STATE OF A.P. Vs. PATCHIMALA VIGNESWARUDU @ VIGANNA

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Crl.), 436 of 2008, Judgment Date: Jan 06, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 436 OF 2008

State of A.P. … Appellant

Versus

Patchimala Vigneswarudu @ Vigganna
@ Ganapathi …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated
24.2.2005, passed by the High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad, whereby Criminal Appeal No. 1313 of 2002, filed by
accused/respondent Patchimala Vigneswarudu @ Vigganna @ Ganapathi, is
allowed, and he is acquitted of the charge of murder punishable under
Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), and order of conviction and
sentence, passed against him by II Additional Sessions Judge, East
Godavari at Rajahmundry in Sessions Case No. 363 of 2001, was set
aside.

2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Pachimala Ganga, daughter of PW-1
Jithuka Nagooru and PW-2 Jithuka Veeramma, got married to the
accused/respondent. Their marriage was solemnized some two years
before the date of incident. After marriage deceased Pachimala Ganga
joined company of her husband at Cheyyeru Agraharam, and started
living with him. After some time the accused came to know that he was
suffering from venereal disease. He suspected that he might have
contacted it through his wife. This started souring of relations
between the two. According to the prosecution, the accused thereafter
started ill-treating his wife, on which she left him and went to her
parents’ house. Sarojini, sister of the accused, went to the house of
the parents of the deceased and promised that the deceased would not
be subjected to ill-treatment. On this personation deceased went
again to Cheyyeru Agraharam, i.e. village of her husband, but she was
again allegedly subjected to harassment. As such, prior to ten days
before her death PW-1 and PW-2 (parents of the deceased) took her back
to their house.

3. On 5.8.2001 at 6.00 p.m. the accused himself went to the house of his
in-laws (PW-1 and PW-2) and took his wife on the pretext that they
were going to watch night show of movie ‘Eduruleni Manishi’ in Devi
Ganesh theatre in neighbouring Mukteswaram village. According to
prosecution, the couple went to the movie but the accused had a plan
to kill her. After midnight while returning home, the accused took
his wife towards coconut tope (grove of PW-8 Ponakala Satyanarayana
Murthy) and murdered his wife by strangulating her. Thereafter, the
accused left the place and absconded. PW-1 and PW-2, when their
daughter did not return, started searching for her. On 6.8.2001 in
the morning her dead body was found in the coconut tope. PW-7 Yalla
Satyanarayana noticed the dead body and told about the same to PW-1
and PW-2.

4. PW-1 Jithuka Nagooru, father of the deceased, gave First Information
Report on 6.8.2001 at 8.00 a.m., to the police on which crime No. 50
of 2001 was registered. PW-15 Inspector A. Subbarao investigated the
crime. PW-9 Relangi Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, on instructions
of the Investigating Officer, prepared inquest report (Ex. P-3) after
the dead body was taken into possession. PW-12 Dr. A. Subbarao
conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and
prepared autopsy report (Ex. P-22). After recording the ante mortem
injuries, the Medical Officer opined that the deceased had died due to
asphyxia caused by strangulation with ligature. On 9.8.2001 the
accused/respondent was arrested by the Investigating Officer near
Kanakadurga Temple. After interrogating witnesses and on completion
of investigation a charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer
against accused Patchimala Vigneswarudu @ Vigganna @ Ganapathi for his
trial in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

5. It appears that I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Amalapuram, committed the case to the Court of Sessions of East
Godavari Division of Rajahmundry. Learned Sessions Judge, after
hearing the parties, on 28.02.2002, framed charge of offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC against accused Patchimala
Vigneswarudu @ Vigganna @ Ganapathi and explained the same to him in
Telugu to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.

