HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
AND
HON'BLE JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.823 of 2013
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha)
1. Projecting that the judgment which is rendered by the
Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in
S.C.No.446 of 2012, dated 26.9.2013, is invalid in the eye
of law and thereby, seeking the Court to set aside the said
judgment, the accused therein preferred the present
Criminal Appeal.
2. Having found the appellant-accused guilty of the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the trial Court
sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay
fine of Rs.1,000/-.
3. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor who
is representing the respondent-State.
4. The facts of the case as detailed in the charge sheet, if narrated in a narrower compass, are that the deceased - Anusha (hereinafter be referred to as "the deceased" for the sake of convenience of discussion) was residing at Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J 2 Crl.A.No.823 of 2013 Hyderabad. She was working as Sales woman in a shop. P.W.1 is the younger brother of the deceased. The appellant, who married one Nirmala and having two children, came into contact with the deceased and developed intimacy with her. Ten months prior to the date of the incident, the appellant and the deceased approached P.W.2 projecting themselves to be husband and wife and sought to let out a portion of her house. Considering them to be husband and wife, a portion in the first floor of the house was let out to them on monthly rent of Rs.1,200/- by P.W.2. Since then, both of them started residing together at the said house. For the past few days to the date of the incident, the appellant was avoiding the deceased so as to set right his disturbed family. In that regard, the deceased used to pick up quarrel with the appellant and was insisting him not to visit his family. In the light of her aggressive attitude, the appellant decided to eliminate her. On 15.01.2012, at about 6.00 pm, the appellant went to the deceased after attending his duty. The deceased picked up a quarrel with the appellant. Heated arguments were exchanged between them. On hearing the same, the house Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J 3 Crl.A.No.823 of 2013 owner-P.W.2 approached them and advised them not to quarrel. Later, P.W.2 left the place. Taking advantage of the absence of the neighbours and that the deceased was alone, the appellant beat the deceased with a wooden kitchen instrument (pappu guthi) on her fore head and caused injury. Thereafter, the appellant took a chunny, tied the same around the neck of the deceased, strangulated her and also pressed her face with a pillow. By so, the appellant killed the deceased. After confirming the death of the deceased, the appellant kept the chunny under the clothes in the said room and left the premises by latching the door outside.
5. On noticing that the door of the house was latched outside and there was no response from inside even after repeated calls, P.W.2 along with a local leader opened the door and found the deceased dead with bleeding injuries. Then, P.W.2 gave information to P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased, and on that, P.W.1 rushed to the spot along with the family members and found the dead body of his sister (deceased) with bleeding injuries. On that, he gave a complaint to Police. A case was registered basing on Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J 4 Crl.A.No.823 of 2013 the complaint given and thereafter, the scene of offence panchanama was drafted and the dead body of the deceased was shifted to mortuary of Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and a requisition was given for conducting post-mortem examination. Subsequently, on receiving credible information, the appellant was apprehended on 18.01.2012 and on interrogation in the presence of the panchayatdars, he confessed commission of offence and basing on his confessional statement, the material objects which were used for commission of offence were seized.
6. The above set of facts formed basis for the State to prosecute the appellant. Having found the appellant guilty of the offence charged, the trial Court convicted him. The judgment thus rendered is under challenge in this Criminal Appeal.
7. Factual scenario being thus, the points that culminates for consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution established beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under Section 302 IPC.
Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J
5 Crl.A.No.823 of 2013
2. Whether the trial court erred in
appreciating the facts of the case in
their right perspective, as contended by the appellant, and thereby, arrived at a wrong conclusion, which in turn requires interference of this Court exercising appellate jurisdiction.
8.POINT No.1:-
The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 10, Exs.P-1 to 13 and M.Os.1 to 5 formed basis for the trial Court to convict the appellant. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution has absolutely and miserably failed to establish the charge levelled against the appellant.
9. Making his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the death of the deceased was not homicidal. Learned counsel states that one of the essential ingredients of the offence of culpable homicide is to prove that the person charged has caused the death of another person. Learned counsel states that the prosecution is, therefore, under obligation to establish the cause of death Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J 6 Crl.A.No.823 of 2013 and that the death is homicidal. Learned counsel states that there is no trustworthy evidence unerringly leading to an inference that the death of the deceased is homicidal and thus, on that ground alone, the appellant is entitled for acquittal.
