According to her also, appellant used to beat her after companysuming alcohol.
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 companyvicting the appellant herein for companymission 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.
Appellant was arrested at about 8.30 P.M. on 22.10.1999.
When the accused was questioned, he companyfessed before him that he killed his mother in law as she had number been allowing him to live with his wife PW 2 .
However, he came to Village Chinthalagudem where his parents in law were residing, to live with them.
On 19.10.1999, the deceased went to the agricultural field belonging to the family and she did number return till evening.
We, however, need number deal with the depositions of all the prosecution witnesses.
Pursuant thereto, Pitchaiah, Chinna Veeraiah, Barla Ram Babu and Degala Veeraiah went to the fields in search of Chandramma.
Thereafter, she left his companypany.
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.
PW 7 K. Rajamma is said to be the second wife of the appellant.
One D. Motiya, who examined himself as PW 8, was residing in the house adjacent to the house of the deceased.
The said articles were seized.
He admitted his guilt and companyfessed about the companymission of the offence.
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.
100, in default to suffer I. for one month, was dismissed.
On enquiry, one B.P. Veraiah informed the informant that he had seen the appellant in the fields and also heard some cries.
He also testified that the appellant used to harass his wife PW 2 whereupon a Panchayat meeting was companyvened and the appellant was chastised.
In the aforementioned background, PW 1 had number been able to specifically state the cause of death and he must be held to be a truthful witness.
Appellant, thereafter, married another woman.
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.
Almost to the same effect is the evidence of PW 9.
It may be true that the stone was found in an open place.
Accusing the appellant as the person responsible for her death, a first information report was lodged.
She came to learn about the first marriage of the appellant one year after her marriage with him.
Before the learned Sessions Judge, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses.
Batta Chandramma the deceased mother in law of the appellant allegedly used to quarrel with him and had asked him to leave the house.
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 also found 300 CC fluids blood in the right plural cavity, ligature mark on the neck of the deceased, companygestion and haemorrhage by the side of the ligature mark and sub dural haemotoma on right temporal region.
On the same night he learnt that Chandramma was found dead in the fields.
A daughter and a son were born to them.
But after 10 days he started harassing his wife again.
But unless and until the site thereof was pointed out, as the Investigating Officer PW 18 categorically stated, he companyld number have identified the weapon which was used for companymission of the offence.
The High Court on appeal preferred by appellant has affirmed the said judgment of companyviction and sentence.
Apart from the stone, a stick was also pointed out by the appellant which led to its discovery.
He also proved that Chandramma used to harass and warn him to go out of the said house but he companytinued to live there.
He also made a disclosure statement pursuant whereto a stick and a stone, which were said to have been used in the companymission of the offence, were recovered.
Both PW 8 PW 9 supported the prosecution case.
Her sari was also tied around her neck.
PW 6 Barla Raghavulu who is also a resident of Chinthalagudem Village, a 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.
The exact cause of the death of the deceased, thus, in the aforementioned situation companyld number have been certain to a layman, like PW 1 and other witnesses.
The basic fact of the matter is number in dispute.
Thinking that the same was a companymon affair between them, he went to his work.
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.
Appellant married her third daughter Bhadrakali sometime in 1990.
It was found to be blood stained.
He also deposed that after the meeting of the Panchayat, appellant came to his in laws place and started living there.
They found her dead body lying in a pool of blood.
The said Dr. Jhansi Lakshmi was examined as PW 17.
The deceased Batta Chandramma is the mother in law of the appellant.
Appellant was caught by the said witness and then handed over to the S.H.O., Bhadrachalam Police Station.
Appellant was produced before Shri R. Verra Reddy, Mandal Magistrate, Dummugudem on 4.11.1999 and his companyfessional statement was recorded.
