Chevula Hanmanth A1, ... vs State Of Ap., Rep. Pp., Hyd.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4973 Tel

       THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
                        AND
        THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.410 of 2013

                       JUDGMENT

(per Justice P.Sree Sudha)

1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment

dated 29.04.2013 rendered in Sessions Case No.223 of 2012

on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar,

whereby the appellants-accused are found guilty of the

charges under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and Section 506

read with 34 IPC and convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.

and the appellants-accused are sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each for

the offence Under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in nut shell is that Chevula

Pedda Venkatesh is elder son of P.W.1-Chevula Thammanna

and husband of P.W.2-Chevula Santhamma. The appellants-

accused are brothers and related to the deceased as cousins.

The first accused developed enmity against Chevula Pedda

Venkatesh as he suspected that there was illegal intimacy

between Chevula Pedda Venkatesh and the wife of the first

accused. The first accused along with his brother threatened

Chevula Pedda Venkatesh to kill him if he continues his

illegal contacts with the wife of the first accused. The

community elders intervened and subsided the matter but

the accused decided to kill Chevula Pedda Venkatesh and

was waiting for an opportunity. On 17.03.2011 early hours

accused found Chevula Pedda Venkatesh proceeding alone to

attend the nature calls and they followed him with knives and

when they reached land of Basi Reddy, both the accused

attacked Chevula Pedda Venkatesh and stabbed him. The

father of Chevula Pedda Venkatesh was also following the

accused and went to rescue his son but the accused pushed

him, beat him and stabbed Chevula Pedda Venkatesh on the

left side of chest and as a result of which he died on the spot.

Accused also threatened P.W.1 with dire consequences but he

gave complaint in Crime No.41 of 2011 and it was registered

as FIR as Ex.P.6 for the offences under Sections 302, 323 and

506 r/w 34 IPC.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants-

accused and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the

State.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants-accused would

contend that the trial Court rests the entire case on the

evidence of interested witnesses-P.Ws.1 to 5 and that P.W.1

is a planted witness and there is no occasion for him to

witness the incident. Learned counsel would further assert

that the deceased was having so many enemies and

somebody might have killed him, but the prosecution failed to

examine the independent witness-L.W.4 and as such there is

no corroboration for the testimony of P.W.1. Moreover, there

was enmity between P.W.1 and the accused and hence

implication of the accused cannot be ruled out. Learned

counsel would also argue that there are several discrepancies

in the evidence of eye witnesses and the medical evidence is

not corroborated with ocular evidence and thus requested the

Court to set aside the judgment of the trial Court and acquit

the accused.

5. P.W.6 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the

dead body. He stated that the death of the deceased is due to

cardio respiratory arrest, as a result of hemorrhage and

shock due to penetrating injury to heart. Scene of offence

panchanama was prepared under Ex.P2 and one broken

knife M.O.2 was recovered. Blood stained shirt of P.W.1 was

also recovered at the scene of offence. Inquest panchanama

was conducted under Ex.P3. When the first accused

surrendered before the Police Station with injury to the left

hand fingers on 17.03.2011, he admitted the guilt and

thereafter he was taken into custody and referred to the

Government Hospital, Narayanpet, and his confessional

statement was recorded and at his instance M.O.1 knife was

recovered from the bushes located in the land of Narsi Reddy

and he was arrested on the same day. The second accused

was arrested on 24.03.2011 at about 4:00 PM at Narayanpet

Bus Stand and as he admitted the guilt he was also

remanded to judicial custody. P.W.8 filed charge sheet

against accused. Cognizance was taken by the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet, against the accused in

P.R.C.No.4 of 2012 and it was committed to the Court of

Sessions, Mahabubnagar, and the case is assigned

S.C.No.223 of 2012. When accused appeared before the

Court the charges were read over and explained to them for

which they pleaded not guilty.

6. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked

Exs.P1 to P10 on its behalf and also marked M.Os.1 to 7. No

defence witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused.

The trial Court considering the entire evidence on record

convicted the accused.

7. The main contention of the appellants herein is that the

trial Court relied upon the evidence of P.W.1-father of the

deceased, who is an interested testimony. Moreover, there

were disputes between the deceased and the accused and as

such there is every scope for implication of the accused. The

defence of the accused is that the deceased was having

number of enemies as he belongs to CPI(ML) group and

somebody might have killed him taking advantage of the

disputes between the accused and deceased and that the

accused were falsely roped in the case. The appellants also

contended that Bangari Mogulappa-L.W.4 was an

independent witness but he was given up by the prosecution

for the reasons best known to them, and therefore, the

evidence of P.W.1 is doubtful and cannot be relied upon for

basing the conviction. Learned counsel for the accused also

argued that while deceased was going to attend the nature

calls along with tumbler, the accused attacked him but the

tumbler was not recovered from the scene of offence and

therefore the version of the P.W.1 that the accused killed the

deceased while he is going to attend the nature calls was not

established. Learned counsel also contended that P.W.1 is a

planted witness and he never witnessed the incident.

8. P.W.1 deposed that the accused stabbed his son with

knive and he died on the spot and it was supported by the

medical evidence P.W.6 and Ex.P5 postmortem report and

thus prosecution was able to establish that it is a case of

homicide. P.W.1 stated that when the accused was stabbing

his son, he intervened and tried to rescue his son but

accused stabbed him also and thrown him away and later

threatened him with dire consequences. P.W.1 blood stained

shirt was also seized as M.O.5 and it clearly proves his

presence in the scene of offence. Though the prosecution

submitted that there were several enemies to the deceased

and there is enmity between the deceased and the accused,

no evidence was let in support of their contention. Of course,

P.W.1 stated the motive for the offence as the suspicion of

first accused against the deceased. The first accused

suspected illicit intimacy of his wife with deceased about one

year back and threatened to kill him but the elders of the

community intervened and subsided the matter. Even then

the first accused developed grouse against the deceased and

waiting for an opportunity to kill him and on 17.03.2011

when deceased was going alone to attend the nature calls, the

first accused along with his brother second accused followed

the deceased with knives stabbed him on the left side of the

chest as a result he died on the spot.

