RAVIRALA LAXMAIAH Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.7.2010, passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 2007, concurring with the judgment and order dated 5.2.2007 of the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, Andhra Pradesh, in Sessions Case No. 83 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC'), and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of which, simple imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 302 IPC; and for the offence punishable under Section 404 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years, was imposed on him. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:

(3.) Dr. Aman Hingorani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted, that the present case was one of suicide by hanging, and that the same most certainly did not involve homicide by strangulation, as it is evident from the post-mortem report, as well as from the deposition of Dr. K. Padmavathi (PW.10), both of which clearly suggest, that death had been caused as a result of suicide by hanging. Even otherwise, there exist serious discrepancies and inconsistencies in the depositions of the witnesses. There was no motive whatsoever, for the appellant to commit the murder of his wife. All the recoveries are fake, and the material objects, particularly jewellery and other items have been planted by the police to falsely implicate the appellant in the case, as recovery witnesses of the jewellery, particularly Ganjai Niranjan (PW.8) and Syed Aktharali (PW.9), do not support the recovery of the aforementioned items. The mere appearance and admission of their signature/thumb impression on the memo of recovery, does not prove the recovery. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.