Telangana High Court
Battu Loordu Mariyamma, Madhira vs State Of Telangana, Rep. By P.P., Hyd on 27 June, 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.183 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Sambasiva Rao Naidu) The sole accused in Sessions Case No.178 of 2014 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam has filed this Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') and seeks to assail the judgment of the trial Court dated 28-01-2015, where under, the learned District Judge found him guilty for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') and sentenced him to undergo Imprisonment for Life along with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six (6) months.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant on the ground that the trial Court committed an error by finding him guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, without considering the fact that PWs.1 and 2 are highly interested witnesses and there are discrepancies and contradictions in their evidence. The trial Court did not consider the fact that 2 PSK,J & SSRN, J CRIMINAL APPEAL No.183 of 2015 the material witnesses, who are examined as PWs.7 and 10 did not support the prosecution and were declared as hostile by the Public Prosecutor. The trial Court committed an error and failed to see that the chain of circumstances sought to be proved by the prosecution was incomplete, thereby could not have convicted the appellant, as such, sought for setting aside the impugned judgment and prayed for his acquittal.
3. Before adverting to the grounds under which this appeal is filed, it is just necessary to refer the brief case of the prosecution as could be unfolded from the averments made in the charge sheet. One Lazar (herein after will be referred as 'deceased') was the husband of PW.1 and father of PW.2. The appellant herein along with his family and the deceased along with his wife and children were residing in the same locality and used to share water from a common water tap that was arranged by the land-lord. On 01-09-2012, at about 4.00 p.m., when PW.1 was taking water from the water tap, the daughter of the appellant also came there for taking water and there was a quarrel between the daughter of appellant herein and wife of deceased i.e., PW.1. At about 7.00 p.m., when the appellant herein came to the house, his 3 PSK,J & SSRN, J CRIMINAL APPEAL No.183 of 2015 daughter informed him about the dispute with PW.1, thereby, he started abusing PW.1 in filthy language. PW.8 tried to pacify the matter and warned the appellant not to interfere with the ladies disputes.
4. The prosecution has alleged that because of the presence of deceased in the house he was facing problems as such, he wanted to eliminate the husband of the deceased, so that there may not be further problems, and therefore, he has purchased a knife and came back and was waiting for a chance. The prosecution further alleged that at about 10.00 p.m., the husband of PW.1 i.e., the deceased returned home. PW.1 had informed about the quarrel and there was a verbal altercation between the deceased and appellant herein.
5. It was the further case of prosecution that subsequently, the deceased left the house for getting food for the family and did not return home. However, in the late night, one Mr. Prasanna Kumar, who is examined as PW.3 and LW.5 Medepally Anil Kumar came to the house of PW.1 and informed her that they found the dead body of her husband lying by the side of RCM Church. Therefore, PWs.1 and 2 rushed to the spot and having found the dead body of the 4 PSK,J & SSRN, J CRIMINAL APPEAL No.183 of 2015 deceased, they presented a report to police basing upon which the police have registered a case against the appellant herein and proceeded with the investigation.
6. PW.14, the then Inspector of Police, Madhira, who has completed the entire investigation, filed charge sheet against the appellant herein alleging that he has committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. As could be seen from the charge sheet the prosecution has alleged that the appellant was arrested and interrogated before independent witnesses and he said to have produced the knife which he has used in the offence and his clothes which were stained with the blood of the deceased.
7. After committal proceedings, the charge sheet that was formally registered as PRC.No.48 of 2012, the District Court registered the said case as SC.No.178 of 2014 and proceeded with the trial. The trial Judge had framed a charge under Section 302 of IPC against the sole accused and he denied the accusation, therefore, conducted the trial during which the prosecution could examine PWs.1 to 15 and marked Exs.P1 to P20 and also marked MOs.1 to 7. The 5 PSK,J & SSRN, J CRIMINAL APPEAL No.183 of 2015 contradiction elicited during the evidence of PW.4 from his 161 Cr.P.C. statement has been marked as Ex.D1.
