Partly allowed

M.Laxmirajyam and Anr. v. the State of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Mar 2024CRLA/1147/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, acquitted the surviving accused of murder and upheld modification of the first appellant's conviction. The court held the death was caused by a single blow, amounting only to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and acquitted the mother and sister-in-law for whom no evidence existed. Accused No. 2's appeal was dismissed a

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside; supervision under Section 304 Part-1 IPC imposed on one Accused; Other Accused acquitted of remaining charges; Appeal of deceased Accused No. 2 dismissed as

M.Laxmirajyam and Anr. Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 1147 of 2015 and 196 OF 2niR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1147 OF 201fi

¶6

Judge,

¶7

Between:

¶8

^ Puskaram, Aged about 50 years, R/o D No 2-14 Mfndak WesJL&S^

¶9

No'■ Sai Naryana, Aged about 24 years R/o D

¶10

at R/o Taddiparu village, Undrajavaram Mandal, West Godavari District

¶11

...Appellants/Accused No. 2 & 3

¶12

High Court at Amaravati, “hVHo^p;s"1~r''

¶13

...Respondent

¶14

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 196 OF 2016

¶15

and Sessions Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari Srstlict; ''''''"'°aal District

¶16

Between:

¶17

...Appellant/Accused No.1

¶18

High Court of Andhra

¶19

...Respondent

¶20

Counsel for the Appellants in both the appeals- Sri Y Rama Ran Counsel for the Respondent in both the appeaisrPuWrc Prosecutor

¶21

The Court made the following common judgment:

¶22

jfc.

¶23

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶25

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH

¶26

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶27

SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

¶30

AND

¶31

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

¶32

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 1147 of 2015 and 196 of 2016

¶33

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1147 of 2015

¶34

Between:

¶35

M. Laxmirajyam & Anr. And Others

¶36

...Appellant(s)

¶37

AND

¶38

The State of Andhra Pradesh,

¶39

Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶40

...Respondent(s)

¶41

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 196 of 2016

¶42

Between:

¶43

Moganti Siva Kameswara Rao,

¶44

West Godavari District.

¶45

Appellant(s)

¶46

AND

¶47

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶48

Respondent(s)

¶49

¶50

Sri. Y. Rama Rao Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Public Prosecutor (AP) Counsel for the Respondent(s) ; The Court made the following;

¶51

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶52

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)

¶53

out of same Sessions As both the Criminal Appeals arise Case, they are being disposed of by way^ofthisCommon Judgment.

¶54

No.235 of 2012 on the file 2. Accused No.l in Sessions Case and Sessions Judge, of IV Additional District of the Court Tanuku. West Godavari District. Bled Crl.A.No.l96 of 2016; and 3 filed Crl.A.No.l 147 of 2015. They whereas Accused Nos.2 learned Additional District and Sessions Judge were tried by the under Section under three charges i.e., first charge was 498-A IPC against Accused Nos. 1 to 3^{secondchargewasunder} Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and Section 498-A read with 34 IPC against 302 and 201 IPC against under Sections third charge was Accused No.l. of the trial, the learned Additional 3. After completion convicted all the three accused under Sections Sessions Judge 498-A , 302 arrd 201 read with 34 IPC. All the three Accused for “LIFE” and also to were sentenced to undergo imprisonment

¶55

¶56

suffer Simple fine of Rs. 1,000/ each, in default, to pay ix (06) months for the offence Imprisonment for a period of They were further 302 read with 34 IPC. under Section Imprisonment for a period of one sentenced to undergo Rigorous of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, to and also to pay a fine (01) year a period of six (06) months for suffer Simple Imprisonment for with 34 IPC. They were also the offence under Section 201 read Imprisonment for a period of one sentenced to undergo Rigorous a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to (01) year and to pay a period of six (06) months for suffer Simple Imprisonment for 498-A read with 34 IPC. the offence under Section 4. Case of the prosecution briefly is as follows:is the husband. Accused No.2 is the motherAccused No.l is . in-law and Accused No.3 is^{theSister-in-lawofthedeceased} between Accused No.l and the respectively, The marriage PW-1, who 14.06.2009 at Tanuku. deceased was performed on is the father of the deceased, gave an amount of Rs. 10,000/towards and Rs.12,000/towards marriage expenses pW-1 also at the time of marriage. Adapaduchu-Lanchanams the deceased, of Ac.0.25 cents of land to agreed to part an extent After marriage, the deceased joined the matrimonial home and While so, on marital life for some time. the couple led happy

