G.Pedda Mannem, Mahabubnagar 2 ... vs State Of Ap., Rep. Pp. Hyd.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 6653 Tel

                              1



 THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
                     AND
  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

           CRIMINAL APPEAL No.230 of 2014
JUDGMENT:- (Per Hon'ble Dr.Justice Chillakur Sumalatha)

1.   Disputing the validity and illegality of the judgment

that is rendered by the Court of IX Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, in S.C.No.496 of 2012, dated

19.02.2014, the appellants, who are arrayed as Accused

Nos.1 to 3 in the said Sessions Cases, are before this

Court.


2.   Having found the 1st appellant guilty of the offence

punishable under Section 302 IPC and likewise, having

found the appellant Nos.2 & 3 guilty of the offence

punishable under Section 302 r/w.34 IPC, they were

convicted and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for

life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each.


3.   Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Rao, who argued on behalf of

Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel on record for

the appellants as well as the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor who represented the respondent-State.

Dr.CSL,J & ASR,J Crl.A.No.230 of 2014

4. The crux of the case as projected through the charge

sheet is that the deceased Manyam (hereinafter be referred

as 'the deceased' for brevity) had long standing disputes

with the appellants. The deceased, by doing sorcery, was

threatening the villagers. The appellants suspected that

the deceased through sorcery and by leaving excess water

to their garden, damaged the same. In that regard, they

bore grudge against the deceased. They discussed and

decided to eliminate the deceased. On 12.01.2012, the

appellants and accused No.4 went to the house of the

deceased at around 9.00 A.M. The deceased was found in

front of his house along with his family members. The 1st

appellant abused the deceased in filthy language.

Appellant Nos.2 & 3 caught hold of the deceased and

appellant No.1 stabbed the deceased in his stomach. They

dragged the deceased into the bazaar and slit his throat.

When his wife i.e. PW2 intervened, accused No.4 caught

hold of her and pushed her aside. The deceased died due

to profuse bleeding. The incident was witnessed by PWs 1

to 3, LW4 - Rajitha, LW5 - Saritha and others.

Appellant No.1 went to his house, washed the knife which

Dr.CSL,J & ASR,J Crl.A.No.230 of 2014

was used in the commission of offence and had hidden it in

a shelf.

5. On the complaint given by PW1, a case was registered

and was investigated into. The scene of offence was visited,

rough sketch was drawn and scene of offence panchanama

was drafted in the presence of mediators. Inquest was held

over the dead body of the deceased. Blood stained earth

and controlled earth were seized from the scene of offence.

The dead body was sent to Government Area Hospital,

Wanaparthy, for post-mortem examination and the Doctor

who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased,

opined that the death is due to Hypo Voluminic Shock and

Cardiac respiratory failure.

6. The charge sheet thus filed, was taken on file and the

case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The

Court of Sessions, on framing charges, recorded the

evidence of witnesses and on conducting trial, delivered the

judgment.

7. Subjecting the evidence of PWs 1 to 13, Exs.P1 to

P17, Exs.D1 to D4 and Mos.1 to 7 to scrutiny, the learned

Judge of the Sessions Court came to a conclusion that the

Dr.CSL,J & ASR,J Crl.A.No.230 of 2014

prosecution established the guilt of the appellant beyond

all reasonable doubt for the offences charged. However,

Accused No.4 was acquitted. Thus, in the light of the

aforementioned factual scenario, the points that emerge for

consideration are as follows:-

(i) Whether the prosecution established beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellants committed the offences charged?

(ii) Whether the appellants are entitled for acquittal basing on the lapses and lacunae in the evidence of prosecution witnesses?

(iii) Whether the judgment of the trial Court is sustainable in the eye of law?

8. POINT Nos. 1 & 2:-

Making his submission, learned counsel for the

appellants contended that the trial Court ought to have

acquitted the appellants in the light of the contradictions in

the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel

states that except the testimony of interested witnesses,

there is no other independent evidence on record to

connect the appellants with the crime. Learned counsel

states that the said evidence is incorrect as the cause of

death is not spoken by those witnesses in clear terms.

