Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Yeturi Venkatesu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 30 June, 2025
Author: K.Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
APHC010916022017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3528]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1459 OF 2017
Between:
Yeturi Venkatesu ... APPELLANT
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh ... RESPODENT
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. KOLUSU RAVIKIRAN KUMAR
2. LEGAL AID
Counsel for the Respondent:
1.ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
2
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence recorded by judgment
dated 15-05-2017 in Sessions Case No. 286 of 2015 on the file of the
Court of learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa (for short, ‘the
trial Court’), the accused therein filed the present criminal appeal before
this Court.
2. The appellant-accused was tried by the trial Court under the
following three charges:
I charge was under Section 498-A IPC;
II charge was under Section 302 IPC; and
III charge was under Section 316 IPC
3. Substance of the charges is that the accused used to harass his
wife by name Yeturu Pavithra (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased No.
2’) both physically and mentally by consuming alcohol and demanding
money and on the morning of 22-12-2014, the accused returned home
in a drunken state and demanded deceased No. 2, who was seventh
month pregnant, money for consuming alcohol and when she refused,
the accused poured kerosene on her and set fire to her with a
matchstick and fled away bolting doors of the house from outside and
thereafter, deceased No. 2 was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa, in
3
108-ambulance and while undergoing treatment, deceased No. 2
succumbed to burn injuries along with the quick un-born child (hereafter
referred to as ‘deceased No. 1), thereby committed offences punishable
under Sections 498-A, 302 and 316 IPC.
4. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted the appellant-
accused and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and
also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment
for a period of two months, for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The
trial Court acquitted the appellant-accused of the charges under
Sections 498-A and 316 IPC.
5. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the prosecution
witnesses, briefly is as follows:
The accused is none other than husband of deceased No. 2.
P.Ws.1 and 2 are brothers of deceased No. 2 and P.Ws.3 to 7 are
neighbours of the accused and deceased No. 2. The marriage of the
accused and deceased No. 2 was performed about six years prior to the
date of incident and they were blessed with a son. They used to reside
in Harijanawada at Velugupalli Village of Sidhout Mandal, Kadapa
District. Thereafter, the accused, having addicted to consume alcohol,
used to harass deceased No. 2 both physically and mentally demanding
her money for consuming alcohol. While so, on the morning of
422-12-2014, the accused returned home in a drunken state and
demanded deceased No. 2 money for consuming alcohol, for which the
latter refused. Immediately, the accused took out kerosene tin lying in
the house, poured kerosene on her and set fire to her with a matchstick.
Being unable to bear the burns, the deceased came out of the house by
raising hue and cry. Hearing the cries of deceased No. 2, neighbours
came there, put off the flames and shifted her to RIMS Hospital,
Kadapa, in 108-ambulance. At about 11.45 a.m., P.W.9-Head
Constable, RIMS Police Station, Kadapa, received hospital intimation-
Ex.P10. Having received the intimation, P.W.9 went to hospital and
recorded a statement-Ex.P9 from the injured. He sent Ex.P9-statement
along with Ex.P10-intimation to Sidhout Police Station on the point of
jurisdiction. On the same day at about 2 p.m., P.W.12-the then Sub
Inspector of Police, Sidhout Police Station, received Exs.P9 and P10
and registered a case in crime No. 141 of 2014 under Section 307 IPC.
P.W.12 issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. Ex.P16 is FIR.
Thereafter, P.W.12 went to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa, secured the
presence of P.W.1 and the injured and recorded their statements.
Thereafter, he went to the scene of offence situated at Harijanawada,
Velugupalli Village. He prepared a rough sketch-Ex.P17 at the scene of
offence. He also seized one plastic can-M.O.1 under police
proceedings- Ex.P18. He also recorded a statement from P.W.3. On
523-12-2014, he arrested the accused in his house at Harijanawada of
Velugupalli Village. On 25-12-2014 at 10.30 a.m., he received death
intimation of quick unborn male child of deceased No. 2. He therefore
added Section 316 IPC. Ex.P19 is altered FIR. While undergoing
treatment, deceased No. 2 succumbed to injuries on 30-12-2014.
P.W.12 altered the Sections of law from 307 and 316 IPC to 302 and
316 IPC. Ex.P20 is altered FIR. Further investigation was taken over
by P.W.13-the then Inspector of Police, Vontimitta Circle.
On the requisition from Duty Doctor, RIMS Hospital, Kadapa,
P.W.11-the then learned IV Additional District Munsifi, Kadapa, went to
RIMS Hospital, Kadapa, on 22-12-2014 at about 1.05 p.m. and recorded
a statement from the injured which was marked as Ex.P14.
On 25-12-2014, P.W.13 received information at about 10 a.m. He
went to Sidhout Police Station at about 10.30 a.m. and collected copy of
FIR. He visited RIMS Hospital, Kadapa, and held inquest over the dead
body of deceased No. 2 in the presence of P.W.8 and another. Inquest
report was marked as Ex.P8. At the inquest, he recorded statements of
P.Ws.1 and 2. Thereafter, he sent the dead body of deceased No. 2 for
conducting post mortem examination.