6. The prosecution got examined PW-1 Jithuka Nagooru (father of the
deceased), PW-2 Jithuka Veeramma (mother of the deceased), PW-3
Gannavarapu Suryanarayana (Sarpanch of village Ayinavilli), PW-4 Inje
Anjaneyulu (who last saw the deceased with the accused going after
night show from Mukteswaram towards Ayinavilli), PW-5 Jinipe
Venkateswara Rao (an employee of cinema hall who sold the tickets of
night show to the accused), PW-6 Jithuka Vijaya Kumar (the witness who
saw the accused returning alone from Ayinavilli towards Amalapuram
after 12.30 a.m. and boarding quarry lorry heading for Mummidivaram),
PW-7 Yalla Satyanarayana (who is witness of the fact that when the
dead body was found in coconut tope, there was saree around her neck),
PW-8 Ponakala Satyanarayana Murthy (who also saw the dead body lying
in the coconut tope), PW-9 Relangi Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana
(who prepared the inquest report), PW-10 K.V.V. Satyanarayana (who
photographed the dead body), PW-11 Dr. Ch. Venkata Reddy (who
medically examined the accused and reported that he was suffering from
balanoposthitis – sexually transmitted venereal disease), PW-12 Dr. A.
Subbarao (who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of
the deceased), PW-13 M. Subrahmanyam (police constable who took the
dead body for post mortem examination in sealed condition), PW-14 G.
S.I. Devakumar (who registered the crime) and PW-15 Inspector A.
Subbarao (who investigated the crime).

7. Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under Section 313
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in reply to which he denied
having gone to the house of PW-1 and PW-2 to take his wife or having
her taken to night show cinema. However, he admitted that he suffered
from venereal disease, and suspected that it was transmitted to him
through his wife. He further stated that after his wife left for her
parental house, she did not come back.

8. The trial court, after considering the evidence on record, found the
accused guilty of charge of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC,
and convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and directed
to pay fine of Rs.200/- in default of payment of which the accused was
directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
month. Against said order dated 18.9.2002, passed by II Additional
Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, criminal appeal was filed by the convict
before the High Court, and after hearing the parties, the High Court
allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused/respondent of the charge
on the ground that chain of circumstances is not complete leading to a
definite conclusion that the accused alone was responsible for
commission of offence. The State has preferred this appeal against
the impugned order passed by the High Court acquitting the accused.

9. Learned counsel for the State argued that the High Court has committed
grave error of law in acquitting the accused, by reversing the
conviction recorded by the trial court. It is contended that the
chain of circumstances is complete and the charge is fully proved on
the record. On the other hand, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for
the respondent submitted that the chain of circumstances is not
complete, and where two views are possible on the basis of the
evidence on record, the order of acquittal passed by the High Court
cannot be interfered with.

10. Before further discussion we think it just and proper to mention the
ante mortem injuries found on the dead body of the deceased by PW-12
Dr. A Subbarao, who conducted autopsy on 6.8.2001 and prepared Ex. P-
22. Describing the condition of the body at the time of post mortem
examination, the Medical Officer has stated that eyes of the deceased
were closed, mouth was open with tongue protruding between upper and
lower teeth, blood stained froth was coming from both nostrils and
mouth. Following ante mortem injuries were noted by the doctor: -

i) Ligature mark completely encircling the neck transverse in
direction below the thyroid cartilage. Width of ligature mark 4
to 5 mms.
ii) Abrasions were present over the ligature mark. Scratches due to
nails are seen over the ligature on the right side.
iii) Abrasion over the middle third of the right arm of size 3 x 3 cm
reddish in colour.

On internal examination, the Medical Officer (PW-12) found that
echymosis and congestion was seen in sub-cutaneous tissue under the
ligature mark. Hyoid bone was intact. Thyroid cartilage was intact.
Larynx, trachea and bronchi were congested and filled with frothy
blood stained fluid. Haemorrhages were seen in mocosa of larynx. The
Medical Officer opined that the deceased had died due to asphyxia
caused by strangulation with ligature. PW-12 Dr. A. Subbarao further
stated that death could have been occurred by putting saree (MO-1)
around the neck of the deceased by tightening it and by pulling with
force. The above medical evidence on record proves that the deceased
died a homicidal death and cause of death was asphyxia due to
strangulation.

11. As far as relation between the accused and the deceased is concerned,
the prosecution evidence on record, as stated by PW-1 and PW-2, is
corroborated by the fact that the accused himself has admitted his
marriage with the deceased, and his strained relations with her.

