Case: Vanga Sriniwas Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of A.P

nature. Injury No.1 is caused by nails and injury Nos. 2 and 3 with a blunt object.Internal Injuries:1. Fracture of hyoid bone right corn.2. Fracture of 3,4,5,6,7th ribs on r/s and 4,5,6,7th ribs on the I/s near steno castle junction. Lungs were congested, heart congested and peritoiral cavity contains about 200 cc of clotted blood. Intestine and omintum stained with blood.Small intestine contused in different places. Liver, Spleen, Kidney are congested. Uterus stained with blood. Viscera was sent for chemical analysis. The result of analysis is there was no poisonous substance. The FBL report is Ex.P-10. Ex.P11 is preliminary Post-Mortem Examination report issued by myself and Doctor Smt. Ramadevi.Final opinion as to cause of death is Asphysixi due to throttling. The final report issued by both of us is Ex.P-12. The approximate time of death is 24 - 36 hours prior to PME." Though in his preliminary report Ex. P-11, the doctor has not offered his opinion as to the cause of death but in the final opinion, he has specifically stated that the cause of death is "Asphysixi due to throttling". The analysis of post-mortem report coupled with the evidence of doctor clearly show (a) presence of nail marks (b) contusion over the neck (c) ligature marks around the neck (d) fracture of hyoid bone corn and (e) fracture of 9 ribs right and left sides. Though there was a suspicion that the deceased might have been poisoned on account of the presence of some powder in the glass and a tablet that were present at the scene of occurrence, in view of FSL report i.e. Ex. P-10, there is no proof to the effect that the death was due to poison. On the other hand, the evidence of panchas PWs 8 and 9 coupled with the medical evidence PW 10 as well as the final report (Ex.P-12) clearly show that the deceased died on account of strangulation. 14. The scene of observation report (Ex .P-9) prepared by the investigating officer show that the house of the accused is located in the middle of other houses. In view of the medical evidence and in conjunction with the other circumstances, particularly the undisputed fact that at or about the time of Vanga Vimalas death, no third person excepting the accused and the deceased, was present in the house, it will inescapably lead to the conclusion that within all human probability, it was the accused-appellant and none else, who had murdered the deceased by strangulating her to death. We have already noted that the accused alone was inside the house along with his wife, namely, the deceased. As rightly pointed out by the prosecution, it is not the case of the accused that any other person was residing with them in the same house particularly on the fateful day. Further, as rightly pointed out, there was no explanation from the accused as to when he left the house and came to know about the hanging of the dead body and it would be right in arriving at a conclusion that he alone was responsible for the commission of the offence. If we consider all the above mentioned material circumstances coupled with the medical evidence, it is safe to conclude that the death of the deceased was on account of strangulation. As rightly pointed out, there was no possibility of any other person committing the offence and the accused alone was responsible for the commission of the offence. In such circumstances, we agree with the contention of the State counsel that the prosecution placed sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As observed by the High Court, the trial Court acquitted the accused only on the simple ground that the doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination, did not offer cause of death in his preliminary report, forgetting that in the final report particularly after receipt of FSL report, the very same doctor has opined that the death was due to "Asphysixi due to throttling". In the light of the materials available, the conclusion of the trial Judge cannot be accepted and the High Court taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the entire materials was right in accepting the case of the prosecution and found the accused guilty. 15. Mr. I.Venkatnarayana, learned senior counsel, submitted that even if this Court accepts the prosecution case in view of alteration of the charge, namely, from Sections 302 to 304B and 201 IPC, the conviction and sentence for an offence under Section 302 IPC by the High Court cannot be sustained. In the earlier part of the judgment, we have referred to Annexures A1 and A2 which clearly show that based on the materials collected the investigating agency altered the offence from Sections 302 IPC to 304B and 201 IPC. The altered charge has not been taken note of by the High Court while arriving at a conclusion against the accused. In the earlier part of our judgment, we have referred to the relevant materials with regard to demand of dowry, suspicion, harassment and torture by the accused and the medical evidence as to the cause of death. In view of the same and in the light of the altered charge memo as one of Section 304B instead of 302 IPC, it is but proper to convict the accused only under Section 304B IPC and not under Section 302 IPC as ordered by the High Court. As per sub-section (2) of Section 304B IPC, the minimum sentence prescribed is 7 years and may extend to imprisonment for life. 16. Considering the fact that the alleged occurrence took place on 24.01.1997 and the appellant/accused undergone the agony for more than ten years, we are of the view that a sentence of seven years would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we modify the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court; instead the appellant/accused is convicted under Section 304 B IPC and impose a sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment.17.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]Considering the fact that the alleged occurrence took place on 24.01.1997 and the appellant/accused undergone the agony for more than ten years, we are of the view that a sentence of seven years would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we modify the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court; instead the appellant/accused is convicted under Section 304 B IPC and impose a sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment.