Gembali Sreenu , Srinivasa Rao v. The State Of A.P.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYALAKSHMI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.711 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Smt . Just ice Kongara Vij aya Lakshmi) The 1st accused in S.C.No.167 of 2010 on the file of II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District, is the appellant herein. He was tried for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and 302 IPC, for causing the death of his wife by name J. Gowthami (hereinafter referred to as " the deceased" ) on the night of 31.05.2010 by strangulating her with his towel. By its judgment dated 23.02.2011, the Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ -, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

The appellant was also found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/ -, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The trial court directed both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The facts, as narrated by the prosecution witnesses, are as under:

P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. P.W.2 is the resident of Sudda Veedhi, Vizianagaram and also brother-in-law of the accused. P.W.3 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. P.W.4 is a friend of the appellant. P.W.5 is the brother of the appellant. P.W.6 is the neighbour of the deceased. P.Ws.7 and 9 are the residents of M.R. Nagaram of Parvathipuram and P.W.8 is the wife of Poojari of Ramalayam of M.R. Nagaram Village. P.W.10 is the Manager of Sahara

India Financial Corporation, Kasibugga. P.W.11 is the V.R.O. of Sangamvalasa Village, in charge of M.R.Nagaram Village. P.W.12 is a photographer, who took the photos of the dead body of the deceased. P.W.13 is the doctor, who conducted the postmortem and P.Ws.14 to 16 are the official witnesses. P.W.17 is the Mandal Revenue Officer of Parvathipuram. The appellant is the husband of the deceased.

3. According to P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased, the appellant is the son-in-law of P.W.1. The deceased Gowthami was her younger daughter and he performed the marriage of the deceased with the appellant on 15.02.2009. P.W.1 agreed to pay a dowry amount of Rs.1,50,000/ - and a gold ring, as demanded, prior to the marriage. P.W.1 invited the appellant to his house for Pongal and presented a gold ring, which was agreed to be presented at the time of the marriage, apart from the demanded dowry amount of Rs.1,50,000/ -. P.W.1 also purchased Pustelatadu and a gold necklace to the deceased. After the marriage, the deceased joined the accused. About three months after the marriage, P.W.1 visited the house of the deceased at her matrimonial home, when the deceased informed him that the appellant and his mother, who is A.

2, were harassing and ill treating her on the ground that the deceased was not beautiful and that she does not know the household work and cooking. On being questioned, the appellant asked P.W.1 to take back the deceased to his house and make her learn cooking etc. Accordingly, the deceased was brought back by P.W.1 and kept her with him for six months and thereafter dropped the deceased at her matrimonial house. In the month of January, 2010, when P.W.1 visited the matrimonial home of the deceased, he observed the deceased was very weak, lying on the verandah outside the house.

behaviour of the appellant and that both the accused have been harassing the deceased and demanding more money towards additional dowry. The deceased also informed P.W.1 that the appellant was not providing food to her. Immediately, P.W.1 raised a dispute before the elders of village, who in turn came to the house of the appellant, and questioned him. The deceased also informed P.W.1 that the appellant pledged her Pustelatadu for Rs.8,000/ -. When P.W.1 questioned the appellant with regard to the said pledge, the appellant did not give any reply. Thereafter, the elders advised P.W.1 to take back the deceased to his house to provide treatment, as the appellant was not providing any medical treatment to her. Again the deceased was brought back to the house of P.W.1. Apprehending that the appellant may pledge gold necklace, P.W.

1 sold the gold necklace of the deceased for Rs.25,000/ - and out of the said amount, handed over Rs.8,000/ - plus interest of Rs.1,000/ - to the appellant for redeeming of the pledged Pustelatadu. Accordingly, they redeemed the gold Pustelatadu by paying the said amount and the remaining amount of Rs.16,000/ - was deposited by PW.1 in the name of the deceased in Sahara India Financial Corporation, Palasa. In the month of April, 2010, again the appellant came to the house of P.W.1 and asked him to send the deceased to their house on the occasion of village festival known as 'Sambaralu'. Accordingly, about four days thereafter, P.W.1 sent the deceased along with the appellant by handing over the 'Sahara India' bond. Thereafter, on 29.5.2010, P.W.1 went to Vizianagaram to attend a marriage of one of their relatives.

