Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Badvel Madhava Reddy, Spsr Nellore Dt., vs State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 30 August, 2019
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy, Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Criminal Appeal No.483 of 2015
Judgment: (per Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.)
Challenging the judgment dated 27-01-2015 of the
IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, whereunder
the appellant, who is the sole accused in S.C.No.220 of 2011 on
the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore,
was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC
and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the appellant has
preferred the present appeal.
2. Concise statement of facts germane to dispose of this
appeal may be stated as follows:
(a) The accused is the husband of the deceased Badvel
Jyothi (hereinafter called as the deceased). Both of them loved
each other and their marriage was solemnized about 7 years back
prior to the death of the deceased. After the marriage, the
accused is addicted to consuming liquor and he started
suspecting the fidelity of the deceased and used to harass her and
subject her to cruelty both physically and mentally. Unable to
bear the said harassment of the accused, the deceased left for her
parents' house. Her mother and brother convinced her and sent
her back to the house of the accused with a fond hope that there
would be a change in the conduct and attitude of the accused.
However, there is no change in his conduct and attitude.
The accused and the deceased shifted their residence about two
2
years prior to the incident to NTR Nagar, Nellore. Thereafter, they
shifted their residence to the house which is behind S.V.R. High
School, Zakir Hussain Nagar, Nellore and they are residing in the
ground floor portion in the house of P.W.9.
(b) While so, on 18-9-2010 at about 2.30 p.m., the deceased
along with her neighbour P.W.6 went for shopping and returned
home at 3.45 p.m. By that time, the accused already reached
home and he was present in the house. As the deceased was not
found in the house at the time of his arrival, the accused, who has
been suspecting her fidelity, picked up a quarrel with the
deceased after her arrival from the shopping. During the said
quarrel, the accused grew wild and he picked up a knife which is
available in his house at about 4.30 p.m. with an intention to kill
Jyothi the deceased and stabbed her over the left side of her chest
and caused a deep incised stab injury in their bedroom.
The deceased raised cries at that time. On hearing her cries,
P.W.6 and her husband P.W.7, who are the neighbours of the
accused, reached the house of the accused and they found the
deceased Jyothi lying on the bed in an unconscious state in their
bedroom with an injury on her chest. At that time, they found the
accused standing at that place armed with a knife. In the
meantime, P.W.2 also reached the house of the accused. When
P.Ws.2, 6 and 7, who reached the scene of offence, questioned the
accused about his acts, he stated that he stabbed the deceased
Jyothi as she does not deserve to live and he has thrown the knife
in the bedroom and went away from the scene of offence. P.W.2
immediately informed about the incident to her husband. P.Ws.6
3
and 7 took the deceased to the hospital in an auto rickshaw.
P.W.2 joined them. When they have taken the deceased to
Dr. Ramachandra Reddy Hospital of Nellore, the doctor advised
them to take her to Bollineni Hospital of Nellore. So, they took her
to the said hospital. Doctors at Bollineni Hospital examined her
and declared that she died. Then they took her back to the house
of the accused in an Ambulance. P.W.1, who is the brother of the
deceased, reached the house of the accused after receiving
information from P.W.2.
(c) P.W.1 lodged a report with II Town Police of Nellore. They
registered the said report as a case in Crime No.117/2010 for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC.
The Inspector of Police took up investigation. He visited the scene
of offence and seized the material objects including the knife used
by the accused at the time of commission of offence under the
cover of scene of offence observation report in the presence of the
mediators. Thereafter, an inquest was held over the dead body of
the deceased in the presence of the panchayatdars. After the
inquest, the dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem
examination. The doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead
body of the deceased, opined that the deceased appear to have
died due to shock and haemorrhage due to injury to vital organ,
heart.
(d) On 21-9-2010, the Investigating Officer arrested the
accused at 02.00 p.m. at Mypadu Gate Centre, Nellore.
The accused confessed in the presence of the mediators that
he committed the offence of committing murder of his wife.
