Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Golla Subbaiah, Prakasam Dt., vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 11 March, 2025
Author: K.Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
APHC010428942017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3528]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 919/2017
Between:
Golla Subbaiah, Prakasam District ...APPELLANT
...AP
AND
The State of A.P.,
.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor ...RESPONDENT
...RESPO
Counsel for the Appellant:
ellant:
1. TATA SINGAIAH GOUD
Counsel for the Respondent:
dent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)
Sole accused in S.C.No.
S.C.No.28 of 2015 on the file of the Court of learned VI
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Markapur
Markapur, is the
appellant. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two
charges. First charge was under Section 498A IPC and the second charge
was under Section 302 IPC.
2
2. Substance of the charge is that the accused used to harass his wife by
name Golla Rama Lakshmamma @ Ramakka (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
deceased’) both physically and mentally demanding her to bring money for
meeting his expenses for vices and also by suspecting her fidelity and on
07.05.2014 at about 05.00 A.M., he picked up quarrel with her and killed her
by throttling her, thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections
498A and 302 IPC.
After completion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
while acquitting the accused under Section 498A IPC, convicted him under
Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also
to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a
period of one month.
3. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as under:
(a) The accused is a resident of Cheemaletipalli village, Ardhaveedu
Mandal. The accused is none other than the husband of the deceased and
their marriage was performed about 14 years prior to the date of incident.
They were blessed with a daughter and son, who were examined as PWs 9
and 10. PW.1 is the father, PW.3 is the brother, PW.4 is the sister and PW.5
is the paternal uncle of the deceased respectively. They are residents of
Akkapalli Village, Racharla Mandal. It is alleged that the accused used to
harass the deceased both physically and mentally demanding her to bring
money from her parents’ house. The accused also sold away his sheep and
money was spent for his bad vices. Unable to bear the harassment, the
3
deceased went to her parents’ house at Akkapalli. About one week prior to
the date of incident, the accused came to the house of PWs 1 & 2 and took
the deceased along with him assuring PWs 1 & 2 that he will look after the
deceased well. Accordingly, the deceased left the parents’ house and went
along with the accused. PWs 9 & 10 remained in the house of PWs 1 & 2.
While so, on the intervening night of 07/08 of May 2014, the accused and the
deceased slept in their house. At about 07.00 A.M. in the morning, the
deceased was found in an unconscious state on a cot in the house.
Thereafter, the accused shifted the deceased in an Ambulance to the
Community Health Centre, Cumbum, where the Doctors declared her ‘brought
dead’. On the same day at about 09.00 A.M., PW.19 Assistant Sub-Inspector
of Police, Cumbum Police Station, received death intimation Ex.P11. At about
10.00 A.M., he went to the hospital and recorded a statement Ex.P10 from
PW.1. At about 11.15 A.M. on the same day, PW.20 Head Constable,
Ardhaveedu Police Station, received intimation along with Ex.P10. He
registered a case in Cr.No.59/2014 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. which is
marked as Ex.P12. At about 11.30 A.M., he went to the scene of offence and
secured the presence of PWs 13 & 14. He prepared an observation report
Ex.P13 at the scene of offence. He also prepared rough sketch Ex.P14 at the
scene. He also photographed the scene under Ex.P15. On the same day, at
about 12.30 P.M., PW.20 went to Government Hospital, Cumbum and
recorded statements of PWs 1 to 5. He held inquest over the dead body in
the presence of PW.15 and others at Government Hospital, Cumbum. Inquest
4
report is marked as Ex.P21. On 10.05.2014, PW.23 Sub-Inspector of Police,
took up further investigation. He verified the investigation conducted by
PW.19 and found it on correct lines. On 10.05.2014, he recorded statements
of PWs 6 to 8, 11 & 17. In the meanwhile, PW18 Civil Assistant Surgeon,
Community Health Centre, Cumbum, conducted Autopsy over the dead body
of the deceased on 08.05.2014. He opined the cause of death was due to
“asphyxial” death due to ante mortem throttling. He issued Postmortem
certificate Ex.P9.
(b) After receiving preliminary Postmortem report, PW.23 sent
preservatives to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (for short, ‘the
R.F.S.L.’), Guntur for expert opinion. PW.21 Professor, Forensic Medicine,
has examined the preservatives and opined as ‘inward compression fracture
of greater cornua of hyoid bone with body of hyoid bone on right side present
with diffused contusion to the surrounding soft tissues of hyoid bone on both
sides present, red in colour, ante mortem in nature, suggestive of throttling’.
He issued opinion under Ex.P16.
(c) After receiving R.F.S.L. report, PW.23 filed an alteration memo
seeking alteration of crime from Section 174 Cr.P.C to Section 302 IPC.
Alteration Memo is marked as Ex.P18. On 04.09.2014, PW.24 Inspector of
Police, Markapur Circle, received C.D. file from PW.23 and took up further
investigation. He verified the investigation done by PW.23 and found it on
correct lines. He recorded statements of PWs 6 & 17 only, as the remaining
statements were already recorded by PW.23. Later, he visited Akkapalli
5
village and recorded statement of PW.1 only, as the remaining statements
were already recorded by PW.20. He also recorded statements of PWs 9, 10
& 12. On 08.09.2014 at about 01.30 P.M., PW.24 arrested the accused in the
presence of PW.16 and another under a Panchanama Ex.P19. After receiving
all the documents and after completion of the investigation, PW.24 filed
charge sheet.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 24 and
marked exhibits P1 to P21.
