Telangana High Court
Persika Chinna Venkateswarlu, ... vs State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., Hyd on 18 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.1396 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU) This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 299 of 2012 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Khammam at Kothagudem, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), challenging the Judgment dated 18.02.2013, wherein the trial Court found him guilty of the offense punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and convicted him under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. The appellant herein was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months for the offense under Section 302 of IPC.
2. The appellant was prosecuted by the State with an allegation that he killed his wife due to his suspicion against her character. The brief history of the case on hand is that the marriage of the appellant and one Persika Tirupathamma (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was performed about 10 years prior to the date of the offense and out of the wedlock, they were blessed with two male children. Since there were frequent quarrels between the couple, PW.1, the elder brother of the deceased, and other family members 2 advised the appellant and the deceased to come to Bonthagudem Village whereat the other family members were staying.
3. Thereupon, about four years prior to the date of the offense, the appellant and the deceased along with their children migrated to Bonthagudem Village. The appellant was working as a cleaner on a lorry. As the deceased was moving closely with one Sode Raju of Anandapuram, the appellant suspected that the deceased developed illicit intimacy with the said Raju and he used to pick up quarrels with his wife frequently.
4. The prosecution alleged that on the intervening night of 18/19.05.2012, the appellant had a quarrel with his wife; however, at the intervention of the family members, the same was subsided. It was alleged by the prosecution that due to the said suspicion, the appellant decided to kill his wife and hatched a plan, according to which, on 19.05.2012, at about 03:00 P.M., the appellant along with his wife left the village by saying that they were proceeding to Mondivarre Village to collect money, which was due to him. According to the averments in the charge sheet and as per the complaint lodged by PW.1, the elder brother of the deceased, when the family members found that the deceased and her husband did not return by the evening, they went on a search. Later, they found the dead body of the deceased in the agricultural fields of Keesari Jogulu and there were injuries on her person. Thereby, PW.1 3 approached the police on 20.05.2012 and presented a complaint narrating the above-referred incident. Basing on the said complaint, police registered a case in Crime No. 21 of 2012 on the file of the Mulakalapalli Police Station, for the offense under Section 302 of IPC, issued FIR, and sent copies thereof to the concerned. PW.18, Inspector of Police, Paloncha, took up the investigation and examined the material witnesses and also completed the formalities like an inquest over the dead body of the deceased and referred the corpse for post- mortem examination.
5. The prosecution has alleged that on 21.05.2012, at about 10:30 A.M., the appellant herein said to have made an extra-judicial confession before PW.13, and PW.13 had produced the appellant before PW.18. PW.18 interrogated the appellant in the presence of PWs.11 and 12, to whom the appellant confessed to the commission of the offense and produced M.O.1- towel, which he said to have used in the commission of the offense. Later, PW.18 produced the appellant before the Magistrate concerned for judicial custody. After the completion of further investigation, police have laid the charge sheet, which was registered as P.R.C.No. 28 of 2012, and the same was committed to the Sessions Court. The trial Court has framed charges under Section 302 of IPC. To prove the prosecution case, PWs.1 to 18 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P.17 and M.O.1 were marked. On behalf of the defense, Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked.
4
6. The trial Court, having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the appellant for the offense under Section 302 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the appellant; he was sentenced as indicated above. According to the report presented by PW.1 and as per the evidence of all the material witnesses, it is very clear that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged offense. The prosecution tried to establish the guilt of the appellant for the offense under Section 302 of IPC based on circumstantial evidence. Ex.P.1 is the first version of PW.1 before the police. According to the said report, it is the version of PW.1 that on 19.05.2012, at about 03:00 P.M., the appellant and the deceased left the house by saying that they were proceeding towards Mondivorre, and since the couple did not return home even after 05:30 P.M., he, along with some others, went on the search of his sister, and later, they found the dead body of the deceased with injuries in the agricultural land; however, he did not rush to the police station nor was there any attempt made to present a report immediately after they found the dead body of the deceased.
7. According to his evidence before the trial Court, he went to the police station on the next date, i.e., on 20.05.2012, at about 10:00 A.M. and presented Ex.P.1. However, as per the endorsement on Ex.P.1, Ex.P.1 report was lodged at about 06:00 A.M. on 20.05.2012. There are so many important aspects which create doubt as to whether such an incident occurred or these 5 witnesses have implicated the appellant herein in the murder case of the deceased. The claim of PW.1 is that they went on the search of his sister simply because they found she did not return home in the evening hours itself creates any amount of doubt. As per Ex.P.1, they have information that the appellant and his wife left the village at 03:00 P.M. by specifically saying that they are going to a particular village; therefore, there is nothing to suspect foul play simply because the deceased did not return by 05:30 P.M. or 07:30 P.M. on the same day.
8. According to the evidence of PW.1, he was not present when his sister and the appellant herein left the house. During his examination-in-chief, PW.1 has claimed that they waited for the arrival of the appellant and the deceased till 05:30 P.M., then they started the search. He also stated before the trial Court that he, along with his brother, who was examined as PW.4, proceeded to Mondivorre Village and inquired of the villagers about the deceased and the appellant, and they came to know from the villagers that the deceased and the appellant did not visit the said village on that particular day; therefore, they returned from the said village, on the way, they found the dead body of the deceased in the fields of Sri Keesari Jogulu. In the cross-examination of PW.1, he added that his sister has a mobile phone. PW.1 testified before the rial Court that at about 05:00 P.M./05:30 P.M., the appellant visited their house and inquired of PW.1 about the whereabouts of his wife, and PW.1 informed 6 the appellant that the deceased had been to Aswapuram in connection with the marriage of the daughter of his elder sister, particularly, to attend the marriage. It is elicited from PW.1 that on the next date when he visited the police station, he found PW.4 and the appellant were present at the police station. However, the prosecution has claimed as if the appellant approached PW.13 and is said to have made an extra-judicial confession. PW.1 voluntarily stated before the trial Court that the appellant herein surrendered before the police and Ex.P.1 was drafted at the police station.
9. Whereas, according to PW.2, who is the mother of the deceased and who was examined by the prosecution to how that the appellant and his wife left the house in the afternoon of the particular day. She had categorically admitted during the cross-examination that on that particular day, she went to Paloncha in the morning hours for the purpose of milling groundnut oil and returned home at about 04:30 P.M. Therefore, PW.2 had no occasion to see that the appellant and his wife were leaving the house; of course, PW.2 claimed before the trial Court that after her return, she inquired of her granddaughter and came to know that the appellant and the deceased went to Mondivorre.
10. PW.3 is the father of the deceased, who categorically stated before the trial Court that he was away from the house on that particular day, and when 7 he returned home at 06:00 P.M., by that time, he was told about the alleged murder committed by the appellant.
11. Whereas, according to PW.4, who is the another brother of the deceased, since the deceased did not return home, when he and PW.1 went on search of the couple in Mondivorre Village, they caused inquiry at Mondivorre Village and they came to know as if the appellant and the deceased already returned from that particular village. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 with regard to their inquiry about the visit of the appellant and the deceased to Mondivorre Village and they came to know about the presence of the appellant and deceased at Mondivorre Village creates doubt. According to PW.4, they found the dead body of the deceased in the agricultural fields of Keesari Jogulu and it was at about 07:00 P.M. Even though PWs.1 and 2 had deposed before the trial Court that they found the dead body of the deceased with bleeding injuries in the agricultural fields, they did not present any report nor there was any request to the villagers to get the dead body of the deceased shifted and nothing has been stated by these two brothers as to what happened to the dead body during that night. It is not known as to why PW.4 was present at the police station even before the visit of PW.1 and as to what happened to the appellant who was present at the police station even before the arrival of PW.1. 8
12. The unnatural conduct of these two witnesses coupled with their admissions that the appellant present before the police before lodging the complaint creates doubt as to whether the alleged incident happened or they filed a false complaint. There are some other admissions by these witnesses. Even as per the charge sheet, it is alleged that the appellant used to suspect his wife. It is evident from the evidence that the appellant was working as a lorry cleaner and he used to leave the house on duty and stay away from the house for more than a week or 10 days. As per the evidence of PW.1 only because of this particular issue, the appellant and his wife moved from one village to another village and they have finally settled at Bonthagudem Village.
13. When PW.1 was specifically asked as to whether his sister had any illegal intimacy with one Dare Venkateswarlu, PW.1 did not deny the allegation, but deposed before the trial Court that he has no knowledge about the alleged illegal intimacy, and it was elicited from PW.1 that on one occasion, the appellant made a complaint to PW.2 about the behavior of his sister. PW.2 asked him to catch her red-handed and prove that she had such illegal relations. PW.1 was asked about the illegal intimacy of the deceased with Sode Raju of Anandapuram, for which PW.1 stated that he has no knowledge about the said aspect. It is also in the evidence of PW.1 that one Dare Venkateswarlu questioned the deceased and her parents as to why the deceased was talking with Sode Raju. However, PW.1 deposed that he does not know whether the 9 deceased used to talk with Sode Raju and in that connection, whether there was any dispute between Dare Venkateswarlu and his parents.
14. According to the evidence of PWs.1 and 4, though they have deposed that they went to Mondivorre Village in search of their sister, they did not state anything about PW.2 accompanying them in the said search. But, PW.2 stated as if she was also present along with her sons and all of them had been to Mondivorre Village. Even though PW.1 claimed that he has presented a report to the police and before his arrival at the police station, PW.4 was already there, and it is the evidence of PW.4 that he presented a signed report to the police. However, the said report did not see the light of the day, and it was suppressed by the prosecution. PW.4 categorically stated before the trial Court that the Sarpanch of Chavatigudem has prepared a report to his dictation and he has presented the said report to the police. PW.4 also stated that he went to the police station about one hour before PW.1 visited the police station.
