Telangana High Court
Kankati Lingamurthy, Adilabad Dt., vs Ummagani Laxmi, Karimnagar And 2 Othrs, ... on 19 November, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.340 OF 2015, 168 OF 2013
& 903 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. Crl.A.No.340 of 2015 is filed by P.W.2/father of the deceased questioning the acquittal of the respondents/accused Nos.1 and 2. The conviction was recorded by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 304-II of IPC against A-1 and A-2 and sentenced to undergo 5 years of imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said conviction Crl.A.No.903 of 2012 is preferred by A-1 and Crl.A.No.168 of 2013 is preferred by A-2.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant/P.W.2 questioning the acquittal, learned counsel for respondents/accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased was son-in-law of A-1, and A-2 was close acquaintance of A-1. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and daughter of A-1. The allegation is that A-1's husband died and thereafter, she 2 had illegal contact with A-2. According to P.Ws.1 to 11, A-1 had illegal contact with A-2, for which reason, the deceased was chastising A-1 for her illegal contact. The accused were insulted in the society on account of comments being passed by the deceased. Further, there were frequent quarrels in between A-1 and the deceased regarding the allegations made by the deceased about physical/sexual intimacy in between A-1 and A-2.
4. On the date of incident, according to P.Ws.4 to 11 who are the eye witnesses, there was galata (quarrel) in between the deceased and A-1. The deceased and A-1 started pushing each other on account of the deceased passing comments on A-1 about her intimacy with A-2. A-1 beat the deceased with iron rod. Immediately, A-2 arrived and he also beat the deceased on his head with iron rod. P.W.1, thereafter came there and intervened and seeing P.W.1, both the appellants ran away.
5. The complaint was filed by P.W.1 who is the wife of the deceased. She stated in her complaint that A-1 and A-2 were having illegal intimacy. On the said date when the dispute broke up in between them, A-1 and A-2 attacked the 3 deceased with iron rod and he was beaten on his head. The said beating on the head of the deceased resulted in the deceased receiving bleeding injury. Further, P.W.1 narrated that there was dispute about the amount of LIC amount which was received on account of death of husband of A-1.
6. Learned Sessions Judge having examined the witnesses and having considered the evidence placed on record by the prosecution held that A-1 and A-2 were guilty for the offence under Section 304-II of IPC and not under Section 302 of IPC. The reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge is that there was no premeditation to commit murder of the deceased. In fact, while the deceased was going in front the house of A-1, there was altercation resulting in pushing one another and both assaulted one another. On account of quarrel and provocation on the part of the deceased, both A-1 and the deceased physically pushed each other and then A-1 beat the deceased. In the said circumstances, learned Sessions Judge found that it will not amount to murder in accordance with exception (4) of Section 300 of IPC.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that there is no necessity that there should be 4 premeditation in the case of murder. From the facts gathered in the case, all the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 14 have stated about illegal intimacy between A-1 and A-2. Further, on account of the amount received pursuant to death of husband of A-1, there was quarrel in between A-1 and the deceased. In the said circumstances, only logical inference that can be drawn is that A-1 has grudge against son-in-law/deceased because he was chastising her for having affair with A-2 and also for the reason of money that was received through LIC after the death of A-1's husband.
8. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nanhe vs. State of U.P. 1. The facts of the case in the said judgment are that appellant had shot the deceased with a country made pistol after there was a quarrel and the deceased had walked away for 15 to 20 steps. In the said circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it cannot be said that death was not committed intentionally and not premeditated. Further, provision under Section 86 of IPC was of no avail to reduce the sentence from 302 of IPC to Section 304-II of IPC.
1 Crl.A.No.2791 of 2023 5
9. The facts in the case cited by the learned counsel for the appellants are different from the facts on the case on hand. In the judgment cited by the learned counsel, the assault was with a country made pistol. In those circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that it was a murder punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
10. In the case on hand, the deceased was son-in-law who had passed comments and chastising A-1 for having affair with A-2 frequently. Though there are 14 witnesses who stated about affair between A-1 and A-2, none of them have seen them having physical intimacy or that they had sexual relation. It appears that the deceased chastising her had let others also believe that A-1 and A-2 were having affair. Even on the date of incident which happened in the front of house of A-1, deceased passed comments against A-1 and thereafter, there was a quarrel and deceased and A-1 started pushing one another. In the said melee, A-1 hit the deceased on his head. A-2 also came there and also hit the deceased on his head. It is apparent, as rightly pointed by the learned Sessions Judge, there was provocation on part of the deceased. No mother-in-law would accept or suffer such 6 chastisation by son-in-law alleging illegal contact with another person after death of her husband.
11. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another 2, stated that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.
12. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows:
"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles 2 (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 3 (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 7 crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:
i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong:
ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;
iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice";
iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;
v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;
vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.
vii)This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court.
3. If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction __the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."
13. In the present facts of the case, there are no grounds to find the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC by reversing the judgment of the trial Court. Accordingly, Crl.A.No.340 of 2015 is dismissed.
14. Insofar as other two Appeals preferred by A-1 and A-2 are concerned, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge convicting the 8 appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 304-II of IPC.
15. However, the incident is of the year, 2010 and nearly 14 years have passed by, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Sessions Court for 5 years under Section 304-part II of IPC is reduced to two years. Since it is brought to the notice of this Court that A-1 and A-2 are on bail, the concerned Court shall cause their appearance and send them to jail to serve out the sentence imposed by this Court.
16. Accordingly, Crl.A.No.903 of 2012 and Crl.A.No.168 of 2013 are partly allowed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J ________________ K. SARATH, J Date: 19.11.2024 dv