¶57

MmJ M

¶58

¶59

24.12.2010 at about 3.00 a.m., Accused No.3 telephoned to PW-1 at about 3.00 a.m., in the morning and informed him stating that they are taking the deceased to hospital^asshewas suffering from fever. Within fifteen minutes thereafter, somebody telephoned to PW-1 and informed him that the deceased died at the house of her in laws. Immediately, having received the said phone call, PW-1 along with PWs-2^to4and others went to the house of Accused No. 1 and found the dead body of the deceased in a northern side room of the house and they also found blood oozed from nose and mouth. When PW-1 questioned Accused Nos. 1 to 3 about the death of the deceased, they feigned ignorance. When PW-1 and others enquired^the neighbours, they informed that they heard cries between 2.30 a.m., and 3.00 a.m. Immediately, PW-1 went to the Police Station and gave a report to the police. PW-16- Head Constable, Iragavaram Police Station, received a report-Ex.P-1^fromPW-1at about 9.00 a.m., on 24.12.2010. He registered a case in Cr.No.l29 of 2010 under Section 174 Cr.P.C., Ex.P-11is the copy of the FIR. He issued a requisition to Mandal^Revenue Officer for conducting inquest. PW-14-Mandal Revenue Officer conducted inquest over the dead body. Ex. P-9 is the inquest report. He also prepared an observation report-Ex.P-8 and

¶60

¶61

recorded the statements of PWs-1 to 3. Having received^the information from PW-16, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Penumantra Police Station, visited the scene of offence and got photographed the scene through PW-12. He also prepared rough sketch- Ex. P-17 and recorded the statements^ofPWs-1to 12 and the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital^for conducting Post-Mortem examination. PW-17-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Tanuku, conducted autopsy over^the dead body at about 4.30 p.m., on 24.12.2010. He opined^that the cause of death was due to “shock and haemorrhage^andalso due to hair-line fracture of occipital bone of skull^andinjuryto brain”. He issued Post-Mortem Certificate-Ex.P-16. After completion of investigation, the successor Investigating^Officer- PW-20 filed the charge sheet.

¶62

to 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 20 and marked Exs.P-1 to 18 and exhibited M.Os.l and 2. When the accused Nos.l to 3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material found against them, but they did not choose to examine any^witnesses in defence.

¶63

¶64

Heard Sri Y. Rama Rao, learned Counsel appearing for^the appellants in both the Appeals and Sri Y. Nagi Reddy,^learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶65

We have gone through the entire material on record.

¶66

PW-1 is the father, PW-2 is the mother, PWs-3 and 4^are the brothers, PW-5 is the maternal Grand Father of the deceased respectively. PW-6 is the Sister-in-Law of the accused. PWs-7 and 8 are neighbours, who did not support the prosecution. PWs-10 and 11 are the relatives of the accused and they also did not support the prosecution. PW-12 is the person, who took photographs of the dead body. PW-13 is the V.R.O, who acted as a mediator for observation report. PW-14 is the Tahsildar, who held inquest over the dead body. PW-15 is the Constable, who took the dead body to Government Hospital for Post-Mortem examination. PW-17 is the doctor, who conducted Post-Mortem. PWs-18 to 20 are the Investigating Officers. There is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence;^the case purely rests on the circumstantial evidence.

¶67

The circumstances relied on by the prosecution are:-

¶68

The deceased found dead in the house of Accused No.l.

¶69

The medical evidence adduced by the prosecution.

¶70

¶71

Immediately after the incident, having received^atelephone from Accused No.3, PWs-1 to 4 went to the house of^theaccused At about 9.00 a.m., on the and found the deceased lying dead. the Police Station and gave Ex.P-1same day, PW-1 went to report. In his report, he has specifically stated that both the deceased and Accused No.l led happy marital life. He did not of harassment made by the accused and he did refer to any sort not even express his suspicion over the accused. Subsequently, during the course ot inquest, PW-1 has stated the harassment made by Accused Nos.l to 3. Subsequently, during the course have stated in their of trial, PWs-1 to 5 in their deposition accused used to harass the deceased. evidence in Chief that the demanding her to get the land registered in their name , which For the first was promised by PW-1 at the time of marriage. the Court about the time, PWs-1 to 5 have deposed in harassment. In the earliest version given by PW-1, there is no reference to the so called harassment on the part ot^theaccused, The evidence of other witnesses PWs-6 to 12 is not at all^helpful So far as the evidence to the case of the prosecution in any way concerned, they are only Panchayatdars of PWs-13 and 14 are for observation report and inquest report.

