http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1013 of 2006

PETITIONER: Kuchibotla Saran Kumar

RESPONDENT: State of A.P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/04/2008

BENCH: S. B. SINHA & HARJIT SINGH BEDI

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (NON-REPORTABLE)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1013 OF 2006

HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.

1.              This appeal by way of special leave arises out of the  following facts. 2.              P.Sesha Sudha, the deceased herein, got her  M.Tech. Degree from the J.N.T.U., Hyderabad and joined as an  ad-hoc Lecturer in the college of which, PW1 P.Ramakrishna  Reddy was the Principal.  As the parents of the deceased were  keen that she should settle down in marriage, they were  considering some suitable boy for that purpose.   She  accordingly informed her parents PW 6 P.Koorma Rao and PW  7 Smt.P. Nalini that she wanted to marry the accused and  though initially they were reluctant about her choice, they  accepted her proposal on her insistence.  The matter was  accordingly discussed with his parents as well and the  marriage was fixed at the Green Park Hotel at Vishakapatnam  for 23rd March 2000 and an advance of Rs.2,000/- was also  paid to confirm the booking.  It appears, however, that before  the marriage could be solemnized, differences arose between  the two and they informed PW6, the father of the deceased  that they were not keen to go ahead with the marriage.   The  accused however telephoned PW6 separately and informed  him that though the deceased was not inclined towards the  marriage, he was still   interested in doing so and that he  would not marry any one else.  At about 11 a.m., on 9th  February 2000, PW2 J.Bhagwan Reddy informed PW1  P.Ramakrishna Reddy that they had found the dead body of  P.Sesha Sudha lying in the Electrical Engineering Laboratory.  Enquiries were made by PW1 P.Ramakrishna Reddy and PW2  J.Bhagwan Reddy from several persons and they were told  that on the previous day the accused and the deceased had  been seen together.  The Police which had also been informed,  arrived at the Laboratory at about 11.30 a.m. on which PW1  gave a type written report Ex.P.1 to PW19 P. Santosh Kumar  and the formal FIR was registered under Section 302 of the  IPC naming the accused as the assailant.  The necessary  enquiries were also made by PW19 at the place of incident and  the dead body was thereafter sent for the post-mortem  examination.  The post-mortem held on 10th February 2000 by  PW13 Dr. B. Jagan Mohan, Assistant Professor, Forensic  Medicine,  Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad revealed that  the cause of death was strangulation by a ligature.  PW19 also  made a search for the accused and he was ultimately arrested

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

from Vishakapatnam from his uncle’s house at about 3.30p.m.  on 13th February 2000. On the interrogation of the accused,  several articles, Ex. P-10, P-11, P-13, P15 and P-18 were  recovered from him.  On the completion of the investigation,  the accused was charged for an offence punishable under  Section 302 of the IPC.  He pleaded innocence and claimed  trial.                                                                                   

3.              The prosecution examined 19 witnesses in all i.e.  PW1 to PW19 and also produced several documents in support  of its case.  PW5 V. Subbalaxmaiah and PW9 Jaipal Reddy  however did not support the prosecution and they were  declared hostile. The trial court held that the deceased and the  accused were residents of Vishakapatnam and that they had  been in love since their college days and that the love had  fructified into a proposal for marriage which had also been  fixed for 23rd March 2000 at the Green Park Hotel at  Vishakapatnam.  The trial court also observed that the  accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the  Cr.P.C, had in fact admitted the marriage proposal but denied  that any dispute had arisen subsequently leading to its break  up.  The court, however, observed that the parents of the  deceased, PWs.6 and 7 had confirmed that their daughter had  called off the marriage as the accused had been insulting and  beating her in the presence of strangers and that the accused  had even telephoned them on several occasions and  threatened that in case their daughter did not marry him and  were to marry some one else, he would kill her and that this  part of the evidence had been confirmed by PW16 A. Srinivas  Rao as well.  Corroboration for this statement was also taken  from the evidence of Satish Singh, PW15 an HRD Consultant  who knew the deceased and the accused and deposed that  they were proposing marriage and that a common friend Vani  Prasad (who too was the family friend of the couple)  had  informed him that the deceased had called him in the first  week of January 2000 to her hostel and on going there, he had  found the deceased and the accused talking to each other and  while the accused was insisting that they should get married,  the deceased was refusing to do so.  PW15 also deposed that  some letters which the deceased had written to the accused  had been returned to her on his insistence.  The Court further  found that the deceased had left Vishakapatnam on               5th February 2000 and returned to Hyderabad by the Godavari  Express on the morning of 8th February 2000 and had gone to  her college but as it was the sports day, no classes had been  held and that the accused had telephoned PW6 P.Koorma Rao  seeking to ascertain the programme of the deceased and after  having done so, had gone to her college and thereafter  committed her murder with the chunni that she had been  wearing.  The Court also concluded that the conduct of the  accused also pointed to his guilt as he had gone to his flat at  Ramanthapur, taken his luggage, left his scooter in the house  of his relative in Marredpally, Secunderabad and then gone on  to Jangan and wandered around aimlessly at Nellore and  Chennai and  had ultimately returned to Vizag and on         13th February 2000 at about 3.30 p.m, and had been arrested  by PW19 P. Santosh Kumar and thereafter several  incriminating articles had been recovered from his residence.   The court also believed the statement of PW3 A. Hanumantha  Rao, a Lab Technician and PW-2 J.B. Reddy, the Head of  Department where the deceased had been employed as an ad- hoc Lecturer that they had seen the accused and the deceased  talking animatedly with each other near the Scooter Parking of  the Department at about 11 or 11.30 a.m. on 8th February  2000 and observed that these were independent witnesses