4
He disclosed that if the Police and the mediators, who are present
at that time, accompany him that he would show the bloodstained
shirt which was hidden by him. Pursuant to the said disclosure
statement, he led the Police and the mediators to the northern
side of the eastern side railway gate near old check post and
picked up his bloodstained shirt from the bushes. Police seized
the said shirt under the cover of mediators' report. Thereafter, the
accused was produced before the Court and he was remanded to
judicial custody.
(e) The investigation of the Police revealed that the accused
developed suspicion over the fidelity of the deceased Jyothi and
used to harass her and on 18-9-2010 as the deceased went along
with P.W.6 for shopping, the accused picked up a quarrel with her
on her return and at that time, he stabbed the deceased Jyothi
with a knife on her chest and killed her.
(f) Therefore, after completion of the investigation, the
Inspector of Police, East Circle, Nellore City filed the charge-sheet
against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections
498-A and 302 IPC in the committal Court i.e. in the Court of
II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, where it
was registered as P.R.C. No.11 of 2011. As the offence was
exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, after complying with the
legal formalities, the learned Magistrate committed the said case
to the Court of Sessions Division for trial.
(g) Thereafter, in the Court of Sessions Division, the case
was numbered as S.C.220 of 2011 and the case was made over to
the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, for trial.
5
(h) The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under
Sections 498-A and 302 IPC against the accused. The accused
abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.
(i) During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined
P.Ws.1 to 15 witnesses and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-22
documents and M.Os.1 to 4 material objects to substantiate the
case of prosecution.
(j) After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the
accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C to enable him to
explain the incriminating evidence adduced against him by the
prosecution. The accused denied the incriminating evidence
adduced against him by the prosecution. During the course of his
examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused stated that
when he was taking his lunch that his wife abused him and he
also abused her and his wife went into kitchen and has thrown
the knife at him and he sustained injury on his left arm and
thereafter he beat her with his hands. She picked up the knife
which is on the floor and when they were grappling, the knife
pierced into her. He did not stab her. He called P.W.7 Ravi and
called for auto rickshaw. In the meanwhile, when P.W.2 reached
there, he has sent P.W.2 also in the auto rickshaw to
Dr. Ramachandra Reddy Hospital and he also accompanied them.
The doctor who examined his wife declared that she died.
Immediately, he went away from the hospital to put an end to his
life.
(k) The accused also examined D.W.1 by name Kanna
Suneetha on his behalf.
6
(l) After trial of the case, the learned Sessions Judge heard
the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned
Defence Counsel.
(m) At the culmination of the trial, the learned Judge found
the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC
and accordingly acquitted him of the said charge. However, the
learned Judge found the accused guilty for the offence punishable
under Section 302 IPC and accordingly convicted him for the said
offence and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.
(n) Assailing the said judgment of conviction, the appellant
has preferred the present appeal questioning the legality and
validity of the impugned judgment.
3. When the appeal came up for hearing before this Court,
we have heard Sri G.Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel for the
appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing
for the respondent/State.
4. The material facts of the case are not in controversy.
Admittedly, the deceased Jyothi is the wife of the deceased. At the
time of the incident, they are residing in the house of P.W.9 as
tenants. P.Ws.6 and 7, who are the wife and husband are also the
neighbours of the accused and the deceased. P.W.2 is also
residing nearby the house where the accused is residing.
The deceased also died on account of a stab injury sustained by
her on her chest which pierced into her heart and the said stab
injury was caused with a knife. The accused was also present at
the scene of offence when she sustained the said stab injury on
her chest which ultimately resulted into her death. These are all
7
incontrovertible facts in this case. The accused himself admitted
in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C that he was present
in his house when the deceased Jyothi sustained the aforesaid
fatal injury. However, he is sought to explain stating that as he
and his wife grappled on account of a quarrel between them that
the knife accidentally pierced into her and thereby she sustained
the said injury.
5. Therefore, in view of the said admitted case of the
accused, the material facts of the prosecution case that the
deceased, who is the wife of the accused, sustained a stab injury
on her heart caused with a knife in the house of the accused and
that the accused was also present at the scene of offence at the
time of the said incident stood established in this case beyond any
shadow of doubt.
