STATE OF A.P.versusPATCHIMALA VIGNESWARUDU@ VIGGANNA @ GANAPATHI

                            [2016] 1 S.C.R. 66



A                             STATE OF A.P.
                                     v.
           PATCHIMALA VIGNESWARUDU@ VIGGANNA
                             @ GANAPATHI
B                    (Criminal Appeal No. 436 of2008)
                           JANUARY 06, 2016
           [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]
          Penal Code, 1860: s.302 - Murder - Death due to
c   strangulation - Allegation against the accused-husband that he
    murdered his wife as he had strained relations with her - Conviction
    by trial court - Acquittal by High Court - State's appeal against
    acquittal - Held: Evidence of the witnesses was to the effect that
    the deceased was seen in company of the accused-husband soon
    before her death - Accused absconded from the village after the
D
    incident - The chain of circunistances was complete and led only to
    the conclusion that it was the accused and he alone, who committed
    murder of the deceased - Order of conviction is restored.
          Allowing the appeal, the Court
E        HELD: The medical evidence on record proved that the
  deceased died a homicidal death and cause of death was asphyxia
  due to strangulation. 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 was corroborated by the fact that the
  accused himself has admitted his marriage with the deceased,
F and his strained relations with her. Apart from that 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
  (father of the deceased) and PW-2 (mother of the deceased) have
  stated that a day before the dead body of the deceased was found,
G the accused had come to their house and took his wife on the
  pretext that he was taking her to night show cinema. Also it is
  established from the statement of PW-4 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, who is
  the gatekeeper of Devi Ganesh Theatre at Mukteswaram, told
H
                                    66
    STATE OF A. P. v. PATCHIMALA VIGNESWARUDU @                            67
                VIGGANNA @ GANAPATHI

that he knew both accused and the deceased, and they purchased A
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. Yet another circumstance against
the accused brought on the record by PW-6, who has stated that
he saw the accused coming alone after midnight from the side of B
Ayinavilli and boarding quarry lorry heading to Mummidivaram.
Lastly, it is stated on record by the prosecution witnesses that
the accused absconded after the incident. The 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. [Paras 10 to 15, 18] [71-B-G; 72-F]      C
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 436 of 2008
      From the Judgment and Order dated 24.02.2005 of the High Court
of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.
1313 uf2002                                                                D
      Prerna Singh, Guntur Prabhakar, D. Bharathi Reddy for the
Appellant.
      Arun K. Sinha (A. C.) for the Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                           E
      PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. I. 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 of2002, filed by accused/respondent Patchimala Vigneswarudu
@ Vigganna @ Ganapathi, is allowed, and he is acquitted of the charge F
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   G
of PW-I 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
                                                                           H
68               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] I S.C.R.


A    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-
B
     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
c    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
D    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
E    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,
F    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
G    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.
H
    STATE OF A. P. v. PATCHIMALA VIGNESWARUDU @                              69
    VIGGANNA @ GANAPATHI [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

      5. It appears that I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,       A
Amalapuram, committed the case to the Court of Sessions of East
Godavari Division ofRajahmundry. 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
                                                                             B
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
       6. The prosecution got examined PW-I Jithuka Nagooru (father
of the deceased), PW-2 Jithuka Veeramma (mother of the deceased),
PW-3 Gannavarapu Suryanarayana (Sarpanch of villageAyinavilli), PW-
4 Inje Anjaneyulu (who last saw the deceased with the accused going
after night show from Mukteswaram towards Ayinavilli), PW-5 Jinipe           c
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          D
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           E
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
examjnation in sealed condition), PW-14 G. S.I. Devakumar (who               F
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-I and PW-2 to take his wife or         G
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    H
70                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2016] I S.C.R.



A    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
B
     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
c    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.
D    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.
            I 0. Before further discussion we think it just and proper to mention
E    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
F    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
G            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
H    ligature mark. Hyoid bone was intact. Thyroid cartilage was intact.
    STATE OF A. P. v. PATCHIMALA VIGNESWARUDU@                               71
    VIGGANNA @ GANAPATHI [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

Larynx, trachea and bronchi were congested and filled with frothy blood      A
stained fluid. Haemorrhages were seen in mocosa oflarynx. 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 (M0-1) around the
neck of the deceased by tightening it and by pulling with force. The
                                                                             B
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-I 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.         c
       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        D
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        E
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.                           F
      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   G
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-I 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        H
72               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2016] I S.C.R.


A    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.
B
           (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.
C          (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
D          6.8.2001.
           (vi) The dead body of the deceased was recovered next morning
           on 6.8.200 I from village Ayinavilli.
           (vii) The deceased had died homicidal death and cause of her
           death was asphyxia due to strangulation.
E
           (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
F    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
G    on record. It is proved on the record by PW- I I Dr. Venkata Reddy that
     the accused was suffering from balanoposthitis, and PW-I 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
H    313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, when above evidence was put to
    STATE OF A. P. v. PATCHIMALA VIGNESWARUDU @                              73
    VIGGANNA @ GANAPATHI [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

the accused, he has accepted said fact. What he denied is that he did        A
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
                                                                             B
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
                                                                             c
restored. The accused/respondent shall be taken into custody by the
trial court to make him serve out the remaining part of the sentence.
Devika Gujral                                              Appeal allowed.

                                                                             D