Dismissed

Boya Sreenivasulu, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC2 Jul 2012CRLA/965/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court examined the conviction and sentence for murder under Section 302 IPC. Relying on eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical and investigation evidence, the Court held that the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and life sentence.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the Principal Sessions Judge are confirmed.

Boya Sreenivasulu, Vs The State of A.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 965 of 2008

¶3

JUDGMENT: (per Justice N.V. Ramana)

¶4

This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed questioning the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant herein, by judgment dated 15.05.2008 passed in S.C. No. 58 of 2008 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

¶5

The appellant-accused was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. According to the prosecution, the deceased namely Boya Venkateswarlu and accused are residents of same locality of Pudur village. The wife of the accused namely Jyoti is relative of the deceased. The accused, suspecting that his wife had illegal intimacy with the deceased, used to harass her both mentally and physically, and unable to bear the harassment, she committed suicide about ten months prior to the incident. Three months prior to the incident, the accused tried to kill the deceased, but the deceased escaped due to timely intervention of P.Ws.1 and 2 and others. While so, on 31.08.2007 at about

¶6

10.00 a.m., while the deceased was proceeding towards his house by taking water from the bore well, and when he reached the house of the accused, the accused suddenly pounced upon and beat him with a cart peg on his head. The deceased fell down on the ground and thereupon the accused took a stone and threw it on the head of the deceased, and also beat him on his face with cart peg. On seeing the

¶7

incident, P.W.1 rushed to the scene, and on his raising hue and cry, P.W.2, P.W.3 and some others namely one Yallannagari Venkata Swamy, Myla Rukminamma, Boya Talari Naganna and Myla Pulla Reddy also came to the scene. On seeing them, the accused fled away, leaving the cart peg at the scene of offence. The deceased died on the spot due to the head injury received by him. Based on the complaint lodged by P.W.1, the Station House Officer, Kurnool Taluk Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.153 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and issued F.I.R. to all concerned. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluk Police Station, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He then conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. The Inspector of Police, who took up further investigation, examined the witnesses, apprehended the accused at Padidampadu Cross Roads on 05.09.2007, arrested and produced him before the concerned Court, which remanded him to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.

¶8

The Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellantaccused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. The appellant-accused admitted the guilt, however, in view of the gravity of the offence, the Sessions Judge thought it appropriate to give a reasonable opportunity to the accused to defend the case and hence proceeded with the trial.

¶9

To prove the guilt of the appellant-accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P7 and M.Os.1 to 10. No

¶10

evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced by the accused in defence.

¶11

The Sessions Judge, having appreciated the entire evidence available on record, held the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

¶12

Questioning the said conviction and sentence imposed on him, the appellant-accused preferred the present appeal.

¶13

We have heard the counsel for the appellant-accused and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the judgment under appeal and other material available on record.

¶14

The point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the prosecution could establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt?

¶15

The fact that the death of the deceased a homicidal, is established by the prosecution by examining P.W.1, who lodged Ex.P1 report with P.W.6-S.I. of Police, P.W.4, who acted as mediator for inquest of the dead body of the deceased, P.W.5-Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued post mortem report, and P.W.6-Investigating Officer, who conducted inquest of the dead body of the deceased and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence.

¶16

According to the prosecution, the accused caused the homicidal

¶17

death of the deceased, on the suspicion that the deceased had illegal intimacy with his wife, who committed suicide ten months prior to the incident unable to bear the harassment of the accused, and he also tried to kill the deceased three months prior to the incident.

¶18

The prosecution, to prove the motive for the accused and the commission of offence by him, examined P.Ws.1 to 3.

¶19

P.W.1 is the relative of the deceased. He resides in the locality of the deceased and the accused. He is the de facto complainant and eyewitness to the incident. To attribute motive on the part of the accused to kill the deceased, he deposed about the accused suspecting that his wife was having illegal intimacy with the deceased and his wife committing suicide ten months prior to the incident due to his harassment. He also spoke about the attempt made by the accused three months prior to the incident to kill the deceased with crowbar. As regards the incident, he deposed that on 31.08.2007, at about 10.00 a.m., the deceased was proceeding to his house from the bore well along with a pot of water, and when he reached near the house of the accused, the accused came and beat the deceased on his head with a cart peg. The deceased sustained head injury and fell down on the ground and then the accused beat the deceased with a stone on his head and beat with cart peg on his face thrice. On seeing the incident, he raised hue and cry and rushed to the spot to rescue the deceased, and on hearing his cries, P.W.2, P.W.3, Venkata Swamy, Rukminamma and Naganna also came to the spot. He found blood oozing from the mouth and nose of the deceased and the deceased died within few minutes. Thereafter, he rushed to Kurool Taluk Police Station and reported the matter and the Sub Inspector of Police reduced his statement into writing under Ex.P1 and obtained his

¶20

signature. He further deposed that he was present at the time when the police conducted inquest of the dead body of the deceased and seized material objects- M.Os.1 to 10.