At that time, appellant's elder son-in-law, who is P.W.3G. Rama Rao, came and informed P.W.1 that he has received a message that the deceased was not doing well and fell sick, as due to harassment in the hands of the appellant and his mother.

information on 31.5.2010, PWs.1 to 3 and L.W.2 went to the house of the appellant and there they observed the deceased being sick. Thereafter, all of them approached the village elders, P.W.4 and L.W.11 and informed the same to them who in turn, advised him to lodge a police report. Since it was a late night, they did not approach the police station, but stayed in the house of P.W.5, who is the brother of the appellant in that night. On the next day morning at about 5 or 6 a.m., P.W.4 reached there and informed him that the deceased was lying dead. Immediately all the four persons along with P.W.4 reached the house of the appellant and found the deceased dead. They also observed a towel besides the dead body and also ligature marks over the neck of the deceased. On enquiry by P.W.

1, the appellant himself confessed that the appellant and his mother, who is A.2, killed the deceased, as the deceased gave adamant replies. P.W.1 identified the said towel as M.O.1. Thereafter, P.W.1 submitted a written report in Parvathipuram Rural Police Station, which came to be marked as Ex.P.1. On receipt of Ex.P.1, the police examined P.W.1.

4. P.W.2 is the brother-in-law of the appellant. He married the sister of the appellant. He stated that both the appellant and his mother harassed and subjected the deceased to cruelty. P.W.2 also stated that he came to know about the said fact through the deceased when he visited the house of the appellant, as it is his in-law's house. In that connection, P.W.1 raised disputes before their caste elders and took the deceased to his house to provide medical treatment. When P.W.2 was in his house in Vizianagaram, P.W.3, who is a resident of Vizianagaram, came to him along with P.W.1 and informed that he received a message saying that the deceased was not well and that she was being harassed by the appellant and his mother. On receipt of the said information, all

the four persons i.e., P.Ws. 1 to 3 and L.W.2 Vasudeva Rao reached the house of the appellant and observed that the deceased was very weak. Immediately, P.W.1 along with others approached the elders of the appellant and raised a dispute. On which the elders of the appellant advised P.W.1 to give a police report. P.W.1 did not give police report on that day, as it was late night. Thereafter, all the four persons stayed in the house of P.W.5, who is the younger brother of the appellant. On the next day morning, P.W.4 came and informed them that the deceased was senseless and not waking up. On the said information, all the four persons reached the house of the appellant and observed that the deceased lying dead. They also observed ligature marks and other injuries over the neck of the deceased. P.W.2 suspected that appellant and his mother might have strangulated the deceased with M.O.1 towel and might have killed.

5. P.W.3 is the son-in-law of P.W.1, as he married the elder daughter of P.W.1. He stated that, he came to know through P.W.1 that the appellant and his mother were harassing the deceased by beating etc. The deceased stayed in the house of P.W.1 for a period of about three months and during that period, P.W.3 visited the house of P.W.1 and at that time, deceased informed him that both the appellant and his mother were ill-treating her and beating her. Thereafter, he came to know that P.W.1 again visited the house of the accused in the month of January, 2010 to invite the appellant to his house and at that time, he observed that the deceased fell sick and became unhealthy, that P.W.1 approached the elders of the appellant and on the advise of the elders of the appellant, P.W.1 brought back the deceased to his house to provide medical treatment. Later, P.W.1 sold away the gold necklace and handed over Rs.9,000/ - to P.W.3 asking him to redeem the

Pustelatadu. Accordingly, P.Ws.2 and 3 redeemed the pledged gold Pustelatadu. On 29.5.2010, P.W.5 came to him at Vizianagaram and informed him that he was sent by P.W.4 to inform that the appellant and his mother were harassing the deceased as earlier and on the same day, P.W.1 and L.W.2 came to Vizianagaram, to attend a marriage function of their relatives to whom he has passed on the an information received from P.W.5. In turn, on 31.5.2010 all the four persons i.e., P.Ws.1 to 3 and L.W.2 reached the house of the appellant and observed that the deceased was in sick condition and on enquiry, the deceased informed that the appellant has been harassing her by way of beating and threatening her that he would kill her if the same is revealed to them.

Immediately, they approached the elders of the appellant and they advised them to give a police report. On the next day morning, P.W.4 came to the house of P.W.5, where he was sleeping on the said night and suspected that the deceased might have died. Immediately they reached the scene of offence and observed that the deceased was lying dead with ligature marks over the neck. He suspected that the accused might have killed the deceased, as proclaimed earlier.

