Telangana High Court
Chilukala Krishnaih, Mahaboobnagar ... vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 5 November, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.688 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) This Criminal Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.01.2016 in S.C.No.229 of 2015 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, convicting the appellant/accused of the offences under Sections 498A and 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The appellant/accused is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 498A IPC.
2. Heard Ms. B. Niveditha, learned counsel for the appellant/accused, and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.688 of 2016 2
3. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that PW.1, who is the mother of the deceased, lodged a Telugu written complaint on 10.01.2015 stating that her daughter (deceased) was married to the appellant/accused five years prior to the incident. The appellant was addicted to alcohol and was harassing the deceased mentally and physically and beating her indiscriminately. Due to the conduct of the appellant, the deceased went to her parents' house. Unable to bear the harassment of the appellant, the deceased lodged a criminal case registered as Crime No.83 of 2010 under Sections 498A and 324 IPC against the appellant. The Nawabpet Police arrested the appellant and sent him to jail. Thereafter, the case was compromised and the appellant was released on bail and promised that he would look after his wife and children (PWs.4 and 5) properly. However, the appellant started ill treating the deceased again by coming home in a drunken condition and was beating the deceased. PW.1 came to know that on the night of 09.01.2015 at about 4:30 P.M., the appellant picked up a quarrel with the deceased in a drunken condition demanding to give money to him for consuming liquor. Since the deceased refused, the appellant developed KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.688 of 2016 3 grudge and on the same day, at about 10:00 P.M., the appellant attacked the deceased and stabbed her with a knife and also beat her with a stick on her head, hand and legs, due to which the deceased died on the spot. After registration of the crime, PW.10 - Circle Inspector of Police went to the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama, seized the blood stained earth and controlled earth and the same were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and thereafter, examined the witnesses. After conducting scene of offence panchanama, inquest was conducted and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination. The next day, the appellant was apprehended. At his instance, MOs.4 and 5, which are the knife and stick, were seized.
4. Charge sheet was filed under Sections 302 and 498A IPC. Learned Sessions Judge, having framed the charges under Sections 302 and 498A IPC, examined the witnesses. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, learned Sessions Judge found that the appellant was guilty of the offences and accordingly convicted the appellant.
KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.688 of 2016 4
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove that it is the appellant who caused the death of the deceased. There is no evidence of any eye witness and only on the basis of circumstantial evidence, which is inconclusive, the appellant was convicted. He further argued that though the alleged incident happened on the night of 09.01.2015, the complaint was lodged with inordinate delay of more than 24 hours on 10.01.2015 at 6:00 P.M. The said delay is not explained and it is also not explained as to what transpired immediately after her death. In the absence of any direct evidence and since the conviction was based on suspicion, the said finding of the learned Sessions Judge has to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raja Naykar vs. State of Chhattisgarh 1, wherein the issue of circumstantial evidence was dealt with.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of the 1 (2024) 3 SCC 481 KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.688 of 2016 5 prosecution witnesses is consistent regarding the harassment meted out by the deceased and that there was a motive for the appellant to commit murder of the deceased.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raja Naykar (supra) dealt with the principles of circumstantial evidence and held as follows:
"16. Undoubtedly, the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. The law with regard to conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence has very well been crystalized in the judgment of this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116], wherein this Court held thus:
"152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091]. This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of later decisions up-to-date, for instance, the cases of Tufail v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1969) 3 SCC 198 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 55] and Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra [(1972) 4 SCC 625]. It may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant case [(1952) 2 SCC 71] "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.688 of 2016 6 established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p.807 :
SCC (cri) p.1047] "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.688 of 2016 7 (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence."
17. It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The Court holds that it is a primary principle that the accused 'must be' and not merely 'may be' proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved and 'must be or should be proved. It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It has further been held that the circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. It has been held that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused."
8. Admittedly, the evidence is circumstantial in nature. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the burden is on the prosecution to prove every circumstance, which the prosecution relied on, beyond all reasonable doubt. Except stating that there KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.688 of 2016 8 were disputes between the deceased and the appellant, there is no other evidence. The mother-in-law of the deceased and the children of the deceased i.e. PWs.4 and 5 speak about a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased and that the appellant beat the deceased. In fact, according to PW.1, the deceased was brought home 15 days prior to the incident and since then the deceased was staying at her parents' house. What transpired 15 days prior to the incident is not stated by any of the witnesses, as correctly argued by learned counsel for the appellant.
9. Thought the incident of death happened in the house of the appellant, it is for the prosecution to prove that the appellant was present in the house when the incident took place. There is no evidence of "last seen". Only on the ground that the dead body of the deceased was found in the house of the appellant, it cannot be held that the appellant is responsible for the death of the deceased. When PW.2 stated that the parents of the appellant were also staying in the house, it is for the investigating officer to ascertain as to how many members were present in the KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.688 of 2016 9 house at the time of incident, specifically whether the appellant was present in the house or not.
10. The suspicion however strong cannot take place legal proof. The appellant being the husband of the deceased in itself would not suffice to infer that he had committed the murder of his wife.
11. The prosecution relied on recovery of MOs.4 and 5, which are knife and stick, seized at the instance of the appellant. PW.9 - Doctor, having given the details of the injuries, stated in his cross-examination that he cannot say as to whether the injuries are possible, if a person is beaten. Further, the Doctor stated that head injury would be possible by falling on a stone or on ground. The Doctor was not shown MOs.4 and 5 to ascertain whether the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased were caused by MOs.4 and 5.
12. In view of the same, the appellant succeeds and the conviction is liable to be set aside.
KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.688 of 2016 10
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant vide judgment dated 29.01.2016 in S.C.No.229 of 2015 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, is hereby set aside. The bail bonds of the appellant, if any, shall stand cancelled.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J ____________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date:05.11.2024 KH KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.688 of 2016 11 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.688 OF 2016 Date:05.11.2024 KH