Dismissed

Siriginidi Nandi Srinivas v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Sept 2019CRLP/4561/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a special bail application seeking quashment of criminal proceedings under Sections 174, 302, 452, and 34 IPC. Holding that conflicting versions in the complainant's statements do not warrant stifling investigation, the Court ruled that the matter required a full-fledged inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in Cr.No.106/2019 are not quashed; investigation to proceed.

Siriginidi Nandi Srinivas Vs State of Ap — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶2

Criminal Petition No.4561 of 2019

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners/A1 & A2 seek to quash proceedings against them in Cr.No.106/2019 of Yellamanchili Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, which was registered initially under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and later altered to Sections 302 & 452 r/w 34 IPC.

¶5

2. The de facto complainant is the mother of deceased Lakshmi Narasingarao. She gave report to police on 13.06.2019 stating that the deceased who is her fourth son was working in Army and three days back he came home on leave. On 12.06.2019, in the night at about 10.00 hours he came home in a drunken state. When she questioned as to why he consumed alcohol, he hit himself on his face in an inebriated condition and later went into the room and slept. Thereafter, she locked the house from inside and slept. On 13.06.2019 at about 6.00 A.M., she woke up and found her son dead. Then she contacted her youngest daughter-in-law Sasikala, who resides in another house, by phone and informed the said fact. She came and found the deceased dead. Later, all the family members came and saw the deceased. The complainant mentioned in the complaint that herself and her family members have no suspicion against anybody, but they do not know the reasons for the death of the deceased.

¶6

¶7

3. On the above complaint, the police have initially registered Cr.No.106/2019 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. However, on the same day she gave a statement before the police with different facts altogether. She stated that all her four sons were married and leading independent life. Her fourth son was married in 2009 with Nandini and they got two daughters. His wife gave report to police recently on the allegation that the deceased was not looking after well. She has been residing with her parents eversince she gave complaint to police. Whenever the deceased visited his native place on leave, he used to reside with his mother. The de facto complainant got Ac.2.00 cents of land in Guntur and Tenali which she acquired from her mother. In the matter of division of the said property there were some disputes among her four sons. Since the deceased used to reside with the mother during his visits, the petitioners/A1 & A2 apprehended that she might settle her property in his favour and on that ground they used to frequently quarrel with her and the deceased whenever he visits home on leave. She further stated that the deceased was transferred from Gujarat to Jammu & Kashmir and in that context he came home. On 12.06.2019 at about 8.00 A.M., her second daughterin-law quarrelled with the deceased in respect of the properties. On knowing the same, her third son (A1) came to her house and beat the deceased indiscriminately. Unable to bear, the deceased pressed the testicles of his brother and bite him on his neck, chest and hand. Later, A1 went away. On that evening at about 5.00 P.M., A1 & A2 came to her house and beat the deceased indiscriminately. Till

¶8

¶9

10.00 P.M. on that night, he suffered with headache. Thereafter, she slept. In the morning at about 6.00 A.M. on 13.06.2019, when she tried to wake up him up, she found him dead. Immediately she informed the said fact to her daughter-in-law Sasikala. She alleged that her son died due to the blows inflicted by the accused. She further stated that A2 prepared previous report and obtained her signature and gave to police. Basing on her statement, the section of law in F.I.R. was altered to 302, 452 r/w 34 IPC. Investigation is reported pending.

¶10

4. Denying the prosecution case, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that both the petitioners are innocent and they are unnecessarily roped in the case for the reason that they helped the wife of the deceased in getting the maintenance from Indian Army. On that grudge, the de facto complainant changed her earlier version in the complaint and gave a statement to the police with all false versions. It is also argued that the signatures of the de facto complainant on the report and statement are totally different from each other and therefore, those documents are required to be forwarded to a Handwriting Expert.

¶11

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition on the submission that the de facto complainant has given sufficient reasons for the difference in her two versions and therefore,

¶12

¶13

on that ground the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. A thorough investigation will only exhume the truth, he argued.

¶14

6. This Court finds force in the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Merely because two versions of the de facto complainant are found in her earlier complaint and her statement before police, that itself cannot be taken as a ground to stifle the investigation. Even as per the earlier report of the complainant, the deceased died in a suspicious circumstance. In her latter statement, the de facto complainant narrated the events that occurred on the previous evening and apprehended that the death of her youngest son was due to the blows inflicted by the accused. The truth or otherwise of her statement can be known only after a full-fledged investigation. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, since the investigation is at the nascent stage, it is not apposite to quash the proceedings so as to give an unjustified quietus to the investigation. Hence the investigation shall reach its logical conclusion at the earliest.

¶15

In the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.

¶16

__________________________

¶17

11.09.2019 MVA

Siriginidi Nandi Srinivas v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siriginidi Nandi Srinivas v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pathrudu Naidu Vs State of Ap.

V Dugudu Rathod Vs State of Ap

G.Sahadeva Raju Vs State of Ap

M.Appa Rao Vs T.Venkta Siva Prasad

Tatiparthi Kasulu Vs State of Ap

Gundala Madhu Sudhana Rao at Abhiruchi Madhu Vs Bachem Jagadeshwar Reddy