PUSULOORI MANOHAR Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30-06-2006 in S. C. No. 360 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Khammam, wherein, the appellant-accused was found guilty of the offences under Section 302 IPC and 498-A IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of rs. 100/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 302 IPC and also convicted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment forthree months.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant-accused and the learned Public prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the records.

(3.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: the accused married the deceased Lalitha, 6th daughter of the complainant-Kotha Kotaiah (P. W. 1), about seven years prior to the offence and that at the time of the marriage, the complainant gave dowry to the accused and since few months after the marriage, the accused started demanding the deceased to dispose of the land given to her at the time of the marriage and bring the sale proceeds. The matter was pacified with the intervention of the elders. However, the accused continued the harassment of the deceased suspecting her chastity. Again the matter was placed before the elders to settle the dispute. The accused shifted the residence to Hyderabad and there, he developed illicit intimacy with another woman, and continued harassing the deceased. Again there was a panchayat by elders and the accused was admonished. But the accused did not change his attitude. In the panchayat it was decided to dissolve the marriage by divorce and the accused was asked to pay Rs. 70,000/- to the deceased. The accused agreed for the same, but did not pay the amount. The deceased was living at her parents' house. The accused convinced the deceased and the complainant that he would look after the deceased properly and brought her back to his house. He however, continued the harassment and cruelty and again sent her back to her parents' house asking her to get treatmentfor her ailment. On 08-01-2004 the accused called his wife-deceased on phone and the deceased returned to the house of the accused on the same day. On that night at about 9. 30 p. m. the accused returned home, found the deceased sleeping on a cot and made up his mind to do away with herlifeand caused hertodeath by smothering. Later, he went to the house of Puranam srinivasa Sarma (P. W. 9) and took away his scooter with intent to disappear from the village. While driving rashly, he dashed against chevula Veeramallu (P. W. 6) and caused injuries to him and he also sustained injuries. Muthineni Radhamma (P. W. 7) and Raghupathi (P. W. 8) who were coming along with veeramallu, informed Srinivasa Sharma about the incident. The said Srinivasa Sharma rang up to Ma//e/ Ravichandra (L. W. 13) and requested him to inform Lalitha, wife of the accused about the incident. The injured veeramallu and the accused were shifted to hospital, from where the accused absconded. Mallela Ravichandra Conveyed the message to M. Koteswara Rao (P. W. 5), who in turn visited the house of the accused, knocked the door, but did not get any response. Then with the assistance of Chava Sarojini (P. W. 4) and some other neighbours, he verified and found lalitha dead. On being informed, the complainant and others came to the scene of offence at Kakarla village. On 09-01-2004 at 1 p. m. the complainant gavea report at Jalurpad ps and the police registered a case in Cr. No. 4/2004 under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC. During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the same in the presence of the mediators and gave requisition to the Mandal Revenue Officer, julurpad to conduct inquest over the dead body and later sent the dead body for post mortem examination. The accused made an extra judicial confession of the offence in the presence of Chava Satyam (P. W. 10) and challagonda Venkateswaralu (PW. 12), who in turn produced the accused before the police. The accused was arrested and sent for remand. A team of doctors conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, preserved viscera and sent the same to Forensic Science laboratory (for short 'fsl") for analysis and report. On receipt of the FSL report, the medical Officers issued post-mortem report opining that the cause of death was due to asphyxia consequent to smothering. After completion ofthe investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused.