Telangana High Court
Kotha Kurva Narsimhulu, Mahabubnagar ... vs State Of Ap., Rep. Pp And Anr., on 15 April, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.485 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) The present appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant assailing the judgment of acquittal dated 03.01.2014 passed by the learned I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short, 'the Trial Court') in S.C.No.615 of 2011.
2. Heard Smt. G.Uma Rani, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State.
3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has found the accused/respondent No.2 not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') and Section 136 of the Electricity Act.
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused/respondent No.2 is said to have developed an extra marital relationship with the deceased (Smt. Padmamma). However, on 14.02.2011 when the accused/respondent No.2 visited the house of the deceased seeking sexual favours, it was refused and the deceased also asked the accused/respondent No.2 not to come to her house any further as she is not further interested in continuing the Page 2 of 8 relationship with him. The next day it is said that when the deceased had gone to the field, the accused/respondent No.2 is said to have caught hold of the deceased with a scarf round her neck, choked her to death, thrown her body on a live electricity wire and thereafter the accused/respondent No.2 is said to have thrown the body in one of the wells in the field in order to hide the offence.
5. It is also the case of the prosecution that the live electricity wire was erected by accused/respondent No.2 only with an intention of showing the deceased to have died of electrical shock. The dead body of the deceased was found in the well by the villagers who later on informed the matter to the daughter (P.W.2) of the deceased and the matter was also reported to the Itikyala Police Station where Crime No.16 of 2011 was registered for the offences under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 136 of the Electricity Act. Subsequently, the charge sheet was filed and the matter was put to trial before the Trial Court where the case was registered as S.C.No.615 of 2011.
6. In all, the prosecution examined seventeen (17) witnesses and defence examined two (02) witnesses. Thereafter, the statement under Section 313 of the accused/respondent No.2 was recorded and finally the impugned judgment was passed where it was the finding of the Page 3 of 8 Trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
7. On a query being put to the learned Public Prosecutor, she accepts the fact that the State has not filed any appeal against the said judgment of acquittal and it is only the present complainant's appeal which is filed.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that from the post- mortem report that was made available during the course of trial, Ex.P.12 has been marked by the Doctor (P.W.15). P.W.15 who conducted the postmortem examination has opined that the cause of death to be "asphyxia due to strangulation or throttling". According to the appellant it appears that the deceased before she was killed was subjected to rape, which fact has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal which therefore needs reconsideration.
9. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Trial Court has also not appreciated the evidence of P.W.2 who otherwise was a strong witness of the incident which again has not been properly dealt with by the Trial Court. The impugned judgment therefore needs reconsideration and if necessary be remitted back for re-appreciation of evidences in its entirety. So also the Page 4 of 8 evidence of P.W.1, the husband of the deceased, who has corroborated the evidence of P.W.2 again, has not been properly dealt with.
10. Based upon these evidences, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment of acquittal.
11. It would therefore be relevant at this juncture to take note of the relevant portion of the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2. If we look into the evidence of P.W.2, what is evident is that, P.W.2 was a grown up girl aged around seventeen (17) years of age. In her deposition she has stated as under:
"One day prior to the death of my mother in the night time about 10-00 or 10-30 pm the accused of this case came to our house in an intoxicated condition and quarreled with my mother, that my mother has to slept alongwith him, on that my mother warned the accused and abused him on that he went away.
On the next day morning at about 7-00 I along with my mother were proceeding to our fields in order to bring the fire sticks. While we were proceeding in the fields of accused, the accused pulled my mother with the help of towel, due to fear I went to my house and from there to the fields for coolie work. I have not informed this incident to any one. At about 12-00 noon I came to know through Goverdhan Reddy that my mother was died. I came to my house and informed to my father all the incident that happened in the previous day night. I along with my younger sister went to the well and saw the deadbody of my mother."Page 5 of 8
12. Similarly, if we look into the evidence of P.W.1, the husband of the deceased which reads as under:
"At the time of this offence I was wearing Shiva Mala and I was residing in a temple at a distance from the village. One Goverdhan Reddy (LW.7) telephoned me at about 11-00 am and informed me that my wife Padamma died at the well of Vangal Reddy. Immediately I went to that well. By the time I reached the said well the deadbody was taken out and kept on the gadda of the well. I saw electric shock to her legs. I cam to know that the accused killed my wife.
