the dead body of the

deceased and issued Ex.P5-Post-Mortem Certificate, opining that

the deceased died due to shock on account of injury to vital organs.

P.W13 forwarded the material objects to the Regional Forensic

Science Laboratory, Vijayawada with letter of advice through the

Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Machilipatnam for analysis and

subsequently, the RFSL Report under Ex.P9 was received by the

police. After completion of entire investigation and after receipt of

Page 9 of 33

relevant documents, P.W13 filed charge sheet against the accused.

Hence, the Charge Sheet.

5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P1 to P9 and M.Os.1 and 2 on behalf

of the prosecution. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the

accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC explaining the

incriminating material found against the accused in the prosecution

evidence. The accused denied the same, but no evidence was let

in. Ex.D1 was marked on behalf of defence.

6. The plea of the accused is one of denial.

7. Learned Sessions Judge, after appreciation of the oral

and documentary evidence, vide Judgment dated 22.09.2016,

convicted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections

498A and 302 IPC in terms of Section 235 (2) CrPC and sentenced

him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (06)

months for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and

further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine

of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default of payment of

fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month

for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Both sentences

Page 10 of 33

were directed to run concurrently. Challenging the conviction and

sentence, accused preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/

accused contends that the interested testimony of P.Ws.1 to 5

cannot be relied upon, as they are the blood relatives of the

deceased and much weight to the evidence of P.Ws.6 to 8 need not

be given, as they are interested witnesses. The learned Sessions

Judge gave much weight to the evidence of P.Ws.6 to 8 though

their evidence does not establish that they are direct eyewitnesses

to the incident. Learned counsel further contends that there are no

eyewitnesses to the commission of offence and basing on the

confessional statement made before police, it was concluded that

the accused killed the deceased and there is no cogent and

convincing evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused.

Learned counsel further contends that there was delay in lodging

FIR, which goes to the root of the case of prosecution. The

prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused

beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, prays the Court to set-aside

the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions

Judge.

Page 11 of 33

9. On the other han d, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor submits that P.W1, who is brother and P.W2, who is

son, of the deceased, and they along with P.Ws.3 to 5, when

reached the scene of offence on the date of the incident, witnessed

the commission of offence by the accused. The evidence of P.Ws.1

to 6 is suffice to prove that the deceased was harassed both

physically and mentally and there were occasions of the deceased

visiting the house of P.W1, whenever she was subjected to physical

and mental cruelty in the hands of the accused, which eventually

led to killing the deceased on the date of the incident. There is

nothing on record to tilt the case of prosecution. According to him,

the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is a well-reasoned and

calls for no interference by this Court. Hence, prays to dismiss the

appeal.

10. Now the point for determination:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the

guilt of the appellant herein/accused for the

charge levelled against him beyond reasonable

doubt and whether the conviction and sentence

passed by the learned Sessions Judge is

sustainable or not?

Page 12 of 33

11. P.W1, brother of the deceased, deposed in his chief-

examination that the accused addicted to vices like consuming

alcohol, harassed the deceased and his children. He further

deposed that the accused did not change his attitude though they

set up the family of the deceased and accused at

Lakshmanaraopuram, Machilipatnam; that on 13.09.2014 the

accused harassed the deceased and threatened her that he would

kill her. His evidence in chief-examination discloses that on the next

day at about 5.00 a.m., P.W2 came to his house and informed that

the accused was beating the deceased and when he along with

other witnesses reached the house of the deceased, he found that

the accused was cutting the throat of the deceased with a coconut

knife.

12. In the cross-examination of P.W1, it is elicited that he

does not know that by the date of the marriage of the deceased with

accused, the accused was already having two children. He does not

know that there was no divorce between the accused and his first

wife; that subsequent to the marriage of the deceased with

accused, they came to know that accused was already a married

person. He further deposed in his cross-examination that his

nephew came to his house at about 5.00 a.m. and informed that the

Page 13 of 33

accused was making galata with the deceased, then, immediately,

he and his wife viz. Sujatha went first, later his other sisters came. It

is his evidence that by the time they went to the scene, accused

was cutting the throat of the deceased outside of the house wall. He

specifically deposed that the accused had cut the left side of the

throat and that when he tried to intervene, the accused had shown

the knife and ran away from the spot. He denied the suggestion that

the accused never killed the deceased and they foisted the case

due to enmity between accused first wife and the deceased, as the

accused was not turning up to the deceased house.

