Dismissed

Sri Kondepogu Prbhudeva at Nehemiya, Prakasam., v. the State, Rep Pp and Anr, Thr:Inspector of Police.

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Mar 2024CRLA/796/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed the criminal appeal by acquiescing to the trial Court’s conviction and life sentence under Section 302 IPC. The Court held the prosecution’s evidence proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt without interfering with the established facts or sentence.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Kondepogu Prbhudeva at Nehemiya, Prakasam., Vs… — Dowry and Cruelty | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY

¶6

AND

¶7

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 796 OF 2016

¶9

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the^Judgmentand Orders dated 12-02-2016 passed by 1®* Additional Sessions^{Judge:Ongole,} FACA/II Additional Sessions Judge; Ongole Prakasam^{DistrictinSCNo.87} of 2014.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Sri Kondepogu Prbhudeva @ Nehemiya, S/o. Yesobu, aged^27years, Madiga Caste, R/o. Pathuru, Kanigiri, Prakasham District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶12

...Appellant/Accused

¶13

AND

¶14

The State, Inspector of Police, Kanigiri Circle,^{PrakasamDistrict,A.P.} 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶15

...Respondent/Complainant

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri B. Paramesewara Rao(Legal^Aid) Counsel for the Respondents: Sri D. Dushyanth Reddy,^{AdditionalPublic}

¶17

Prosecutor

¶18

The Court made the following:

¶19

¶20

KSR, J & BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.796 of 2016

¶21

APHC010846942016

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶23

[3474]

¶24

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶25

WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶29

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 796/2016

¶30

Between:

¶31

Sri Kondepogu Prbhudeva @ Nehemiya, Prakasam.,

¶32

...APELLANT

¶33

AND

¶34

The State Rep Pp Anr Thrinspector Of Police and Others

¶35

...RESPODENT(S)

¶36

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶37

1 .Sri B. Parameswara Rao

¶38

Counsel for the Respodent(S):

¶39

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶40

The Court made the following:

¶41

¶42

¶43

KSR, J & BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.796of2016

¶44

HON^BLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY and

¶45

HON^BLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶46

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.796 of 2016

¶47

JUDGMENT; (Per justice K. Suresb Reddy)

¶48

Sole accused in SC No.87 of 2014 on the file of the^{CourtofVIIAdditional} Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, is the appellant^{herein.Hewastried} and convicted by the learned I Additional Sessions^{Judge-FAC-VII} Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole, for the offence under Section^{302IPCandwassentenced} to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine^ofRs.lOO/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment^{foraperiodofone} month. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC.

¶49

Substance of the charge is that prior to 17.09.2013, the accused subjected his wife Kondepogu Jyothi (hereinafter referred^{toasdeceased)} to cruelty and on 17.09.2013 at about 4.00 p.m., the accused^{hackedhiswifeonher} neck with a knife causing her death, thereby committed^{offencespunishableunder} Sections 302 and 498-A IPC.

¶50

Case of the prosecution, as culled out from the^{evidenceofprosecution} witnesses is as follows:

¶51

i) The accused is none other than the husband of the^{deceasedandtheir} marriage took place about two years prior to the date^{ofoffence.Theaccused} used to harass the deceased unnecessarily in drunken^{statewithoutanyreason.As} the accused was having a tattoo of a lady on his chest, the accused and the

¶52

¶53

KSR, J & BVINC, J Crl.A.No.796 of 2016

¶54

deceased used to quarrel with each other. The accused^{andthedeceasedusedto}

¶55

work as masons at Hyderabad and its surroundings.

