No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
APHC010677272013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
THE HONOURABLE SRI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 174/2013
Between:
Chelliboina Ravi Kumar,
The Stat Eof Ap Rpe By Its Pp Hyd
Counsel for the Apellant:
1. D SANGEETHA REDDY
Counsel for the Respodent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 174/2013
Chelliboina Ravi Kumar, ...APELLANT
AND
The Stat Eof Ap Rpe By Its Pp Hyd ...RESPODENT
Counsel for the Apellant:
D SANGEETHA REDDY
Counsel for the Respodent:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Court made the following:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
[3474]
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
...APELLANT
...RESPODENT
APHC010690342013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 173/2013
Between:
C.suryanarayana, Visakhapatnam & 3 Othrs., and
Others
State Of Ap Rep Pp Hyd
Counsel for the Apellant(S):
1. C VASUNDHARA
Counsel for the Respodent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 173/2013
C.suryanarayana, Visakhapatnam & 3 Othrs., and ...APELLANT(S)
AND
State Of Ap Rep Pp Hyd ...RESPODENT
Counsel for the Apellant(S):
C VASUNDHARA REDDY
Counsel for the Respodent:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
[3474]
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
SURESH REDDY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
...APELLANT(S)
...RESPODENT
APHC011422202013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL
Between:
D.venu Visakhapatnam.
Ch Suryanarayana Visakapatnam And 4 Otrs
Counsel for the Apellant:
1. DUVVURI SURYA NARAYANA
Counsel for the Respodent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2. 7626/C VASUNDHARA REDDY
The Court made the following:
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL(S.R.) NO: 12925/2013
D.venu Visakhapatnam. ...APELLANT
AND
Ch Suryanarayana Visakapatnam And 4 Otrs ...RESPODENT
Counsel for the Apellant:
DUVVURI SURYA NARAYANA
Counsel for the Respodent:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
7626/C VASUNDHARA REDDY
The Court made the following:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
[3474]
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
...APELLANT
...RESPODENT
4
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH
****
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.174 OF 2013, 173 OF 2013
& CRL.A.(S.R.)No.12925/2013
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.174 OF 2013
Between:
Chelliboina Ravi Kumar,
S/o.Suryanarayana,Aged31 years,
Taxi Driver, R/o.D.No.9-7-29/14,
Six Top Junction, Sivajipalem,
Visakhapatnam. …… Appellant/A-1
A N D
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court at Hyderabad. …… Respondent/Complainant
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.173 OF 2013
Between:
1. Chelliboina Suryanarayana,
S/o.LatePydayya, Aged 52 years,
R/o.D.No.9-7-29/14, Six Tap Junction,
Shivajipalem, Visakhapatnam.
2. ChelliboinaGuramma,
W/o. Suryanarayana, Aged 46 years,
R/o.D.No.9-7-29/14, Six Tap Junction,
Shivajipalem, Visakhapatnam.
3. MedaboinaSyamala Devi,
W/o.Krishna, Aged 29 years,
R/o.D.No.1-105, Pilavanipalem,
Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam.
5
4. Duvvi Prasanna Kumari,
W/o.Suresh, Aged 26 years,
R/o.D.No.9-6-27, Shivajipalem,
Visakhapatnam. …… Appellants/A-2 to A-5
A N D
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court at Hyderabad. …… Respondent/Complainant
CRL.A.(S.R.)No.12925/2013
Between:
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court at Hyderabad. …… Appellant/Complainant
A N D
1. Chelliboina Suryanarayana,
S/o.LatePydayya, Aged 52 years,
R/o.D.No.9-7-29/14, Six Tap Junction,
Shivajipalem, Visakhapatnam.
2. ChelliboinaGuramma,
W/o. Suryanarayana, Aged 46 years,
R/o.D.No.9-7-29/14, Six Tap Junction,
Shivajipalem, Visakhapatnam.
3. MedaboinaSyamala Devi,
W/o.Krishna, Aged 29 years,
R/o.D.No.1-105, Pilavanipalem,
Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam.
4. Duvvi Prasanna Kumari,
W/o.Suresh, Aged 26 years,
R/o.D.No.9-6-27, Shivajipalem,
Visakhapatnam. …… Respondents/A-2 to A-5
6
DATE OF COMMON JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 27.03.2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the
fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
_____________________
K.SURESH REDDY, J.
____________________________
B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J.
7
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
+ CRL.A.No.174 OF 2013, 173 OF 2013
& CRL.A.(S.R.)No.12925/2013
% 27.03.2024
# Between:
Chelliboina Ravi Kumar,
S/o.Suryanarayana,Aged31 years,
Taxi Driver, R/o.D.No.9-7-29/14,
Six Top Junction, Sivajipalem,
Visakhapatnam. …… Appellant/A-1
A N D
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court at Hyderabad. …… Respondent/Complainant
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.173 OF 2013
Between:
1. Chelliboina Suryanarayana,
S/o.LatePydayya, Aged 52 years,
R/o.D.No.9-7-29/14, Six Tap Junction,
Shivajipalem, Visakhapatnam.
2. ChelliboinaGuramma,
W/o. Suryanarayana, Aged 46 years,
R/o.D.No.9-7-29/14, Six Tap Junction,
Shivajipalem, Visakhapatnam.
