HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
AND
HON'BLE JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.209 of 2014
JUDGMENT: (per Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha)
1. Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is the judgment
that is rendered by the Court of III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District in S.C.No.583 of
2012, dated 20.11.2013. The appellant was found guilty of
the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and thereby,
he was convicted and was sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the
appellant is before this Court.
2. Heard Ms. M.Bhagyasri, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant, and the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor who is representing the respondent-State.
3. Making her submission, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court erred in convicting the appellant without there being any convincing evidence on record in proof of the guilt of the appellant for the Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J 2 Crl.A.No.209 of 2014 charge levelled. Learned counsel further contended that the judgment of the trial Court is based on assumptions and presumptions and the learned judge of the trial Court ought not to have relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. On relying upon the evidence of those witnesses, the learned judge of the trial court came to an erroneous conclusion and thereby, convicted the appellant. Learned counsel further contends that when the motive for the incident was not established by the prosecution, the appellant ought to have been acquitted, but he was convicted by the trial court unjustly. She further contends that the impugned judgment of the trial court depicts that basing on the last scene theory, conviction was based, but, when the motive was not made out, the last scene theory ought not to have been applied. The evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 is contradictory to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. But, the learned judge of the trial court came to a conclusion that P.Ws.3 and 4 supported the case of the prosecution. When there are no direct witnesses to the alleged incident, basing conviction on the sole testimony of P.W-3, that too, which is uncorroborated, is unjustifiable. By stating so, the Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J 3 Crl.A.No.209 of 2014 learned counsel for the appellant seeks to set aside the impugned judgment and thereby, to acquit the appellant.
4. Contradicting the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor arguing in respect of the merits of the case, contended that the acquaintance between the appellant and the person whom he killed is established by the prosecution through the evidence of the material witnesses and furthermore, on the date of the incident, the appellant and the deceased were seen together not only by P.W-3 but also by P.W-4. Further more, an altercation regarding the missing of amount took place between those two persons and the same was observed by the material witnesses and within no time, the person who was with the appellant i.e., the deceased, was found dead, that too, not at a far off place and all these facts were established by the prosecution before the trial court beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, the trial court by appreciating the said evidence, rightly convicted the appellant and hence, there are no grounds whatsoever to interfere with the said well- reasoned judgment of the trial Court. Thus, the learned Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J 4 Crl.A.No.209 of 2014 Assistant Public Prosecutor ultimately prays the Court to confirm the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the trial court.
5. In the light of the afore-mentioned submissions thus made, the points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution established beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant has committed the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC.
2. Whether the trial court erred in appreciating the facts of the case and in applying the established principles of law, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant.
6.POINT No.1:-
The matrix of the prosecution case, as could be perceived through the contents of the charge sheet, is that the deceased-Sunkapalli Narahari (hereinafter be referred to as "the deceased" for the sake of convenience of discussion) used to work as Carpenter and was residing at Sri Ram Nagar Colony, Balaji Nagar, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The appellant used to work in a wine Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J 5 Crl.A.No.209 of 2014 shop and used to reside at foot path of Balaji Nagar. He used to sell empty liquor bottles and make money. He was having acquaintance with the deceased. Both of them used to consume liquor frequently. After consuming liquor, the deceased used to go to his house and the appellant used to sleep on the foot path. On every meeting, the appellant used to miss his hard-earned money. The appellant suspected that every time after consuming liquor, the deceased is committing theft of his money from his pocket. To enquire the said fact, the appellant used to approach the house of the deceased. But every time, the deceased and his family members used to send the appellant back. Due to losing money, the appellant developed grudge against the deceased and threatened him with dire consequences. On 01.4.2012, while the appellant was in deep sleep, at about 4.00 am, the deceased approached the appellant, woke him up and called him for having a cup of tea at Balaji Nagar bus stop, but the appellant refused. On that, the deceased left the appellant and went to Balaji Nagar Bus stop and was having tea. The appellant woke up and found a sum of Rs.300/- missing from his pocket.
Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J 6 Crl.A.No.209 of 2014 Immediately, suspecting the deceased, the appellant approached the deceased and caused enquiries about his money. The deceased denied the allegation. However, as he was losing money on every meeting with the deceased, the appellant decided to eliminate the deceased and accordingly, he dragged the deceased from the tea stall towards Sri Sai Jewellery shop. One auto driver by name G.Vijay Kumar (P.W-3) found the deceased and the appellant quarrelling with each other regarding the theft of money. Near Sri Sai Jewellery shop, the appellant noosed the neck of the deceased with a towel by taking support of an iron pipe and thereby, killed him. On the complaint given by the son of the deceased i.e., P.W-1, a case was registered and was investigated into. The scene of offence was photographed, a panchanama was conducted, a rough sketch of the scene of offence was drawn and the dead body was sent for autopsy. On 08.4.2012, the appellant was apprehended and that, on interrogation, he confessed the commission of offence in front of the panchayatdars. The doctor, who conducted autopsy, opined that the death Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J 7 Crl.A.No.209 of 2014 is due to manual strangulation. Thus, the appellant rendered himself liable for punishment.
7. Subjecting the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8, Exs.P-1 to P-7 and M.O-1 to scrutiny, the learned judge of the trial court came to a conclusion that the prosecution succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge levelled and thereby, convicted him.
8. The prosecution case, as rightly projected by the learned counsel for the appellant, totally rests upon the circumstantial evidence. Sufficient material is produced by the prosecution in proof of the fact that the deceased was last seen with the appellant and that, very soon thereafter, he was found dead, that too, very near to the place where they were last seen together. The fact that the appellant was suspecting the deceased regarding missing of his money is also established by the prosecution through the witnesses it examined.
9. The evidence of P.W-1 is that the deceased is his father and on the date of the incident, his father left the house at 4.00 am to have a cup of tea. His father and the Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J 8 Crl.A.No.209 of 2014 appellant used to meet at tea stall everyday. He further stated that on the date of the incident, at 5.00 am., one Anil Kumar came to his house and informed him that his father was found dead at Sri Sai Jewellery Shop and on that, himself and his family members rushed to the spot and found his father hanged with a towel to an iron pipe, which was present in front of Sri Sai Jewellery shop, and on that, he gave report to Police. P.W-1 also stated that the appellant visited his house on two or three occasions and demanded his father to return money which he borrowed and in that connection, there were disputes between his father and the appellant.
10. P.W-2-the wife of the deceased deposed on the same lines of P.W-1. Though both the witnesses were subjected to cross-examination, no material points could be elicited through them to discredit their testimony about the disputes between the appellant and the deceased, the deceased leaving the house at 4.00 am on the date of the incident and also regarding the scene of offence.
11. The prosecution rests its case mainly upon the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4. The evidence of P.W-4 is that he Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J 9 Crl.A.No.209 of 2014 is running a tea stall at Balaji Nagar Bus stop. The deceased now and then used to come to his tea stall to have a cup of tea. He is in the habit of opening his tea stall at 4.00 am. On the date of the incident, the deceased and the appellant came to his tea stall at 4.00 am., had a cup of tea and the appellant took the deceased along with him. He also stated that the appellant was telling that he lost his money and that, both of them were discussing about money. About 15 to 30 minutes thereafter, he came to know that the appellant hanged the deceased and the deceased died. He visited the place of offence and found the deceased hanging to an iron pipe with a towel. During the course of cross-examination, P.W-4 stated that when both of them left his tea stall, they were discussing about money. He also stated that on the date of the incident, the deceased and the appellant came to his tea stall in between 4.30 am and 5.00 am.
