Case: Mondri Sreenu Vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh

The deceased Batta Chandramma is the mother-in-law of the appellant. Appellant married her third daughter Bhadrakali sometime in 1990. A daughter and a son were born to them. As appellant is said to have started harassing his wife by beating and abusing her, she deserted him and went to her parents house at Chinthalagudem Village and started living with them. Appellant, thereafter, married another woman. However, he came to Village Chinthalagudem where his parents-in-law were residing, to live with them. But after 10 days he started harassing his wife again. Batta Chandramma (the deceased) - mother-in-law of the appellant allegedly used to quarrel with him and had asked him to leave the house.On 19.10.1999, the deceased went to the agricultural field belonging to the family and she did not return till evening. On enquiry, one B.P. Veraiah informed the informant that he had seen the appellant in the fields and also heard some cries. Pursuant thereto, Pitchaiah, Chinna Veeraiah, Barla Ram Babu and Degala Veeraiah went to the fields in search of Chandramma. They found her dead body lying in a pool of blood. Her sari was also tied around her neck. Accusing the appellant as the person responsible for her death, a first information report was lodged. Appellant was arrested at about 8.30 P.M. on 22.10.1999. He admitted his guilt and confessed about the commission of the offence. He also made a disclosure statement pursuant whereto a stick and a stone, which were said to have been used in the commission of the offence, were recovered. The said articles were seized.Appellant was produced before Shri R. Verra Reddy, Mandal Magistrate, Dummugudem on 4.11.1999 and his confessional statement was recorded.Before the learned Sessions Judge, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses. We, however, need not deal with the depositions of all the prosecution witnesses. Suffice it to point out that PW-1 (Batta Pitchaiah) - father-in-law of the appellant in his deposition categorically supported the statements made in the first information report before the S.H.O. of Bhadrachalam Police Station. PW-2 Bhadrakali, who is the wife of the appellant, also supported the prosecution case. PW-3 Batta Pedda Veeraiah and PW-4 Batta China Veeraiah, who were brothers of PW-1 and had been working in the adjoining fields, deposed that they had seen appellant and the deceased together. PW-3 categorically stated that whereas the deceased Chandramma was sitting on Mancha in her paddy field, the appellant (accused) was standing near it and Chandramma was shouting at appellant. Thinking that the same was a common affair between them, he went to his work. The evidence of PW-4 is also to the same effect.PW-5 Degala Veeraiah is a resident of Chinthalagudem Village. He in his deposition categorically stated that on the date of incident, while he was grazing his bulls at the pastures at about 1.00 P.M., he found the appellant going towards the field of PW-1. He furthermore found the appellant coming back in a hurry at about 4.00 P.M.. He called him (appellant) but he did not give any reply to his call and went away. On the same night he learnt that Chandramma was found dead in the fields.PW-6 Barla Raghavulu who is also a resident of Chinthalagudem Village, a mason by occupation, in his evidence stated that 3 days after the death of Chandramma, he saw the accused while he was talking to his brother at Bhupathiraopeta Colony. When the accused was questioned, he confessed before him that he killed his mother-in-law as she had not been allowing him to live with his wife (PW-2). Appellant was caught by the said witness and then handed over to the S.H.O., Bhadrachalam Police Station.PW-7 K. Rajamma is said to be the second wife of the appellant. She came to learn about the first marriage of the appellant one year after her marriage with him. Thereafter, she left his company. According to her also, appellant used to beat her after consuming alcohol.One D. Motiya, who examined himself as PW-8, was residing in the house adjacent to the house of the deceased. He also testified that the appellant used to harass his wife PW-2 whereupon a Panchayat meeting was convened and the appellant was chastised. He also deposed that after the meeting of the Panchayat, appellant came to his in-laws place and started living there. He also proved that Chandramma used to harass and warn him to go out of the said house but he continued to live there. Almost to the same effect is the evidence of PW-9. Both PW-8 & PW-9 supported the prosecution case.The learned Sessions Judge having regard to the aforementioned materials brought on record by the prosecution found the appellant guilty of commission of offence and recorded a judgment of conviction and sentence in the manner as noticed hereinbefore.The High Court on appeal preferred by appellant has affirmed the said judgment of conviction and sentence.

Reasoning: It is, therefore, not a case where the Courts below could have totally ignored recovery of the said articles. Furthermore, although not strictly admissible, even a confession was made by appellant in the Police Station before PW-14 and one Seetha Ramulu. Their statements before the Court are also now not in dispute.Submission of the learned counsel for appellant that the last seen theory propounded by the prosecution cannot be relied upon, is, in our opinion, not of much substance. It has not been denied or disputed that the brothers of PW-1, namely, Batta Pedda Veeraiah (PW-3) and Batta China Veeraiah (PW-4) had lands by the side of the land of the deceased and PW-1. PW-3 in his statement, categorically stated that although appellant and the deceased were found to be quarrelling with each other, he ignored the same as that had become almost a routine affair. He came to know about non-return of the deceased from the field only in the evening.Furthermore, not only PW-3 and PW-4 but other prosecution witnesses whose independence is not in question, also proved the presence of appellant near the place of occurrence on the date of occurrence between 1.00 P.M. and 3.00 P.M.According to the post-mortem report, that was the probable period during which the offence is said to have been committed.