13. P.W2, son of the deceased and accused deposed in

his chief-examination that he was studying VII class; that the

accused used to come to home in a drunken state, ill-treat him, his

mother and his younger sister; that due to the ill-treatment, his

mother took them to Pedakaragraharam stayed in the house of

P.W1; that after some days they took a house on rent and one

month thereafter, the accused came to Pedakaragraharam and

lived with them. He further deposed in his chief-examination that

there was no change in the attitude of the accused and he used to

harass his mother, suspecting her character; that on 12.09.2014

during morning hours, the accused threatened the deceased that he

Page 14 of 33

would kill her with a knife; that in the evening the accused returned

and after the deceased serving food to P.W2 and his sister, they

slept in the house. With regard to the incident, he narrated that on

14.09.2014 the accused caught tuft of the deceased, dragged her

out, beat her and due to fear, he went to P.W1’ house and brought

them to his house and found the accused was cutting the throat of

his mother with Penaka kathi.

14. In the cross-examination of P.W2, he deposed that the

house of P.W1 was situated at a distance of 500 yards from the

house of the deceased; that by the time they returned to home, his

mother was already dead; that they did not observe as to whether

his mother was alive or not; that P.W1 or his mother never reported

the matter against the accused about his harassment; that he was

not advised by any other to give evidence as against the accused.

He denied the suggestion that his father never killed his mother and

never harassed her.

15. P.W3, sister-in-law of the deceased and who is none

other than the wife of P.W1, reiterates the version of P.W1. Her

evidence in chief-examination runs on the same lines with that of

P.W1, since she being the wife of P.W1, who is brother of the

deceased, learnt about the each and every incident that occurred in

Page 15 of 33

the marital life of the deceased with the accused. Her evidence

discloses that accused used to consume alcohol and harass the

deceased to give money for consuming alcohol by beating her. With

regard to the incident proper, she deposed that on 14

th

day of a

month in a year, P.W2 came to her house and informed that the

accused was beating the deceased and that they went to the house

of the accused and they found that the accused was cutting the

throat of the deceased and when they tried to intervene the

accused, he threatened them that he would kill and left the place by

keeping the knife in a polythene cover.

16. In the cross-examination of P.W3, she deposed that

they used to visit the house of the deceased whenever galata took

place; that P.W2, at first went to the house of L.W3/Parasa

Venkateswaramma and thereafter, he came to her house and in

turn, they went to the house of L.W3/Parasa Venkateswaramma

and thereafter, they all went to the place of offence. She further

deposed that by the time they went to the house of the deceased,

none was present and the deceased was already died. She denied

the suggestion that somebody killed the deceased and they do not

know who killed her and they falsely implicated the accused at the

instance of P.W1.

Page 16 of 33

17. P.W4 is the sister of the deceased. In her chief-

examination, she deposed that the accused did not look after the

deceased, well and used to harass her by consuming alcohol and

insisted her to give money for consuming alcohol; that there was no

change in the attitude of the accused towards the deceased and as

such, the deceased shifted the family at the house of P.W1 and

stayed in a rented house; that the accused came to the village and

assured that he will not repeat the harassment and stayed along

with the deceased, but there was no change in his attitude; that on

13.09.2014 the deceased was beaten by the accused; on 14

th

day

i.e. on Sunday, P.W2 went to the house of P.W1 and informed that

the accused was beating the deceased and when they all went to

the house of the deceased, accused was found hacking the

deceased. She further deposed that when the accused tried to

intervene by them, he threatened them to kill and left the place by

keeping the knife in a polythene cover. She further deposed that the

accused used to suspect the character of the deceased and that

was the reason to kill her. They were informed that the marriage of

the accused with the deceased was first marriage, but later, they

came to know that the accused was already married.

Page 17 of 33

18. In the cross-examination of P.W4, it was elicited that

she is residing at Gandram of Guduru Mandal. She concedes that

the accused was already married and had children and they came

to know about the said fact two years after the marriage of the

deceased with the accused; that they did not inquire as to whether

the accused obtained divorce from his first wife. She further

deposed that they did not inquire about the character of the

accused before marriage. With regard to the incident proper, she

deposed that by the time they went to the scene, accused was

found cutting the neck of the deceased; that they had not taken the

deceased to the hospital as she already died. She denied the

suggestion that the deceased had disputes with accused first wife.

19. P.W5 is another sister of the deceased. She reiterates

the version of P.W4. In the cross-examination of P.W5, she

deposed that she is resident of Mallavolu of Guduru Mandal. She

too concedes that the accused was already married and had

children and they came to know about the said fact two years after

their marriage and that, they did not inquire as to whether the

accused had obtained divorce from his first wife or not. She too

denied the suggestion that the deceased had disputes with the

accused first wife and that, the deceased was already married with

Page 18 of 33

one Nagaraju and got pregnancy through him and later, got aborted

the same and that the said Nagaraju had grouse over the

deceased.

20. P.W6 is the resident of Pedakaragraharam, deposed in

her chief-examination that she knows the deceased and the

accused; that the accused used to insist the deceased to give

amount and return to home in a drunken state; that the accused

had threatened the deceased that he would kill her. With regard to

the incident proper, she deposed that the accused had cut the

throat of the deceased and on hearing the cries of P.Ws.1 to 5, she

went to the scene and found the deceased dead with cut injury on

her neck and she also found the accused with a knife leaving the

place by threatening.

21. In the cross-examination of P.W6, she deposed that

she knows the deceased from her childhood as she was residing in

her village; that she knew that the deceased was first wife of

accused, but later, came to know that accused was already

married; that her house is situated by the side of the house of the

deceased and that she heard galata from the house of deceased at

about 5.30 or 6.00 a.m. She further deposed that she found the

Page 19 of 33

dead body and also clotted blood on the wall and the clothes of the

accused were also stained with blood.

22. P.Ws.7 and 8, who are residents of

Pedakaragraharam, deposed on the same lines as that of P.W6.

They categorically deposed that on the date of the incident, they

found gathering of persons at the house of the deceased and P.W2

went to the house of P.W1. They further deposed that they also

went to the scene of offence and found the deceased with cut injury

on her neck and they also found the accused with a knife in a

polythene cover and leaving the place by threatening the persons

present there.

23. In the cross-examination of P.W7, it is elicited that she

was not an eye witness to the earlier incidents occurred between

the deceased and accused; that she woke up at 4.30 a.m; that she

heard the cries of the deceased children in the morning, but she did

not go to the place. She denied the suggestion that she does not

know the case facts and that accused did not commit any offence

and somebody had killed the deceased.

24. In the cross-examination of P.W8, she deposed that

she came to know about the galata through the sisters of the

deceased; that she was the neighbour of the deceased and the

Page 20 of 33

house of the deceased is situated on the southern side of her

house; that at about 5.00 or 5.30 a.m. she heard cries from the

house of the deceased; that she came to know through the

deceased that the accused was suspecting her character; that she

woke up at 5.30 a.m. She denied the suggestion that the accused

was not at all staying with the deceased at Pedakaragraharam and

at instance of P.Ws.1 to 5 she was deposing false as against the

accused.

25. P.W9, Village Revenue Officer of Bandar Mandal,

deposed in his chief-examination that on 14.09.2014 he along with

the Inspector of Police, Sub-Inspector of Police and other police

personnel went to Babanagar colony and found the dead body of

the deceased by the side of the wall of her house in a lean position

with a cut injury on her neck; that they observed the scene of

offence and drafted Ex.P2-Scene of offence Observation Report.

His evidence is further to the effect that he was present at the time

of inquest and he prepared Ex.P3-Inquest Report. He further

deposed that on 15.09.2014 he was present at the time of

apprehending the accused at Chilakalapudi Railway station. His

evidence is to the effect that the accused confessed the

Page 21 of 33

commission of offence and basing on the confession, they

recovered M.Os.1 and 2 under the cover of Ex.P4-Mahazarnama.

26. During the cross-examination of P.W9, it is elicited that

the police did not give any written requisition for his presence during

the inquest and arrest of the accused. He deposed that Ex.P3-

Inquest Report was written at the Government Hospital on narration

of police. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the

time of scene observation, inquest and during arrest of the accused

and said proceedings were prepared in the police station.

27. P.W10, Village Revenue Assistant, who was also

present at the time of Ex.P2-Observation Report and Ex.P4-

Mahazarnama, reiterates the version of P.W9. In the cross-

examination of P.W10, she deposed that she went to the scene of

offence by walk and after the Village Revenue Officer came to the

scene of offence, she returned to home and half-an-hour thereafter,

she again went to the scene of offence and by that time, police

were present. Her evidence is to the effect that they found knife in a

polythene cover and clothes behind a tree in the railway station.

