(Prayer: Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to present this Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Appeal against the judgment dt.03.12.2018 passed in S.C.No.279 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, for the following

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of sentence dt.03.12.2018, passed in S.C.No.279 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, and release the petitioners on bail, pending disposal of the above Crl. A. and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of the sentence passed against the petitioner/accused viz., Kambampati Suresh Babu @ Suresh in S.C. No. 279 of 2016 on the file of the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, dt. 03.12.2018 and release the petitioner on bail)

Sumathi Jagadam, J.

1. Sole accused in Sessions Case No.279 of 2016 on the file of the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, is the appellant. He was tried by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

2. Gravamen of the charge is that on 04.04.2016 at about 1.00 p.m. to 1.30 p.m. the accused beat his lover by name, T. Suseela (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), with a beer bottle on her head, caught hold of her tuft and hit her head to the wall of a culvert, took a boulder and beat her thrice, and also cut her throat with a broken beer bottle glass piece, causing her death, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

3. After completion of trial, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

4. The accused and material prosecution witnesses are residents of Isnovaripalle village, Thamballapalle Mandal. The deceased was also a resident of same village. The accused is a 3rd year B.Sc. student at Madanapalle. P.W.1 is mother and P.W.2 is brother of deceased. P.W.3 is Co-sister of P.W.1. The deceased was studying 10th class at Thamballapalle. The accused and deceased were in love, three years prior to the incident. Both the families had decided to perform their marriage after completion of their education.

5. One month prior to the incident, the deceased informed her mother P.W.1 that the accused was suspecting her fidelity. On 04.04.2016, the deceased left her house at 8.00 a.m. to appear for final examination. She informed her mother that she would return in the afternoon i.e., by 12.30 – 1.00 p.m.

6. Since the deceased did not return even after 2.00 p.m., P.W.1 along with her husband and her son P.W.2 went to her school to make enquiries. They came to know that the deceased had left with the accused on his moped towards Molakalacheruvu. While proceeding towards Molakalacheruvu, the villagers informed that the deceased was lying dead near Chennuru project. P.W.2 and his father rushed to the spot and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood.

7. At about 4.30 p.m. on 04.04.2016 P.W.14, S.I. of Police received a report from P.W.1, which was marked as Ex.P.1 and registered a case in Crime No.18 of 2016 under Section 302 IPC. He sent copies of FIR, Ex.P.13 to all the concerned authorities. After receiving instructions from the C.I. of Police-P.W.15, P.W.14 visited the scene of offence and posted two police constables to guard the scene of offence.

8. At about 5.45 p.m. P.W.15, after verifying the FIR, Ex.P.13, instructed P.W.14 to search for the accused. At 6.15 a.m. on 05.04.2016, P.W.15 recorded statements of P.Ws.1 to 4. The V.R.O., Kurabalakota Mandal, P.W.11 conducted inquest over the dead body. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P.2. Scene observation report is marked as Ex.P.3. P.W.11 seized M.O.1-chunni, M.O.3-belt chappals and M.O.8-boulder at the inquest. The scene of offence was photographed and marked as Ex.P.14. Chunni-M.O.1 found around the neck of the deceased was seized under Ex.P.3 in the presence of mediators. A rough sketch was prepared at the scene of offence and marked as Ex.P.15. Thereafter, the dead body was sent to Government Hospital, Madanapalle, for post-mortem examination.

9. P.W.12, Civil Assistant Surgeon, conducted autopsy over the dead body and opined the cause of death was due to hemorrhage shock due to multiple injuries. He issued post-mortem certificate Ex.P.9.

10. P.W.15 secured the presence of P.Ws.5 to 7 and another, and recorded their statements. On 11.04.2016, P.W.15 apprehended the accused at around 12.00 noon in the presence of mediators P.W.11 and another. Rough sketch of place of arrest was marked as Ex.P.16. On the confession made by the accused, his blood stained clothes and two-wheeler-M.O.11 were seized in the presence of P.W.11 and another under a panchnama. He also seized a carry bag of the deceased containing hall ticket-Ex.P.4. Seizure Panchnama was marked as Ex.P.17. After recording a statement of P.W.10-owner of land where the vehicle was found, and after completing all the formalities, arrested the accused who was remanded to judicial custody. On 13.04.2016, P.W.15 sent the material objects to RFSL for analysis. After receiving RFSL report and after completion of investigation, P.W.15 filed charge sheet against the accused under Section 302 IPC.

11. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15, marked Exs.P.1 to P.18 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 15.

12. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. On behalf of defence, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked.

13. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.4, and 7 to 9, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid.

