1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1263  OF 2005

MONDRI SREENU ... APPELLANT(S)

:VERSUS:

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and

order dated 12.10.2004 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad,

whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by him from a judgment and order

dated  21.12.2001  passed  by  the  learned  Sessions  Judge,  Khammam  in  S.C.

No.143/2001  convicting  the  appellant  herein  for  commission  of  an  offence

punishable  under  Section  302  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  and  sentencing  him to

undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100, in default to suffer

R.I. for one month, was dismissed.   

The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.

2

The deceased Batta Chandramma is the mother-in-law of  the appellant.

Appellant married her third daughter Bhadrakali  sometime in 1990. A daughter

and a son were born to them. As appellant is said to have started harassing his wife

by beating and abusing her, she deserted him and went to her parents’ house at

Chinthalagudem  Village  and  started  living  with  them.  Appellant,  thereafter,

married another woman. However, he came to Village Chinthalagudem where his

parents-in-law  were  residing,  to  live  with  them.  But  after  10  days  he  started

harassing his wife again. Batta Chandramma (the deceased) - mother-in-law of the

appellant allegedly used to quarrel with him and had asked him to leave the house.  

On 19.10.1999, the deceased went to the agricultural field belonging to the

family and she did not return till evening. On enquiry, one B.P. Veraiah informed

the informant that he had seen the appellant in the fields and also heard some cries.

Pursuant  thereto,  Pitchaiah,  Chinna  Veeraiah,  Barla  Ram  Babu  and  Degala

Veeraiah went to the fields in search of Chandramma.  They found her dead body

lying in a pool of blood.   Her sari was also tied around her neck.  Accusing the

appellant as the person responsible for her death, a first  information report was

lodged. Appellant was arrested at about 8.30 P.M. on 22.10.1999.  He admitted his

guilt and confessed about the commission of the offence.  He also made a disclosure

statement pursuant whereto a stick and a stone, which were said to have been used

in the commission of the offence, were recovered. The said articles were seized.  

Appellant was produced before Shri R. Verra Reddy, Mandal Magistrate,

Dummugudem on 4.11.1999 and his confessional statement was recorded.

3

Before the learned Sessions Judge, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses.

We, however, need not deal with the depositions of all  the prosecution witnesses.

Suffice it to point out that PW-1 (Batta Pitchaiah) – father-in-law of the appellant in

his deposition categorically supported the statements made in the first information

report before the S.H.O. of Bhadrachalam Police Station. PW-2 Bhadrakali, who is

the wife of the appellant, also supported the prosecution case. PW-3 Batta Pedda

Veeraiah and PW-4 Batta China Veeraiah, who were brothers of PW-1 and had

been working in the adjoining fields, deposed that they had seen appellant and the

deceased  together.  PW-3  categorically  stated  that  whereas  the  deceased

Chandramma was sitting on 'Mancha' in her paddy field, the appellant (accused)

was standing near it and Chandramma was shouting at appellant. Thinking that the

same was a common affair between them, he went to his work.  The evidence of PW-

4 is also to the same effect.  

PW-5 Degala Veeraiah is a resident of Chinthalagudem Village. He in his

deposition categorically stated that on the date of incident, while he was grazing his

bulls at the pastures at about 1.00 P.M., he found the appellant going towards the

field of PW-1. He furthermore found the appellant coming back in a hurry at about

4.00 P.M.. He called him (appellant) but he did not give any reply to his call and

went away. On the same night he learnt that Chandramma was found dead in the

fields.

PW-6 Barla Raghavulu who is also a resident of Chinthalagudem Village, a

4

mason  by  occupation,  in  his  evidence  stated  that  3  days  after  the  death  of

Chandramma,  he  saw  the  accused  while  he  was  talking  to  his  brother  at

Bhupathiraopeta Colony.  When the accused was questioned,  he confessed before

him that he killed his mother-in-law as she had not been allowing him to live with

his wife (PW-2). Appellant was caught by the said witness and then handed over to

the S.H.O., Bhadrachalam Police Station.

PW-7 K. Rajamma is said to be the second wife of the appellant. She came

to learn about the first marriage of the appellant one year after her marriage with

him. Thereafter, she left his company. According to her also, appellant used to beat

her after consuming alcohol.  