12. Apart from the above, it is proved on record that on the date of
incident, before midnight, the accused took his wife (deceased) to
night show of movie. PW-1 Jithuka Nagooru (father of the deceased)
and PW-2 Jithuka Veeramma (mother of the deceased) have stated that a
day before the dead body of the deceased was found, the accused had
come to their house and took his wife on the pretext that he was
taking her to night show cinema.

13. Also it is established from the statement of PW-4 Inje Anjaneyulu that
he last saw the deceased with the accused walking towards Ayinavilli
(the village where later dead body of the deceased was found). PW-5
Jinipe Venkateswara Rao, who is the gatekeeper of Devi Ganesh Theatre
at Mukteswaram, told that he knew both accused and the deceased, and
they purchased two tickets for last show at 8.00 p.m. Both of these
witnesses have proved the fact that soon before her death the deceased
was last seen with the accused.

14. Yet another circumstance against the accused brought on the record by
PW-6 Jithuka Vijaya Kumar, who has stated that he saw the accused
coming alone after midnight from the side of Ayinavilli and boarding
quarry lorry heading to Mummidivaram.

15. Lastly, it is stated on record by the prosecution witnesses that the
accused absconded after the incident.

16. The recovery of dead body in the morning of 6.8.2001, is proved not
only by PW-1 and PW-2, but also by PW-7 Yalla Satyanarayana, PW-8
Ponakala Satyanarayana Murthy and PW-9 Relangi Sri Veera Venkata
Satyanarayana, which gets corroborated from Ex. P-2.

17. Succinctly stated, following circumstances are found to have been
proved on record: -

i) Admittedly, the deceased was wife of the accused and they had
strained relations.
ii) The accused was suffering from venereal disease which he
suspected to have sexually transmitted through his wife.
iii) On 5.8.2001 the accused had gone to his in-laws’ house and took
his wife with him.
iv) The deceased and the accused were last seen in the mid night
(intervening night of 5.8.2001 and 6.8.2001) going together from
cinema hall after night show, towards village Ayinavilli.
v) The accused was last seen returning alone from village
Ayinavilli, after midnight at about 12.30 a.m., i.e. 0030 hrs.
on 6.8.2001.
vi) The dead body of the deceased was recovered next morning on
6.8.2001 from village Ayinavilli.
vii) The deceased had died homicidal death and cause of her death was
asphyxia due to strangulation.
viii) It is also established that the accused absconded from the
village after the incident.

18. In our opinion, above chain of circumstances is complete and leads
only to the conclusion that it was the accused/ respondent and he
alone, who committed murder of the deceased. The view taken by the
High Court that the chain of circumstances is not complete merely for
the reason that drunkenness of the accused is not established, and
that the accused cannot be said to have got sexually transmitted
disease through his wife, is the view based on irrelevant
considerations and could not have been taken in the present case after
re-appreciating the evidence on record. It is proved on the record by
PW-11 Dr. Venkata Reddy that the accused was suffering from
balanoposthitis, and PW-1 Jithuka Nagooru and PW-2 Jithuka Veeramma
have proved the fact that the accused suspected that it might have
been transmitted to him through his wife. What is more important is
that in his statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
when above evidence was put to the accused, he has accepted said fact.
What he denied is that he did not go to take his wife to her parents’
house. He further denied that he did not take her to night show of
any movie, nor committed her murder. In the above circumstances, we
are of the opinion that in the present case only view possible was the
one taken by the trial court. As such, it is a fit case where order
of acquittal recorded by the High Court requires interference.
Therefore, on the basis of the discussion on evidence, as above, we
are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.

19. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court is set aside. The order of conviction and
sentence recorded by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry in
Sessions Case No. 363 of 2001 against the accused/respondent is
restored. The accused/respondent shall be taken into custody by the
trial court to make him serve out the remaining part of the sentence.

………………….....…………J.
[Dipak Misra]

.………………….……………J.
[Prafulla C. Pant]
New Delhi;
January 06, 2016.

Back to Judgments