9. It is for the prosecution to prove the intention of the

accused in killing the deceased. In this case the first accused

developed grouse against the deceased and planned to kill

him and accordingly the first accused along with his brother

followed the deceased with knives and also stabbed him on

the vital part of the body as a result of which the deceased

died on the spot and it clearly shows the gravity of the

intention of the first accused on his part to kill the deceased.

There was intention, preparation and attempt and the injury

caused by him is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to

cause death and the first accused clearly knows that the

injury caused by him will cause the death of the deceased.

When the incident happened at about 6:00 AM P.W.1 gave

complaint at about 8:00 AM immediately after the occurrence

of the incident and thus there is no delay in lodging the FIR.

There is no scope for P.W.1 to implicate the accused. P.W.2,

wife of the deceased, also deposed that her husband went

towards the fields for attending the nature calls and her

father-in-law also followed her husband. She further stated

that on hearing the cries of her father-in-law, she rushed to

the spot and found her husband dead and also P.W.1 with

injuries. P.W.3 is another chance witness. He came to know

about the incident from P.W.1 and he also stated about the

motive of the accused to kill the accused. He further stated

that there were ill feelings and enmity between the deceased

and the first accused prior to the alleged incident. P.W.1

stated before the police that both the accused stabbed his

son but when he was examined before the Court after one

year he stated that the first accused stabbed his son and the

second accused caught hold of his son and when his son

collapsed due to injuries, accused left the scene. The

argument of the defence counsel is if at all P.W.1 is an eye

witness to the incident, there should not have any variation

regarding crucial fact that who stabbed the deceased and it is

a material variation in the evidence of P.W.1 and hence the

benefit of it is to be extended to the accused. But, the trial

Court observed that as P.W.1 was father of the deceased he

tried to rescue his son and he also sustained injuries, in the

meanwhile he was more particular about the safety of his son

and as such minor discrepancies in his evidence will not go to

the root of the case.

10. Admittedly, the offence was committed in the early of

the morning when the deceased was proceeding to attend the

nature calls and there is no scope for anyone to witness the

incident. As P.W.1 noticed the accused following his son, he

also went there and his presence was amply established by

the prosecution. P.W.1 made his best efforts to rescue his son

and he also sustained injuries. His shirt was recovered by the

police which establishes his presence at the scene of offence

and he clearly stated that the accused stabbed his son with

knives and due to the injuries sustained he collapsed

immediately. P.W.1 also gave complaint within two hours at

8:00 AM and as such there is no reason for the Court to

disbelieve his testimony.

11. The material object-weapon used in the offence was

recovered at the instance of the accused. Accused also

sustained injuries to the left hand fingers. The case of the

prosecution is that first accused sustained injuries and

immediately surrendered before the police on 17.03.2011

itself and he referred to the hospital for treatment and at his

instance M.O.1 knife was recovered. P.W.5 in his evidence

stated that on the next day of the murder he called to the

police station and at that time he enquired the first accused

and in pursuance of the confession, M.O.1 knife was

recovered under Ex.P4. The learned counsel for the

appellants stated that the first accused was surrendered on

the day of the incident ie., on 17.03.2011 itself, but P.W.5

stated that he noticed his presence on the next day. But

when he was recalled for further chief-examination he stated

that on 17.03.2011 Chevula Pedda Venkatesh died and he

found A.1 in the police station on the same day at about 3:00

PM. The trial Court observed that the evidence of P.W.5 is

consistent with regard to confession leading to recovery of

weapon-M.O.1 and it is admissible under Section 27 of the

Indian Evidence Act. It was also observed by the trial Court

that the first accused sustained injuries to the left hand

fingers at the time of commission of offence and there is no

explanation from the side of the defence how he sustained

injuries and there no evidence that he sustained injuries in a

group rivalry while exercising his right of private defence. The

chain of circumstances of date and time of offence, surrender

of accused immediately after the incident, his referral to the

Government Area Hospital, Narayanpet, for treatment and

recording of his confessional statement and recovery of

weapon at his instance under Ex.P4 clearly proves his

involvement in the offence along with his brother. The trial

Court also observed that ocular evidence is corroborating

with the medical evidence and there is direct nexus between

the injuries sustained in the hands of accused and the death

of the deceased and that the injury inflicted by the first

accused in the ordinary course of nature is sufficient to cause

death. The deceased sustained piercing/penetrating injury to

heart as a result he died due to cardio respiratory arrest. The

prosecution amply established that the deceased died due to

the injuries caused by the accused and the said injuries are

sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

12. As regards the second accused, in pursuance of

common intention he accompanied the first accused along

with knife and attacked deceased and stabbed him on the left

side of the chest and other parts of the body indiscriminately

and also threatened P.W.1 and as such he is also equally

guilty along with the first accused. The trial Court rightly

considered the entire evidence on record and after

appreciating and analyzing the evidence on record, convicted

both the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and

506 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo

imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.100/- for an offence

under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and rigorous

imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section

506 r/w Section 34 IPC. Therefore, this Court finds no reason

to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court.

13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the

judgment dated 29.04.2013 in Sessions Case No.223 of 2012

on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

___________________ P.SREE SUDHA, J

____________________ Dr.D.NAGARJUN, J 10th OCTOBER, 2022.

PGS