¶56

ii) On 16.09.2013, the accused and the deceased along with their daughter went to Pathuru village, which is the village of the accused from Hyderabad. PW.1 is the brother and PW.2 is the mother of the deceased. On the same day, PW.2 and the younger brother of PW.1 went to the house of the accused and gave new clothes. On the next day, they brought the deceased and her daughter to their house at Hanumanthunipadu village (H.M.Padu). After some time, on the same day, the accused also came to the house of PW.1. The^{accusedtookaknifeand} started cutting a stick. After some time, the accused^{calledthedeceasedintothe} house and asked her to serve lunch for him. Then the deceased went into the house to serve lunch for the accused. After some time,^{PW.1wentintothehouse} to have drinking water and found the deceased in a pool of blood with a cut injury to her neck and the accused was standing near the deceased by holding a knife in his hand. After seeing the same, PW.1 raised hue and cry and on hearing his cries. PWs.2 to 4 came inside the house and found the deceased with cut injury and the accused was standing near the deceased by holding a knife. Then they caught hold of the accused and tied to a pole. Immediately, they tried to shift the injured to the hospital, but on the way, she lost her breath and hence, they brought back the dead body. On the same day, at about 8.00 p.m., PW.1^{wenttotheH.M.PaduPS} and gave a report to the police.

¶57

iii) PW.9-Assistant Sub Inspector of H.M.Padu PS, received report from PW.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.78 of 2013 for the offence^{underSection302IPC} and issued copies of FIRs to all the concerned. Ex.P.10 is the copy of the FIR.

¶58

KSR, J & BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.796ot2016

¶59

iv) On the same day, having received the information^{fromPW.9,PW.10} - Inspector of Police, Kanigiri Circle, visited the scene^{ofoffence.Hesecuredthe} presence of PWs.1, 2 and others and recorded their statements.^Healsoseized MOs.1 to 4 in the presence of PW.5 and another under^{Ex.P.2seizurenama.} At about 11 p.m., he arrested the accused in the presence^{ofmediators.Onthenext} day i.e., 18.09.2013 once again he visited the scene^{ofoffencebysecuringthe} of PW.5 and another and observed the scene of offence.^Ex.P.3 is the presence observation report. He also seized MOs.5 to 8 at the^scene of offence in the presence of PW.5 and another. He also got the scene photographed^underEx.P.5 through PW.6. He also prepared a rough sketch of the^{sceneofoffencesunder} Exs.P.11 and P.12. Then he conducted inquest over the^{deadbodyofthedeceased} in the presence of PW.5 and another under Ex.P.4. He^{alsoseizedMOs.9and10} and sent the dead body to the Government Hospital, Kanigiri for post-mortem examination.

¶60

v) PW.7 - Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Center, Kanigiri, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased.^{Heopinedthecauseof} death was due to injuries to Oesophagus and trachea.^{Ex.P.6isthepost-mortem} certificate. Vi) On 22.09.2013, PW.10 sent the material objects^{totheRFSL,Guntur.} After receipt of the report from the RFSL under Ex.P.16,^{hissuccessorPW.11filed} the charge sheet.

¶61

In support of its case, the prosecution examined^PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.16 and also exhibited MOs.1 to^{10.Theaccusedwasexamined} under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the incriminating^{materialfoundagainst}

¶62

¶63

KSR, J & BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.796of2016

¶64

him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Of^{course,hedidnotchooseto} examine any witness in defence.

¶65

Heard Sri B. Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S. Dushyantha Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Perused the entire material on record.

¶66

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that^{Ex.P.2wasnotdrafted} on 17.09.2013 at about 10.00 p.m. in the presence of^{PW.5andanotherandinfact} Ex.P.2 was drafted in the police station by PW.10 and^{obtainedtheirsignaturesat} the police station and hence, Ex.P.2 cannot be relied^{upon.Hefurthercontends} that PW.4 was not at all present at the time of incident^and his house is not situated near the scene of offence. Even PW.3 also residing elsewhere and both PWs.3 and 4 were planted by the prosecution and hence,^{noreliancecanbeplaced} on their evidence. He further contends that so far as^{theevidenceofPWs.1and2} are concerned, they being the brother and mother of the^{deceased,theirevidence} cannot be looked into. As such, he requested this Court^{tosetasidetheconviction} and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the^{accused.Finallyhecontends} that if this Court comes to a conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the offence, a lenient view may be taken against him, as he is having^aminorchild.