5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied
the incriminating material appearing against him. Accepting the evidence of
PWs 1 to 5, 9, 10, 12, 18 & 21, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
convicted the accused as aforesaid.
6. Heard Sri Tata Singaiah Goud, learned counsel for the appellant, and
Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing
the State.
7. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record.
8. As seen from the material available on record, there are no direct
witnesses in the present case on hand. The prosecution rests its case on
circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance relied on by the prosecution is
that the deceased met with homicidal death in the house of accused and
nobody was present except the couple. Of course, the neighbours and all
6
other independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. But,
the fact remains that the accused and deceased alone are residing in the said
house. As per the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is
for the accused to explain as to how the deceased met with homicidal death in
his house. Apart from giving explanation, the appellant came up with a false
explanation stating that he went to Burujupalli village to sell sheep. It is only
after receiving the intimation from the villagers, he went directly to the hospital.
In the evidence of PWs 2 to 5 coupled with the evidence of PWs 9 & 10, they
have categorically stated that the accused took the deceased to the hospital in
an Ambulance and the Doctors declared her ‘brought dead’, and he left the
hospital. Said fact was also mentioned in the Inquest report Ex.P21 which
was prepared on the same day. In column No.15 of Ex.P21, it is stated as
follows:
‘At about 07.40 A.M., the appellant brought the deceased in 108
Ambulance and the duty Doctor, after examining, declared her ‘brought
dead’. Having heard the same, the accused left the hospital leaving the
dead body in the hospital’.
PWs 9 & 10, who were none other than the daughter and son of the
deceased, have also stated in their evidence that “we came to know from the
hospital authorities that the accused brought the deceased and left the dead
body in the hospital itself and went away”. PWs 2 to 5 also have stated the
same thing in their evidence. PW.12, who is attending in 108 Ambulance,
stated that on 08.05.2014 between 06.00 A.M. and 07.00 A.M., he received
information about the emergency case at Cheemaleti Palli Village.
7Immediately, he went to the village, picked up the patient who was in
unconscious state, and gave first aid and oxygen to the patient. Thereafter,
she was taken to the hospital. PW.12 in his evidence has categorically stated
that the accused also accompanied the patient in the Ambulance to the
hospital. As such, the prosecution is able to prove that the accused was very
much present at the house on the date of offence at the relevant point of time.
PWs 2 to 5, 9, 10 & 12 have categorically stated that the accused was present
in the house at the relevant point of time. Apart from proving the fact that the
accused was present in the house, the false explanation offered by the
accused lends support to the prosecution version. It is the case of the accused
that on previous day, he went to Burujupalli Village to sell sheep and it is only
after receiving information, he went to the hospital directly. Though he pleaded
alibi, the accused did not substantiate his version by adducing evidence. As
such, the accused came up with a false explanation.
So far as the other circumstance i.e., cause of death is concerned, the
prosecution is relying on the evidence of PWs 18 & 21. PW.18 Civil Assistant
Surgeon, in his preliminary Postmortem report Ex.P9, has categorically stated
that the deceased died due to “asphyxial” death due to ante mortem throttling.
PW.21 is the Professor, Forensic Medicine, and he was requested to examine
hyoid bone and other preservatives. After examining, he gave his opinion
under Ex.P16 opining fracture of hyoid bone suggesting the deceased died of
throttling. As such, the prosecution is also able to prove the factum of the
deceased suffering homicidal death. Though all the independent witnesses did
8not support the prosecution, the prosecution is able to prove the factum of
presence of the accused at the relevant point of time, and the homicidal death
of the deceased in the house of the accused. Learned Additional Sessions
Judge has also considered this aspect in paragraph No.25 of his Judgment,
which is as under:
“25. In view of the principle laid down U/Sec. 106 of Indian Evidence
Act it is for the accused in this case to explain when he left to Burujupalli
village and when he actually returned back that was not explained, even
there is no evidence to show that really he went to Burujupalli village to
sell sheep. On the other hand the evidence of P.W.12 who is a stranger
impartial witness to this case specifically stated that the accused
accompanied the patient / deceased from the house to the hospital in
Cumbum. The said evidence of P.W.12 cut the route of the admit from
the side of the accused to give settled some explanation that he was not
in the house. Therefore, in view of the presumption U/Sec.106 of Indian
Evidence Act and Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act that the accused
fails to show his alavy that he is not in the house at the time of incident.
This court must consider that it is the accused who is responsible for the
death of deceased.”
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the prosecution could
able to prove all the circumstances pointing the guilt towards the appellant
alone and to none others.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon on a judgment reported in
Rakesh v. State of U.P.1. In the said judgment, the Division Bench of the
Allahabad High Court has held that the prosecution could not able to prove the
1
(2022) 12 ILRA 197
9
motive, the presence of the accused at the relevant point of time in the house.
In the said case, the prosecution also could not able to prove the factum of the
homicidal death. But, in the case on hand, the prosecution could able to prove
the presence of the appellant at the relevant point of time in the house. The
prosecution further establish that except the accused and deceased, no one
was present in the house. Further, the prosecution could able to prove the
homicidal death by way of medical evidence.
11. Having analyzed the entire evidence on record, we have no hesitation
to come to a conclusion that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such, there are no merits in the present
Criminal Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the
conviction and sentence recorded by the learned VI Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Markapur, in S.C.No.28 of 2015 vide
judgment dated 20.06.2017.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand
closed.
__________________
K.SURESH REDDY, J
_____________
V.SUJATHA, J
Date: 11.03.2025
MVA
[ad_1]
Source link