3. MedaboinaSyamala Devi,
W/o.Krishna, Aged 29 years,
R/o.D.No.1-105, Pilavanipalem,
Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam.
4. Duvvi Prasanna Kumari,
W/o.Suresh, Aged 26 years,
R/o.D.No.9-6-27, Shivajipalem,
Visakhapatnam. …… Appellants/A-2 to A-5
8
A N D
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court at Hyderabad. …… Respondent/Complainant
CRL.A.(S.R.)No.12925/2013
Between:
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court at Hyderabad. …… Appellant/Complainant
A N D
1. Chelliboina Suryanarayana,
S/o.LatePydayya, Aged 52 years,
R/o.D.No.9-7-29/14, Six Tap Junction,
Shivajipalem, Visakhapatnam.
2. ChelliboinaGuramma,
W/o. Suryanarayana, Aged 46 years,
R/o.D.No.9-7-29/14, Six Tap Junction,
Shivajipalem, Visakhapatnam.
3. MedaboinaSyamala Devi,
W/o.Krishna, Aged 29 years,
R/o.D.No.1-105, Pilavanipalem,
Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam.
4. Duvvi Prasanna Kumari,
W/o.Suresh, Aged 26 years,
R/o.D.No.9-6-27, Shivajipalem,
Visakhapatnam. …… Respondents/A-2 to A-5
9
! Counsel for the Appellants : Smt.C.Vasundhara Reddy
^ Counsel for the
Respondent : Sri S.Dushyanth Reddy,
Addl. Public Prosecutor.
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 2022LiveLaw (SC) 582
2. AIR 1989 SC 1519
3. 2020 (10) SCC 733
4. 2008 (11) SCC 352
5. 2002 (10) SCC 518
6. AIR 1983 (SC) 810
7. AIR 2016 (SC) 4486
8. 2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (AP)
This Court made the following:
10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THIS THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH
PRESENT
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.174 OF 2013, 173 OF 2013
& CRL.A.(S.R.)No.12925/2013
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.174 OF 2013
Between:
Chelliboina Ravi Kumar,
S/o.Suryanarayana, Aged 31 years,
Taxi Driver, R/o.D.No.9-7-29/14,
Six Top Junction, Sivajipalem,
Visakhapatnam. …… Appellant/A-1
A N D
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court at Hyderabad. …… Respondent/Complainant
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.173 OF 2013
Between:
1. Chelliboina Suryanarayana,
S/o.LatePydayya, Aged 52 years,
R/o.D.No.9-7-29/14, Six Tap Junction,
Shivajipalem, Visakhapatnam.
11
2. ChelliboinaGuramma,
W/o. Suryanarayana, Aged 46 years,
R/o.D.No.9-7-29/14, Six Tap Junction,
Shivajipalem, Visakhapatnam.
3. MedaboinaSyamala Devi,
W/o.Krishna, Aged 29 years,
R/o.D.No.1-105, Pilavanipalem,
Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam.
4. Duvvi Prasanna Kumari,
W/o.Suresh, Aged 26 years,
R/o.D.No.9-6-27, Shivajipalem,
Visakhapatnam. …… Appellants/A-2 to A-5
A N D
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court at Hyderabad. …… Respondent/Complainant
CRL.A.(S.R.)No.12925/2013
Between:
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court at Hyderabad. …… Appellant/Complainant
A N D
1. Chelliboina Suryanarayana,
S/o.LatePydayya, Aged 52 years,
R/o.D.No.9-7-29/14, Six Tap Junction,
Shivajipalem, Visakhapatnam.
2. ChelliboinaGuramma,
W/o. Suryanarayana, Aged 46 years,
R/o.D.No.9-7-29/14, Six Tap Junction,
Shivajipalem, Visakhapatnam.
3. MedaboinaSyamala Devi,
W/o.Krishna, Aged 29 years,
R/o.D.No.1-105, Pilavanipalem,
Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam.
12
4. Duvvi Prasanna Kumari,
W/o.Suresh, Aged 26 years,
R/o.D.No.9-6-27, Shivajipalem,
Visakhapatnam. …… Respondents/A-2 to A-5
Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Smt.C.Vasundhara Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Public Prosecutor
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.V.L.N.Chakravarthi)
1. Heard Smt.C.Vasundhara Reddy, learned counsel for
the appellants/accused No.1 to 5, and Sri S.Dushyanth
Reddy, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
2. The appeal vide CRL.A.No.174/2013 is filed for A-1.
The appeal vide CRL.A.No.173/2013 is filed for A-2 to A-5.
Both the appeals arose from the judgment dated 12.02.2013
passed in S.C.No.148/2011 on the file of the learned Mahila
Court, Visakhapatnam (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’).
The appeal vide Crl.A.(S.R.)No.12925/2013 is filed for the
State through Public Prosecutor U/s.372 Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘Cr.P.C.’) against A-2 to A-5,
challenging the judgment of acquittal for the offence
U/s.304-B, 120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity
‘I.P.C.’).
