Dismissed

Nunna Bhogeswara Rao, Krishna Dt., v. the State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Andhra Pradesh HC26 Feb 2024CRLA/816/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a criminal appeal against a life sentences for murder. The court upheld the conviction based on the unshaken evidence of a child witness and medical findings confirming death by asphyxia due to smothering.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal No. 816 of 2016 is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Sessions Judge.

Nunna Bhogeswara Rao, Krishna Dt., Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

V-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 816 OF 2016

¶8

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the^{sentenceawarded} in S.C.No.182 of 2014 on the file of the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District dated; 01-07-2015.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Nunna Bhogeswara Rao, S/o. Ramudu, aged about 40 years, Yadava, R/o. Devuni Thota, Peta Kalidindi, Kalidindi (V) & (M), Krishna District.

¶11

...APELLANT/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Public^{Prosecutor,High} Court of Judicature, at Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPODENT/COMPLAINANT

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant(s): SRI. LAKSHMI D S

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

The Court made the following JUDGMENT:

¶18

•»

¶19

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶21

: TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶22

SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH

¶23

PRESENT

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

¶25

AND

¶26

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

¶27

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.816 of 2016

¶28

Between:

¶29

Nunna Bhogeswara Rao, S/o. Ramudu, aged 40 y^rs, Yadava, Devuni Thota, Peta Kalido^i, Kalidindi Village and Mi Krishna District.

¶30

Appellant/Accused And

¶31

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

¶32

Respondent/ Complainant Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Smt. Lakshmi D.S. Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Additional Public Prosecutor (AP)

¶33

The Court made the following;

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

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

¶36

Sole Accused in Sessions Case No. 182 of 2014 on the file

¶37

of the Court of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, is the appellant in the present

¶38

¶39

¶40

Criminal Appeal. He was tried and convicted by the^learned Additional District and Sessions Judge under Section 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for LIFE and also to pay a fine of amount Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for three (03) months.

¶41

Substance of the charge is that on 05.11.2013 at about 11.30 in the night, the accused committed murder of his wife by name Nunna Krishna Kumari (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) by pressing her face with a pillow in his house D.No.7-148/104 situated at Devunithota, Peta-Kalidindi, Kalidindi Village and Mandal, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.

¶42

Brief facts of the case, in nutshell are as follows The accused is none other than husband of the deceased and their marriage was performed about 19 years back i.e., in the year 1994. The couple lead happy marital life for some time and they were blessed with a daughter and son i.e., PW-6^and PW-3, respectively. Having addicted to bad vices, the accused used to harass the deceased. As such, the deceased along with his two children went to her parents house and started residing there. Subsequently, the matter was placed before the elders

¶43

¶44

i.e., PW-8 and another, who admonished and advised^him to take care of the wife and children. Thereafter,, the^accusedset up his family at Peta-Kalidindi Village near the house^ofthe parents of the deceased.

¶45

During that time he said to have developed extra^marital relationship with another girl in that regard both^thedeceased and accused used to quarrel frequently. On 05.11.2013^after finishing his coolie work of catching fish returned^tohome at 4.00 p.m., and attended to his routine works in the^houseand after dinner the accused went to the Bed Room and watching^TV along with PW-3. After some time, PW-3 went into sleep^and the accused was watching TV in the Bed Room, After some time, PW-3 woke-up and found the Accused was not on^thecot. He found the accused sat on the deceased and pressing^herface with a pillow. Due to fear, he went to the house of^PW-1,whois his maternal uncle, by raising cries and informed him^aboutthe same. Immediately, PWs-1 and 3 returned to home and found the accused still pressing the face of the deceased^withapillow. When PW-1 questioned the accused, he got down and pushed aside PW-1 and went out of the house on his cycle. On hearing the cries, PW-2 also came there. Thereafter, PW-4-father^ofthe deceased also came and found the accused going away^onhis

¶46

¶47

cycle and he saw the deceased lying dead on the cot. PW-5, who is also relative of the deceased came to the scene of offence and he also found the accused going away on his cycle and he also saw the dead body of the deceased lying on the cot. Immediately, PW-6-daughte r of the deceased and accused also came there and PW-3 infoimed her about the pressing of the face of the deceased by the accused and killing her.

¶48

Thereafter, PW-1 went to the Police Station and gave a report to the Police. PW-12-the Sub-Inspecto r of Police, Kalidindi Police Station, received the report-Ex.P-1 from PW-1 at about 09.00

¶49

a.m.. on 06.11.2013 and registered a case in Cr.No.l33 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and submitted copies of FIRs to all the concerned. Ex-P.13 is the copy of the FIR. Having received the information from PW-11, the Inspector of Police, Kaikalur Circle, who is examined as PW-12, collected copy of FIR and proceeded to the scene of offence. He prepared an observatio n report-Ex.P-7 in the presence of mediators PW-9 and another. He also prepared a rough sketch at the scene of offence which is marked as Ex.P-14. He conducted i inquest over the dead body in the presence PW-9 and another, Ex.P-8 is the i - inquest report, During the course of inquest, he examined PWs-1 to 8 and

¶50

¶51

Others and recorded their statements. He sent the dead body for conducting Post Mortem examination. PW-10 -Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Kaikaluru, conducted autopsy over the dead body; she opmed the cause of death was due to Asphyxia due to smothering. She issued Post Mortem Certificate Ex.P-10. He seized the pillow-M.0.1 under a cover of panchanama.