28. P.W11, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital,

Machilipatnam deposed in his evidence that on 14.09.2014 he

Page 22 of 33

conducted Post-Mortem Examination over the dead body of the

deceased and found the following injuries:

1. A cut laceration of size 2 x 6 x 4 cms depth

extended from the centre of the neck of the

left sterna cleidomastoid;

2. Trachea and oesophagus are completely cut;

3. Injuries to the surrounding muscles and blood

vessels are completely cut;

29. His evidence is further to the effect that, on external

examination, no bony injury, lungs, heart and abdomen are intact,

peritoneal cavity was also intact and contains no puss or blood. He

issued Ex.P5-Post Mortem Examination report. He opined that the

cause of death is due to injury to the vital organs i.e. great vessels

were cut and injury to the trachea and oesophagus. He further

opined that the aforesaid injuries on the neck of the deceased are

possible by M.O1.

30. In the cross-examination of P.W11, he deposed that he

could not state the exact time of the survival of the deceased after

sustaining injury on the neck; that if force is used, blood spreads.

He denied to the suggestion made by learned defence counsel that

there is no possibility for hacking on left side neck by standing on

the left side by leaning the head on the wall.

Page 23 of 33

31. P.W12, Sub-Inspector of Police, Bandar Taluq Police

Station deposed in his evidence that basing on Ex.P1-report, he

registered a case in Crime No.119 of 2014 for the offences

punishable under Sections 302 and 498A IPC and issued Ex.P6-

FIR. In the cross-examination, he concedes that he registered the

case only for the offence under Section 302 IPC and during

investigation, the Inspector of Police added Section 498A IPC.

P.W1 came to the police station at about 7.30 a.m. along with his

sister and deceased son; that he does not know the scribe of

Ex.P1-report and where it was drafted. As per the evidence of

P.W12, the police station is at a distance of half kilometre from the

Court and it takes half-an-hour by walk. According to him, by the

time they went to the scene of offence, the Village Revenue Officer

and the Sarpanch were not present. He denied the suggestion that

either they or P.W1 did not know who murdered the deceased as

they falsely registered the case at 3.30 or 4.00 p.m. by implicating

the accused and P.W1 does not know what had written in Ex.P1-

report.

32. P.W13, Inspector of Police, Avanigadda Circle deposed

in his chief-examination that at about 7.30 a.m. he received call

from P.W12 about commission of murder at Pedakaragraharam and

Page 24 of 33

registration of crime; that he proceeded to the scene of offence

along with P.Ws.9, 10 and 12 and prepared Ex.P2-scene of offence

observation report, Ex.P7-rough sketch, examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and

recorded their statements, conducted inquest over the dead body of

the deceased; that on 15.09.2014 at 3.00 p.m. on credible

information, proceeded to Chilakalapudi Police Station along with

P.Ws.9 and 10, apprehended the accused and basing on the

confession of the accused, recovered M.Os.1 and 2 under the cover

of Ex.P4-Mahazarnama.

33. The cross-examination of P.W13 was in regard to

investigation of crime, examination of witnesses, preparation of

inquest report, apprehension of accused and recovery of material

objects. His cross-examination is also in regard to the material

contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6. He deposed that his

investigation does not reveal that the deceased married earlier and

the accused was his second husband; that he does not know there

were serious disputes between the deceased with accused first

wife. He does not examine the first wife of the accused.

34. A perusal of evidence of material prosecution

witnesses, i.e. P.Ws.1 to 5 goes to show that marriage of the

deceased and the accused was performed thirteen prior to the date

Page 25 of 33

of the incident. A perusal of contents of Ex.P1-report presented by

P.W1, goes to show that the marriage of the accused with the

deceased, was second marriage and the earlier marriage of the

accused was dissolved by a decree of divorce. Though, the

evidence of P.W1 and P.W3, who are husband and wife,

respectively, discloses that they do not know as to whether the

marriage of the accused with the deceased was second marriage,

the contents of Ex.P1-report goes to show that it was second

marriage and by the time of the said marriage, P.W1 knows the

same. However, it is an undisputed one as to whether the said

marriage is a first one or second, the evidence of material

prosecution witnesses goes to show that accused being addicted to

vices, harassed the deceased.

