PUTTI VINOD Vs. STATE OF A. P.
LAWS(APH)-2022-2-4
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on February 01,2022

Putti Vinod Appellant
VERSUS
State Of A. P. Respondents




JUDGEMENT

C.PRAVEEN KUMAR,J. - (1.) Accused No.1 in Sessions Case No. 294 of 2012 on the file of XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, is the appellant herein. He along with Accused No. 2 [acquitted] were tried for an offence punishable under Sec. 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code ['I.P.C.'], for causing the death of one Kshatri Nagamani ['Deceased'] on 5/10/2011 at 4.00 p.m. at Subabul Garden. By its Judgment, dtd. 17/11/2014, the learned Sessions Judge convicted Accused No.1 alone for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000.00 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
(2.) The facts, in the issue, are as under: i) PW1 is the father of PW2 and husband of the deceased; PW3 is the mother of PW1. The marriage of PW1 with the deceased took place about nine years prior to the incident. He was blessed with two children. ii) On 5/10/2011 the deceased and PW2 went to attend calls of nature while PW1 left the house at 7.00 a.m., to his work at Gollapadu Village. It is said that, when PW2 and her mother [deceased] went to the fields in the evening, at that time Accused No. 1 and another person were present there and the mother of PW2 and both the accused talked with each other for about half an hour and, thereafter, her mother [deceased] handed over water mug and mobile phone to PW2. Then, she along with both the accused went inside Subabul Garden. PW2 claims to have waited there till 7.00 p.m., and as her mother [deceased] did not return back, due to fear she returned to her house. At about 7.00 p.m., PW2 telephoned and informed PW1 about her mother [deceased] not returning home. By 7.30 p.m. PW1 returned home and searched for his wife [deceased], but could not trace her. When enquired with PW2, she informed him that herself and the deceased went to attend calls of nature at 4.00 p.m., where her mother [deceased] handed over mobile phone and water mug to her and went into Subabul Garden, and as she did not return back, PW2 claims to have returned home. iii) On knowing the same, PW1 took the mobile phone of his wife [deceased] and verified incoming calls. He noticed one number displayed three or four times and the said number is 8096616403. He called the said number through the mobile of his wife [deceased]. One person lifted the phone, revealed his name as Vinod [A1] and then cut the phone. The said Vinod [A1] was a tenant in the house of PW3. On the next day, i.e., on 6/10/2011 at 10.00 a.m., in the morning, PW1 went to Police Station and lodged a report with PW11 - Sub-Inspector of Police. Basing on Ex.P1 report, PW11 registered a case in Crime No. 156 of 2011 under the head of woman missing and sent copies of First Information Report to all concerned. Ex.P12 is the First Information Report. He examined PW1 to PW3 and recorded their statements. He sent radio message about the missing woman to all the police stations. iv) On 7/10/2011, PW11 along with Inspector of Police [PW10] visited the house situated in 4th lane of Vengalareddy Colony bearing door number 13/4/65/10. One person, who was present there tried to run away. He was apprehended and when enquired, revealed his name as P. Vinod [A1]. The said visit was in the presence of PW7. A1 is said to have confessed about the commission of the offence and also disclosed that he will show them the place where the dead body of Nagamani [deceased] is lying. Ex.P2 is the admissible portion of A1. It is said that, A1 also handed over the wrist watch of the deceased, which is marked as M.O.1. The evidence of PW10 - Inspector of Police, would show that he handed over the mediatornama prepared to PW11, who basing on the same altered Sec. of law to 302 and 201 read with 34 I.P.C. Ex.P13 is the sec. alternation memo. v) PW11 after altering the sec. of law proceeded to the scene of offence where he prepared a rough sketch of scene, which is placed on record as Ex.P14. The evidence further discloses that A1 lead them to the scene of offence, which is Subabul Garden of PW9 situated by the side of the road leading to Kotappakonda Village. At the scene, A1 showed the dead body of the deceased. By that time, the relatives of the deceased, who were present there, identified the body as that of the deceased. It is said that, at the scene A1 handed over his mobile phone [M.O.9] to PW10. vi) PW10 prepared a panchanama of the scene and also got the dead body photographed. He noticed a towel around the neck of the deceased, which is marked as M.O.4. The same was seized under Ex.P5. He then conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of three mediators. Ex.P3 is the inquest report. At the time of inquest, he examined PW1 to PW4 and PW6 and recorded their statements and, thereafter, sent the body for post- mortem examination. vii) PW8 - the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Narasaraopet, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 7/11/2011 at 4.00 p.m., and issued Ex.P6 - the post-mortem certificate. After receipt of R.F.S.L., report, he opined that the death was due to strangulation with towel and due to injuries on ribs and left lung by over laying. Ex.P8 is the final opinion. viii) PW10, who continued with the investigation, arrested Accused No.2 on 7/10/2011 at about 4.00 p.m., and seized Hero Honda Motorcycle [M.O.8] from him. Both the accused were sent to judicial custody. After collecting all the documents and after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 13 of 2012 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.
(3.) On appearance of the accused, copies of documents as required under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C., came to be furnished. Since the case is triable by Court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court under Sec. 209 Cr.P.C. Basing on the material available on record, charge as referred to above came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.