In this criminal appeal, the High Court rejected the appellant's contention regarding the evidence of the deceased's sons and medical findings. The court upheld the conviction for murder (Section 302 IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment, dismissing the appeal.
Appeal dismissed confirming conviction and sentence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
Criminal Appeal No.163 of 2014
JUDGMENT : ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)
2
3
came from behind and beat the deceased with wooden cot side frame on the head and all over body of the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased sustained injury and fell down. PW2 informed about the incident to PW1 on phone. Pursuant to which, PW1 came there and, thereafter, shifted the injured [deceased] to the hospital with the help of 108 ambulance, where the doctor declared the deceased as brought dead.
(iv) On the next day morning at about 7.00 A.M., a report was given by PW1, which lead to registration of case in Crime No. 67 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 I.P.C. After registering the crime, PW7 [Inspector of Police] visited the scene of offence, prepared an observation report, which is marked as Ex.P2. He also prepared a rough sketch of the scene, which is marked as Ex.P8. He then conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW4 and others. Ex.P3 is the inquest report. He also took photographs of the dead body of the deceased. PW5 [Doctor] deposed that on 14.02.2012, he received requisition from S.I of Police, Gajuwaka Police Station to conduct post-mortem
4
examination over the dead body of the deceased. Accordingly he conducted at 3.15 p.m. and opined that the cause of death due to head injury. Approximate time of death is 12 to 24 hours prior to post-mortem examination, he issued post-mortem certificate under Ex.P5. On 30.03.2012, he arrested the Accused and after collecting all the necessary documents, a chargesheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 25 of 2012 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
PW7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11, beside marking M.Os.1
5
to M.O.4. After completion of prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which he denied, however, no evidence was adduced in support of his plea except marking Ex.D1.
6
at one place, but because of constant harassment in the hands of the Accused and the nuisance created, in the locality, their house owner asked them to vacate the house, pursuant to which the deceased along with her three children started living separately in L.B.Nagar, Gajuwaka on the advice of the elders. The Accused was living separately but used to go regularly go to the house of deceased and put her in trouble. While so, on the date of incident at about 8.30 P.M. while PW2 and deceased were returning from the tailor shop, the incident in question took place.
7
8
PW3 who is the resident of the said colony. According to him, on the fateful day, on hearing the cries of PW2, he came out from his house and noticed the wife of the Accused on the ground, with bleeding injury. He enquired with PW2, who informed him that his father beat his mother with wooden cot side frame on her head and all over the body. It has also come on record that the Accused left wooden cot and ran away. M.O.1 is the said cot, which is identified by all the witnesses. Though PW3 was cross-examined at length, nothing useful came to be elicited to discredit his testimony. The suggestion that he was not present at the scene was denied by him. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 coupled with PW1 and PW3, in our view, establishes the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
9
“External:
1. Contusion at the back of the left thigh of 5 x 4 cm.
2. Laceration at left parietal area of 8 x 4 cm x bone deep
Internal:
1. Contusion over the skull valult 30 x 25 cm
2. coronal sutured fractured measuring 16 cm which is transversely situated
3. subdural haemorrhage present on both cerebral lemispheres of brain
4. a contusion present on the left cheek of 5 x 4 cms.
5. contusion at the right side of back of abdomen 5 x 4 cm
6. 7th 8th 9th ribs of right side fractured at the paravertebral region.
10
_______________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
___________________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
Date: 08.11.2022 dmr
11
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
Criminal Appeal No.163 of 2014
( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)
Date: 08.11.2022
dmr
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt?
Whether the medical evidence of fracture of ribs corroborates the accused's version of scaffolding fall?
Whether the testimonies of PW1, PW2, and PW3 establish the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Appellant (Accused)
State
C. Praveen Kumar
B.V.L.N. Chakravarti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