13
3. The accused No.1 was tried and convicted by the trial
Court for the offence U/s.302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for life, and also to pay fine of
Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only), in default, to suffer
simple imprisonment for one year. The accused No.2 to 5 were
tried and convicted by the trial Court for the offence
U/s.498-A I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for three years each, and also to pay fine of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each, in default, to
suffer simple imprisonment for one year each. The accused
No.1 to 5 were tried and acquitted for the offence U/s.304-
BI.P.C. Challenging the same, the State filed appeal vide
Crl.A.(S.R.)No.12925/2013. The accused No.6 to 9 were tried
and acquitted for the offence U/s.120-B I.P.C. It was
submitted that State filed no appeal against the said
acquittal.
4. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of
Smt.D.Krishna Veni (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) and
A-1 was solemnised on 29.08.2010; at the time of marriage, a
sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards dowry was presented to A-1 as
a consideration for marriage; Rs.20,000/- was presented to
14
sisters of A-1; a motor cycle was presented to A-1 purchased
in the name of deceased; the deceased was studying
engineering course at the time of marriage; the deceased
joined the conjugal life with A-1 at her in-laws house; one or
two months after A-1 started harassing the deceased
physically and mentally demanding to bring rents collected for
the house standing in the name of parents of deceased and
also to execute a deed for half share in the house property in
the name of A-1; the deceased informed the harassment to her
parents’ unable to bear the harassment, the deceased
returned to her parents’ house and attending college; the
parents of deceased informed parents of A-1 i.e., A-2 and A-3
about the harassment; they asked them to meet the demands
of A-1, otherwise, he would be cruel to deceased.
(a) On 04.03.2011 at about 06.00 p.m. the deceased
attended college; she was returning to her parents’ house by
walk; she reached the scene of offence located on
Kalabharathi road in Maddilapalem at Visakhapatnam; A-1
way laid came to her, quarrelled with her, picked out a knife,
hacked the deceased on the neck; the deceased fell down and
died on the spot;
15
(b) One Sri G.Simhadri informed the parents of
deceased over phone about the incident; Sri Ch.Gopi (P.W-4) a
resident of Maddilapalem, who was present at the scene of
offence, witnessed the offence committed by A-1; the elder
brother of mother of deceased reached the scene of offence,
found the deceased died; the people who gathered there
informed the parents about the offence committed by A-1; the
deceased was immediately shifted to King George Hospital,
Visakhapatnam; the mother of deceased presented a report
(Ex.P-1) to the Inspector of Police P.Krishna Varma (P.W-19)
III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, and he registered the
same as FIR (Ex.P-19) in Cr.No.125/2011 for the offence
U/s.302, 498-A IPC and submitted the original FIR to the
learnedIVAdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Visakhapatnam, and copies to all concerned.
(c) Inspector of Police (P.W-19) visited the scene of
offence, collected mediators i.e., PLV Narayana Murthy
(P.W-11) and another, and in their presence, observed the
scene of offence, seized blood stained earth and controlled
earth with the assistance of clues team; he also seized one
blood stained hand kerchief under the cover of an observation
16
report (E.P-10); he prepared rough sketch for scene of offence
(Ex.P-20); the scene of offence was video-graphed and photo-
graphed (Ex.P-21); he sent requisition to Mandal Executive
Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, P.Dharma Chandra Reddy
(P.W-18) to conduct inquest over the dead body of deceased,
since the deceased died within seven years of marriage; on
05.03.2011 Mandal Executive Magistrate, Visakhapatnam
conducted inquest at mortuary of King George Hospital,
Visakhapatnam, in the presence of inquestdars’ under the
cover of Ex.P-18 inquest report; Inspector of Police basing on
the inquest report included section 304-B IPC beside 302,
498-A IPC and submitted alteration memo (Ex.P-22) to the
Court; he sent the dead body for conducting autopsy.
(d) Doctor V.Chandra Sekhar (P.W-14), Assistant
Professor, Forensic Medicine, Andhra Medical College,
Visakhapatnam, conducted autopsy over dead body of
deceased on 05.03.2011 at 12.05 to 01.30 p.m. and issued
Ex.P-16 post mortem certificate, opining that the deceased
would appear to have died due to section of spinal card of
neck due to chop wound.
17
(e) Assistant Commissioner of Police, East Division,
Visakhapatnam (P.W-20) conducted further investigation; on
06.03.2011 he visited scene of offence, secured the presence
of D.Venu (P.W-1), Ch.Satyanarayana (P.W-2), V.Nageswara
Rao (P.W-3) and Ch.Gopi (P.W-4) examined and recorded their
statements; on information he visited the thatched house of
one Ch.Venkata Rao at Vizayanagaram and arrested A-1 in
the presence of B.Govinda Raju (P.W-12) and another
mediator and recorded confession statement (Ex.P-11), seized
blood stained T-shirt and cell phone; basing on the
confession, he visited SKML staircase shop situated at
Maddilapalem along with accused and mediators and seized a
knife produced by A-1 from underneath the shop (M.O-1)
under the cover of Ex.P-12 mediators report; basing on the
confession of A-1, he included section 120 IPC and submitted
alteration memo (Ex.P-23) to the Court; he proceeded to
Geetha Bar and Restaurant, Maddilapalem, secured the
presence of S.Ramachandra Rao (P.W-5), B.Chinn Rao (P.W-9)
and others and recorded their statements; he proceeded to
the house of A-1 and arrested A-2 to A-5 in the presence of
B.Govinda Raju (P.W-12) and another mediator by name
18
Ch.NarayanaRao (L.W-11); Inspector of Police proceeded to
Nethaji Colony and arrested A-7 at his house.