My daughter informed me that while my daughter and my wife was going to the fields the accused caught hold my wife and killer her. I lodged a complaint."
13. All the major witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution.
14. From the statement of P.W.2 it is evidently clear that on the previous night of the incident, she was at home when the accused/respondent No.2 had come to their house in an intoxicated condition and upon her mother scolding and abusing the accused/respondent No.2, he went away. Then on the next day P.W.2 had accompanied the deceased to the fields to bring fire sticks when the accused/respondent No.2 is said to have pulled her mother with the help of a towel and at that point of time out of fear she ran away from the place. The next reaction on the part of the daughter (P.W.2) is very unnatural and highly improbable and it is difficult to accept the version as it is. The grown up girl around seventeen (17) years of age, Page 6 of 8 if she finds her mother being pulled by someone forcefully, the first reaction would be an immediate resistance to help her mother. Second would have been raising of an alarm calling for attraction of the people in the nearby vicinity if any. Thirdly, she would have run to the nearby place and would have called upon the villagers seeking help for rescuing her mother. Above all she would have immediately phoned her father intimating about this development. Surprisingly, there is no such reaction reflected to have been undertaken by her. On the contrary, in her deposition itself it reflects that out of fear she went home without informing anybody about this development. Secondly, she says that after a while, she went for her work where she was working as a coolie. Both of these facts are never expected of a person of the age group of 17-18 years, particularly, when the victim is his/her mother. Therefore, the statement of P.W.2 is highly improbable and hard to accept.
15. Further if we read the deposition of P.W.1, the relevant portion of which has already been reproduced, it will also show that there are so many contradictions and omissions between the statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.1 says he was informed by one Mr. Goverdhan Reddy over telephone. On the other hand, P.W.2 says she had come home and had informed her father about everything that has transpired. She does not say that she had telephoned her father; rather she says that Page 7 of 8 she came home and informed her father as if the father was available at home. When the statement of P.W.2 itself is not reliable, the evidence of P.W.1 all the more becomes weaker.
16. From the evidence of P.W.15 who had conducted the autopsy, the cross-examination does not show any questions being put to him in respect of the deceased being raped before she was allegedly killed. No suggestions whatsoever were being put to P.W.15 as regards the deceased being subjected to rape. P.W.15 has specifically opined that there was fracture on the left bone of hyoid. Thus, the apprehension of the appellant that the deceased being subjected to rape is not established.
17. The main fact still remains to be considered is, what is the material to show that it was the accused/respondent No.2 who had strangulated or throttled the deceased to death. There is no eye witness, there are no circumstantial evidences available except for the statement or version of P.W.2. There are also no independent witnesses to show the motive or intention of accused/respondent No.2 to have murdered the deceased. Neither is there any evidence of last seen together. The statement of P.W.2 is so unrealistic and hard to believe so far as the immediate reaction of a 17-18 years old girl witnessing her mother being forcefully taken away by a single Page 8 of 8 assailant. Secondly, reaction of not rising an alarm and calling for help and thirdly not informing any neighbors or anyone in the village seeking for help to protect her mother. The evidence of P.W.2 therefore is highly doubtful and cannot be accepted for the purpose of convicting accused/respondent No.2.
18. We are therefore of the considered opinion that no strong case has been made out by the appellant calling for an interference with the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. The present Criminal Appeal therefore devoid of merits, deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
19. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J ____________________________ SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU, J Date: 15.04.2024 GSD