¶52

On 07.11.2013 on receipt of credible information, he arrested the accused at the Bus Stop of Sanarudravaram Village in the presence of mediators PW-9 and PW-14 under Ex.P-9. After receiving Post Mortem Report and after completion of entire investigation, PW-14-the Inspector of Pohce, Kaikaluru Police Station, who is the successor of PW-13, filed charge sheet in the case.

¶53

In support of its case, prosecution examined PWs-1 to 14 and marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-14 and exhibited M.0.1-Pillow. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,^he denied the incriminating material against him, of course,^hedid not choose to examine any defence witness.

¶54

Smt Lakshmi D.S., learned counsel for the appellant contends that PWs-1 and 2 did not support the prosecution^and

' %

as such, their evidence is not at all helpful to the prosecution. She further contended that the accused was residing^elsewhere and he was not in the house on that particular date. She further contends that the prosecution has not proved^the motive for the accused to kill the deceased.

¶59

On the other hand, Sri. S. Dhusyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed contending that PW-3 is none other than son of the accused and he is the eye witness in the present case. In the cross-examination of PW-3 nothing has been elicited by the defence and his evidence is fully corroborated with the evidence of PWs-4, 5 and 6. He also contended that there is corroboration between the ocular version of PWs-3 to 6 and the medical evidence spoken to by PW-10. As such, he requests this Court there are no grounds to mterfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and sought for dismissal of the present Crimmal Appeal. 10. We have gone through the entire material on record. 11. The main witness in the present case is PW-3, who is none other than the son of the deceased and accused. His evidence discloses that on 05.11.2013 he and the accused slept on one cot and the deceased was sleeping on different cot. At about

11.30 in the night, PW-3 suddenly woke-up and he did not find his father i.e., the accused on the cot. Thereafter, he found the accused on the cot of the mother, who is sitting on^his mother and pressing her face with a pillow. Immediately, due to fear, he ran away to PW-1 by raising cries. Immediately, PWs-1 and³ returned back and found the accused sitting on the^deceased pressing her face with a pillow. After hearing the cries of PWs-3, PWs-4 to 6 also came to the scene and by the time PWs-4 and 5 came to the scene, they found the accused going away on his cycle. Thereafter, PW-6, who is the sister of PW-3 and daughter of the accused came there, she also says^thatPW- 3 informed her stating that the accused pressed the face of the deceased with a pillow. The evidence of PW-3 is so natural that his evidence was not at all shaken during the course of cross-examination. 12. PW-3 is aged about 14 years on the date of recording of the evidence. PW-3 further admits that his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by PW-11. As such, PW-3^isa natural witness and he was sleeping in the house of the accused where the deceased died. 13. Coming to the evidence of PW-1 though, he did not support the prosecution version; he has admitted in his further

¶64

¶65

examination that his statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which is marked as Ex.P-6. In his Chief Examination itself he admits giving of report-Ex.P-1 to the police. Thus, PW-1 is not disowning his earlier statements Ex.P-1^andEx.P-6. 14. As seen from the records, Ex.P-6 also is recorded on^oath. As such, as PW-1 did not disown Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-6 his^evidence also can be looked into to the extent of giving report to the police Ex.P-1 and giving statements under Section 164 before^PW-11. As seen from the material, the ocular version spoken to by PW-3 has been corroborated by the medical evidence of PW-10. PW10, in the Post Mortem Report, has clearly stated that^thecause of death was due to Asphyxia due to smothering. As such, there is corroboration from the medical evidence also. The evidence adduced by the prosecution clinchingly establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, as the deceased died^inthe house of the accused and in view of the direct evidence of PW-3. 15. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are^not inclined to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge. 16. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the \ /

¶66

¶67

XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gudivada,^Krishna

¶68

District in S.C.No.l82 of 2014, dated 01.07.2015.

¶69

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

¶70

shall stand closed.

¶71

Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

64/ /s^TlON OFFICER

To,

The XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gudivada,^{KrishnaDistrict} (with records, if any)

¶76

The S.H.O Kalidindi, P.S, Kaikaluru, Krishna District.

¶77

OneCCto LAKSHMI D S Advocate [OPUC]

¶78

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

¶79

The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court^{of AndhraPradeshat} Amaravathi.

¶80

Three CD Copies

Xr
V

HIGH COURT

DATED:27/02/2024

JDUGMENT

CRLA.No.816 of 2016

'i 0 2 JUL 2m
Soi
^ ^ Cor«nt Section .

¶87

CRIMINAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED

Nunna Bhogeswara Rao, Krishna Dt., v. the State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nunna Bhogeswara Rao, Krishna Dt., v. the 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

Giddangi Ghouse (A2) Kadapa Dt and 4 Otrs., Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep Pp.

Kottam Amapalli Gangaiah (A1) Kadapa Dt and Anr., Vs the State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Shaik Saidavali, Krishna Dist. Vs Inspector of Police, Jaggaiahpet

Andugula Nagaraju at Raju, Krishna Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd

Nariboina Madhusudhan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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