Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
11. As far as relation between the accused and the deceased is concerned, the prosecution evidence on record, as stated by PW-I 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. c
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.
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-I and PW-2, but also by PW-7 Yalla Satyanarayana, PW-8 Ponakala Satyanarayana Murthy and PW-9 Relangi Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, which gets corroborated from [2016] I S.C.R. 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. (vi) The dead body of the deceased was recovered next morning on 6.8.200 I 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-I I Dr. Venkata Reddy that the accused was suffering from balanoposthitis, and PW-I Jithuka Nagooru and PW-2 Jithuka Veeramma have proved the fact 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 STATE OF A. P. v. PATCHIMALA VIGNESWARUDU @ VIGGANNA @ GANAPATHI [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.] 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 accused/respondent shall be taken into custody by the trial court to make him serve out the remaining part of the sentence. Devika Gujral Appeal allowed. c