6. So, the only crucial point which needs to be considered in
this case is whether the accused caused the said stab injury to his
deceased wife with the knife which is a fatal weapon on the chest
of the deceased which is a vital part of the body, which ultimately
pierced into her heart causing a fatal injury to her which resulted
into her death or not.
7. Before adverting to the same, it is relevant to consider the
evidence of P.Ws.6, 7, 2 and 9. As already noticed supra, P.Ws.6
and 7 are the neighbours of the accused. P.W.2 was also residing
near the house of the accused and P.W.9 is the house owner of
the accused. So, their evidence is relevant in the context to
consider.
8
8. P.W.6 categorically deposed in her evidence that P.W.7 is
her husband. She along with her husband is residing in the first
floor portion of the house of P.W.9. They are residing in the
western portion of the house and the accused and his wife Jyothi
are residing in the eastern portion of the said house. She further
deposed that the accused is a drunkard and used to suspect his
wife Jyothi. On 18-9-2010 at about 2.30 p.m., she and Jyothi
went for shopping and when they returned home at 3.45 p.m., the
accused was present in the house by that time. So she went to
her house. In between 4.00 to 4.30 p.m. on that day that she
heard cries of Jyothi from their portion and suspecting that there
was a big quarrel between them that she and her husband went to
the house of the accused and they found deceased Jyothi fell
unconscious on the bed. She also observed pool of blood over the
bed and also on the floor. She further deposed that she saw the
accused standing with a knife in his hands at that time and that
he shouted that he killed her and by so saying he left the knife
and went outside the house. She also deposed that P.W.2 also
came to the house of accused at that time. Immediately they
called an auto rickshaw and shifted the injured to the hospital.
P.W.2 informed about the incident to her husband. P.W.2
contacted P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased, over phone
on the way to their hospital. She finally deposed that the doctor
in the hospital of Ramachandra Reddy advised to shift the injured
to Bollineni Super Speciality Hospital and when they took her to
the said hospital that the doctor who examined her declared that
9
Jyothi died. Similarly, P.W.7, who is the husband of P.W.6, also
deposed in similar lines corroborating the testimony of P.W.6.
9. Nothing was elicited in their cross-examination to
discredit their testimony given regarding the fact that when they
reached the house of the accused after hearing the cries of the
deceased that they found the deceased in an unconscious state on
the bed, that there was a pool of blood on the bed and on the
floor, that the accused was also found at the scene of offence near
the dead body of the deceased along with a knife and that the
accused stated that he killed her and thereafter left the knife at
the scene of offence and went away. It is significant to note here
that even the accused admitted in his statement given in his
examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C that he called Ravi i.e.
P.W.7 and thereafter they have called for the auto rickshaw.
So, the presence of P.W.7 at the scene of offence is also admitted
by the accused. As P.Ws.6 and 7 are the immediate neighbours of
the accused, their evidence that they heard the cries of the
deceased and immediately reached the scene of offence and at
that time they found the accused with a knife at the scene of
offence can safely be believed. P.Ws.6 and 7 are independent
witnesses and they have absolutely no reason to give any false
evidence against the accused. Therefore, their evidence is
trustworthy and can safely be relied on.
10. Similarly, P.W.2 also deposed in her evidence that she
knows the deceased Jyothi, that the accused is her husband, that
the accused used to quarrel with the deceased in a drunken state
and that Jyothi used to inform her about the attitude of the
10
accused and she advised her to adjust with her husband.
She further deposed that her house is situate after 10 houses
away from the house of the accused and she used to drop her
daughter at the school and picks her up every day and while going
to the school she has to cross the house of the accused.