Dr.CSL,J & ASR,J Crl.A.No.230 of 2014

Learned counsel submitted that the trial Court grossly

erred in favouring the prosecuting agency though

prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of appellants

beyond all reasonable doubt. Learned counsel states that

there is no positive proof to conclude that the appellants

are responsible for the death of the deceased. Learned

counsel states that there are number of enemies to the

deceased as the deceased was practicing sorcery and

though the death of the deceased is not in dispute, it is not

the appellants who caused the said death. Learned

counsel also submitted that the motive for the appellants

to kill the deceased is not established by the prosecution

and the said fact itself is sufficient to set-aside the

judgment of the trial Court. By submitting thus, learned

counsel for the appellant seeks to acquit the appellants.

9. Opposing the submission thus made, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended

that there is no rule to hold that the evidence of eye

witnesses should be brushed aside only on the ground that

they are related to the victim. Learned Additional Public

Prosecutor submitted that the incident occurred when the

Dr.CSL,J & ASR,J Crl.A.No.230 of 2014

deceased was chitchatting with his family members and

therefore, naturally those family members would be the eye

witnesses to the incident and thus, there is nothing wrong

in relying upon the testimony of those family members as

they are the ocular witnesses to the incident. Learned

Additional Public Prosecutor also contended that when

there is a direct evidence, there is no requirement to

establish motive on part of the accused and thus, failure to

establish motive in clear terms is not fatal to the case of

the prosecution. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also

stated that the death of the deceased is established, cause

of death is established, that the accused are responsible for

the said death is also established and thus, the trial Court

has rightly convicted the appellants and therefore, the

judgment of the trial Court needs no interference.

10. In the light of the aforementioned submissions, now

it has to be seen whether the evidence produced by the

prosecuting agency has connected the appellants with the

crime in question.

11. PWs 1 & 3 are the sons of the deceased and PW2 is

the wife of the deceased. The evidence of PW1 is that his

Dr.CSL,J & ASR,J Crl.A.No.230 of 2014

father died one year eight months back. Themselves and

all the accused belongs to the same village and on

12.01.2012, at about 9.00 AM, while himself, his brother-

PW3, his mother-PW2, his wife and his father i.e. the

deceased were chitchatting in front of their house, at that

time, the appellants and accused No.4 came there.

Appellant Nos.2 & 3 caught hold of his father by shoulder

and Appellant No.3 held his father by his waist. Appellant

No.1 caught hold of the collar of his father and stabbed

him with a knife in his stomach and they dragged his

father on the road and appellant No.1 cut the throat of

his father with the same knife. When his mother

intervened to save his father, accused No.4 dragged her by

tuft of hair. Thereafter, they went away and on that, he

went to police station and presented Ex.P1-Complaint to

police. Identifying MO1-knife, PW1 stated that with the

said knife, appellant No.1 stabbed his father and cut his

throat. PW1 also deposed that appellant No.1 has a

relative by name Manyam in Pebbair village and the said

Manyam raised water-melon crop in a Government land

situated adjacent to their land and the excess water from

their paddy field flew into the said Government land and

Dr.CSL,J & ASR,J Crl.A.No.230 of 2014

on that, he filed a case against his father for damages. He

also stated that on the date of incident, they were talking

with regard to payment of damages to the said Manyam

and in the meanwhile, the appellant and Accused No.4

came to their house and caused the death of his father.

PW1, during the course of cross-examination, stated that

he did not state to police as in Ex.D1 to the effect that the

appellants are their agnates. He also stated that he did not

mention in Ex.P1-complaint that appellant Nos.2 & 3 held

his father with their hands by their shoulder and waist. He

also admitted that he did not state to police and he did not

mention in Ex.P1-Complaint that he can identify the knife.

He further admitted that the appellants and themselves are

not having any fields adjacent to each. Taking aid of this

statement, the learned counsel for the appellants

contended that when there is no land adjacent to each

other, the question of raising dispute regarding the landed

property does not arise. However, PW1, during the course

of chief examination, clearly stated that the relative of

Appellant No.1 by name Manyam, is having land adjacent

to their land and excess water flew from their paddy field to

the land of the said Manyam and there was discussion

Dr.CSL,J & ASR,J Crl.A.No.230 of 2014

amount the family members on the date of incident with

regard to payment of damages to the said Manyam.

12. PW2 corroborating the testimony of PW1 with regard

to the happening of incident, stated that the appellants and

accused No.4 suspected that they practiced sorcery to their

watermelon crop raised in the Government land and with

that suspicion, they caused the death of her husband.