8. After conclusion of the trial, the entire incriminating material has been put to the appellant herein during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, he denied the said evidence. The learned District Judge having appreciated the evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted him as indicated above.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no eye-witness to the alleged offence, thereby, the prosecution tried to prove the guilt of the appellant based on the circumstantial evidence. In such a case, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove a complete chain of circumstances that would show the involvement of the appellant and the commission of offence by the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. But in the case on hand, there are number of missing links. But in spite of it, the trial Court simply relied on the evidence of PW.1, convicted the appellant 6 PSK,J & SSRN, J CRIMINAL APPEAL No.183 of 2015 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, therefore, sought for setting aside the conviction.
10. On the other hand, the Assistant Public Prosecutor had submitted that the evidence of PW.1 has been supported by PW.4, who happened to hear the conversation between the appellant and deceased over phone and the threat that was made by the appellant herein while quarreling with the deceased. The report received from Forensic Science Laboratory clearly indicates that the clothes of the appellant recovered from his House as well as clothes of the deceased contained the same Blood group. Therefore, the charge under Section 302 of IPC has been proved against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt, thereby, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
11. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, the prosecution wanted to prove the guilt of the appellant based on circumstantial evidence. Admittedly, no eye-witness was examined to prove that he has witnessed the appellant herein stabbing the deceased. Out of 15 witnesses examined by the prosecution, PWs.1 and 2 are wife and daughter of the deceased, who were examined to prove the 7 PSK,J & SSRN, J CRIMINAL APPEAL No.183 of 2015 quarrel that took place at the water tap and also to prove that the appellant had a motive to kill the deceased. PW.3 is a witness, who saw the dead body of the deceased at the first instance and who forwarded the message to the wife of the deceased. PW.4 is a friend of deceased and he has been examined to show that the appellant herein had an intention to kill the deceased and he followed the deceased, who was proceeding to a Hotel for collection of food. The others are only circumstantial witnesses.
12. There is no dispute about the homicidal death of the deceased whose dead body was found in the late night by the side of one RCM Church at Madhira. The Medical Officer, who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased, was of the opinion that the deceased died due to Cardio Respiratory failure due to hypovolaemia and puncture to the left lung.
13. As could be seen from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, there appears to have been a quarrel between PW.1 and daughter of the appellant herein in connection with sharing of water from the water tap. It is the evidence of PW.1 that soon after the arrival of appellant having been informed about 8 PSK,J & SSRN, J CRIMINAL APPEAL No.183 of 2015 the incident through his daughter, he made a quarrel with PW.1 and her husband. It is the further case of PWs.1 and 2 that after a while, the deceased left the house for procuring food for the family but did not return. As per the evidence of PW.2, who was Intermediate student, she returned home in the evening and she was present when the quarrel between the appellant and deceased took place. Even though, these two witnesses have categorically stated that the deceased left the house for getting food to the family and in spite of he did not return home till late night, they did not venture to search nor PW.2 made any attempt to approach the police apprehending some danger to her father. It was specifically stated by PWs.1 and 3 that the family of the deceased came to know about the dead body of the deceased lying behind a Church only through PW.3 in the late night. It is true, the trial Court based on the evidence of PW.4 came to the conclusion, as if he has got entire knowledge of the offence.
14. According to the evidence of PW.4 before the trial Court, he was working as a Constable. He has got acquaintance with the deceased and his father. According to his evidence before the trial Court that on 01-09-2012, he 9 PSK,J & SSRN, J CRIMINAL APPEAL No.183 of 2015 received a call from the deceased and he was told about the quarrel that took place between the appellant and PW.1 at 4.00 p.m., and when he went to enquire the appellant, there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. PW.4 further deposed before the Court that since he was on deputation at Madhira, he was on duty and also he was not feeling well, but he could hear the calls by using speaker phone of his mobile and claimed that he could hear the abusive language used by the appellant. It is also his evidence that again at 11.00 p.m., he received a call from the deceased and he requested him to come down to his House in view of the abuses and galata caus ed by the appellant. He has also claimed that he was informed by the deceased that he was going to Bazar for purchasing biryani and accused was following him. Finally, he was stated before the Court that at 12.30 night, he received a call from PW.3 and informed about the murder of deceased.
