ADDANKI VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD
LAWS(SC)-1994-12-21
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on December 07,1994

ADDANKI VENKATESWARA RAO Appellant
VERSUS
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHHYDERABAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This appeal has been filed under Section 2 (a) of the Supreme court (Enlargement of the Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 against the conviction of the appellant by the division bench of the A. P. High court in Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 1985 after setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge Vijayawada in Sessions case No. 96/82. The High court has sentenced the appellant to suffer imprisonment for life for an offence of committing murder of his wife. The prosecution case in short is that the accused is a washerman by caste and he was addicted to drinking and gambling. He used to ill-treat his wife and quarrel with her often. As a result, the deceased-wife left the husband and started residing in the house of another casteman in the village being PW-5. On the date of occurrence, the deceased along with PW-1 her son aged about 12 years had been going to the that for washing clothes when she was attacked by the accused who stabbed her on the chest and on other parts of the body. As a result, she of acquittal and by indicating cogent reasons convicted the appellant for murdering his wife and passed the aforesaid sentence. In the instant case there are two eye-witnesses who had seen the commission of offence. The son of the deceased though a boy aged 12 years deposed in a straightway manner about stabbing his mother by his father, the accused. His evidence is fully corroborated by the evidence of PW-2 who is also an eye-witness. PWs. 3 and 4 came to the place of occurrence immediately after the incident had also noticed that the accused was running away from the place. The deceased stated to the said witnesses that the accused had stabbed her. In the aforesaid circumstances, the prosecution case has been clearly established. We. therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. It appears, that by an order dated 25/8/1988 the appellant has been enlarged on bail. He should be taken into custody to serve out the sentence.;


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