(f) On 07.03.2011 he visited Sivajipalem and secured
K.Kalyani (P.W-7), M.Srinivas (P.W-8) and others and
recorded their statements; he deputed Sub Inspector of Police
to arrest A-9 at Vijayawada, and accordingly, on 08.03.2011
SI of Police G.Diwakar Yadav (P.W-16) arrested A-9; Assistant
Commissioner of Police arrested A-8 also; he made attempt to
examine and recorded statements of the persons living in the
neighbouring houses to scene of offence, but none of them
came forward to give statements; he received post mortem
certificate on 11.03.2011; he sent the material objects to
RFSL, Visakhapatnam for their opinion; the Scientific Officer,
RFSL, Visakhapatnam, by name B.Ramakrishna Rao (P.W-13)
issued Ex.P-15 RFSL report; on 12.03.2011 he visited Vignan
Engineering College, where the deceased was studying
engineering and examined witnesses and recorded the
statements of Professor N.Rajender, A.Divya and R.Priyanka
and others; after completion of investigation, he laid report
(charge sheet) against the accused on 03.06.2011.
19
5. During trial, 20 witnesses were examined for the
prosecution as P.Ws-1 to 20 respectively, 23 documents were
marked as Exs.P-1 to P-23 respectively, apart from M.Os-1 to
6. Some portion of statements of the witnesses recorded
U/s.161 Cr.P.C. (P.W-1, P.W-18 and P.Narasimhamurthy
(L.W-17) were marked as Exs.D-1 to D-3 for the defence.
6. The accused were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. regarding
the incriminating evidence appearing against them from the
evidence for the prosecution. The accused denied the same as
false. No defence witnesses were examined for the defence.
7. The learned trial Court after hearing the prosecution
and defence, found the A-1 guilty and convicted for the
offence U/s.302 IPC, and also found the A-2 to A-5 guilty and
convicted for the offence U/s.498-A I.P.C. Challenging the
judgment, the appellants/accused No.1 to 5 preferred
separate appeals stated supra.
8. The learned trial Judge acquitted A-1 to A-5 for the
offence U/s.304-B IPC, and A-1, A-6 to A-9 for the offence
U/s.120-B I.P.C. The State filed appeal challenging the
acquittal of A-2 to A-5 for the offence U/s.304-B I.P.C.
20
9. Smt.C.Vasundhara Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellants/accused No.1 to 5 vehemently argued that no
incriminating evidence is available against the accused for the
offence U/s.498-A IPC. She would further submit that the
learned trial Court relied on the evidence of P.W1 to convict
the accused No.1 to 5 for the offence U/s 498-A IPC. Whereas
Ex.P-1 presented by P.W-1 does not disclose any material to
connect the accused A1 to A5 for the offence U/s.498-A IPC
and the evidence of P.W-1 deposed before the trial Court is an
improved statement to implicate the accused, and therefore,
the evidence of P.W-1 cannot be used to convict the accused.
10. She would further submit that the learned trial Judge
erroneously relied on the testimony of P.W-4, and convicted
A-1 for the offence U/s.302 IPC.; He is a chance witness; and
his evidence before the Court does not inspire any confidence
that he was present at the time of incident; he did not state
physical features of the offender in the statement given to the
police, and he identified A-1 first time only in the Court, and
no test identification parade was conducted by the police
during investigation; in those circumstances, no reliance can
be placed on the evidence of P.W-4 to convict A-1, it is not
21
sustainable in law; the weapon seized (M.O-1) is also creates
a doubt, in view of the evidence of the doctor (P.W-14), it
would show that police planted the weapon, to support the
theory of recovery of M.O-1 at the instance of A-1;
11. In support of her arguments, relied upon the following
judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court:
1. Amrit Singh Vs. State of Punjab
1
2. State of U.P. Vs. Madan Mohan and others
2
12. Sri S.Dushyanth Reddy, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor
argued that the evidence of P.W-1 i.e., mother of deceased
would establish that A-1 to A-5after the marriage harassed
the deceased demanding additional dowry and therefore, she
left the house of A-1, residing in the house of her parents to
continue her engineering studies; there are no grounds to
disbelieve the evidence of P.W-1.
13. The learned Addl.Public Prosecutor would further
argued that the evidence of P.W-4 would establish that he is a
resident of Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam and it is an
1
2022LiveLaw (SC) 582
2
AIR 1989 SC 1519
22
admitted fact that the murder was committed on the road
leading to Kalabharathi located in Maddilapalem,
Visakhapatnam, and the offence was committed at about
06.00 p.m. in the month of March; the evidence of P.W-4
would establish that he came to the place of incident located
near to his house, to have snacks during evening time, and
his evidence also would establish that he went to the hospital
also, he was present at the time of inquest; he identified A-1
without any semblance of doubt; there was quarrel between
A-1 and the deceased prior to A-1 hacking the deceased,
noticed by the him and others; he was examined before the
Court within a period of six months from the date of incident;
the incident was occurred on 06.03.2011 and he was
examined on 10.11.2011 in the Court; In that view, there are
no reasons to disbelieve the testimony of P.W-4 and further
nothing was elicited in his evidence to contend that he had
motive or any other reason to depose against the accused or
in favour of the prosecution.