10. Vehemently opposing the said submission, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.W.7 and Ex.P-8-Post-mortem examination report have clearly established that the death of the deceased is homicidal and nothing more is required to establish the said fact. As rightly projected by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the death of the deceased is not natural. The evidence of P.W.7 is that on 16.01.2012, he received requisition from Police to conduct post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and accordingly, he conducted post-mortem examination. He deposed that he found a lacerated injury of 3 x 2 cms bone deep with surrounding contusion present over left side of forehead and on opening of skull, he found diffused subdural contusion present over left frontal lobe of brain. He also stated that he found contusion of 3 x 2 cms at Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J 7 Crl.A.No.823 of 2013 1 cm outer to angle of right side of mouth and also contusion of 2 x 1 cm, at 1 cm outer to angle of left side of mouth. He further deposed that he found ante-mortem dark red pressure abrasion i.e., ligature mark measuring 30 x 3 cm placed obliquely on and above thyroid cartilage running upwards and backwards on both sides of neck with a gap on back of neck. Ligature mark is hard end patchment like on feel and on cut section, underlined neck structures are severely contused, bruises seen over base of tongue and in neck muscles. Inward fractures of greater horn of Thyroid bone on both sides seen and these injuries are ante-mortem in nature. He also stated that the cause of death, to the best of his knowledge and belief, was due to asphyxia due to ligature strangulation associated with head injury.
11. Though P.W.7 was subjected to extensive cross- examination by the learned counsel for the appellant before the trial Court, nothing could be elicited through him to discredit his testimony. Further more, the evidence of the crucial witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 4 is more than sufficient to hold that the death of the deceased is not natural and it is Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J 8 Crl.A.No.823 of 2013 homicidal. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard needs no appreciation.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant during the course of his submission, high-lighted the absence of any direct evidence regarding the happening of the incident. In this regard, as rightly projected by the learned counsel for the appellant, the whole prosecution case rests on the circumstantial evidence.
13. The submission of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is that P.W.2 has seen the appellant and the deceased quarrelling with each other and soon thereafter, the deceased was found dead and therefore, it is for the appellant to explain the circumstances by which the deceased was found dead. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also contended that by all the evidence the prosecution has produced, it has clearly established before the trial Court that the appellant is responsible for the death of the deceased.
14. Though P.W.1 deposed that he has not seen the appellant in association with the deceased directly, Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J 9 Crl.A.No.823 of 2013 however, his evidence established that his sister i.e., the deceased used to stay along with the appellant. The evidence of P.W.1 is that the husband of the deceased left her and subsequently, she started staying with one Venu Gopal. He had no acquaintance with the said Venu Gopal, but he had seen the family photograph of Venu Gopal and the said Venu Gopal is the appellant. He further stated that on 16.01.2012, he was informed by P.W.2 over phone that his sister-Anusha died and that the dead body is lying in a pool of blood and on that, he immediately along with family members reached the house of the deceased and found the dead body of the deceased and on enquiry, he was informed by P.W.2 that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant on the previous day and she pacified the matter and on the same day evening, the appellant went away. He further deposed that on the same night, at about 11.00 pm., another tenant by name- Archana and her husband came home and slept at their house and the said Archana woke at about 1.00 am and found the door of the house of the deceased latched from outside and she went and slept at her house. On the next Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J 10 Crl.A.No.823 of 2013 day morning, at about 10.00 am., when she saw the door of the house of the deceased bolted from outside, she informed the same to the house owner-P.W.2 and P.W.2 approached the elders, brought them, opened the door and found the dead body of the deceased and that, P.W.2 informed the matter to him.