One D. Motiya, who examined himself as PW-8, was residing in the house

adjacent to the house of the deceased. He also testified that the appellant used to

harass  his  wife  PW-2  whereupon  a  Panchayat  meeting  was  convened  and  the

appellant was chastised. He also deposed that after the meeting of the Panchayat,

appellant came to his in-laws’ place and started living there. He also proved that

Chandramma used to harass  and warn  him to go  out  of  the  said  house  but  he

continued to live there.  Almost to the same effect is the evidence of PW-9. Both PW-

8 & PW-9 supported the prosecution case.

The learned Sessions Judge having regard to the aforementioned materials

brought on record by the prosecution found the appellant guilty of commission of

5

offence  and  recorded  a  judgment  of  conviction  and  sentence  in  the  manner  as

noticed hereinbefore.  

The High Court on appeal preferred by appellant has affirmed the said

judgment of conviction and sentence.  

Mr.  Ansar  Ahmad Chaudhary,  learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of

appellant would raise the following contentions in support of this appeal:

(1)  That  the  recovery  of  stone  having  been  made  from an  open  place,  no

reliance could have been placed thereupon by the Courts below.   

(2)  The evidence of PW Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6 could not have been relied upon by the

Courts  below as  it  was  wholly  unbelievable  that  although  they had been

working  in  the  adjoining  fields,  but  did  not  come  to  the  rescue  of  the

deceased despite her cries.  

(3)  PW-1 – the informant in the first  information report did  not  make any

statement  as  to  how  the  death  of  the  deceased  took  place  and  as  such

prosecution must be held to have failed to prove its case.

(4)  No reliance can be placed on the statement of the appellant purported to

have been made under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as no

requisite warning, before making the statement, that the same can be used

against him in the criminal case was given.

6

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand,

supported the impugned judgment.   

The  background  fact  in  which  the  offence  was  alleged  to  have  been

committed is  not in dispute.   The relationship between the parties is  also  not  in

dispute.   The  fact  that  appellant  had  married  PW-2  and  they  had  been  living

separately for a few years before he came to his parents-in-laws’ house to live with

his wife has also not been disputed.  

Out of those witnesses who had deposed in support of the prosecution case

for proving the guilt of appellant, not only PW-5, but also the second wife of the

appellant  who  are  independent  witnesses,  to  a  large  extent,  supported  the

prosecution  case.  The  strained  relationship  between  appellant  and  the  deceased

must  be  held  to have been proved.  PW-2 who  is  the  wife  of  the  appellant,  had

completely supported the prosecution case in that regard.

The prosecution case must also be considered from another angle. PW-6,

although  is  a  resident  of  Chinthalagudem  Village,  who  had  been  earning  his

livelihood  by  working  as  a  mason,  used  to  visit  Bhadrachalam.  He  found  the

appellant talking with his brother at Bhupathiraopeta Colony at about 7.30 P.M. on

22.10.1999.  Appellant made an extra judicial  confession before him. The reason

that the deceased did not allow him to live with his wife (PW-2) was said to be the

reason for commission of the offence. It was at that point of time he caught hold of

appellant and handed him over to the S.H.O. of the Bhadrachalam Police Station.

7

Yet again in the  Police Station,  the appellant  made a confession.  Apart

from the Investigating Officer (PW-18), a confession was also made before PW-14

Yalam Kondal Rao, a resident of Bhadrachalam.   

Appellant  did  not  raise  any contention that  he did  not  make any extra

judicial confession or a confession before the Judicial Officer as also before the PW-

14.  Indisputably, he was produced before the Mandal Officer.  The investigation of

the case was taken up by PW-18 Devadas.  He produced the appellant before the

Mandal  Magistrate  R.  Veera  Reddy  on  4.11.1999.   His  statement  was  recorded

under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  

Submission  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  Mr.  Ansar Ahmad

Chowdhary that PW-15 Veera Reddy did not comply with the provisions contained

in Section 164 Cr.P.C. may not be of much significance. Bhadrachalam falls within a

scheduled area in the State of A.P. The State of A.P., this Court can take judicial

notice, had not extended the provisions of the new Cr.P.C. to the scheduled areas of

the  State  of  A.P.   This  fact  would  be  evident  from the  fact  that  appellant  was

examined in terms of Section 342 of old Cr.P.C. As there is no separation of the

Judicial  and  Executive  Officers,  appellant  was  produced  before  the  Executive

Officer for recording his statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. As the provisions

of the old Code were applicable, the precautions which were required to be taken in

terms of Section 164 of the 1973 Code were not complied with.

8

Be  that  as  it  may,  appellant  never  retracted  the  said  confession.   A

statement  made  by  the  accused  under  Section  164  of  Cr.P.C.  is  admissible  in

evidence. Apart from the judicial confession, as noticed hereinbefore, the appellant

has also made extra judicial confession before  PW-6.   

PW-17  Dr.  Jhansi  Lakshmi,  Civil  Assistant  Surgeon,  Area  Hospital,

Bhadrachalam,  who  conducted  the  post-mortem  over  the  dead  body  of

Chandramma, found the following ante-mortem injuries:

1. Lacerated wound 3 x 2 x 2 cms. over the forehead.

2. Loss of right eye-ball.

3. Lacerated would 3 x 4 x 1 cms. over dorsal aspect of left foot.

4. Lacerated would 3 x 1 x 1 cms. over left side of abdomen.

5. Abrasion 3 x 2 cms. over right elbow region.

6. Contusion 5 x 6 cms. on right temporal region.

7. Contusion 3 x 3 cms. over right cheek.

The said Dr. Jhansi Lakshmi was examined as PW-17. In her deposition

before the learned Sessions Judge, she categorically stated that those ante-mortem

injuries were possible to have been caused by a blunt object like stone or stick. She

found a fracture of ribs on the right side of the deceased, as a result of which a

laceration of the right lung was found to be present. She also found 300 CC fluids

blood  in  the  right  plural  cavity,   ligature  mark  on  the  neck  of  the  deceased,

congestion  and  haemorrhage  by  the  side  of  the  ligature  mark  and  sub-dural

haemotoma on right temporal region.  In the aforementioned background,  PW-1

9

had not been able to specifically state the cause of death and he must be held to be a

truthful  witness.  The  exact  cause  of  the  death  of  the  deceased,  thus,  in  the

aforementioned situation could not have been certain to a layman, like PW-1 and

other witnesses.  

It may be true that the stone was found in an open place. But unless and

until  the  site  thereof  was  pointed  out,  as  the  Investigating  Officer  (PW-18)

categorically stated, he could not have identified the weapon which was used for

commission of the offence.  It was found to be blood stained. Apart from the stone, a

stick was also pointed out by the appellant which led to its discovery.

It  is,  therefore,  not  a  case  where  the  Courts  below  could  have  totally

ignored recovery of the said articles. Furthermore, although not strictly admissible,

even a confession was made by appellant in the Police Station before PW-14 and one

Seetha Ramulu. Their statements before the Court are also now not in dispute.      

Submission of the learned counsel for appellant that the 'last seen' theory

propounded by the prosecution cannot be relied upon, is,  in our opinion,  not  of

much substance.  It  has  not  been denied  or  disputed that  the  brothers  of  PW-1,

namely, Batta Pedda Veeraiah (PW-3) and Batta China Veeraiah (PW-4) had lands

by  the  side  of  the  land  of  the  deceased  and  PW-1.  PW-3  in  his  statement,

categorically  stated  that  although  appellant  and  the  deceased  were  found  to  be

quarrelling  with  each  other,  he  ignored  the  same as  that  had  become almost  a

routine affair. He came to know about non-return of the deceased from the field

10

only in the evening.  

Furthermore, not only PW-3 and PW-4 but other prosecution witnesses

whose independence is not in question, also proved the presence of appellant near

the place of occurrence on the date of occurrence between 1.00 P.M. and 3.00 P.M.

According to the post-mortem report, that was the probable period during which

the offence is said to have been committed.  

For the reasons  aforementioned,  we  are of  the opinion  that  there  is  no

merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly.  

.....................J (S.B. SINHA)

.....................J   (CYRIAC JOSEPH)    NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 15, 2008.