15. According to the averments in the charge sheet and as per the evidence of PW.6, who is an independent witness, about five months prior to his evidence, at about 07:00 P.M. while he was proceeding to the house of his in- laws, he found the dead body of the deceased in the agricultural land of Jogulu and about 20 minutes thereafter, PWs.1 to 4 and some other villagers reached the spot and he found scratch injuries on the dead body of the deceased and 10 bleeding from the nose of the deceased. Admittedly, PW.6 is a close relative of PW.3, who is the father of the deceased. PWs.1 to 4 who have deposed that they have noticed the dead body of the deceased in the agricultural fields, did not state anything about the presence of PW.6 nor is it their case that by the time they found the dead body, PW.6 was already present at the place of offense. Therefore, the evidence of these material witnesses creates any amount of doubt as to whether they really found the dead body of the deceased in the agricultural fields at about 07:00 or 08:00 P.M. on that particular day or they have presented a false report on the next date as if they found the dead body on the previous night itself.
16. In addition to this oral evidence, the prosecution sought to rely on the evidence of one Babu Rao before whom the appellant is said to have made an extra-judicial confession about the commission of the murder of his wife. However, according to PW.13, he has no acquaintance with PWs.1 to 5, and he has no acquaintance with the deceased, and that he does not know how she died. The appellant never made any extra-judicial confession before him. This witness was declared as hostile by the prosecution, and the learned Public Prosecutor cross-examined PW.13 suggesting that he made a statement before the police as in Ex.P.9 to the effect that he has informed that the appellant herein made an extra-judicial confession before him about the commission of murder. In addition to this witness, the prosecution examined PWs.11 and 12 11 to show that the appellant herein made a confession about the commission of the alleged offense.
17. According to the evidence of PW.11, about five months prior to the date of his evidence, he received a phone call from Mulakalapalli Police Station, and he was informed about the surrender of the appellant after murdering his wife. At the instance of police, he searched the dead body of the deceased, which was found in the land of Jogulu, and four days thereafter, he has received another phone call from police, and when he went to the police station, he found the appellant in the custody of the police. The appellant is said to have made a confession about the commission of murder, thereby, he and one Muthyalu, who was examined as PW.12, signed on the confession statement. According to PW.11, the police have seized one towel from the dead body of the deceased, and, by the time of seizure of the said towel, the appellant was present. In view of the inconsistent statements made by this witness, the learned Public Prosecutor having declared him as hostile and proceeded with the cross-examination during which PW.11 deposed as if the accused made a confession as if he committed murder of his wife.
18. PW.12 did not support the case of the prosecution and deposed that about four or five months prior to the date of his evidence, the police, Paloncha obtained his signature, but he did not witness any seizure. As per the case of 12 the prosecution, the de facto complainant presented a signed complaint on the next date on which they found the dead body of their sister, and the appellant herein is said to have made an extra-judicial confession before PW.13, and PW.13 produced the appellant before the police on 21.05.2012, i.e., on the 3rd day of the alleged murder. As could be seen from the evidence of PW.15- Medical Officer, he has conducted a post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased on 20.05.2012 and issued Ex.P.12 post-mortem report. The prosecution has claimed that in pursuance of the alleged confession, the appellant is said to have produced a towel which he allegedly used for the commission of the offense, but according to the evidence of PW.11, the towel was seized from the dead body. Therefore, the alleged recovery of M.O.1-towel from the appellant in pursuance of the alleged confession is ruled out.
19. In view of the above, it is very clear that though according to the prosecution case, the complaint was said to have been presented by PW.1 at about 06:00 A.M. on 20.05.2012, the evidence of the other witnesses indicates that prior to the said report, PW.4 has visited the police station and prepared a report with the help of the Sarpanch, and by that time, the appellant herein was also present at the police station. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 depicts that they went in search of their sister and brother-in-law on the ground that the deceased did not return home by 05:30 P.M., also creating any amount of doubt, more particularly, when PWs.1 and 4 have no personal knowledge that 13 the deceased and the appellant herein left the house at 03:00 P.M. in order to proceed to Mondivorre.
20. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 along with the other family members transpires that they found the dead body of the deceased in the agricultural fields of the said Jogulu at odd hours, but they did not present the report to the police until the next day morning. It also creates doubt as to whether they really found the dead body of the deceased during the night time. According to the evidence of the investigating officer, they conducted an inquest on the next date at the scene of the offense; therefore, if the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is accepted, they must have left the dead body of the deceased unguarded at the scene of the offense itself during the entire night, which is highly unbelievable. Therefore, all these circumstances create doubt about the correctness of the allegations made by PW.1 and his family members. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as such the appeal stands allowed.
21. Based on the findings recorded, this Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the sentence of conviction imposed against the appellant/accused, as per the Judgment dated 18.02.2013 passed in S.C.No.299 of 2012 by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Khammam at Kothagudem, is set aside. Consequently, the appellant/accused is acquitted of the said offense and is set at liberty, provided he is not required to be detained for any other offense. 14 Any fine amount already paid by the appellant, if applicable, shall be refunded after the expiry of the appeal period.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY __________________________________ JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU Dated 18.04.2024 ynk