On 18-9-2010 at about 04.00 or 04.30 p.m., while she was
proceeding to the school to bring back her daughter, on the way to
the school she went to the house of the accused and by that time
the accused already stabbed his wife Jyothi and the accused
stated that he stabbed his wife Jyothi and she has seen Jyothi
with bleeding injuries on a cot. P.Ws.6 and 7 were present at that
time. After proclaiming that he killed Jyothi that the accused left
the knife and left the house. She further stated that immediately
she informed the same to her husband over a phone from the
coin-box and in the meanwhile P.Ws.6 and 7 took the injured to
hospital in auto rickshaw. She also stated that she narrated the
incident to P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased, after
returning home from the hospital. It is also significant to note
here that the accused even admitted in his statement given at the
time of his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C that this P.W.2
also came to his house on that day and that he has sent P.W.2
along with the injured in auto rickshaw to the hospital. So, the
visit of P.W.2 to the house of the accused at the time of the
incident as spoken to by her is now beyond question. Therefore,
her evidence can safely be believed.
11. P.W.9 is the owner of the house in which the accused
resided along with his wife at the time of the offence. He deposed
11
in his evidence that the accused and his wife lived in the ground
floor of his house as tenants and P.Ws.6 and 7 also lived in his
house as tenants. He further deposed that he is residing in the
upstairs of his house and about four years back at about
6.30 p.m., when he returned home, he noticed the dead body of
the deceased in an ambulance in front of his house and he came
to know that the accused stabbed his wife after quarrel between
them.
12. Thus, the unimpeachable evidence of P.Ws.2, 6, 7 and 9
clinchingly proves that the accused and the deceased lived in the
house of P.W.9 as tenants and the accused used to harass the
deceased suspecting her fidelity and on the date of the incident he
picked up a quarrel with the deceased as she went out for
shopping and thereafter after hearing the cries of the deceased
when P.Ws.6 and 7 reached the house of the accused that the
deceased was found with an injury on the bed and the accused
standing at the scene of offence with a knife.
13. Now, it is crucial to consider the evidence of P.W.4, the
doctor who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body
of the deceased and issued Ex.P-4 post-mortem certificate. P.W.4
stated in his evidence that he has conducted post-mortem
examination over the dead body of the deceased Jyothi, aged
about 26 years and he found the following external injuries:
"External injuries:
1. 1 cm x 3/4 cm elliptical wound with blood clot present,
8 cm medially to left nipple horizontally.
12
After removing the blood clot, a probe about 11 cm length
could be passed obliquely from the above wound.
On opening chest congestion over 5th and 6th ribs in mid
clavicularline with 1 cm x 1 cm width and length.
Chest cavity on left side contain about 500 ml of blood
clots.
Endometrium contained blood clots. About 1 cm incised
wound over right ventricle anteriorly and piercing
posterior wall inner border.
Heart is empty."
14. He further deposed that the above wound is ante mortem
in nature and the said injury is possible to cause the said injury
with M.O.1 knife which is shown to him and that the said injury is
sufficient to cause the death of a person in normal course of
nature.
15. Now, the crucial question is whether the accused caused
the said fatal injury to the deceased with M.O.1 knife which
resulted into her death or not. The accused did not dispute the
fact that the said injury was caused to the deceased with M.O.1
knife. It is his defence as can be seen from his statement given in
his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C that there was
a quarrel between him and his wife. When he was taking lunch
that his wife abused him and that he also abused her. Thereafter,
his wife went into the kitchen and has thrown a knife at him and
he sustained an injury on his left hand and he beat her with his
hands and she picked up the knife which is on the floor and when
both of them were grappling, the knife pierced into her. He did
13
not stab his wife. He called P.W.7 and auto rickshaw and in the
meanwhile, P.W.2 came there and he sent his wife in the auto
rickshaw to the hospital and the doctor who examined her
declared that she died and thereafter he went away from the
hospital to end his life.
16. Therefore, from the said statement given by the accused
in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it is evident that it
is his case that the incident took place accidentally when he and
his wife grappled in a quarrel and that the knife pierced into her.
The said version of the defence clearly appears to be a concocted
story. The said version cannot be believed.
17. A perusal of the evidence of the doctor examined as
P.W.4 and Ex.P-4 post-mortem certificate proves that the injury
sustained by the deceased on her chest over 5th and 6th ribs is
1 cm x 1 cm width and length and it was 1 cm incised wound over
right ventricle anteriorly and piercing posterior wall of inner
border and as per Ex.P-4 post-mortem certificate, the cause of
death is due to shock and haemorrhage due to injury to vital
organ i.e. heart. So, from the said medical evidence on record,
it is evident that the knife pierced deep into the chest and caused
injury to heart of the deceased which is the internal organ in the
chest. There was an incised wound piercing posterior wall at the
inner border. This medical evidence completely rules out the
possibility of the knife piercing into her chest and causing damage
to the heart inside the chest on account of the said deep incised
wound accidently when there was a grappling between the couple.
On the other hand, the said medical evidence shows that the said
14
injury to the heart inside the chest was caused with the knife on
account of a forcible stab on her chest. Therefore, the medical
evidence on record clearly belies the defence taken by the accused
that the deceased sustained the said injury on account of the
grappling between him and his wife in the said quarrel.
18. It is now significant to note that P.W.6 deposed in her
evidence that when she and her husband reached the house of the
accused on hearing the cries of the deceased that the accused was
standing with a knife in his hand and he shouted that he killed
her and left the knife and went away from the house. Even P.W.2
also deposed that the accused proclaimed that he killed Jyothi
and he left the knife and left the house. The said evidence given
by P.Ws.2 and 6 that the accused stated that he killed Jyothi is
not shaken in their cross-examination by the accused. So, this
evidence proves that immediately after the occurrence of the
incident the accused himself has proclaimed that he killed his wife
Jyothi. The said evidence is relevant and admissible to prove his
subsequent conduct immediately after the incident. Therefore,
the evidence on record as discussed supra proves that the
accused has stabbed the deceased with a knife on her chest which
caused a deep incised injury piercing into the heart which
resulted into her death.
19. Although the accused has examined D.W.1, her evidence
is not useful to the case of the accused. A perusal of the evidence
of D.W.1 shows that an attempt was made by the accused to show
that the deceased had a questionable character. Even that aspect
is not very much clear from the evidence of D.W.1. Whatever the
15
character of the deceased may be, the accused cannot resort to
an act of killing her.
20. Therefore, we have absolutely no hesitation to hold that
the deceased met with a homicidal death and the accused is
responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased.
21. The next question that arises for consideration before us
is whether the facts of the case, as proved in this case, constitute
an offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder or culpable
homicide not amounting to murder.
22. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued
before us that the facts of the case show that there was a quarrel
between the accused and the deceased and as such if it is found
from the evidence on record that the accused stabbed the
deceased and killed her that it is only on account of the sudden
and grave provocation given by the deceased and the accused had
no motive to kill her and as he was provoked by her in the quarrel
that he must have caused the said injury to her. Therefore, as he
has no motive to kill her that it is only a case of culpable homicide
not amounting to murder.
23. We have given our earnest and thoughtful consideration
to the said contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant. It is to be seen here that the evidence on record shows
that the accused used to suspect the fidelity of his wife and as
such when she returned home from the shopping on that evening,
he picked up a quarrel with her and thereafter he stabbed her
with the knife on her chest and killed her. Therefore, when he has
used a lethal weapon like M.O.1 knife and caused a deep incised
16
wound with the said weapon on the vital part of the body of the
deceased i.e. on the chest which pierced into the heart, it is to be
held that the accused got full knowledge that by causing such
a fatal injury on the chest and heart which are vital parts of the
body with such a lethal weapon like knife, would in all probability
cause her death. As he has used a lethal weapon which is a knife,
certainly it is evident that he got intention to kill her and
particularly as he has pierced the said sharp knife into the heart
of the deceased. Therefore, it is evident that he got both motive
and also knowledge to kill her. So, it is a clear case of culpable
homicide amounting to murder. Therefore, he is liable for
punishment under Section 302 IPC only.
24. In this context, to drive home the point, it is relevant to
consider the case law on the subject rendered by the Apex Court.