13. The evidence of PW3 is that the relatives of appellant

No.1 raised watermelon crop adjacent to their land and the

said crop was damaged to some extent with the water from

their land and in that regard, damages were claimed. PW3

also stated that the relatives of Appellant No.1 asked them

to pay damages to an extent of Rs.50,000/- and they

agreed to pay Rs.20,000/-. He also stated that when they

were discussing the same subject matter, at that time, the

appellants, Accused No.4 and one Pedda Lakshmaiah,

came, abused his father and attacked him.

14. Thus, the motive for the offence is well established by

the prosecuting agency through the evidence of PWs 1 to 3.

However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for

the appellants, the other witnesses i.e. PWs 4 to 6 and

Dr.CSL,J & ASR,J Crl.A.No.230 of 2014

further the alleged panchayatdars also failed to support the

case of the prosecution. Likewise, even the alleged

panchayatdar i.e. PW9 in whose presence the alleged

confessional statement of Appellant No.1 was recorded,

also failed to support the case of the prosecution.

However, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is cogent, convincing

and consistent. As rightly argued by learned Additional

Public Prosecutor, only because they are the relatives of the

deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded. We

consider them to be the natural witnesses.

15. The cause of death is well established through the

evidence of PW11, who conducted post-mortem

examination over the dead body of the deceased and

through Ex.P11-Post mortem report. Though there is some

discrepancy with regard to exact time of offence, yet, by the

contents of Ex.P1, it is clear that the incident occurred

around 9.00 a.m. Taking aid of evidence of PW4, who

stated that he heard about the death of the deceased at

about 7.00 a.m., the evidence of PW5 that he saw the dead

body at about 6.00 a.m., learned counsel for the appellant

tried to project that the death did not occur at the time and

Dr.CSL,J & ASR,J Crl.A.No.230 of 2014

manner projected by the prosecuting agency. A small

mismatch of time does not in our considered opinion fatal

to the case of prosecution. Also, this Court is not inclined

to appreciate the evidence of PWs 4 & 5, who, though

stated that they are residing very near to the house of the

deceased, failed to state in clear terms what was observed

and perceived by them. Not that they have not supported

the case of the prosecution. However, their evidence goes to

show that they have exhibited hostility to give evidence

before the Court. That apart, even if the evidence of PWs 4

& 5 is believed regarding the time of incident and

observation of dead body, the said factor cannot throw

away the case of the prosecution. Admittedly, recovery of

weapon is not proved. The evidence of PW1 is that by the

time they went to police station, appellant No.1 was at

police station. Thus, having regard to the said statement

and as the witnesses to the alleged confessional statement

failed to support the case of the prosecution, this Court

holds that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged

recovery of weapon from appellant No.1. However, that

does not mean that the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 has to be

brushed aside. Those eye witnesses clearly spoke about

Dr.CSL,J & ASR,J Crl.A.No.230 of 2014

the manner in which the deceased was attacked and as to

how the appellants inflicted injuries to the deceased. The

prosecuting agency thus, have established through the

evidence of direct witnesses that it is the appellants who

attacked the deceased and caused his death. Therefore,

the points that are taken up for discussion are answered

accordingly.

16. POINT No.3:-

When the judgment of the trial Court is gone

through, this Court finds that the learned Judge of the trial

Court has discussed each and every aspect of the case and

gave clear findings. The learned Judge appreciating and

evaluating the entire evidence that is brought on record,

has come to a just conclusion that the prosecution has

established the guilt of the 1st appellant beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section

302 IPC and as regards to appellants 2 & 3 for the offence

punishable under Section 302 r/w. 34 IPC. Carrying

weapon with them and attacking the deceased inhumanly,

establishes their motive. Due to the injuries caused, the

deceased died instantaneously. Thus, this Court is of the

Dr.CSL,J & ASR,J Crl.A.No.230 of 2014

view that the learned Judge did not err in holding that the

appellants committed the offences charged. We do not find

any grounds whatsoever, more so, justifiable grounds to

interfere with the well reasoned findings of the trial Court.

Therefore, we hold that there are no grounds to interfere

with.

17. Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed

confirming the judgment of the Court of IX Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, in S.C.No.496 of

2012, dated 19.02.2014.

18. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

_______________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

_________________________________ JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

Dt. 09.12.2022 ysk

Dr.CSL,J & ASR,J Crl.A.No.230 of 2014

THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.230 of 2014

Dt.09.12.2022 ysk