14. He would further submit that Test Identification Parade
is not a substantive piece of evidence and at best it can be
used as a corroboration, and it is for the purpose of helping
23
investigating agency with an assurance that their progress
with the investigation into the offence is truthful and on right
lines; mere absence of Test Identification Parade will not make
the evidence of an eye witness regarding identification of the
accused untrustworthy, when his evidence would establish
that his presence is very much possible at the time of
incident, there is sufficient time for him to observe the
physical features of A-1; in those circumstances, the
decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for accused have
no application to the facts of the case on hand.
15. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor in support of his
arguments, relied upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble
Apex Court:
1. Chunthuram Vs. State of Chattisgarh
3
2. Md.Kalam @ Abdul Kalam Vs. State of Rajasthan
4
3. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Premchand
5
16. In the light of above rival contentions, the point that
would arise for determination in these appealsis as under:-
3
2020 (10) SCC 733
4
2008 (11) SCC 352
5
2002 (10) SCC 518
24
“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt
of the A-1 for the offence U/s.302I.P.C. and
A-1 to A-5 for the offence U/s.498-A I.P.C.
beyond all reasonable doubt?”
17. POINT:
We perused and considered the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 20
and documents on record. The evidence of P.W-1 i.e., mother
of deceased coupled with Ch.Satyanarayana (P.W-2) brother
of P.W-1 and Ch.Narayana Rao (P.W-17) another brother of
P.W-1 would establish that the deceased is the wife of A-1.
A-2 and A-3 are parents of A-1. A-4 and A-5 are sisters of
A-1. Marriage of the deceased and A-1 was solemnized on
29.08.2010 at Visakhapatnam. The evidence of P.W-1, P.W-2,
P.W-7, P.W-8 and P.W-17 would establish that A-1 and the
deceased lead happy conjugal life for about two or three
months and later, A-1 started demanding the deceased to get
the rents collected for the building belonging to P.W-1 i.e.,
mother of the deceased. Their evidence would also establish
that A-1 harassed the deceased physically as well mentally to
meet his demand to get rents collected for the building of
P.W-1 and to get a deed executed by P.W-1 for half share of
the said building in the name of A-1.Ex.P-1 is the first
25
information report presented by P.W-1 to the police soon after
the murder of the deceased.
18. According to the first information report, A-1 harassed
the deceased demanding for house rents and for transfer of
half share of house property standing in the name ofP.W-1.He
used to beat the deceased to meet the demand and it was
informed to A-2, A-3 and sisters of A-1, but they did not care
of A-1. Therefore, Ex.P-1 does not disclose anything about the
harassment of A-2 to A-5, except that they did not take care
of A-1, though they were informed about his harassment. But
P.W-1 in the evidence before the Court made several
allegations against A-2 to A-5 on harassment. On
consideration of the facts and circumstances coming out from
the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that she tried to
implicate A-2 to A-5 for the reasons best known to her,
subsequent to death of her daughter in the incident occurred
on 04.03.2011.
19. Viewed from any angle, we are of the considered opinion
that no incriminating material made out against A-2 to A-5
for the offence U/s.498-A IPC. However, the evidence of
P.W-1, P.W-2, P.W-7, P.W- and P.W-17 would establish that
26
soon after the marriage, A-1 started harassing the deceased
physically and mentally demanding her to bring rents
collected for the house owned by P.W-1 and also to get a deed
executed in his favour for half share in the said building and
as a result, the deceased forced to leave the matrimonial
home and reach the house of P.W-1 i.e., her mother to
continue her engineering studies.
20. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the prosecution
beyond all reasonable doubt proved the offence U/s.498-A
IPC against A-1 only. Hence, the conviction and sentence
imposed by the trial Court against A-2 to A-5 for the offence
U/s.498-A IPC is liable to be set aside.
21. When coming to the charge for offence U/s.302 IPC
against A-1, the case of prosecution is that on 04.03.2011 at
about 06.00 p.m. the deceased was returning to home from
the college, she reached the place i.e., scene of offence located
on the road leading to Kalabharathi in Maddilapalem,
Visakhapatnam. A-1 way laid, quarreled with the deceased,
and hacked with M.O-1 knife on the neck; as a result, the
deceased suffered injury on the neck i.e., section of spinal
card of neck due to chop wound and died at the spot.
27
22. The evidence on record shows that scene of offence is a
busy locality, surrounded by residential houses, pushcart
vendors selling sweet meets/snacks on the right side. Many
people witnessed the incident, but due to fear pushcart
vendors ran away. One G.Simhadri intimated P.W-1 about the
incident, and then, on her request, P.W-2, P.W-17 and others
reached scene of offence. P.W-1 presented Ex. P-1 report to
the police.
23. The evidence of P.V.Krishna Varma (P.W-19) would how
that on 04.03.2011 at about 06.30 p.m. he received report
(Ex.P-1) fromP.W-1 and registered the same as case in
Cr.No.125/2011 and submitted copies to all concerned.
Ex. P-19 is the original FIR and visited scene of offence with
clues team.