12. Coming to the evidence of P.W-3, he deposed that P.W-4 is running a push cart tea stall near Balaji Nagar bus stand and he got acquaintance with the deceased at the said tea stall as they used to meet there. On the date of Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J 10 Crl.A.No.209 of 2014 the incident, at 4.00 am., he went to the tea stall to have a cup of tea and after some time, the deceased came there. While both of them were having tea, the appellant came there and started demanding the deceased to give his money. So saying, the appellant dragged the deceased to a gully where a jewellery shop is situated. After some time, he proceeded towards the said shop and found the deceased hanging to an iron pipe with the help of a towel which was tied to his neck. The appellant ran towards the wine shop gully and hid. P.W-3 during the course of cross- examination, deposed that the distance between the scene of offence and the tea stall is about 50 yards. He also stated that there are no lights in the gully and it was dark.
13. Thus, by the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, it is abundantly clear that the deceased was found present with the appellant at the tea stall on the date of the incident, a discussion went on between them regarding the missing amount and later, both of them left the place towards the gully where the deceased was found dead.
Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J 11 Crl.A.No.209 of 2014
14. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 establishes that there were instances where the appellant approached the deceased and demanded him to pay the amount.
15. Therefore, the facts that P.W-4 was running a tea stall at Balaji Nagar bus stop; that P.W-3 used to visit the said tea stall regularly for having tea; that P.W-3 having acquaintance with the deceased; that the deceased also used to visit the said tea stall for having tea; and that, on the date of the incident, P.Ws.3 and 4 found the deceased in the company of the appellant, cannot be doubted in the light of the convincing evidence produced by the prosecution to that effect. Though P.W-3 stated that the appellant dragged the deceased and P.W-4 stated that the deceased and the appellant left the place, the said discrepancy is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The evidence of both these witnesses is that there was a discussion between the appellant and the deceased about the missing of amount from the possession of the appellant.
16. By the evidence of P.W-3, it is also clear that the scene of offence is located at a distance of about 50 yards Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J 12 Crl.A.No.209 of 2014 from the tea stall. Though responsibility heavily rests upon the prosecution to establish its version beyond all reasonable doubt, yet when a fact is within the special knowledge of any person, it is for that person to explain and establish the said fact. Thus, it is for the appellant at least to offer a plausible explanation as to what happened after both of them i.e., himself and the deceased left the tea stall on the date of the incident. But, no explanation whatsoever is given by the appellant at least during the course of 313 Cr.P.C. examination. That apart, the cause of death of the deceased is not in dispute.
17. The evidence of P.W.6 and Ex.P-6-Post-mortem examination report reveals that the cause of death of the deceased is due to manual strangulation. P.W-6 clearly stated that he found an anti-mortem ligature mark below the thyroid cartilage in front of the neck of the deceased measuring 17 x 3 cms. He further stated that the left thyroid horn was found fractured at its tip. Thus, the cause of death of the deceased is also established by the prosecution.
Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J 13 Crl.A.No.209 of 2014
18. Though, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the alleged confession of the appellant regarding the commission of offence is inadmissible in evidence, yet the other evidence produced by the prosecution establishes the culpability of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus, the prosecution, by all the evidence it has produced, has clearly established the fact that the appellant, who entered into conversation with the deceased on the date of the incident regarding missing of his amount, has caused his death by strangulation. The motive is also established. Therefore, this court is of the view that the convincing evidence produced by the prosecution can be relied upon to hold that the appellant committed the offence charged.
19.Point No.2:-
When the judgment of the trial Court is looked into, this Court finds that the learned judge of the trial Court has appreciated the facts of the case in a right perspective and applied the established principles of law to the said facts. The learned judge, thereby, came to a just conclusion. None of the grounds urged by the appellant Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J 14 Crl.A.No.209 of 2014 can be applied to come to a different conclusion than that of the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court. Therefore, this Court holds that there are no grounds whatsoever to interfere with the said well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court and to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court.
20. Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The judgment that is rendered by the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District in S.C.No.583 of 2012, dated 20.11.2013 is, therefore, confirmed.
21. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA _________________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 14.10.2022 dr