15. However, the cross-examination of this witness clearly indicates that what all he stated before the Court was only an after thought and development by him during the course of trial, because the statement made by him before 10 PSK,J & SSRN, J CRIMINAL APPEAL No.183 of 2015 the police was silent about what he stated before the trial Court. According to his statement before the police vide Ex.D1, on 01-08-2002, at about 10.00 p.m., received a call from the deceased and was told about the galata made by the appellant and requested him to come down. But as he was on duty at the Railway Station, he asked the deceased to file a complaint before police and disconnected the call. Subsequently, at about 12.00 in the night, he came to know about the murder of the deceased.
16. Therefore, what all he stated before the Court, as if, he could hear the conversation between the appellant and the deceased through his speaker phone etc., is not there in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement. Therefore, it cannot be accepted to be true. If the evidence of this particular witness is excluded, there is no evidence to accept that the appellant herein followed the deceased and killed him.
17. The other circumstances under which the prosecution tried to rely is the recovery of blood stained clothes from the possession of accused. According to the evidence of PW.14, the report presented by PW.1 was registered as a case against the appellant at 4.00 a.m., on 11 PSK,J & SSRN, J CRIMINAL APPEAL No.183 of 2015 02-09-2012 and he took up the investigation on receipt of the copy of F.I.R. He proceeded to the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying and he could examine PWs.1 to 10 and also one Master A.Rahul (LW.3) and got the scene of offence photographed with the help of PW.11. He has prepared the panchanama at the scene of offence before PW.12 and one Vijay Kumar. He completed the inquest on the dead body of the deceased before the same witnesses and shifted the dead body after holding inquest for post-mortem.
18. PW.14 further deposed before the Court that on reliable information at 5.00 p.m., on the same day, he went to the House of appellant herein and said to have arrested him, interrogated him before mediators and said to have seized his blood stained clothes.
19. In this case, it was specifically mentioned in Ex.P1 complaint that there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased and as the dead body of the deceased was found late night on 01-09-2012, PW.1 raised a suspicion against the appellant. The Inspector of Police, who was examined as PW.14 had claimed that he could leisurely examined the witnesses, prepared panchanama at the scene 12 PSK,J & SSRN, J CRIMINAL APPEAL No.183 of 2015 of offence and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and only at 5.00 p.m., he has apprehended the accused that too at his House. As per the averments made in the complaint lodged before PW.16 and as per the inquest that took place at the place of offence, it was alleged that the appellant herein was responsible for the death of deceased. Therefore, the appellant has got every chance to know as to what was alleged in the FIR and he was shown as prime suspect in the murder of deceased. In such a case, the presence of appellant inviting the police for his arrest on the very next day at 5.00 p.m., is highly doubtful. The appellant had got every opportunity to hide himself, but here, the Investigating Officer claimed as if, he has effected the arrest of appellant at 5.00 p.m., on 02-05-2012 and seized the blood stained clothes of the appellant to connect them with the death of the deceased. The alleged arrest of the appellant at his House and seizure of the clothes is highly unbelievable. If these two important links are excluded, there is no complete chain of circumstances that could prove the guilt of appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. But the trial Court having given unnecessary importance to the 13 PSK,J & SSRN, J CRIMINAL APPEAL No.183 of 2015 evidence of PW.4, without considering the omissions and contradictions elicited during the cross-examination, wrongly found the appellant herein guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to Life Imprisonment, thereby, the same is liable to be set aside.
20. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
Consequently, Miscellaneous petitions if any, are closed. No costs.
___________________ JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY __________________________ JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU Date: 27.06.2024 PLV