¶72

¶73

Coming to the evidence of Doctor, who was examined^as PW-17, he states in the evidence that he found hair-line fracture at occipital bone of the skull and as such, there is one injury on the head. Except the said injury, he did not find any^other injuries on the body of the deceased. He also opined^thecause of death was due to “shock and haemorrhage due to hair-line fracture of occipital bone of skull and injury to brain”. According to PW-17, the deceased received one injury^on the head. Except the said injury, there are no other injuries^found on the entire body. As the deceased died in the house of Accused No.l, particularly in the bed room of Accused No.l, it is for him to explain as to how the deceased died as per the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872, but no explanation is forthcoming from Accused No.l. As such,^asno explanation is forthcoming from Accused No.l, we are^inclined to accept the evidence of the prosecution. But, the accused dealt only one blow on the head of the deceased by hitting to the wooden plank of the cot, which can be held that it^isnotacase of Section 302 IPC and at best it may fall under the provisions of culpable homicide not amounting to murder (under Section³⁰⁴ Part-1 IPC).

¶74

¶75

So far as Accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants states that during pendency of the Criminal Appeal, Accused No.2 died on 26.12.2017. He also produced death Certificate of Accused No.2. In view^ofthesaid fact, Crl.A.No.ll47 of 2015, in so far as Accused No.2^i.e.,first appellant in the Crl.A.No. 1147 of 2015 is dismissed^asabated.

¶76

So far as the second appellant i.e.. Accused No.3 is concerned, the learned Additional District and Sessions^Judge convicted her under all the charges. As seen from the^charges,

¶77

no charge is framed against Accused Nos.2 and 3 under^Section 302 IPC but, the learned Additional District and Sessions^Judge convicted Accused Nos.2 and 3 also under Section 302 IPC. Similarly, no charges were framed against Accused Nos.2^and3 under Section 201 IPC also but, the learned Additional^Sessions Judge convicted Accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 201 IPC also. The only charge that is framed against Accused^Nos.2and 3 is Section 498-A read with 34 IPC.

¶78

Even according to the prosecution. Accused Nos.2 and³

¶79

were sleeping in a different room, Accused No.l and the deceased were sleeping in the bed room of Accused No.l. As such. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are in no way responsible^forthe alleged murder.

¶80

¶81

in so 15 Accordingly, Crl.A.No. 1147 of 2015 is allowed in part ,, Accused No.3 is concerned, by far as the second appellant i.e recorded by the setting aside the conviction and sentence learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tanuku, m Accordingly, she is S.C.No.235 of 2012, dated 07.12.2015. acquitted.

¶82

So far as the first appellant i.e.. Accused No.2 in Crl.No.ll47 of 2015 is concerned, the appeal is dismissed as abated as she died pending the present Criminal Appeal.

¶83

concerned, the 17. In so far as the Crl.A.No. 196 of 2016 is under Sections 302, 498-A and 201 IPC conviction and sentence learned IV Additional District and Sessions recorded by the .No.235 of 2012, dated 07.12.2015 is Judge, Tanuku, in S.C Instead he is convicted under Section hereby set aside. sentenced him to suffer Rigorous 304 Part-1 IPC and and also to pay a a period of ten (10) years Imprisonment for fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine,^{heshallsuffer} Simple Imprisonment for a period of one (01) month.^Theperiod set off under already undergone by Accused No. 1 shall be given Section 428 Cr.P.C.

¶84

¶85

Criminal Appeals are allowed in part. 18. Accordingly, these

¶86

miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending Consequently

¶87

shall stand closed.

¶88

//TRUE COPY//

¶89

Sd/-S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOIN'

¶90

SECTION OFFICER

¶91

To, Sessions Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari 1. The IV Additional District and District, (with records) First Class Magistrate, Tanuku, West Godavari 2 The II Additional Judicial l 3 ?i,etuperin.enden., Central Prison, Rajahmund^, East Godavari District. [BY SPEED POST] o*atjon West Godavari District. ggs‘‘?o®fieV^ur Pr“e^"g‘h Courj of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies stu

RAM

HIGH COURT

DATED:04/03/2024

COMMON JUDGMENT

CRLA.Nos.1147 of 2015 and 196 of 2016

¶97

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEALS \i \ ^

M.Laxmirajyam and Anr. v. the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Laxmirajyam and Anr. v. the State of A.P.

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

Kamasani Nagaraja Reddy (A-1) Chittoor Dt., Vs the State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Tathireddy Lakshmi Reddy, Chittoor and Anr., Vs the State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Bavanam Peri Reddy Vs the State of a.P., and 2 Others

Moganti Siva Kameswara Rao, W.G.Dt., Vs the State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Boya Chilakala Ramudu, Kurnool Dist. and 2 Othrs Vs P.P., Hyd

A Parameswar Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh