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.