Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mala Dasari Obulesu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 December, 2025
Author: K.Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
APHC010525422018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3547]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2147/2018
Between:
1. MALA DASARI OBULESU, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. VIDAPANAKAL
VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.
...AP
...APPELLANT
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court at Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT
...RESPO
Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High
Court may be pleased to The above named appellant begs to this Honble
Court to present this memorandum of grounds of Criminal Appeal against the
judgment Dt.06.07.2018
06.07.2018 in Sessions Case No.127 of 2016 on the file of the
court of the Sessions Division of Anantapuramu at Anantapuramu (Before the
Judge, Family Court -cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu) for the
following among other.
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition
tion 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
pleased to grant bail to the petitioner / appellant herein by suspending the
operation of conviction and sentence imposed by the court of the Sessions
Division of Anantapuramu at Anantapuramu (Before the Judge, Family Court
-cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu) vide its judgment
2
Dt.06.07.2018 in Sessions Case No. 127 of 2016, pending disposal of the
main Criminal Appeal and pass
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. KATA SAMBASIVA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
3
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) A.1 in Sessions Case No.127 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu (for short, 'the learned Additional Sessions Judge') is the appellant. He along with A.2 to A.5 was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges:
(i) 1st charge was under Section 498-A r/w 34 IPC against A.1 to A.5
(ii) 2nd charge was under Section 302 IPC against A.1
(iii) 3rd charge was under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against A.1 to A.5, and
(iv) 4th charge was under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against A.1 to A.5.
2. Substance of the charge is that all the accused used to harass one Mala Maheswari @ Lakshmi (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), who is the wife of A.1, coercing and demanding her for an additional dowry and also received an amount of Rs.60,000/- cash at the time of marriage and on 25.01.2015, A.1 strangulated the deceased to death and dragged the body into another room and hanged the dead body to the roof with a saree causing her death, thereby committed offences punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 IPC, Section 302 IPC and also under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
After completion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer 4 imprisonment for 'LIFE' and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted the appellant under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted the appellant under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 15 days. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted A.2, A4 & A.5 of all the charges.
During pendency of the trial, the father-in-law A.3 died and the case against him was abated.
3. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows:
(a) All the accused are residents of Vidapanakal Village. A.1 is the husband of the deceased and A.2 & A.3 are the in-laws of the deceased. A.4 & A.5 are married sisters of A.1. PW.1 is the mother and PW.2 is the brother of the deceased respectively. They are residents of Guntakal. The family of PW.1 was eking out their livelihood by doing coolie work. About five years prior to the date of incident, the marriage of the deceased was performed with A.1. It is alleged that at the time of the marriage, an amount of Rs.60,000/-5
cash and two Tulas of gold were given to A.1 and his family. After the marriage, the accused looked after the deceased well. Three months after the marriage, A.1 and deceased visited the house of PW.1 on the occasion of Dasara festival. Two days later, A.1 went away leaving the deceased with PW.1 asking her to return to matrimonial home only after getting additional dowry, otherwise, no need to come back. Thereafter, PW.1 along with her husband and the deceased went to Kasapuram Police Station and gave oral report. A.1 to A.5 were summoned by the Kasapuram Police and all the accused gave an undertaking before the police stating that they will look after the deceased well and took the deceased along with them to Vidapanakal. The accused treated the deceased well for a period of one month. Again, they started demanding additional dowry. Thereafter, PW.1 and her husband went to the house of A.1 and handed over an amount of Rs.30,000/- to A.1. Again, the accused harassed the deceased demanding additional dowry. The deceased used to call PW.1 and informed her about the harassment and demand of additional dowry. While so, on 25.01.2015 at about 01.30 P.M., PW.1 received a phone call from unknown person of Vidapanakal stating that the deceased died due to low blood pressure. Immediately, PW.1 along with her husband and PW.2 went to the house of A.2 at about 04.00 or 04.30 P.M. They noticed the dead body in the house of A.1. They found ligature marks over her throat and also noticed bleeding injury on the left side of the chest. Then, PW.1 went to the Police Station and lodged a report. The Sub- Inspector of Police, Vidapanakal Police Station having received Ex.P1 report 6 from PW.1 and registered the same as a case in Cr.No.4 of 2015 under Sections 498-A & 304-B r/w 34 IPC. He issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P9. Having received express F.I.R., PW.9 Sub-Divisional Police Officer took up investigation.
(b) PW.9 visited the scene of offence i.e., the house of A.1 situated in S.C.Colony, Vidapanakal. As the deceased died within seven years of the marriage, PW.9 gave a requisition through Sub-Inspector of Police to the Executive Magistrate PW.5 to conduct inquest over the dead body. Accordingly, PW.5 held inquest over the dead body in the presence of mediators PW.4 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P2. PW.9 recorded statements of PWs 1 to 3 and others. He also prepared a Rough sketch Ex.P10 at the scene of offence. He sent the dead body for Postmortem examination.
(c) PW.6 Associate Professor, Government Medical College, Ananthapuram conducted Autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to "Asphyxia" as a consequence of Ligature strangulation and ante mortem pressure over the neck and chest. He issued Postmortem certificate Ex.P3 and Final opinion Ex.P4.
(d) On 23.04.2015, A.1 approached PW.7 V.R.O., Vidapanakal and confessed about the commission of offence. PW.7 prepared his report under Ex.P5 and produced him before PW.9. On the confession made by A.1, PW.9 seized M.Os 9 and 10 Saree and Belt from the house of A.1 under a cover of Panchanama Ex.P7. He arrested A.1 who was remanded to judicial custody. 7 On 27.09.2015, PW.9 arrested A.2, A.3 and A.5. After receiving all the documents and after completion of investigation, PW.9 filed charge sheet.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9, marked exhibits P1 to P11 and exhibited M.Os 1 to 10.
5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him.
6. Accepting the evidence of PWs 1 & 2 coupled with the medical evidence adduced through PW.6, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as aforesaid.
7. Heard Sri N.Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that absolutely there is no evidence to show that PW.1 paid an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards dowry at the time of marriage. He further contends that there was no demand for additional dowry also. He contends that even according to PWs 1 & 2, the marriage was performed at the house of A.1 and the expenses were borne out by the family of A.1. He further contended that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. He further contends that the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are not sustainable. He 8 finally contends that the conviction recorded under Section 302 IPC also cannot be sustained as there is no evidence to connect the appellant with the alleged offence. As such, he requests this Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal inter alia contending that the evidence adduced through PW.6 clinchingly establish that it is a case of homicidal death and not a case of 'suicidal death'. He further contends that there was no explanation offered by A.1 in terms of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. He further contends that A.1 was absconding for a period of three months. Of course, he contends that the trial Court not relied on the so-called extra judicial confession said to have been made before PW.7. The medical evidence adduced through PW.6 coupled with Postmortem Certificate Ex.P3 supports the version of the prosecution in holding that the deceased met with homicidal death in the house of A.1. As such, he requests this Court to dismiss the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
10. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record.
11. PWs 1 & 2 in their evidence have categorically stated that they were informed at about 1.30 P.M. on 25.01.2015 that the deceased died due to low blood pressure. Immediately, at about 4.00 or 4.30 P.M., PWs 1 and 2 9 reached the house of A.1 situated at Vidapanakal and found the dead body with injuries. Immediately, at about 6.00 P.M. on the same day, PW.1 went to the Police Station and gave a report Ex.P1, on the basis of which, the criminal law was set into motion. Absolutely, there was no delay on the part of the prosecution party in giving report to the police. PWs 1 & 2 in their evidence have categorically stated that the deceased met with homicidal death in the house of A.1. They also deposed in their evidence about the manner in which A.1 used to harass the deceased. PWs 1 & 2 in their evidence have categorically admitted that the marriage was performed at the house of A.1 and the expenses were borne out by A.1. As such, the question of demanding dowry or additional dowry by A.1 does not arise in the circumstances of the case.
12. So far as the offence under Section 302 IPC is concerned, the Doctor, who conducted Postmortem examination, in his evidence, has described the injuries as follows:
External injuries :
1. Pressure abrasion of 18 x 3.5 cms, present horizontally, over front of middle part of the neck, placed on and above the level of the thyroid cartilage, directed left to right, situated from the point 5 cms below the left mastoid process and 6.5 cms below the left ear lobule, directed medially towards midline, placed 6 cms below the symphysis menti and extended laterally and placed 6.5 cms below the right ear lobule and extended on to the back and ending 5 cms below the right mastoid process over right side of the neck, surface is pale with ecchymosed margins, base showing imprint pattern.10
2. Pressure abrasion of 5 x 1 cm, present obliquely over right side of the neck, midway between 5 cm below the right ear lobule to the point 10 cm below and lateral to the symphsis menti, dark brown in color, base is dried, hard and parchment like and margins are abraded and contused.