¶67

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor^opposedthe appeal contending that the attack made by the accused^on the deceased is a gruesome one and the evidence spoken to by PW.7 shows^{thenatureoftheinjuries} on the deceased. He further contends that PWs.1 to 4 have^{witnessedtheaccused} holding a knife near the injured, who was found in^{apoolofblood.Whenthe} accused tried to escape, all the neighbours caught^{holdoftheaccusedandtiedto}

¶68

¶69

iff

¶70

KSR, J & BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.796of2016

¶71

a pole. Immediately, after receipt of the report, the Inspector of Police came to the scene of offence and arrested the accused at about 11.00 p.m., on the same day. He further contends that except the accused, none others were present inside the house and it is the accused, who took the deceased inside the house asking her to serve food. As such, he requests this Court to dismiss the criminal appeal by confirming the judgment of the trial Court.

¶72

As seen from the evidence of PW.1, when the accused^{andthedeceased} went inside the house, after some time, he also went inside the house for taking water and he found the deceased in a pool of blood and the accused was standing near the injured by holding a knife in his hand. He also specifically stated in his evidence that the accused threatened him with dire consequences. It is only after hearing the cries of PW.1, PW.2 to 4 and other neighbours,^{rushedintothehouse} and saw the deceased in a pool of blood and the accused was standing near the injured (deceased) by holding a knife. When the accused tried to run away, PWs.3 and 4 and other neighbours caught hold of him and tied to a pole. Thus, it isclear from the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 that immediately after the offence, they saw the deceased in a pool of blood and the accused was standing near the injured by holding heavy cutting knife. As per the evidence of PW.7, Oesophagus of the deceased was cut into two pieces and the accused must have used heavy force in killing the deceased with heavy cutting knife. Further, expect the accused, nobody has got motive to kill the deceased. There was no explanation^{fromtheaccusedas} to how the deceased sustained the severe injury on^theneck.

¶73

In view of the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and 7 coupled^{withtheevidenceof} PW.10, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

¶74

¶75

KSR, J & BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.796 of 2016

¶76

appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt and hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the said conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the appellant/accused in SC No.87 of 2014 dated 12.02.2016.

¶77

Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.

¶78

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this criminal appeal, shall stand

¶79

closed.

¶80

SD/- S.V.S.R. MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The 1®* Additional Sessions Judge: Ongole, FAC/VII^{AdditionalSessions} Judge: Ongole, Prakasam District(with records)

¶85

One CC to Sri B. Paramesewara Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶86

Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of^{AndhraPradeshat} Amaravati [OUT]

¶87

The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri,^{PrakasamDistrict.}

¶88

The Station House Officer, Hanumanthunipadu Police Station,

¶89

Prakasam District.

¶90

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa.

¶91

The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court^{of A.P.atAmaravati.}

¶92

Three CD Copies.

SAM

ssb

HIGH COURT

DATED: 13/03/2024

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.796 of 2016

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL

Sri Kondepogu Prbhudeva at Nehemiya, Prakasam., v. the State, Rep Pp and Anr, Thr:Inspector of Police.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Kondepogu Prbhudeva at Nehemiya, Prakasam., v. the State, Rep Pp and Anr, Thr:Inspector of Police.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ambadipudi Jyothi, Prakasamd Dt and Anr., Vs State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Avdesh Singh at Abdesh, Anantapur Dt., Vs State, Sho, Roddam Ps., Rep Pp.

Duddu Lazar, Prakasam Dt and 9 Otrs., Vs the State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Rangala Neeladri, Kanchili Mandal., Vs State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Shaik Jalaluddin, Spsr Nellore Dt., Vs the State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Martha Yogamma Vs State of Andhra Pradesh