35. The evidence of P.W1 further goes to show that at one

point of time, when the accused harassed the deceased, she along

with her children went to the house of P.W1 situated at Peda

Karagraharam village and stayed in a rented house belonged to

L.W11/Katta Nancharamma and attended rold gold work and

looked after her children. It is the evidence of P.W1 that the

accused used to suspect the character of the deceased, ill-treat her

and though the deceased resume the conjugal life with the

Page 26 of 33

accused, the accused did not mend his attitude towards her and

continued the harassment and according to the evidence of P.Ws.1

to 5, on the date of the incident also, the accused harassed the

deceased, beat her and killed her by cutting her throat with M.O1-

knife.

36. Indisputably, there are no eyewitnesses to the incident,

but the evidence of P.W2, who is son of the deceased, discloses

that on 12.09.2014 his father i.e. the accused threatened the

deceased to kill her with a knife and due to fear, he went to the

house of P.W1 and stayed in his house on that day. The evidence

of P.W2 further goes to show that on 14.09.2014 the accused

caught tuft of the deceased, dragged and beat her and due to the

act of the accused, P.W2, son of the deceased, anticipated danger

to the life of the deceased, rushed to the house of P.W1 and

informed him about the act of the accused, who in turn, along with

other sisters of the deceased i.e. P.Ws.4 and 5 and other relatives

went to the scene of offence, where they witnessed the accused

with a coconut knife and the deceased found dead with a bleeding

injury to her throat. All the material prosecution witnesses

categorically deposed about witnessing the accused holding M.O1-

Page 27 of 33

knife by the time they reached the scene of offence and the

deceased was found dead with a cut injury to her throat.

37. A perusal of evidence of P.Ws.6, 7 and 8, who are

nearby residents of the scene of offence corroborated the evidence

of P.Ws.1 to 5. They categorically deposed about the harassment

meted out to the deceased in the hands of the accused. Their

evidence would disclose that the accused harassed the deceased

not only within the four walls of his house, but also outside the

house, because of the same, they deposed that the accused being

addicted to vices, used to attend the house in drunken state and

harassed the deceased for want of money and further, three days

prior to the date of the incident, accused threatened the deceased

that he would kill her. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5

coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.6 to 8 goes to show that the

accused, being addicted to vices, harassed the deceased for want

of money for his needs and ill-treated her.

38. A perusal of the evidence of P.W12, Sub-Inspector of

Police goes to show that he registered Ex.P6-FIR for the offence

punishable under Section 302 IPC, and later, as his investigation

disclosed that the deceased was being harassed in the hands of the

accused, he added the Section 498A IPC to Section 302 IPC.

Page 28 of 33

Therefore, it can be seen that the Investigating Officer made the

investigation on correct lines.

39. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that

the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 to 5 cannot be given much weight, as

they are blood relatives of the deceased and they naturally depose

against the accused. Learned counsel would further contend that

P.W2, who is son of the deceased and the accused, was in the

custody of P.W1 since the death of the deceased and naturally, he

would be tutored by the relatives of the deceased, to depose

evidence against the accused.

40. If the contention of the appellant is taken into

consideration, P.W1, who deposed in his evidence that, when the

accused harassed the deceased, he convinced the deceased to

resume the conjugal life and when the accused did not stop his

harassment, he made the deceased to shift her residence to the

place of his residence situated at Pedakaragraharam and joined her

in a rold gold shop for work. His evidence further discloses that

when accused requested P.W1 that he would look after the

deceased, he did not object and made him to resume the conjugal

life. Therefore, P.W1, being the elder brother of the deceased, who

at every point of time, was with the deceased, convinced the

Page 29 of 33

deceased whenever she leaves the conjugal home and when the

accused came and requested him, he, then also made the accused

to resume his conjugal life with the deceased. Therefore, the

evidence of P.W1 cannot be doubted.

41. Indeed, P.W2, who is the son of the deceased and the

accused, prior to the death of the deceased, lived along with the

accused. He directly witnessed his harassment towards the

deceased. His evidence discloses that the accused used to return

home in a drunken state and ill-treat the deceased and the

accused, though resumed the conjugal life with the deceased

during her stay at Pedakaragraharam in the house of L.W11/Katta

Nancharamma, continued to harass the deceased by suspecting

her character. In the cross-examination of P.W2, he categorically

deposed that none of the brothers or sisters of the deceased had

reported to police about the harassment meted out by the deceased

in the hands of the accused prior to her death. When such is the

evidence of P.W2, it cannot be said that he was influenced by P.W1

and other blood relatives of the deceased.

42. Though there are some contradictions and

discrepancies in the evidence of material prosecution witnesses,

that itself is not a ground to doubt the credibility and veracity of their

Page 30 of 33

evidence and the Court has to look into as to whether such

contradictions and omissions would seriously affect the case.

Though P.Ws.1 to 5 happen to be the brother, son and sisters of

the deceased, their evidence is cogent, consistent and convincing

and corroborates the case of prosecution with regard to the

harassment meted out to the deceased in the hands of the accused

and the motive of the accused for killing the deceased.

43. The evidence of P.W6 would disclose that her house is

situated by the side of the house of the deceased. Her evidence

further discloses that on the date of the incident she woke up at

about 3.30 a.m. or 4.00 a.m. and while she was doing domestic

work, around 5.30 a.m. she heard galata from the house of the

deceased. Even the evidence of P.W7 runs on the same lines. She

too deposed that at about 4.30 p.m. she woke up and later, she

heard cries of the deceased children during morning. The evidence

of P.W8, who is the neighbour of the deceased, deposed in her

evidence that she heard cries from the house of the deceased at

about 5.00 or 5.30 a.m. and she also witnessed fifteen villagers

gathered at the scene of offence.

44. A perusal of evidence of P.Ws.6 to 8 goes to show that

they deposed about the harassment meted out to the deceased in

Page 31 of 33

the hands of the accused and if at all P.Ws.6 to 8 are interested

witnesses or planted by the prosecution, they might have deposed

that they witnessed the accused killing the deceased with M.O1-

knife, but they deposed only to the extent that on the date of the

incident during morning hours, they heard cries from the house of

the deceased and such evidence corroborates the evidence of

P.W2 about the circumstances that had occurred subsequent

thereto. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to place implicit

reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.6 to 8.

45. P.W11, Medical Officer who conducted Post-Mortem

examination over the dead body of the deceased had categorically

deposed about the injuries sustained by the deceased. He also

deposed that the injuries on the neck of the deceased are possible

through M.O1. Though P.W11 deposed that the death of the

deceased occurred 24 hours prior to his conducting Post-Mortem

examination, he clearly opined that the death might have been

caused within less than 24 hours prior to his examination. Nothing

has been elicited to discrete the evidence of P.W11.

46. In this regard, the evidence of P.W13/Inspector of

Police is relevant in nature. His evidence discloses that he along

with P.W12-Sub-Inspector of Police and other police officials

Page 32 of 33

proceeded to Chilakalapudi Police Station and apprehended the

accused and the accused had voluntarily confessed about the

commission of offence. His evidence further discloses that basing

on the confession made by the accused, they recovered M.O1-knife

and M.O2-blood stained clothes of the accused. It is the not the

case of the defence that M.O1/knife was seized at the house of the

deceased, indeed, M.O1/knife was seized from his possession

pursuant to his confession.

47. Though, there are some material contradictions with

regard to procedure in seizure of material objec ts, such

contradiction does not go to the very root of the case of

prosecution, since the seizure of M.O1/knife was done on the date

of the apprehension of the accused from his possession. Nothing is

adduced by the defence to believe that M.O1/knife was not seized

from the possession of the accused, and through M.O.1/knife there

was possibility of deceased sustaining injuries as mentioned in

Ex.P5/Post-Mortem Certificate. Therefore, this Court has no

hesitation to hold that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is no

way shaky and it cannot be discarded. In view of the above said

reasons, this Court is convinced with the conviction and sentence

passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

Page 33 of 33

48. The learned Sessions Judge, on proper appreciation of

entire oral and documentary evidence on record, had rightly found

the accused guilty of the offences and accordingly, convicted the

accused of the charges levelled against him, which warrants no

interference by this Court.

49. In the result, the Criminal Appeal No.1314 of 2016 is

dismissed confirming the Judgment, dated 22.09.2016 passed in

Sessions Case No.194 of 2015 by the learned X Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed.

JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

5

th

December, 2024

Note:

LR Copy is to be marked.

B/o.

DNB