24. The evidence of S.Lakshmi Narasimha (P.W-15) would
show that on 04.03.2011 on the request of Inspector of Police,
III Town P.S., Visakhapatnam, visited the scene of offence as
a member of clues team. P.W-19 further deposed that on
visiting the scene of offence, he collected the mediators
P.W-11 and another. P.W-11 deposed that on 04.03.2011 at
about 06.30 p.m. Inspector of Police, III Town P.S.,
28
Visakhapatnam, visited the scene of offence and observed the
same and seized M.O-2 cloth stained with blood, M.O-3
spectacles, M.O-4 hand kerchief stained her blood available at
the scene of offence vide Ex. P-10 observation report.
Therefore, the evidence of P. W-11 corroborates the evidence
of Inspector of Police about visiting the scene of offence soon
after the incident and seizure of M. Os-2 to 4 available at the
scene of offence.
25. It is pertinent to note down that the report of Scientific
Officer of RFSL would establish that he received hand kerchief
and cloth seized by the police and they contained blood, hand
kerchief belonging to the deceased also contain blood of
human origin of ‘AB’ group.
26. The Inspector of Police further deposed that the scene of
offence was photo-graphed as well as video-graphed. Ex.P-21
are the photographs, and later sent a requisition to Tahsildar,
Visakhapatnam to conduct inquest over the dead body of
deceased. Sri P.Dharmachandra Reddy (P.W-18) the then
Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam, deposed that on 05.03.2011 on
the request of police, he conducted inquest over dead body of
29
deceased at mortuary of King George Hospital,
Visakhapatnam, in the presence of panchayatdars, blood
relatives of the deceased and others and Ex.P-18 is the
inquest report. His evidence establishes that at the time of
inquest, he recorded the statements of P.W-1, P.W-2, P.W-3
and P.W-4. Therefore, the evidence of P.W-4 that he went to
King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam, and present at the
time of inquest is proved by the prosecution.
27. The Inspector of Police further deposed that he sent the
dead body to conduct autopsy. The evidence of P.W-14 would
establish that he conducted autopsy over the dead body of
deceased and issued Ex.P-16 post mortem certificate.
28. P.W-20 is the then Assistant Commissioner of Police,
East Division, Visakhapatnam, conducted further
investigation in the case. He deposed that he examined P.W-1,
P.W-2, P.W-3, P.W-4 and other witnesses and recorded their
statements on 06.07.2011; on information, he proceeded to
the Phase-III, VUDA Colony, Vizianagaram and arrested A-1
in the presence of P.W-12 and another; basing on the fact
discovered from the statement made by A-1, seized M.O-1
knife kept underneath a buddy shop; Basing on the statement
30
of A-1, included the names of A-6 to A-9 for the offence
U/s.120-B IPC vide Ex.P-23 alteration memo. Later,
proceeded to Gita Bar and Restaurant, Maddilapalem and
secured witnesses and recorded statement of P.W-5, P.W-9
and others.
29. It is pertinent to note down that P.W-5, P.W-6 and
P.W-9 did not support the case of the prosecution. Assistant
Commissioner of Police further deposed that he arrested A-2
to A-5 in the presence of P.W-12 and another; later arrested
A-6, A-7 and on 07.03.2011; Visited Sivajipalem,
Visakhapatnam, and examined P.W-7, P.W-8, P.W-17 and
others and recorded their statements and on his instructions,
SI of Police (P.W-16) arrested A-9 on 08.03.2011; A-8 was also
arrested during the course of investigation. He categorically
deposed that he made all efforts to examine the persons living
in the houses located in and around the scene of offence
including the owners of shops and workers in the nearby
vicinity, but nobody came forward to give statement. He also
deposed that on 11.03.2011 after receipt of post mortem
certificate, he forwarded M.Os-1 to 6 to RFSL,
Visakhapatnam, and P.W-13 issued Ex.P-17 report; on
31
12.03.2011 he also visited Vignan College, where the
deceased was studying; On completion of investigation, he
laid the police report (charge sheet) on 03.06.2011.
30. The prosecution case to prove the offence U/s.302 IPC
alleged against A1 is based on two material facts. One is
based on the evidence of P.W-4 i.e., G.Simhadri, an eye
witness to the incident of murder. The second fact is recovery
of M.O-1 knife basing on statement of the A1, relied under
section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
31. P.W-4 deposed that he is working as a car driver, and
on 04.03.2011, at about 05.50 p.m., he went to road near
Kalabharathi, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam to have noodles;
He ordered noodles in a shop located there and awaiting; He
witnessed A-1 and a woman (deceased) wearing college dress,
carrying a bag quarrelling; He also noticed A-1 keeping motor
cycle across the woman on the road; He categorically deposed
that he witnessed A-1 hacking on the neck of the deceased
with a knife, and as a result, the woman fell down on the
ground; Several people gathered there including auto drivers;
On seeing the same, A-1 ran away; People chased him, but
32
in-vain, and later he came to know that A-1 is the husband of
the deceased. He identified the A1 in the Court.
32. It is pertinent to note down that P.W-4 identified M.O-1
knife, as the knife used by A-1 for committing the offence.
The evidence of P.W-4 would establish that later 108
ambulance came to there, shifted the dead body to King
George Hospital, Visakhapatnam.
