Telangana High Court
Feroz Khan, Hyderabad., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 7 November, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1080 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.11.2015 in S.C.No.25 of 2014, on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge Court at Nampally, Hyderabad, convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State.
3. The appellant was convicted for murder of his wife by cutting her throat and also slitting her wrists. Learned Sessions Judge found appellant guilty.
4. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.3 is the daughter of the deceased-mother and the appellant is the father. According to her, at about 2:30 or 3:00 a.m., the appellant cut the throat and also both wrists of the deceased with a blade that he brought. P.W.3 heard the deceased shouting and when she woke up, she saw that the appellant 2 had cut the throat and wrists of her mother. She went to the house of P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased and informed him regarding the acts of the appellant. P.W.1 then went to the Police Station and lodged Ex.P.1/complaint at 9:30 a.m. In the said complaint/Ex.P.1, P.W.1 narrated that P.W.3 came to him and informed regarding the incident. Thereafter, he went to the house and saw the deceased lying on the floor dead with grievous injuries. After lodging the complaint, the Police went to the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchnama, thereafter inquest proceedings were also concluded. The body was then sent for post mortem examination. The post mortem Doctor/P.W.6 found that the deceased had a cut injury on the neck and contusion on left side of neck, cut injury on front, lower part of the right wrist and cut injury muscle deep on front and lower part of left wrist. All the said injuries were ante mortem in nature. The cause of death was cut injury of the throat and also the wrists.
5. Learned Sessions Judge mainly placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.3 and also corroborating evidence of the Doctor regarding injuries received and recorded conviction. The grounds raised on behalf of the accused are that the 3 incident was suicidal and the appellant had nothing to do with the injuries that were caused.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the question of injuries being suicidal is ruled out.
7. P.W.3 is the daughter who was aged around 7 years when the incident had taken place. After the appellant had cut the throat and wrists of the deceased/wife, having witnessed the said incident, P.W.3 went to P.W.1 and informed him. Thereafter, other circumstances of lodging the complaint, Police doing their part of investigation, all the other aspects are not disputed. During the cross- examination of P.W.3, except suggesting that she was tutored to depose against the accused, nothing is elicited to discredit the evidence of child witness.
8. The suggestion was that the deceased had committed suicide. The appellant has not disputed his presence in the house.
9. P.W.6 is the Doctor who conducted post mortem examination. In the cross-examination, he stated that in case of suicide, there is a chance of possessing many cut 4 injuries on the body if a person attempts suicide, however, there are no such injuries.
10. It is highly improbable that a woman would cut both her wrists and cut her throat to commit suicide. Medical evidence rules out even a remote chance that death was on account of suicide.
11. The ground raised by the counsel is that if the death is not suicide, the offence may fall under Section 304-II of IPC. The manner in which the cut injuries were inflicted on the deceased firstly on the throat and then on the wrists of both hands would go to show that the appellant was determined to cause the death of the deceased. P.W.3's evidence is that appellant was in the house and she had seen him injuring the deceased. Under Section 106 of Evidence Act, burden shifts onto the appellant to explain the death of his wife. Suggesting to the witnesses that he was not present or deceased committed suicide will not suffice to discharge his burden. Even under Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination, except denial, appellant did not come up with any reasoning or explanation.
5
12. There are no reasons to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge on the basis of evidence, as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
14. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the appellant is on bail, the concerned Magistrate shall summon him and send him to prison to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J ___________________ J. ANIL KUMAR, J Date: 07.11.2024 dv