Dismissed

D.Ravi Kumar, Chittor Dt., v. State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Feb 2024CRLA/263/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal filed by a convict sentenced to life imprisonment for murder under Section 302 IPC and cruelty under Section 498-A IPC. The court held that the evidence, including confessional statements, seized weapons, and autopsy reports, conclusively proved the guilt of the accused, defeating the plea of benefit of doubt.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed; conviction under Section 302 IPC and 498-A IPC and sentence confirmed.

D.Ravi Kumar, Chittor Dt., Vs State of Ap., Rep Pp. — Domestic Violence | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

WEDNESDAY. THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEI TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. V. L .N. CHAKRAVARTHI

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 263 OF 2015

¶6

Between:

¶7

g-Rsvi Kumar, S/o. Late Venkataramana, Aged 35 Years. Vodde by Caste, R/o M. Gollapalle Village, H/o. Moogavadi, Ramasamudram Mandel, Chittoor District.

¶8

...APELLANT

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep, by its Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad Through Inspector of Police, Punganur Circle, Chittoor District.

¶11

...RESPODENTS

¶12

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentences passed by the learned 11-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle in S.C. No. 203/2014, dated 23.01.2015, finding the Appellant / Accused guilty for the offences U/s. 302 and 498-A I PC and set the Appellant / Accused at liberty forthwith.

¶13

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI M. CHALAPATI RAO (LEGAL AID)

¶14

Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

The Court made the following:

¶16

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶18

, WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY ‘ i ■' TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

¶21

AND

¶22

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

¶23

Criminal Appeal No.263 of 2015

¶24

Between:

¶25

D.Ravi Kumar, S/o Late Venkataramana Aged about 35 years, R/o M.Gollapalle Village, H/o. Moogavadi, ramasamudrarn Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶26

Appellant / Accused

¶27

And

¶28

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad Through Inspector of Police, Punganur Circle, Chittoor District.

¶29

Respondent / Complainant

¶30

Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Sri M.Chalapathi Rao (Legal Aid) Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Public Prosecutor

¶31

JUDGMENT;

¶32

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

¶33

Sole Accused in Sessions Case No.203 of 2014 on the

¶34

file of the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madanapalli, Chittoor District is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal. He was tried and convicted by the^learned

¶35

¶36

¶37

Additional Sessions Judge for the offences punishable^under Section 498-A and 302 I.P.C.

¶38

Substance of the charge against the accused is that prior to 26.08.2013, the accused used to harass his wife by name D.Vijayalakshmi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) both physically and mentally, suspecting her fidelity and in the said process, on 26.08.2013 at^about2.00 a.m., he caused the death of the deceased by attacking^her with bill-hook (sickle) causing her instantaneous death^and thereby committed offences punishable under Section^498-A and 302 IPC.

¶39

After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I for a period for two (02) years and also to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-ⁱⁿ default to suffer S.I for two (02) months. He was further convicted for the offence punishable under Section^302I.P.C and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and^alsoto pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer S.I for three (03) months.

¶40

¶41

Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, is as follows;

¶42

(i) The accused and the deceased were residents of M.Gollapalli Village, Mogavadi Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District, and their marriage was performed^about9 yeai's prior to the date of incident. The couple lead^happy marital life for a period of five years and they were^blessed with a daughter and a son aged about 7 and 4 years respectively. P.W.l is the father and P.W.2 is the^motherof the deceased. P.W.3 is the brother of P.W.l. At the^time of an amount of Rs.50,000/and other gold marriage. to the accused towards dowry. After ornaments were given five years of marriage, the accused got addicted to^badvices and used to harass the deceased demanding her to bring additional dowry from her parents. P.W.l used to adjust money periodically and he paid an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ to the accused on different dates towards additional^dowry. After receiving money, the accused used to look after^the deceased properly for some days and after spending the money, he used to again harass the deceased, P.W.l also convened panchayat with the elders - PW.4 to PW.6,^butin

¶43

¶44

spite of the same, the accused did not change his attitude.

¶45

(ii) About 20 days prior to the date of incident, the accused went to the house of P.W.l and demanded money and threatened that if money is not paid, he will kill^the deceased. While so, on 26.08.2013 at about 5.00 a.m.,^the accused went to the house of P.Ws.l and 2 and informed them that he killed the deceased by causing injuries^all over her body with a bill-hook. Thereupon, P.Ws.l to 3, along with other relatives, went to the house of the accused and found the deceased in a pool of blood. Immediately, P.W.l^wentto the police station and gave a report. P.W.l5 Sub-Inspector^of Police, Ramasamudram Police Station, received report^from P.W.l at about 10 a.m., which is marked as Ex.P. 1,^andhe registered a case in Crime No.68 of 2013 under Sections 498A and 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.9 is the copy of F.I.R. He issued copies of F.I.R to all the concerned.

¶46

(hi) P.W.16 - Inspector of Police, Punganur Police Station, received copy of FIR and went to the scene of offence at about 10.35 a.m. He seized blood stained cloths and one sickle, one drag hook, plastic mug, two pillow covers and blood stained clothes of the deceased under the cover of

¶47

¶48

panchanama. He also prepared a rough sketch - Ex.P.¹⁰ at the scene of offence and got the scene of offence photographed by P.W.9. He held inquest over the dead body in the^presence of the mediators - P.W.IO and another. Ex.P.4 is the inquest report. He examined P.Ws.l to 8 and others and recorded their detailed statements during the course of inquest.^On 27.08.2013 at about 6.00 a.m., he arrested the accused^near Noorsha Valli Darga in Punganur Town in the presence of P.W.ll and 13. On interrogation, the accused confessed about the commission of offence of murdering his wife by inflicting injuries all over her body with a sickle. P.W. 16 arrested the accused under cover of mahazarnama and basing on the confession made by the accused, P.W.¹⁶ recovered the crime weapons marked as MOs.7 and 16. All the seized blood stained objects were sent to R.F.S.L,^Tirupati. He sent the dead body to the Government hospital for conducting post-mortem examination. P.W. 14 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Punganur, conducted autopsy over the dead body on 27.08.2013. He found multiple injuries over the dead body and issued^Ex.P.8

post-mortem certificate. After completion of investigation,^the successor of P.W. 16 filed charge sheet.

¶53

In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.l to 17 and marked Ex.P.l to P.12, apart from exhibits^marked as M.Os.l to 16.

¶54

On behalf of defence, portions of 161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws.l, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 were marked as Exs.D.l to D.7.

¶55

After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him, but he^didnot choose to adduce any defence evidence.

¶56

Sri M.Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel appearing for^the appellant, contends that there were lot of improvements in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and no reliance can be placed on their evidence. He further contends that there were lot of improvements in the evidence of other prosecution witnesses also. He further contends that there is no eye witness^tothe alleged attack on the deceased by the appellant and^thecase of prosecution mainly rests on the circumstantial evidence. He further contends that initially the prosecution^hascome

¶57

¶58

up with the motive that the appellant got addicted to bad vices and used to harass the deceased both physically^and mentally. However, during the course of evidence, they improved their version contending that suspecting the fidelity of the deceased, the accused caused the death of the deceased. He also contends that the prosecution is not coming out with true version and as such, he seeks^extension of benefit of doubt to the appellant and acquit him^forthe charged offences.

¶59

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the same contending that the prosecution clinchingly established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He also contends that the deceased died in the house of the accused, where there are no inmates except their son and daughter, who are aged about 7 and 4 years respectively. As such, it is for the accused to explain^as to how the deceased died in his house. He further contends^that the conduct of the accused would show that it is he who caused the death of the, deceased. As such, he requests^this Court to dismiss the present appeal.

¶60

¶61

10.This Court perused the entire material on record. We are unable to agree with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. As can be seen from^the evidence on record, immediately after killing the deceased,^the accused went to the house of P.Ws.l and 2 and informed them that he killed the deceased. Thereafter, immediately P.Ws. 1 and 2, along with other relatives, went to^thehouseof the accused and found the deceased in pool of blood.^Atthe - instance of the accused, the crime weapons were seized. Even otherwise, it is for the accused to explain as^tohowthe deceased died in his house, as there are no other inmatesⁱⁿ the house, even according to the defence. Further,^theocular version of the prosecution witnesses has been corroborated by the medical evidence. Further, the evidence of elders^ofthe village also corroborates the prosecution version. If there are any improvements in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, they are only minor and they will not affect^the prosecution case in any way. Further, as seen from the evidence of P.W.14, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, who conducted autopsy over the dead body, the attack made by the appellant is a very ghastly attack. His evidence^would

¶62

¶63

show that the intestine came, out of the body and all^the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased are veiy serious in nature. Viewed from any angle, we find no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court.

¶64

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of any merit, and the same is liable to be dismissed, by confirming^the calendar and judgment in Sessions Case No.203 of 2014 on the file of the Court of II Additional District and^Sessions Judge, Madanapalli, Chittoor District.

¶65

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶66

Sd/- P. VENKATA RAMANA JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle.

¶71

The Secretary Legal Services Committee, High Court^{of Andhra} Pradesh at Amaravati.

¶72

The Station House Officer, Punganur Police Station, Chittoor District.

¶73

One CC to Sri M. Chalapati Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶74

Two CCs to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT]

¶75

¶76

Three C.D. Copies. DV Cnr

HIGH COURT

DATED:21/02/2024

ORDER

CRLA.No.263 of 2015

DISMISSING THE CRLA

D.Ravi Kumar, Chittor Dt., v. State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Ravi Kumar, Chittor Dt., v. State of Ap., Rep Pp.

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

Teki Bangari at Bangarayya Vs State of A.P.

S Veeranjaneyulu, Guntur Dt., Vs State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Shaik Mahaboob Dowla, Ananthapur Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd