STATE OF A.P. Vs PATCHIMALA VIGNESWARUDU @ VIGANNA
Bench: DIPAK MISRA,PRAFULLA C. PANT
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000436-000436 / 2008
Diary number: 5068 / 2006
Advocates: D. BHARATHI REDDY Vs
Page 1
Reportable
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
Page 2
Page 2 of 15
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
Page 3
Page 3 of 15
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
Page 4
Page 4 of 15
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
Page 5
Page 5 of 15
@ 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
Page 6
Page 6 of 15
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
Page 7
Page 7 of 15
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
Page 8
Page 8 of 15
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
Page 9
Page 9 of 15
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
Page 10
Page 10 of 15
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.
Page 11
Page 11 of 15
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
Page 12
Page 12 of 15
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.
Page 13
Page 13 of 15
(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
Page 14
Page 14 of 15
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
Page 15
Page 15 of 15
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.