BITLA GANGARAM Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-A1, his father-A2 and mother-A3, were tried by the Court of IV additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Siddipet in s. C. No. 295 of 2005, on three charges. The first charge was that all the accused have subjected Naveena, the wife of A1, to cruelty by demanding additional dowry and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. The second charge was that the appellant committed the murder of his wife Naveena on the intervening night of 17/18. 04. 2004, by throttling her neck with saree. In the alternative, all the accused were charged with the offence of committing dowry death of the deceased and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 304-B IPC. Through its judgment, dated 25. 01. 2006, the trial Court acquitted A2 and A3. The charge under Section 498-A IPC was held not proved against the appellant. However it convicted the appellant, of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Hence, this appeal.

(2.) THE deceased was married to the appellant about 2 or 3 years prior to April, 2004. The mother of the deceased submitted the complaint-Ex. P8 at 1130 hours on 18. 04. 2004, stating that they gave about two tulas of gold, 20 tulas of silver and Rs. 20,000/- to the appellant at the time of marriage, apart from some utility articles. She stated that after the marriage, the appellant started harassing and abusing her daughter on several occasions and once she has given a sum of Rs. 3,000/-, and again demand was said to have been made for Rs. 5,000/-for his employment at Hyderabad. A panchayat was also said to have been held to reconcile the differences on two or three occasions. She is said to have received information that her daughter died and she suspected that the appellant might have killed her daughter by pressing the throat. Crime was registered by the Police and the investigation was taken up. Inquest was conducted through ex. P6 and thereafter, post mortem vide Ex. P10. Charges as indicated above were framed and all the accused pleaded not guilty. The trial Court found the appellant alone as guilty of committing the offence under Section 302 IPC. Smt A. Gayathri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is neither eyewitness account, nor circumstantial evidence, to prove that the appellant committed the murder of the deceased. She contends that the person, who gave Ex. P8, was not available for examination as a witness, due to her death and thereby nothing mentioned in Ex. P8 can be taken into account. She contends that P. W. 1, the father of the deceased, has no knowledge about the occurrence and the rest of the witnesses are from the village of P. W. 1. She contends that even to suspect the involvement of the appellant in the incident, the prosecution ought to have proved the presence of the appellant in the village at the relevant point of time and that is totally missing. She further contends that the medical evidence is not all accords with the allegations contained in the charge.

(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor submits that having regard to the disputes between the appellant and the deceased, preceding the occurrence and absence of any explanation from the appellant, the only inference that can be drawn is that he committed the offence. He further submits that the circumstantial evidence provides necessary links to connect the appellant, with the occurrence. P. Ws. 1 and 2 are the father and brother, respectively, of the deceased. P. W. 3 is an elderly person, who is said to have settled the marriage between the appellant and the deceased. P. W. 4 stated that he is acquainted with the deceased as well as her marriage with the appellant, and about the disputes that have arisen between them. P. W. 5 was declared hostile. P. W. 6 is a panch to the inquest. P. W. 7 was declared hostile. P. W. 8 is the Mandal Revenue Officer, who conducted the inquest. P. W. 9 is the Sub-Inspector, who registered the case on receiving the complaint-Ex. P8. P. W. 10 is the Investigating Officer. P. W. 11 is the Doctor, who conducted the post mortem of the deceased.