Telangana High Court
Bheepangu Chinna Venkanna, Nalgonda ... vs P.P., Hyd on 24 July, 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.1233 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant - accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C assailing the judgment of conviction dated 26.09.2014 in S.C.No.134 of 2012 passed by the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Miryalguda.
2. Heard Mr. Shaikh Karimulla, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Shalini Saxena, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State.
3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has found the appellant guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'). Upon convicting the appellant, he was sentenced imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/- and with default stipulation of one (01) month.
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 16.02.2011 at around 15:30 hours, the appellant is said to have brutally killed his wife Bheemapangu Naga Rani (hereinafter, the 'deceased') and the Page 2 of 10 reason for the said murder was that of suspecting her fidelity. The incident occurred at Village Sarvara under the limits of Police Station, Garidepalli. As per the prosecution's case, the appellant is said to have got married to the deceased about six (06) years prior to the date of incident and from the said marriage they were blessed with a daughter and a son. It is the case of the prosecution that for the past many days, the appellant used to suspect the fidelity of the deceased and about a week earlier to the date of incident, the appellant is said to have dropped the deceased at her parental house and refused to lead a conjugal life with her. Somehow the family members though tried to pacify the appellant; he did not accept and left the deceased at her parental home.
5. It is said that on 16.02.2011, at around 3:30 PM, when the deceased went to the outskirts of the Village towards Choudamma Temple to answer nature call, the appellant is said to have found the deceased at a lonely place and taking advantage of the same he followed with a wooden cricket bat in his hand and with which he gave a hard blow on her head which caused instantaneous death of the deceased. It is said that in the rage of anger when the appellant was returning, he saw PW.5 (N. Gurvaiah) and on a query put by Page 3 of 10 PW.5 to the appellant, the appellant informed him that he has killed his wife, the deceased and the body is lying near Choudamma Temple. PW.5 is said to have went and saw the dead body lying as informed by the appellant and he in turn informed PW.1 (Barigela Venkaiah) and other villagers who also came and found the dead body there.
6. Immediately, the matter was reported to the Police Station, Garidepalli where Cr.No.13 of 2011 was registered for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The investigating agency reached the spot and started investigation. The inquest was conducted, panchnama was also prepared and the dead body was sent for post-mortem. PW.13 (Dr. K. Pavan Kumar) who conducted the autopsy found that there was wound of about 5 × 0.5 × 0.5 in semi-circular shape back and below of the right external ear with bleeding. Upon opening the head, PW.13 found fracture in the light parietal occipital bone with subdural hematoma and the fracture was anti-mortem in nature. PW.13 further opined the cause of death to be asphyxia due to cardio respiratory arrest on account of the subdural hematoma.
7. The matter was thereafter put to trial after the charge-sheet was filed before the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Page 4 of 10 Miryalguda where the matter was registered as S.C.No.134 of 2012. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as sixteen (16) witnesses and marked equal number of exhibits i.e. Exs.P1 to 16. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence, however, six (06) documents were marked in defence i.e. Exs.D1 to 6. Thereafter, the examination of the appellant was conducted under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and later on the impugned judgment of conviction was passed holding the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life which is under challenge in the present appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Trial Court has erroneously appreciated the evidence of the prosecution while holding the appellant guilty of the offence and the finding being contrary to law warranting interference in the present appeal and the impugned judgment is liable to be set-aside. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the prosecution has failed to adduce any cogent and trustworthy evidence strong enough to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
9. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, all the prosecution witnesses, particularly PW.3 (B. Mangaiah), PW.4 Page 5 of 10 (B. Veeraiah), PW.5 (N. Gurvaiah) and PW.6 (Thammisetty Ramu) have given inconsistent, uncorroborated and contradictory evidence. For the material discrepancy and disparity, the evidence is not trustworthy so as to convict the appellant. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, all the material witnesses are all closely related to each other which further reduce their trustworthiness as they are all highly interested witnesses and their version cannot be accepted on its face value.
10. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the fact that as the case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence, there were various missing links to connect the appellant with the offence and the prosecution witnesses examined did not complete the chain of links so as to reach to the only conclusion of the offence to have been committed by the appellant alone and not by anybody else. The Trial Court has grossly erred in not giving due weightage of the aspect that the prosecution case is weak as they have not examined a material witness namely Thulasamma who is the first person to have seen the respondent following the deceased with a cricket bat in his hand and which was then thereafter informed to PW.3 and PW.5 who Page 6 of 10 were asked to follow as they were suspecting something fishy in the conduct of the respondent.
11. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the circumstantial evidence brought on record are wholly inconsistent with which the sole hypothesis of guilt of the respondent stands established. Thus, for the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel for the respondent sought for judgment of conviction to be set-aside and the appellant be acquitted of all the charges leveled against him.
12. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposing the appeal contended that the depositions of PW.3 and PW.4 are strong piece of evidences on behalf of the prosecution to establish the offence against the appellant. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, PW.3 is the person who had seen the appellant assaulting the deceased with the cricket bat and PW.4 is the person before whom there has been an extra judicial confession made by the appellant. Hence, in the teeth of these two strong evidences, both of whom have not been effectively cross-examined to disbelieve the two versions, there is nothing to doubt these two versions and the judgment of conviction needs to be upheld / confirmed. Page 7 of 10
13. It was also the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the case of the prosecution also stands proved beyond all reasonable doubts from the deposition of PW.5 who corroborates the version of PW.1. It was contended that from the cross-examination of these witnesses also there does not seem to be much which has got elicited so as to disbelieve or disprove the statement of the prosecution witnesses and hence the finding of guilt arrived at does not warrant interference.
14. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and on perusal of records, what is necessary to be seen is the version of PW.1, the father of the deceased, who has accepted the fact that there was strained relationship between the appellant and the deceased. It was also stated by PW.1 that few days back the appellant had brought his daughter and left her at his house i.e. the parental home of the deceased and the appellant also threatened of killing the deceased doubting her fidelity. As regards the date of incident, in PW.1's statement it is also reflected that in the evening PW.5 informed PW.1 of the appellant having informed PW.5 of having killed his wife, the deceased.
Page 8 of 10
15. PW.2 (B. Venkatravamma) also deposed before the Court so far as being informed by PW.4 of the appellant having killed the deceased, PW.2's daughter. PW.2 also came along with PW.4 at the place of incident and found the dead body of her daughter lying in a pool of blood and a bat and plastic tumbler near the dead body.
16. PW.3 again is a person who is said to be eye witness. According to PW.3, it was Thulasamma who saw the deceased going to answer the nature's call into the fields and she saw the appellant following the deceased with a cricket bat. Sensing something fishy, she informed PW.3 and PW.3 on going towards area where the deceased had moved, saw the appellant beating the deceased with a bat. Though there seems to be some contradictory stand taken that PW.3 has taken in the cross-examination, but so far as the version of Thulasamma having told him about the appellant following the deceased towards the field carrying a cricket bat is not controverted or disproved. So also the version that is said to have been made before PW.4 by the appellant does not seem to be false, incorrect or doubtful as the statement of PW.2 gives strength to the deposition of PW.4.
Page 9 of 10
17. From the deposition of all the prosecution witnesses, at least the presence of the appellant near the place of occurrence stands established and to which there does not seem to be any denial or rebuttal made by the appellant in his 313 statement that was recorded, so also there does not seem to be any strong materials brought in defence or in denial or contradictory stand taken by the prosecution witnesses so as to weaken the case of the prosecution. There is also not much material available even to doubt the involvement of the appellant of having not committed the said offence or somebody else to have committed the said offence. All the circumstances and the circumstantial evidence that have been collected and adduced during the course of trial leads us to the only inference that the crime was committed by none other than the appellant.
18. The prosecution in the present case has also collected all the necessary chain of links and has also established the motive since there a motive attributed against the appellant and the corroborating evidence collected in the course of investigation. There is sufficient strength on the case of the prosecution and the finding of guilt arrived at by the Trial Court cannot be found fault with. Page 10 of 10
19. As a consequence, the present appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
20. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J ___________________________ SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU, J Date: 24.07.2024 GSD