3. Linear scratch of 3 x 0.2 mm, present obliquely, over front of left side of the chest, 2cm lateral to the mid line, red in color.
Internal Examination:
1) Contusion of 3 x 2 cms, over claivicular ends of sternocledo mastoid muscles and related structures are contused, with severe extravasation of the blood in to the surrounding tissue, red in color.
2) Contusion of 1 x 1 cms over front upper part of the chest on right, 1 cms below the medial end of the right clavicle, another contusion of 1 x 1 cms over front upper part of the chest on left, 1 cms below the medial end of the right clavicle, red in color.
3) On reflexion of the skin over front of the neck, the deep fascia, platysma, ribbon muscles, paternoster mastoid muscles are contused with infiltration of the blood in to the surrounding tissue. Venous engorgement is seen, Larynx and tracheal mucus membrane are congested with extravasation of the blood in to the surrounding tissue, forthy edematous fluid present in the larynx and trachea, sub capsular and interstitial thyroid hemorrhages are seen, the thyroid cartilage, cricoid cartilage, hyoid bone and cervical vertebra are intact, lymphoid follicles at the base of the tongue and palatine tonsils are congested, mucous membrane of the pharynx, epiglottis and larynx show the areas of hemorrhagic infiltration, larynx, trachea and bronchi are congested and contain frothy and blood stained. Petechial hemorrhagic spots are seen over the Oro pharynx and epiglottis, blood vessels of the neck were congested and expressing fluid blood, bruising of the floor of the mouth is seen.
The Doctor in his evidence has stated as follows:
11
"All the above injuries are ante mortem in nature, external injury No.1 appears to be caused by the application of pressure over the neck with strap like ligature material like belt or similar object of the same measurements, injury No.2 appears to be caused by application of the pressure over the neck by blunt force and injury No.3 appears to be caused by sharp pointed object and Internal injuries 1 and 2 appears to be caused by hard and blunt force and others are all the postmortem examination findings. Injuries are fresh in nature and appears to be occurred prior to the death and suspicious in nature."
In the cross-examination, the Doctor has stated as follows:
"It is true 3 injuries I mentioned as external injuries are visible injuries. It is true injury Nos.1 and 2 are found over the neck only. It is not true to suggest that injuries Nos.1 and 2 are possible by hanging with saree. In cases of hanging with saree, injuries will be caused obliquely and the width of the injuries will be different.
It is true injury No.2 is obliquely placed. It is not true to suggest that injury No.2 is possible in case of hanging with saree, since the width of the injury is uniform. It is true the measurements the injuries Nos.1 and 2 are different. It is not true to suggest that injuries Nos.1 and 2 can be caused simultaneously with hanging by a folded saree."
13. As such, the evidence of PW.6 is crystal clear that it is a case of strangulation with belt or similar object. The suggestions given by the defence counsel were denied by PW.6 to the effect that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. PW.6 in his evidence has categorically stated that it is not a case of hanging and the deceased met with homicidal death due to strangulation. As such, the explanation offered by A.1 in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement also found to be false. No explanation is coming from A.1 in terms of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. Without explaining as to 12 how the deceased met with homicidal death, A.1 absconded for a period of nearly three months. As such, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that it is A.1 who caused the death of the deceased by strangulating her in his house. The prosecution could able to prove the guilt of A.1 beyond all reasonable doubt through the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 6.
14. In view of the above facts and circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC.
So far as the conviction recorded under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are concerned, the same is liable to be set aside, as PWs 1 & 2 have clearly stated that the marriage was performed at the house of A.1 with the expenses borne out by A.1.
In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu under Section 302 IPC in Sessions Case No.127 of 2016 vide judgment dt. 06.07.2018, is hereby confirmed.
So far as the conviction under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are concerned, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu, in Sessions Case No.127 of 2016 vide judgment dt. 06.07.2018, are hereby set aside.
13
As the appellant / A.1 was released on bail by order dated 16.04.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in terms of the order of the combined High Court passed in Batchu Ranga Rao v. State of A.P. 1, he is directed to surrender before the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu to serve the remaining sentence of imprisonment. If he fails to surrender, the learned trial Judge is directed to secure his presence by issuing Non-bailable warrant and commit him to the prison for serving remaining sentence of imprisonment.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
__________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J _____________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Date: 03.12.2025 MVA 1 [2016(3)ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P.)]