6. P.W.4 is a resident of M.R. Nagaram Village. According to him, P.W.1 approached him as a caste elder and complained that the appellant was not providing food to the deceased and harassing her by way of beating. P.W.1 raised a dispute before him on two occasions. About four days prior to the death of the deceased, P.W.4 sent a message through P.W.5 asking him to inform PW.1 that the appellant was harassing the deceased by way of beating etc. Accordingly, on receipt of the said message, P.Ws.1, 3 and others, reached the village and one day prior to the death of the deceased, approached him and informed him that the deceased was not doing well. He called the

appellant and advised him to send the deceased with P.W.1, as he intends to provide medical treatment. On that night, P.W.1 and others, stayed in the house of P.W.5. On the next day morning, P.W.4 heard in the village that the deceased died. Then, he reached the scene of offence and observed that the deceased was dead and blood was running out from her mouth. Immediately he rushed to the house of P.W.5 and informed P.W.1 and others that the deceased seems to be dead. Immediately they all went to the house of the appellant but he did not accompany, as he has already visited the dead body of the deceased. PW.4 also advised P.W.1 to give police report.

7. P.W.5 is the brother of the appellant. He deposed that he was adopted to one Varanasi Venkataramana of his village and as such he is living separately in the house of his adopted father situated in Pandaveedhi of M.R.Nagaram. He stated that the deceased informed him that the appellant is harassing and subjecting her to cruelty. He came to know that due to ill treatment of the appellant, the deceased fell sick and P.W.1 came and took back the deceased to his house to provide medical treatment. On 29.05.2010, on the instructions of P.W.4, P.W.5 met P.W.3 and informed that, when he went to Vizianagaram on his work, P.W.4 instructed him to convey to PW.1 that he heard that the appellant and his mother are harassing the deceased and as such the deceased fell sick as earlier. Accordingly, basing on the said message, P.Ws.1 to 3 and L.W.

2 reached the village of M.R.Nagaram on 31.5.2010. On that night, P.W.1 and others, came to the house of P.W.5 and slept there. On the next day morning, the appellant came to P.W.5, and informed him and P.W.4 that the deceased was senseless. Thereafter all the three persons i.e., P.Ws.4 and 5 and the appellant P.W.

lying dead. They also observed ligature marks over the neck of the deceased. P.W.5 also observed M.O.1 towel by the side of the deceased and on seeing the said situation, P.W.5 suspected that the appellant might have killed the deceased.

8. P.W.6 is a resident of M.R.Nagar Village. She deposed that her house is situated by the side of the appellant's house and as such she knows the appellant and the deceased. According to her, both the appellant and his mother harassed and subjected the deceased to cruelty by severe beatings and chastising her. The deceased used to inform the same to her from her house. Generally the deceased did not come out of her house due to fear of the appellant. Once, P.W.6 questioned about the behaviour of the appellant and his mother towards the deceased and advised them to look after the deceased well and on which, they cautioned her, not to interfere in their family affairs. The deceased used to inform P.W.6 that the appellant and his mother are not providing food to her.

Then, once or twice, in the absence of the appellant and his mother in the house, P.W.6 tried to provide food to the deceased, but she did not accept the same expressing her fear about the appellant. On the previous night of her death at about 11.00 p.m., the deceased informed P.W.6 that her father would take her to his house after settling the matter. But on the next day morning, she came to know about the death of the deceased.

9. P.W.7 is the resident of M.R. Nagaram Village, Parvathipuram Mandal. She deposed that she knows the appellant and his mother. The appellant and his mother pledged one gold Pusthelatadu with her for an amount of Rs.8,000/ -, for their family needs stating that said Pustelatadu belongs to the deceased. Few days thereafter, P.Ws.2 and 3 came to her shop along with the appellant and his mother, paid the

pledged amount of Rs.8,000/ - and interest and redeemed the pledged article. About five days after the death of the deceased, the police examined and recorded her statement.

10. P.W.8 is the wife of Poojari of Ramalayam, M.R. Nagaram Village. She deposed that she knows both the accused and the deceased. About two months prior to the death of the deceased, appellant approached and requested her to lend money by pledging the Sahara India bond. Obliging the same, she paid Rs.3,000/ - to them accepting the above pledge. About five days after the death of the deceased, when the police approached and questioned about the document pledged with her, she handed over the same to the Inspector of Police. The police examined and recorded her statement.

