Vasa Chandrasekhar Rao vs. Ponna Satyanarayana on 5 May, 2000

The Ponna Satyanarayana had married with the Padmavati and out of the Wedlock then a daughter Suneetha was born. The Ponna Synarayanaat was staying with his Parents but later he shifted his family to Palakol and was earning his livelihood by doing tailoring work. The Ponna was harassing the Padmavati and forcing her to get money from her parents due to account of financial stringency. The Ponna was also suspecting the character of the Padmavati. While Padmavati and Ponna Satynarayana were at Palakol, the mother of the Padmavati had come to look her daughter and when she reached the house of her daughter she found that son-in-law (Ponna) was torturing his wife Padmavati. The Mother Padmavati brought her daughter to her own house where Padmavati gave birth to a female child Suneetha. After some time the father of the Padmavati made several efforts for the return of Padmavati to her husband Ponna Satyanarayana home but it never succeeded. Lastly Ponna Satyanarayana took the Padmavati and her daughter to the house of the Ponna and left her there while the parents of the accused were also present. After leaving Padmavati with the Ponna Satyanarayna both left for their house. 

 

Then a knowing person received a telephone message that the Ponna has murdered the Padmavati and Suneetha inside the house. All rushed to the place of occurrence as well as found the dead bodies of the Padmavati and Suneetha. A knife was also lying near the dead bodies of the deceased. The Ponna has murdered the two persons. The Ponna Satyanarayana himself made a confession that he murdered the two persons which was Padmavati and Sunitha. On the basis of the FIR the police registered a case and took up investigation. The Ponni was arrested and there were some seizure of blood stained clothes and the knife was also seized. Then the dead bodies were sent for postmortem examination. On the basis of the evidence of the doctor had conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead bodies of the deceased persons and the post-mortem reports. It has been conclude that the deceased had died on account of injuries received by them as well as the injuries were anti-mortem in nature as well as death is homicidal.
The Sessions Court held that on the basis of materials indicated though the during trial and  the eye-witnesses of case during trial  Sessions Judge relying upon the circumstantial evidence convicted the accused of the charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and to suffer imprisonment for life.
The High Court of Andhra Prades passed the judgment that the accused respondent Ponna stood charged and was tried by the Sessions Court for the offence under Section 302 IPC on the allegation that he committed the murder of his daughter Suneetha and his wife Padmavati.
The Supreme Court came to conclusion that the High Court committed serious error in acquitting the accused respondent of the charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. The impugned judgment of acquittal of the High Court in set aside and the accused-respondent is convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and instead convicted him under Section 498A Indian Penal Code and for such conviction, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for three months. The Court is directed to surrender forthwith to serve the balance period of sentence and in the event he does not surrender steps may be taken for his apprehension to serve the sentence.