In Sangapagu Anjaiah v. State of A.P. reported in [(2010) 9 SCC
799], the Supreme Court while dealing with the question whether
a blow on the skull of the deceased with a crowbar would attract
Section 302 IPC, held thus:
"In our opinion, as nobody can enter into the mind of the
accused, his intention has to be gathered from the weapon used,
the part of the body chosen for the assault and the nature of the
injuries caused. Here, the appellant had chosen a crowbar as
the weapon of offence. He has further chosen a vital part of the
body i.e. the head for causing the injury which had caused
multiple fractures of skull. This clearly shows the force with
which the appellant had used the weapon. The cumulative effect
of all these factors irresistibly leads to one and the only
conclusion that the appellant intended to cause death of the
deceased."
17
25. In Hukam Chand v. State of Haryana reported in
[(2002) 8 SCC 421], the Supreme Court while dealing with the
question of whether a blow on the skull with a pharsa would
attract conviction under Section 302 IPC, held thus:
"Hukam Chand was in the house. He was called in and arrived
at the scene and place of occurrence with a pharsa which by all
means is a deadly weapon and it is this pharsa which was used
to hit the deceased on his head resulting in his immediate
collapse and subsequent death. The story set up by the accused,
belies the incident and cannot but be ascribed to be a totally
fabricated one. Injuries suffered by Udai Chand, the deceased,
cannot be said to be as a matter of chance while grappling with
each other. The nature of the injuries, as noticed, depicts
it otherwise. If that be the case which stands to reason that
there was in fact a deliberate pharsa-blow on the deceased, then
and in that event, a simple question by itself would negate the
plea of the accused, namely, as to the reason why Hukam Chand
arrived at the place of occurrence with a pharsa in his hand.
The factum of bringing in the pharsa at the place of occurrence
from his house cannot be ignored. It definitely indicates the
intent to use it and thereby cause death."
26. Following the ratio laid down in the above two judgments
of the Apex Court, quoting the said judgments with approval, the
Supreme Court again in a recent judgment rendered in the case of
State of Rajasthan v. Leela Ram @ Leela Dhar reported in
[2019 (1) ALD (Crl.) 607 (SC)], while dealing with a case whether it
attracts Section 302 IPC or 304 Part II, IPC, held as follows:
"Injury was inflicted by the accused to the victim is an axe on
vital parts of the body of the deceased, namely, his skull leading
to his death as corroborated by medical evidence. Mere fact that
there was a single blow is not a circumstance which would
warrant conviction under Section 302 IPC being altered to one
under Section 304 Part II, IPC. Act of the accused being so
imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death
or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death, would fall
18
under Section 300 (Fourthly). The accused cannot be said to
have committed alleged act without pre-meditation, on spur of
the moment, so as to attract Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. So
his conviction by trial Court under Section 302 IPC is restored."
27. Applying the analogy laid down in the aforesaid
judgments of the Apex Court, as discussed supra, in this case
also a clear case of culpable homicide amounting to murder
punishable under Section 302 IPC is made out.
28. There is also no acceptable evidence on record, whether
direct or circumstantial to show that deceased gave any
provocation and that the accused on account of the said sudden
and grave provocation said to have been given by her stabbed her.
There is also no evidence to show that the deceased has thrown
knife at him and he sustained injury on his hand. All this
appears to be purely a belated concocted story.
29. So, the said contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby rejected.
30. Upon considering the evidence on record and on proper
appreciation of the same, the learned Sessions Judge arrived at
a right conclusion and recorded a finding of guilt against the
accused for the offence committed by him which is punishable
under Section 302 IPC. Upon reapprisal of the said evidence on
record, we also found that the accused is guilty of committing
murder of the deceased. Therefore, the impugned judgment of
conviction of the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law and
it calls for no interference in this appeal.
19
31. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the
appellant by the trial Court.
_________________________________________
M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
_________________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J. 30th August, 2019.
Ak 20 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Criminal Appeal No.483 of 2015 (per CMR, J.) 30th August, 2019.
(Ak)