11. P.W.9 is a resident of M.R. Nagaram, running a pan shop in the village. He deposed that, about five or six days prior to the death of the deceased, the mother of the appellant approached him and requested to lend some amount on pledging ear studs of the deceased stating that she needs money to meet the medical expenses of her daughter-in-law. Obliging the said request, P.W.9 paid an amount of Rs.500/ -. Again about one or two days thereafter, the mother of the appellant approached him requesting for an amount of Rs.500/ -, he paid an additional amount of Rs.500/ - to the mother of the appellant. About five days after the death of the deceased, he surrendered the pledged gold article to the concerned police.

12. P.W.10 is the Sector Manager of Sahara India Financial Corporation, Kasibugga Branch. He deposed that on 31.3.2010, as a Sector Manager of their Branch, he has issued Sahara India Bond worth

Rs.16,000/ - consists of 16 bonds at the rate of Rs.1,000/ - each in the name of the deceased, who was the daughter of P.W.1.

13. P.W.11 is the V.R.O of Sangamvalasa Village and in-charge of M.R. Nagaram Village since two years. He deposed that he knows both the appellant and his mother. The police observed the scene of offence in his presence, during which time P.W.11 acted as one of the mediators. During the scene of observation, the police seized M.O.1 towel. He deposed that the Panchayatdars opined that the appellant harassed the deceased and subjected her to cruelty by not providing food and by beating and chastising her demanding additional dowry and ultimately killed the deceased by strangulating her with M.O.1 towel.

14. P.W.12 is the photographer who took the photos over the dead body of the deceased.

15. P.W.13 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon of Area Hospital, Parvathipuram.

On 1.6.2010, he received requisition from Parvathipuram Rural Police requesting to conduct post mortem over the dead body of the deceased. Accordingly, team of doctors conducted postmortem commencing from 4.00 p.m., on the same day and observed the following general observations:

" 1.

Moderately built, moderately nourished female body, lying on her back with extended extremities.

2.

Hair black in colour, mouth and eyes are closed. Swelling of left eye present. Blood stained froth drooling from the mouth. All four limbs intact.

3.

1 1⁄2 x 6" blackish mark over the lateral aspect of right side of back of the neck.

4.

1 1/ 2" x 6" black mark over the lateral aspect of left side of neck.

5.

Scalp and skull bones in tact. Brain matter congested and swollen. Layrin and Trachea intact.

6.

Fracture of right horn of hyoid bone present. External genitaria intact. No external injuries. Result of

chemical analysis is that the above items are analyzed but no poisonous substance is found in them. The approximate time of death is 8 to 10 hours prior to P.M examination. The cause of death reserved pending report from R.F.S.L, Visakhapatnam."

16. According to her, the cause of death was due to ante-mortem asphyxia and that the death of the deceased is possible with M.O.1 Towel.

17. P.W.14 is the Sub Inspector of Police, Parvathipuram (Rural) Police Station. He deposed that basing on Ex.P.1 report, he registered a case in Crime No.56 of 2010 under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC and issued Ex.P.10-F.I.R. P.W.14 informed about the registration of the crime to the Inspector of Police over phone besides informing the same by sending express F.I.R. Thereafter, the Inspector of Police took up the investigation on the same day.

18. P.W.15 is the Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Traffic Police Station. He deposed that previously he worked as Inspector of Police, Parvathipuram Circle from 20.6.2008 to 5.7.2010 and while he was in the circle office on 1.6.2010 at 9.15 hours, he received express FIR with regard to the registration of case in Crime No.56 of 2010 under Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC and sent a requisition to the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Parvathipuram to conduct inquest. In turn, he reached the scene of offence and conducted the inquest in the presence of PW.2. He stated that prior to reaching the scene of offence by himself and PW.14, other police staff reached the scene of offence. Securing two mediators, he observed the scene of offence, prepared rough-sketch under Ex.P.11 and seized M.O.1 towel under the cover of Ex.P.2 the scene observation report. He got the scene of offence photographed by a private photographer (P.W.12). P.W.15 examined five witnesses and recorded their respective statements and later sent the body of the

deceased for postmortem examination. Later P.W.15 made enquiries about the appellant but the whereabouts of the appellant were not known. On receipt of the reliable information about the appellant and his mother, P.W.15 proceeded to Venkapeta junction by 10.00 a.m., with the help of his staff and the women constable, arrested the accused and recorded the reasons for their arrest and interrogated them. The accused are alleged to have confessed about the commission of offence.