33. The defence vehemently argued that he was a planted
witness. We perused the evidence of P.W-4. In the cross-
examination, he deposed that the house bearing No.53-24-21
at Maddilapalem belongs to his father and he is residing in
the said house; He is working as a driver at Grand Bay Hotel,
Visakhapatnam, and on that day, he did not go to work and
in the evening time, he came to the road near Kalabharathi at
Maddilapalem, to take snacks. As already stated above, he
was present at the time of inquest even as per evidence of
Tahsildar (P.W-12).
34. The evidence of P.W-4 would establish that he went to
King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam, after the body was
shifted to the hospital. We do not find any reason to disbelieve
33
the presence of P.W-4. He identified M.O-1 as that of the
weapon used by A-1. Nothing was elicited in the cross-
examination to jettison his testimony. No motive or reason for
P.W-4 to depose against A-1 or in favour of the police was
made out in the cross-examination.
35. The evidence of P.W-12 would establish that police
arrested A-1 on 06.03.2011, and basing on his statement
about the location of the weapon, police recovered M.O-1
knife kept underneath a shop. We do not find any reason to
disbelieve the evidence of mediators (P.W-12) on recovery of
M.O-1.
36. The report of the Scientific Officer of RFSL,
Visakhapatnam, would establish that M.O-1 knife contain
blood stains of human origin. The evidence of the Scientific
Officer, RFSL, Visakhapatnam, would establish that T-shirt of
A-1 was stained with human blood of ‘AB’ group. The clothes
of deceased also stained with human blood of ‘AB’ group. The
evidence of doctor, conducted autopsy would establish that
the injury found on the neck of the deceased is possible with
a weapon like M.O-1.
34
37. The evidence of B.Govinda Raju (P.W-12) would shows
that on 06.03.2011 A-1 was arrested by police and seized a
blood stained T-shirt wore by A-1 at that time. It was marked
as M.O-5 identified by the witness. It was forwarded to RFSL,
Visakhapatnam as per evidence of B.Ramakrishna Rao
(P.W-13), Scientific Officer, working in RFSL, Visakhapatnam
at the material point in time.
38. The evidence of P.W-13 would establish that as many as
11 items were received by RFSL, Visakhapatnam pertaining to
Cr.No.125/2011 of III Town P.S., Visakhapatnam. Among
them, item No.4 T-shirt with dark brown stains i.e., T-shirt
seized from A-1 on 06.03.2011.
39. The evidence of P.W-13 coupled with his report
(Ex.P-15) would show that RFSL received a white coloured
hand kerchief with dark brown stains (item No.1), a chudidar
top (item No.7), chudidar bottom (item No.8) and a chunni
(item No.9) and inner brassier (item No.10) belonging to the
deceased collected from her body.
40. The evidence of Scientific Officer (P.W-13) and his report
(Ex.P-15) would disclose that item No.7, 8, 9 and 10 contains
35
blood of human origin and blood group of ‘AB’ blood found on
item No.9 and 10 i.e., chunni and inner brassier of the
deceased is also ‘AB’ group. It is pertinent to note down that
the offence of murder was occurred on 04.03.2011.The
accused was arrested soon after the offence i.e., on
06.03.2011 at about 10.00 a.m. The T-shirt found on the
person of A-1 at the time of arrest contained blood stain
marks. It is also of ‘AB’ group. No explanation from the
accused as to how his shirt contained AB positive blood found
on the clothes of the deceased, except a lame attempt that he
was fisted on nose by the police.
41. The evidence of Dr.V.Chandrasekhar (P.W-14) would
show that he conducted autopsy over dead body of the
deceased on 05.03.2011 at 12.05 p.m. to 01.30 p.m. He
found a Punjabi dress stained with blood. He deposed that an
elliptical shaped 9x4 cms, vertebral canal deep 6 cms noted
from above downwards towards center and center adjoining
left part neck from back center of hairyline of right part of
neck to front outer upper ¼ right part of neck across right
side of neck with clean, regular cut margins with same sized
moderately angled ends exposing the clear cut surfaces
36
underlying tissues. He opined that the injury would appear to
have caused by a sharp edged heavy weapon used with force
and that the deceased would appear to have died of
instantaneously due to section of spinal card of neck due to
chop would on neck. Ex.P-16 is the post mortem certificate.
42. The evidence of B.Govinda Raju (P.W-12) establish that
on 06.03.2011 after arrest of A-1, he was interrogated by the
police, A-1 confessed that the weapon used for committing the
offence was kept underneath a buddy shop and in pursuance
of the fact discovered, police seized M.O-1 knife from the place
disclosed by A-1 under the cover of Ex.P-14 in Ex.P-12
mediators report. M.O-1 is the knife. As stated above, M.O-1
was forwarded to RFSL and blood stains of human origin were
found on M.O-1 knife.
43. Therefore, the scientific evidence corroborates the oral
testimony of P.W-4 i.e., the evidence of mediator (P.W-12).
Therefore, all the facts and circumstances made out from the
scientific evidence would corroborate the evidence of P.W-4
testimony. Therefore, we do not find any reason to disbelieve
the testimony of P.W-4.
37
44. Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays down that
“no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be
required for the proof of any fact”. It is quality and not
quantity, which determines the adequacy of evidence. Once
complicity of accused is proved by credible evidence of only
one witness, the accused shall not be acquitted, unless
prosecution case is otherwise found to be untrustworthy.
45. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Ranji Surya Palvi
Vs. State of Maharashtra
6 held that “corroboration of sole
eye-witness in murder case is not necessary”. The Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of S.P.S.Rathore Vs. CBI and
another
7held that“evidence is weighed and not counted.
Evidence of even a single eye-witness truthful, consistent and
inspiring confidence is sufficient for maintaining conviction”.
46. The contention of the defence is that the police did not
conduct Test Identification Parade during investigation for
establishing the identity of A-1 by P.W-4; and he identified
A-1 in the Court first time. It is pertinent to note down that
the offence was committed on 04.03.2011. P.W-4 was
6
AIR 1983 (SC) 810
7
AIR 2016 (SC) 4486
38
examined in the Court on 17.10.2011 i.e., within six months.
So, we are of the considered opinion that there is no chance
for P.W-4 to forget the offender. In that view of the matter,
and also of other facts and circumstances in the case peculiar
to this case discussed above, the decision relied upon by the
learned counsel for A-1 on Test Identification Parade will not
help to the case of A-1, to disbelieve the testimony of P.W-4.
47. In the light of foregoing facts and circumstances
discussed, we are of the considered opinion that the
prosecution successfully bring home the guilt of A-1 for the
offence U/s.302 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt. In that
view of the matter, we do not find any ground to interfere with
the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial
Court against A-1 for the offence U/s.302 and 498-A I.P.C.
48. As already stated supra, the prosecution failed to bring
home the guilt of A-2 to A-5 for the offence U/s.498-A IPC
beyond all reasonable doubt.
49. The appeal filed by the defacto-complainant through the
Public Prosecutor U/s.372 Cr.P.C., is challenging the
acquittal of A-2 to A-5 for the offence U/s.304-B IPC. It is
39
pertinent to note down that A-1 to A-5 were charged with the
offence U/s.498-A, 304-B IPC. In the appeal grounds, it is
stated that though technically A-2 to A-5 are not liable for
punishment for the offence U/s.304-B IPC, they are liable for
punishment for the offence U/s.302 IPC. This contention is
totally misconceived. It is not the case of the prosecution that
A-1 conspired with A-2 to A-5 for committing the murder of
deceased, and as a result, he murdered the deceased. No
charge was framed against A-2 to A-5 for the offence U/s.302
r/w.120-B IPC. In those circumstances, we are of the
considered opinion that this appeal is totally misconceived.
50. It is the case of prosecution that A-1, and A-6 to A-9
conspired to commit murder of the deceased, and accordingly,
A-1 committed murder of the deceased. A-6 to A-9 were
acquitted for the offence U/s.302 r/w.120-B IPC. No appeal
filed by the defacto-complainant or State against the said
acquittal of A-6 to A-9. In those circumstances, we are of the
considered opinion that the appeal filed by the defacto-
complainant contending that A-2 to A-5 are liable for
punishment for the offence U/s.302 r/w 120-B IPC is
misconceived. Therefore, appeal deserves no consideration
40
and liable to be rejected at the threshold, refusing leave.
Accordingly, leave is refused; Appeal is rejected at the stage of
admission. Accordingly, the point is answered.
51. In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal filed for
A-1 vide Crl.A.No.174/2013 is liable to be dismissed. The
appeal filed for A-2 to A-5 vide Crl.A.No.173/2013 is liable to
be allowed.
52. In the result, the Criminal Appeal No.174/2013 filed for
A-1 is dismissed, by confirming the conviction for the offence
under Sections 302 and 498-A and sentence imposed by the
trial Court against A-1, as per judgment dated 12.02.2013 in
S.C.148/2011 on the file of Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam.
53. As the appellant/A-1 was granted bail by this Court on
18.04.2018, A-1 is directed to surrender before the
Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, forthwith. If
not, the learned trial Judge is directed to take steps to secure
the presence of A-1 by issuing Non-bailable Warrant to serve
the remaining sentence of imprisonment.
41
54. The Criminal Appeal No.173/2013 filed for A-2 to A-5 is
allowed. Therefore, the conviction for the offence under
Section 498-A IPC and sentence imposed by the trial Court as
per judgment dated 12.02.2013, in S.C.148/2011 on the file
of Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam, against A2 to A5 is set
aside. The fine amount if any paid by them be refunded.
55. So far as A-2 to A-5 are concerned, they were also
granted bail by this Court on 26.02.2013, they are directed to
appear before the Superintendent, Central Prison,
Visakhapatnam, for completing the legal formalities in terms
of the judgment rendered in Batchu Ranga Rao and others
Vs. State of A.P.
8
56. Leave to file appeal by the defacto-complainant through
the Public Prosecutor challenging acquittal of A-2 to A-5 for
the offence U/s.304-B IPC is rejected, and there by the said
appeal is rejected.
8
2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (AP)
42
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in both the
Criminal Appeals shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
_______
___________________________________
JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
L.R. Copy is to be marked
B/o. psk.
Date: 27.03.2024
psk
43
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.173 OF 2013 & 174 OF 2013
& CRL.A.(S.R.)No.12925/2013
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.V.L.N.Chakravarthi)
Note: Mark L.R. Copy
psk.
Date: 27.03.2024
psk
Legal Notes
Add a Note....