IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 449 OF 2002 Between: Vanam Ravinder … Petitioner-Accused V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP Hyderabad. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K. Lakshman Counsel for the Respondent : Addl.Public Prosecutor The Court made the following : Judgment (judgment follows 2nd page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4 4 9 OF 2002. O R D E R : This Criminal Appeal is filed by the accused against the conviction and sentence recorded in SC.No. 649 of 1999, dated 10-4- 2002 by the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, for the offence under section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer two months simple imprisonment and acquitted him under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C., for the offence under section 302 of IPC. 2. The Inspector of Police, Ramannapet laid a charge sheet for the offence under section 302 of IPC alleging that the accused murdered his wife by administering poison on 11-4-1999. 3. The facts in brief are as follows: The accused married the deceased Jyothi @ Madhavi on 25- 2-1995. The deceased was blessed with two male children. Since the date of marriage, the accused developed dislike against her and he was harassing her by way of abuse and beating. The accused used to behave the deceased adamantly. The matter was taken to the notice of elders and relatives. The elders advised the accused to behave properly with his wife. Even after the advise, the accused continued the harassment. The accused took the silver anklet of the deceased and pledged with one Kunur Dharshan (LW-14) and he could not take back the silver anklet by paying money. The accused started pressurizing the deceased to get release the silver anklet. When the deceased did not respond she was necked out from the house on the night of 9-4-1999. The deceased went to the house of her relative namely Kompelli Ajay (LW-13) at Ramannapet and took the shelter in that night and on the next day morning she went to her mother’s house at Munipampula village. On the night of 10-4-1999 the accused also came to the house of his inlaws at Munipampula and abused the deceased in the presence of mother and relatives of the deceased. The mother and relatives of the deceased tried to pacify the matter. But the accused misbehaved with them and uttered that he would do whatever he want with his wife and he would not hesitate to kill his wife and ready to go to jail. During the whole night the accused quarreled with the deceased. On the next day morning i.e., on 11-4-1999 he forcibly took the deceased to his village. The accused decided to eliminate the deceased, with the said intention, the accused mixed the sodium nitrate poison in the tea and the same was given to the deceased. The deceased consumed the tea and suffered. The accused gave an impression to the neighbours that the deceased herself, consumed the poison to commit suicide and he shifted the deceased to Ramannapet hospital with the help of his friend. The deceased informed to PW-4 Boga Upender @ Uppalaiah in the way that after consuming tea only the problem is developed and at the time of consuming tea and preparation of tea herself and her husband were only present and she expressed suspicion of mischief of her husband. The deceased died in the hospital. After knowing the incident, the mother of the deceased rushed to Ramannapet hospital, saw the dead body of the deceased and filed a written complaint. The police registered the crime under section 302 of IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, the police conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased, recorded the statements of witnesses and postmortem examination was conducted. Thereafter, the accused was arrested, recorded the confession of accused and seized the poisonous substance under cover of panchanama in pursuance of confession of accused. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed. 4. On the basis of the material available on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet, complied the formalities as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. and took cognizance of the offences and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Nalgonda, on which it was made over to the Court of II- Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Nlgonda, for trial. 5. On appearance of the accused, he was examined alleging the substance of accusation. The accused denied the same. Charge under section 302 of IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Subsequently, the prosecution filed Crl.MP.No. 174 of 2001 seeking to frame additional charge under section 304-B and 498-A of IPC. After hearing both sides, CrlMP.No. 174 of 2001 was allowed partly and additional charge under section 498-A of IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To prove the main substratum of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 16 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-17 and MOs-1 to 5 got marked. 7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence appearing against him. Accused denied the same. 7. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the II-Additional Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty for the offence under section 302 of IPC and he was acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. But the accused was convicted under section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. for the offence under section 498-A of IPC and the accused was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer two months simple imprisonment and allowed the benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. and directed to destroy MOs-1 to 5 after expiry of appeal time. Questioning the conviction and sentence recorded by the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda for the offence under section 498-A of IPC, the accused filed the present Criminal Appeal. 8. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant after arguing the matter submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 1999 and the appellant is having two children and he is the person, who is looking after the said children and also has not married after the demise of his wife, Jyothi @ Madhavi. Further the appellant suffered 98 days imprisonment. The learned counsel for the appellant after arguing the matter, confine his arguments only with regard to the quantum of sentence and prayed mercy of this Court. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances, taking into consideration the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and further taking into consideration of the fact that the appellant is having two children and he is the person, who is looking after the said children and also he has not married after the demise of his wife, Jyothi @ Madhavi, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken against the appellant. 11. On careful consideration of the entire material placed on record, viewed from any angle, there are no reasonable grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded by the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. Accordingly, the conviction is confirmed but the sentence of six months Rigorous Imprisonment inflicted by the learned trial Judge is reduced to three months. At this stage, it is represented by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant already underwent 98 days of imprisonment. Having regard to the fact that the appellant already underwent 98 days of imprisonment, this Court is of the view that the sentence of imprisonment undergone by the appellant is converted to the period already undergone. However, the fine amount imposed by the trial Court shall remain unaltered. 12. With the above modification in the sentence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 08-11-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 449 OF 2002 CIRCULATION ENTRY No. Date: 08-11-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master : I s L