¶21

Except putting suggestions that he was not present in the village on the date of incident and he did not witness the incident and is deposing falsely, nothing adverse was elicited in the crossexamination of P.W.1 to disbelieve his testimony.

¶22

P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased. According to her, about nine months back, on a Friday, her deceased son went to the bore well to fetch water, and after some time, P.W.1 raised hue and cry, and on hearing the same, she came out of the house and witnessed the accused throwing a stone on the head of his son and beating him with a cart peg on his face thrice. On seeing that people gathered, the accused ran away from the spot. When she reached the spot, she found blood oozing from the mouth of the deceased and the deceased died on the spot. She deposed that the accused killed her son suspecting that her son had illicit intimacy with his wife. She also deposed about the suicidal death of the wife of the accused ten months prior to the incident and the accused making attempt to kill the deceased with crowbar three months prior to the incident. Thus, her evidence corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 as regards the motive for the accused to kill the deceased as also the commission of offence by him. Nothing adverse was elicited in her cross-examination to disbelieve her evidence.

¶23

P.W.3 is the brother-in-law of P.W.2. He is also an eyewitness to the incident. His evidence is on similar lines as that of the evidence of P.W.1, regarding the motive for the accused to kill the deceased and

¶24

the manner in which he committed the offence. His evidence remained unshaken in the cross-examination and nothing adverse could be elicited by the defence counsel.

¶25

Though P.W.2 is the mother and P.Ws.1 and 3 are the close relatives of the deceased, but the fact remains they are eyewitnesses to the incident. They supported the evidence of each other and deposed in similar lines as discussed above. There is no inconsistency at all in their evidence, so as to disbelieve their version either as regards the motive for the accused to cause the death of the deceased or the commission of offence by him.

¶26

The case of the prosecution that the deceased died due to head injury is also supported by the medical evidence of P.W.5- Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P3- post mortem report. He opined the cause of death of the deceased is head injury.

¶27

Further, the evidence of P.W.4, who acted as mediator for inquest over the dead body of the deceased, shows that the police conducted inquest of the dead body of the deceased in his presence and seized M.Os.1 and 2- cart peg and stone used by the accused in the commission of offence and other material objects M.Os.3 to 10. The evidence of P.W.6-S.I. of Police, speaks about the investigation done by him in the case pursuant to registration of case on the basis of complaint made by P.W.1 viz., his visiting the scene of offence, preparing rough sketch of the scene, examining the witnesses, conducting inquest of the dead body of the deceased, seizing M.Os.1 to 10 and sending the dead body for post mortem examination. P.W.7 is the Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluk Circle, who took up further

¶28

investigation in the case. He apprehended the accused on 05.09.2007 at Padidampadu Cross Roads, arrested and produced him before the concerned Magistrate, and after completion of further investigation, filed charge sheet. Ex.P7-RFSL Report marked through him also reveals that human blood was detected on the clothes of the deceased and the cart peg used by the accused in the commission of offence.

¶29

Thus, the direct evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3-eyewitnesses coupled with the evidence of P.W.4- mediator for inquest panchanama, the medical evidence of P.W.5-doctor and the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7- Investigating Officers, as discussed above, clearly establishes that the accused inflicted injuries to the deceased with cart peg and stone, with an intention to kill him and caused his death. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution could establish the guilt of the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt, and hence the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge need not be interfered with in appeal.

¶30

In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant, by judgment dated 15.05.2008 passed in S.C. No. 58 of 2008 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, is hereby confirmed.

¶31

__________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶32

______________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶33

2^nd July, 2012 IBL

Boya Sreenivasulu, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boya Sreenivasulu, 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

Madala Krishna, Vs State of A.P.

Jotha Viswanadh, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Malikireddy Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Vs The District Collector and District Magistrate

D.Nagesh Yadav Vs The Commissioner of Police

Satteti Esanna, , Sattolla Yesaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kunkala Mahesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh