Telangana High Court
Prabhu Das , Shiva vs The State Of Telangana on 19 November, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.845 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.01.2016 in S.C.No.528 of 2014, on the file of the Judge, Family Court-Cum-VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Mahbubnagar, convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment for committing murder of husband of P.W.3.
2. Learned legal aid counsel is absent. However, we have gone through the record. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution according to the charge sheet is that on 09.03.2012 while the appellant was proceeding towards Yenugonda railway track, the deceased, who is the husband of P.W.3 saw the appellant while grazing cattle at TNGO's open plot and humiliated him. Unable to bear the humiliation, the appellant went near the deceased and argument ensued between them. In the process, the 2 appellant snatched the axe from the hands of the deceased and beat him on his head resulting in his death.
4. The dead body was found by the side of the railway track by other persons who were also grazing cattle. It was informed to P.W.3 that her husband was killed. P.W.1 who is relative of the deceased lodged a complaint on the same day i.e., 09.03.2012 at 4:30 p.m. In the said complaint, he narrated that the deceased was grazing his cattle in the open plot of TNGO's colony, in the mean time, one unknown person came there and quarreled with the deceased, snatched axe which was in the hands of the deceased and beat him on his head. Since he was a stranger and unknown, the Police was requested to take action against the said unknown person.
5. The Police went to the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama and inquest proceedings were also concluded. Post mortem examination was also conducted.
6. During the course of investigation, on 26.07.2012 around 9 a.m. i.e., nearly 4½ months after the incident, the Investigating Officer got information about the appellant and he was arrested. His confession was recorded in the 3 presence of P.W.8. The appellant allegedly confessed to have committed murder of the deceased on 09.03.2012.
7. The Police thereafter concluded investigation and filed charge sheet.
8. Learned Sessions Judge placing reliance on the eye witnesses account of P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 convicted the appellant.
9. It is admitted in the complaint/Ex.P.1 that an unknown person had committed the murder of the deceased and the complainant/P.W.1 sought the Police to take action against the unknown person. The names of P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 are not mentioned in the complaint that they have seen the person who attacked the deceased. In fact, there is no mention in the complaint/Ex.P.1 as to who witnessed the incident nor any descriptive particulars of any person who had inflicted injuries on the deceased.
10. P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 as already stated, their names were not mentioned in the complaint. Admittedly, there was no Test Identification Parade of the appellant after his arrest on 26.07.2012. P.W.2's evidence was on 20.11.2015 i.e. after 3½ years and the evidence of P.W.4, another witness was on 24.11.2015 after more than 3½ years, similarly evidence of 4 P.W.5 was on 24.11.2015. In their chief examination, they have identified the appellant stating that he was the person who attacked the deceased with an axe.
11. The evidence of P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 cannot be considered since they admitted that for the first time, they were identifying the appellant in the Court after 3½ years. Firstly, names of eye-witnesses were not mentioned in complaint, secondly there are no identification or descriptive particulars of the appellant and thirdly, it was admitted by P.W.2 during cross examination that the appellant was shown in the Police Station as the person who beat the deceased.
12. In fact, P.W.4 admitted that he was at a distance of 1/4th k.m. when the incident happened. P.W.5 stated that his shop where he was sitting on the date of the incident is around 1 k.m. away from the place of incident.
13. From the above discussion, it is apparent that the witnesses were planted subsequently. It is highly improbable that P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 were witnesses to the alleged incident. Without there being identification particulars, identifying the appellant for the first time after 3½ years is highly improbable and not possible.
5
14. As seen from the record, the appellant was not mentally fit. Even according to the prosecution evidence and the Investigating Officer and the learned Sessions Judge, the appellant was being treated for mental illness. It appears that the Police have implicated the appellant whose mind was unstable in an unsolved case after 3½ months.
15. In the said circumstances, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed. Since the appellant is in jail, he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J ________________ K. SARATH, J Date: 19.11.2024 dv