19. P.W.16 is the Inspector of Police, Parvathipuram Circle working since 7.7.2010. He deposed that after receipt of Ex.P.9 final opinion, he filed a charge sheet in the case, which was taken on file as PRC No.17 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Parvathipuram. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and then committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C., as the offence alleged against the accused is triable by a court of Sessions.

20. Basing on the material available, charges under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC came to be framed against A.1-appellant herein and a charge under Section 498-A IPC was framed against A.2, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which A.1 and A.2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

21. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 17 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13 and M.Os.1 and 2. Ex.D.1 was marked for accused. After the closure of evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating

circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to which, they denied and reported no evidence for them.

22. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, coupled with the medical evidence, the learned II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Parvathipuram found A.1 and A.2 guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and that A.1 was also found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and accordingly, sentenced them, as stated above. Assailing the same, the present Criminal Appeal came to be filed by A.1.

23. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the trial judge erred in placing reliance on the interested witnesses and failed to note the discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

24. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that all the prosecution witnesses supported the case of the prosecution and that there is no discrepancy whatsoever in the evidence of the witnesses.

25. The case of the defence as per the suggestions made to the witnesses is that P.Ws.7 to 9 are the planted witnesses and that their evidence cannot be looked into as there are strained relations between the accused , P.Ws.2 and 5 and as such they deposed against the accused. It is the case of the defence that the deceased was sick from the beginning and that unable to bear her sickness, she committed suicide.

26. P.W.2 is the own brother-in-law of the appellant and he supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.5, who is the own brother of the appellant, also supported the case of the prosecution, apart from

other witnesses. Apart from P.Ws.1 and 3, who are the father and brother-in-law of the deceased, the other independent witnesses and P.Ws.4 to 10, also supported the case of the prosecution, without any discrepancy, whatsoever. PW.1 stated in his evidence stated that he paid Rs.1,50,000/ - towards dowry, presented half tula gold ring apart from sare samanlu, at the time of marriage and the same is supported by PWs.2 and 3. PW.5, who is own brother of the appellant stated that the deceased used to inform him that the accused subjecting her to cruelty and not providing proper medical treatment. His evidence is supported by PW.6, who is the neighbour of the deceased.

27. Though it was suggested to PWs.1, 2, 4 and 5 that the deceased became mentally depressed due to her continuous sickness and unable to bear the same, she committed suicide, the said suggestion was categorically denied by them. Further, nothing is elicited from the crossexamination of PWs.1, 2, 4 and 5 that the deceased was suffering from ill-health even prior to her marriage. The deceased is last seen in the company of the appellant. Hence, the burden lies on the appellant to give explanation as to how his wife died in unnatural circumstances. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 cannot be thrown out simply on the ground that they are the interested witnesses. P.Ws.1 to 6 deposed about the ill treatment of the deceased in the hands of the appellant and his mother. P.W.7 spoke about the pledging of the Pustelatadu of the deceased. PW.

8 spoke about pledging of 'Sahara India Bond' by the appellant. PW.9 spoke about the pledging of the ear studs of the deceased by A.2. P.W.10 is the Sector Manager of the Sahara India Financial Corporation, Kasibugga, who issued the Sahara India Bond. The evidence of P.W.

corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1. He stated that when he visited the house of the appellant, the deceased informed him that both the appellant and his mother are harassing her and subjecting her to cruelty by way of beating and not providing food. No contradictions are marked from the evidence of P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.3, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased, also corroborated the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, in all aspects. The evidence of P.W.3 to the extent that he came to know through the deceased that, she was being harassed by the appellant by way of beating when he visited the house of PW.1, remained intact even after cross-examination. P.W.4, who is the resident of M.R. Nagaram Village, where the appellant is also residing, is an independent witness and his evidence shows that P.W.

1 approached him as a caste elder and raised a dispute complaining that the appellant was not providing food and shelter to the deceased and that the appellant and his mother harassing the deceased by way of beating. He further stated that he advised the appellant to look after the deceased well, but the appellant did not heed to his advise. P.W.4 has categorically stated that about four days prior to the death of the deceased, he sent a message through P.W.5 asking him to inform P.W.1 that the accused are harassing the deceased by way of beating and accordingly, on receipt of the said message, P.Ws.1, 3 and others, reached the village one day prior to the death of the deceased. P.W.