15. The evidence of P.W.2 is that she owns a house at Borabanda, Hyderabad. The appellant and the deceased informed her that they are husband and wife and they occupied one of the portions of her house as tenants. P.W.8 and his wife used to reside in another portion. She deposed that on 15.01.2012, at about 6.00 pm., there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased and on hearing the said quarrel, she went to them and pacified the matter by admonishing them. The appellant came down from the first floor at about 7.00 or 7.30 pm. P.W.8 and his wife came to house at about 12 mid night and on the next day morning, the wife of P.W.8 informed her that the door of the house of the deceased was bolted from outside and the light and the fan were put on. On that, she went to the upstairs and called the deceased, but there was no response. She got Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J 11 Crl.A.No.823 of 2013 scared and went to a basti leader i.e., P.W.3 and all of them opened the door of the house of the deceased and found the deceased lying dead on the floor in a pool of blood on a bed sheet. She found an injury on the head of the deceased. She informed the matter to P.W-1-brother of the deceased and the brother of the deceased came along with family members and lodged a complaint to Police.
16. The evidence of P.W-2 is corroborated by the testimony of P.W-3 who stated that on the request of P.W-2, he accompanied her to the first floor of her house, opened the door which was bolted from outside and found the deceased lying dead on the floor. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is further corroborated by the evidence of P.W.8, who deposed that he is residing in a portion at the first floor of the house of P.W.2 as tenant and the deceased and the appellant used to reside in the other portion. He stated that on the eve of Sankranthi festival in the year 2012, himself and his wife went to his in-laws' house and returned to their house in the mid night and found the tube light and fan put on at the house of the appellant and the latch was put outside the front door. On the next day, Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J 12 Crl.A.No.823 of 2013 they woke up at 9.00 am and found the tube light and fan put on and the latch was put outside. On that, he informed the matter to P.W.2 and P.W.2 observed the same and informed the matter to P.W.3 and both of them removed the latch and found the deceased dead on the floor with a blood stained injury. However, P.W.8 stated that the appellant and the deceased were having cordial terms. Except the said statement, he supported the entire version of the prosecution.
17. By the evidence thus produced, it is abundantly clear that on the date of the incident, a quarrel ensued between the deceased and the appellant and the same was subsided by P.W.2. It is not the case that there was theft of any articles from the house of the deceased or that, there was possibility for anyone to enter the said house and kill the deceased. That apart, the deceased was seen with the appellant by P.W.2 soon before the incident. As per the evidence of P.W.2, it is the appellant who was found leaving the house immediately after the quarrel. It is not the case that anyone thereafter entered the house or climbed the stairs. There is no material whatsoever to show that the Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J 13 Crl.A.No.823 of 2013 appellant was having differences with anyone, more so, with P.W.8 and his family members. Further more, as rightly observed by the trial Court, there is no reason either for P.W.1 or P.W.2 or P.W.8 to implicate the appellant in a false case.
18. That apart, the prosecution has also established in clear terms, that basing on the confessional statement of the appellant, the material objects used for commission of offence were recovered. The evidence of P.W.6 in that regard is that in the month of January, 2012, on one day, police called him to S.R. Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, to act as panch witness and in his presence and in the presence of another panch witness, the appellant confessed commission of offence and led them to Borabanda to a tin sheets room situated at upstairs and had shown them a pappu guthi and one orange coloured chunny and police seized those objects under the cover of Ex.P-6- Panchanama and M.Os.4 and 5 are those articles. This Court does not find any justifiable grounds to discredit the said testimony. Thus, by all the evidence produced, the prosecution succeeded in establishing the culpability of the Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J 14 Crl.A.No.823 of 2013 appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Though there is no direct evidence, the chain of circumstances is clearly established so as to connect the crime with that of the appellant. The prosecution thus has clearly established the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge levelled.
19. POINT No.2:-
Though the appellant raised number of grounds contradicting the judgment of the trial Court, in the discussion that went on in the preceding point, the mind of this Court is made clear that the prosecution succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Further more, when the judgment of the trial Court is perused, this Court finds that the learned judge of the trial Court has discussed each and every aspect of the case and applied the established principles of law to the said facts and thereby, arrived at a just conclusion. None of the grounds urged by the appellant, therefore, can be appreciated so as to set aside the well- reasoned judgment of the trial Court. This Court does not find any grounds, more so, justifiable grounds to honour Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J 15 Crl.A.No.823 of 2013 the request of the appellant to set aside the impugned judgment and thereby, to acquit him. Therefore, this Court is of the view that this Criminal Appeal lacks merits.
20. Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The judgment that is rendered by the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in S.C.No.446 of 2012, dated 26.9.2013 is, therefore, confirmed.
21. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA _________________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 14.10.2022 dr