14. Heard Sri D. Kodandarami Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/accused, and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

15. The learned counsel for the appellant vigorously argues that there exists a significant discrepancy concerning the identity of the primary witness to the incident. According to the initial report filed by the deceased mother, P.W.1, the first person to observe the incident was explicitly identified as K. Venkateswarlu. However, Ex.P.2 records the name as K. Venkataramana. The learned counsel maintains that these are two distinctly different individuals.

i) Further, the prosecution has accepted P.W.1's version and has falsely implicated the accused. The Investigating Agency failed to conduct a preliminary inquiry to identify the person before filing the charge sheet. Moreover, the hospital has failed to maintain a standard mortuary register showing the time of arrival of the dead body and the time of post mortem examination. There is a delay in registering the FIR and in sending it to the Court, and the learned counsel has pleaded for the acquittal of the appellant/accused.

16. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the Appeal, contending that the accused suspected the character of the deceased. Since both families had decided to perform their marriage, the accused took the petitioner to Molakalacheruvu. PW4, the direct eyewitness, saw the accused and the deceased parking the TVS moped, M.O.11, proceeding under the bridge, tying M.O.1 around the neck of deceased, and hitting the deceased with a boulder. Upon hearing the screams, P.Ws.4 to P.W.6 saw the accused fleeing from the scene of offence.

i) Further submission is that the names in Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, Venkataramana and Venkateswarlu, are irrelevant, as P.W.4 was the direct witness to the entire episode. The Doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination, opined that the deceased died of haemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries. The prosecution has succeeded in establishing the motive on the part of the accused and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

17. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. P.W.1 is mother and P.W.2 is brother of deceased. P.W.7 saw the accused waiting near the school and picked up the deceased on his moped, and both of them proceeded towards Molakalacheruvu. P.W.9 saw the deceased driving the moped and the accused as a pillion rider. On 04.04.2016 at 1.00 p.m. P.W.4 saw the accused and the deceased going on a moped and parked it by the side of the bridge and proceeded under the bridge and five minutes later, he heard screams of the deceased. Immediately, he rushed there and saw the accused beating the deceased with a boulder and tying M.O.1 around her neck. Thereafter, two auto drivers, who were cleaning their autos near the bridge, came to the scene of offence. On seeing them, the accused fled away on his moped.

18. P.W.5 is a shepherd and P.W.6 is an auto driver. They heard the screams of a girl and saw the accused fleeing from the scene of offence. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 establish the motive for the offence. They stated that the accused developed deep suspicion over the fidelity of the deceased. This suspicion establishes the clear intention and pre-meditated motive for the accused to eliminate the deceased.

19. Further, the deceased had informed her mother about the same. P.Ws.1 to 3 in their evidence had categorically stated that the accused used to suspect the fidelity of deceased. P.Ws.1 and 2 in their evidence, stated that P.W.1 and her husband have already decided to perform the marriage of deceased with the accused. The evidence of the eyewitness also confirmed that the accused has committed the offence to get rid of the deceased from marriage.

20. The PWs.1, 2, 3, 8 and 9 stated that the accused and the deceased were in love about three years prior to the incident. Both the families intended to perform their marriage after completion of their studies. However, because the deceased was seen moving with others, the accused want to put hold and further suspected the character of the deceased. In their entire cross examination, there is no whisper regarding the questionable character of the deceased or her roaming with others. The eyewitness, P.W.4 testifies that the accused beat the deceased with a boulder and tied M.O.1 around her neck. P.W.7 deposed that on the date of incident at about 12.00 noon the accused came to the school on his moped and both the accused and the deceased left towards Molakalacheruvu, and after proceeding a little further, the deceased drove the moped while the accused sat as a pillion rider.

21. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.7 and P.W.9, nothing adverse has been elicited in their evidence. The eyewitnesses have consistently deposed regarding the manner in which the accused attacked the deceased and thereafter fled away from the scene of offence. Their evidence inspires confidence and lends assurance to the prosecution case. Furthermore, P.W.1 lodged Ex.P.1 report before the police on 04.04.2016 and thus, there is no delay in lodging the FIR by P.W.1.

22. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in Ex.P.1 report, the name of village talari is recorded as K.Venkateswarlu, whereas the chief-examination of P.W.4 and Ex.P.2-inquest report refers to him as K.Venkata Ramana who was the first person to witness the incident. The submission of learned counsel that Venkata Ramana and Venkateswarulu are two different individuals, holds no weight. Furthermore, his specific employment has no bearing on the incident itself and further, the said discrepancy was not brought during the cross-examination and therefore, it does not assist the appellant’s case.

23. Having analyzed the entire evidence on record carefully, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused on the basis of the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3 regarding the motive and the evidence of P.Ws.4 to 6 with regard to the actual attack and the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 9 with regard to the accused and the deceased going on M.O.11 moped towards Molakalacheruvu. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, needs no interference.

24. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, in Sessions Case No.279 of 2016, dated 03.12.2018, under Section 302 IPC.

As the appellant/accused was released on bail, he is directed to surrender before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, forthwith to serve the remaining period of sentence. Failure to do so, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, is directed to take steps to secure the presence of the appellant by issuing non-bailable warrants and commit him to prison. It is needless to state that the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.00