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

who had no axe to grind against the accused and that from the  evidence of PW3 A. Hanumantha Rao and PW5                       V. Subbalaxmaiah, it was clear that the  Laboratory had been  locked up at 4.30 p.m. on 8th February 2000 and that the dead  body could not be noticed earlier as it was lying in a place  which was not visible from the door.  The Court relied on the  medical evidence and observed that the presence of the  ligature mark over the neck and other injuries fully supported  the case of the prosecution regarding the cause of death and  the manner in which it had been caused.  The court found  further corroboration from the recoveries at the instance of the  accused, more particularly the relevant entries in the  arrival  and departure registers at the Shiva Hotel (Ex.P-62 and 63)  where the  accused had stayed  under the assumed name of  K.V. Reddy on 11th February 2000 from 1.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m.  and the arrival and departure registers of hotel Sunder,  Nellore Ex.P65, copy of the bill dated 11th February 2000 Ex.P- 66 and the advance receipt Ex.P-67 which supported the  prosecution story that the accused had absconded and had  been hiding from the police.  The court also held  from the  evidence of PW10, the General Manager of the APTECH  Institute where the accused was working and who had  produced documents to show  that the accused had applied  for 2 days leave for 7th and 8th February 2000, and that he was  to be out of station on 6th February 2000 and that he had  intended to go to Hyderabad and that he had reached  Hyderabad on 7th February 2000 and on ascertaining from her  parents,  the programme of the deceased, had returned to  Vishakapatnam on 8th February 2000 and gone to the college  and met her.  The trial court accordingly convicted and  sentenced the accused for an offence punishable under section  302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment  for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment  of fine, simple imprisonment for three months.   The matter  was taken in appeal before the High Court which has  confirmed the findings of the trial court leading to the present  appeal by way of special leave.  4.              We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5.              The learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated  the arguments raised before the trial court.  We now re- examine the evidence.  The fact that the couple had proposed  to marry is virtually admitted and is even otherwise proved on  record by ample evidence.  The fact that the marriage had  been fixed for 23rd March, 2000 as also the fact that an  advance payment for the booking of the marriage venue, that  is the Green Park Hotel at Vishakapatnam had also been  made, is proved on record.  We also find that there is a clear  cut motive for the murder as the parents of the deceased, as  also several other witnesses who knew the couple have  categorically deposed that the appellant had warned that in  case the deceased would not marry him she would be killed as  he would not tolerate her marriage to anyone else.  In addition  to this, it is clear from the evidence of PW 19 that he had  recovered certain love letters from the accused written to the  deceased by the accused and that these letters along with the  admitted hand writing of the accused had been sent to the  Forensic Science Laboratory which opined in its report Ex.P- 70 that the writings were of the same person.  We also find  that the conduct of the accused in absconding and attempting  to hide his identity after the murder stands proved by the fact  that he had registered in Hotel Shiva, Chennai and Hotel  Sunder at Nellore under the assumed name of K.V. Reddy and  these entries were also proved as being in the handwriting of  the accused in the report Ex.P-70.  It is significant that the  accused had admitted during the course of statement under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

Section 313 of the Cr.P.C that most of the items which had  been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory had been seized  by the police at Vishakapatnam.  It has also been clearly  revealed that the deceased and the accused had been seen  together on the day of the murder talking animatedly in the  premises of the College by several witnesses.  We also find that  the trial court and the High Court have discussed the evidence  threadbare.  We find no fault in the judgments of the courts  below.  The appeal is accordingly dismissed.