P.W.10-Assistant Professor, in-charge H.O.D., Department of
Forensic Medicine, RIMS Hospital, Kadapa, conducted autopsy over the
6
dead body of deceased No. 2. He opined the cause of death was due
to complications of burns. He accordingly issued Ex.P12-post mortem
certificate pertaining to deceased No. 2. He also issued post mortem
certificate of deceased No. 1 which was marked as Ex.P11.
Thereafter, P.W.13 went to the scene of offence and recorded a
statement of P.W.3. On 10-01-2015, he received post mortem
certificates-Exs.P11 and P12. After completion of investigation, he filed
charge sheet.
6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and
got marked Exs.P1 to P20 apart from exhibiting M.O.1.
7. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he
denied the incriminating material appearing against him and reported no
oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.
8. Accepting the two dying declarations marked as Exs.P9 and P14,
the trial Court convicted the appellant-accused as afore-stated.
9. Heard Sri Ravikiran Kumar Kolusu, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant-accused, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent-State.
10. We have carefully perused the entire evidence on record. All the
material witnesses examined by the prosecution i.e. P.Ws.1 to 7 did not
7
support its case and they were declared hostile. P.W.8 is inquest
punch, P.W.9 is Head Constable who recorded Ex.P9-dying declaration,
P.W.10 is Doctor who conducted autopsy, P.W.11 is the then learned IV
Additional District Munsifi, Kadapa, who recorded Ex.P14-dying
declaration and P.Ws.12 and 13 are investigating officers. As such, all
the material witnesses including the brothers of deceased No. 2 did not
support the case of prosecution.
11. The only evidence available on record is two dying declarations,
one recorded by P.W.9-Head Constable which was marked as Ex.P9
and the other recorded by P.W.11-the then learned IV Additional District
Munsifi, Kadapa, which was marked as Ex.P14. Coming to the earliest
dying declaration recorded by P.W.9 which was marked as Ex.P9,
deceased No. 2 stated that on the morning of 22-12-2014, the accused
returned home in a drunken state and demanded her money for
consuming alcohol; that when she refused to give money, the accused
took out the kerosene tin lying there, poured kerosene on her and set
fire to her with a matchstick and that being unable to bear the burns, she
came out of the house, raised hue and cry and on hearing cries,
neighbours gathered there, put off the flames and shifted her to RIMS
Hospital, Kadapa, in 108-ambulance. This Ex.P9 was recorded at about
11.55 a.m. Coming to the second dying declaration which was marked
8
as Ex.P14 recorded by the then learned IV Additional District Munsifi,
Kadapa, deceased No. 2 stated that for the last three days prior to the
date of incident, the accused was consuming alcohol; that on
22-12-2014 at about 9.30 a.m., the accused woke up and asked her for
meals; that she informed him that she did not prepare rice and asked
him to wait for some time for preparing rice; that immediately, the
accused grew wild and poured kerosene on her and set fire to her; that
she immediately went into Pooja room which did not have doors; that
the accused bolted the doors from inside; that deceased No. 2 removed
the bolt and ran outside raising hue and cry and that thereafter,
neighbours gathered and put off the flames and shifted her to RIMS
Hospital, Kadapa, in 108-ambulance.
12. We have carefully scrutinized both the dying declarations. In the
first dying declaration, the reason given by deceased No. 2 is that she
refused to give money to the accused for consuming alcohol but the
reason given in the second dying declaration is that the accused asked
for rice at about 9.30 a.m. and she replied that she did not prepare rice
and asked him to wait for some time for preparing rice. In both the
dying declarations, the reason given by deceased No. 2 varies. Apart
from that, there are inconsistencies in both the dying declarations. In
the second dying declaration, deceased No. 2 stated that the accused
9
bolted the doors from inside but the allegation in the charge sheet is that
after setting fire to deceased No. 2, the accused came out of the house
and bolted the doors from outside and ran away. Having carefully
analyzed, we find number of inconsistencies in both the dying
declarations i.e. Exs.P9 and P14. Except these two dying declarations,
there is no other corroborative piece of evidence adduced by the
prosecution. As already pointed out, all the material prosecution
witnesses i.e. P.Ws.1 to 7 did not support the case of prosecution and
they were declared hostile. As such, Exs.P9 and P14 do not inspire
confidence of this Court in the absence of any corroborative piece of
evidence.
13. Having carefully examined the case in its entirety and for the
reasons recorded hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the
prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant-accused beyond all
reasonable doubt.
14. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed setting aside the
conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant-accused by
judgment dated 15-05-2017 in Sessions Case No. 286 of 2015 on the
file of the Court of learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa. As
the appellant-accused has been released on bail by this Court by order
dated 22-10-2024 in I.A.No. 1 of 2024, in terms of the order passed by a
10
Division Bench of the Composite High Court for the State of Telangana
and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Batchu Ranga Rao and others Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor
(Crl.A.M.P.No. 1687 of 2016 in Crl.A.No. 607 of 2011 dated
02-11-2016), he is directed to surrender himself before the concerned
jail authorities for completing the formalities for his release. Fine
amount paid, if any, by the appellant-accused shall be refunded to him.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in
consequence.
___________________
K.SURESH REDDY, J.
_____________
Date: 30-06-2025, V.SUJATHA, J.
JSK
11
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1459 OF 2017
(Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by
Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)
DATE: 30TH JUNE, 2025
JSK