4 deposed that he was also informed that the deceased was not doing well and on the next day morning, he heard in the village that the deceased died and on hearing the same, he reached the house of the appellant and observed that the deceased was lying dead. Immediately, he rushed to the house of P.W.5 and informed the same to P.W.1 and others and immediately all of them came to the scene of offence. P.W.

other than the own brother of the appellant and the son of A.2. He also supported the case of the prosecution in all aspects. He also deposed that he suspected that the accused might have killed the deceased. In the cross examination, P.W.5 stated that the deceased herself informed him about the harassment everyday. P.W.6 is the immediate neighbour of the appellant. Even her evidence clearly shows that the accused harassed and subjected the deceased to cruelty by severely beating. According to her, the deceased herself used to inform her about the cruelty meted out by her in the hands of the appellant. According to P.W.6, she also questioned about the behaviour of the appellant towards the deceased and on the fateful night, at about 11.00 p.m., the deceased informed her that her father P.W.

1 came and informed that he will take her to his house after settling the matter. But on the next day morning, the deceased was dead and that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.6. P.W.7 states that the appellant pledged the gold Pustelatadu of the deceased and few days later, P.Ws.2 and 3 came and paid the debt amount and redeemed the gold Pustelatadu. There is also no reason to disbelieve the version of P.W.7 in the absence of any motive attributed to P.W.7. P.W.8 is also a resident of the said village and as an independent witness. She states that the appellant approached them for money by pledging the " Sahara India bond" and accordingly accepting the said pledged bond, they gave him an amount of Rs.

3,000/ - and five days after the death of the deceased, she handed over the said pledged bond to the Inspector of Police. P.W.9, who is a resident of the same village, deposed that about five to six days prior to the death of the deceased, A.2, who is the mother of the appellant, approached him and requested him to lend some amount on pledging M.O.

Rs.1,000/ -. P.W.10, who is working as Sector Manager, Sahara India Financial Corporation, deposed that on 31.3.2010, he issued Ex.P.12 Sahara India Bond worth Rs.16,000/ - in the name of the deceased, who was the daughter of the P.W.1. The same were pledged by the appellant herein.

28. Thus, all the witnesses deposed about the guilt of the appellant without any minute discrepancy. As seen from the judgment of the lower court, Ex.D.1 is not at all a material contradiction to discredit the entire evidence of PW.5. Further, P.W.6, who is the immediate neighbour, is the right person to say as to what happened to the deceased. She has categorically deposed about the ill-treatment meted out by the deceased. The evidence of the material witnesses P.Ws.1 to 7 clearly establishes that the appellant has committed the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC.

29. The prosecution mainly relied upon the medical evidence to prove the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, besides the evidence of other witnesses. P.W.11, who is one of the mediators and one of the Panchayatdars during the inquest, deposed that the police have seized M.O.1 towel. The evidence of P.W.13, the doctor, who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased, shows that the death of the deceased is possible with M.O.1 towel and she stated that the death was due to asphyxia either due to throttling or hanging or strangulation. In the cross-examination, she voluntarily stated that there is a fracture of right horn of hyoid bone and a ligature mark is extending and present opposite side of the said fracture indicating that the death of the deceased was due to strangulation. With the said evidence, the case of the defence that the deceased might have committed suicide is over ruled. If the deceased herself committed suicide, there will not be

a fracture of right horn of hyoid bone. Thus, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses together with the medical evidence, clearly establish that the death of the deceased is homicidal death, as she died due to strangulation. As per the medical evidence, the death of the deceased might have occurred in between the intervening night of 31.05.2010 and in the early hours of 1.6.2010. It is not the case of the defence that during the said period, any person entered into the house of the appellant and committed the offence. In these circumstances, the burden lies on the appellant to give explanation, as to how the deceased died. But the appellant is completely silent in this regard. In the absence of any such explanation, and having regard to the evidence on record, it can be said that the appellant is responsible for the death of the deceased.

30. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the prosecution succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offences with which he was charged.

31. In the result the appeal fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant in S.C.No.167 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal appeal, shall stand closed.

______________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR ____________________________ JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI Date: 05.01.2018 Gk

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYALAKSHMI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.711 of 2011 (per Hon'ble Smt . Just ice Kongara Vij ayalakshmi) Date: 05.01.2018 Gk.