Veera Venugopal vs The State Of A.P. Rep., By Its Pp
2022 Latest Caselaw 5120 Tel

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

                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No.823 of 2013

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha)


1.     Projecting that the judgment which is rendered by the

Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in

S.C.No.446 of 2012, dated 26.9.2013, is invalid in the eye

of law and thereby, seeking the Court to set aside the said

judgment, the accused therein preferred the present

Criminal Appeal.

2.       Having found the appellant-accused guilty of the

offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the trial Court

sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay

fine of Rs.1,000/-.

3.     Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the

appellant and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor who

is representing the respondent-State.

4. The facts of the case as detailed in the charge sheet, if

narrated in a narrower compass, are that the deceased -

Anusha (hereinafter be referred to as "the deceased" for the

sake of convenience of discussion) was residing at Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J

Hyderabad. She was working as Sales woman in a shop.

P.W.1 is the younger brother of the deceased. The

appellant, who married one Nirmala and having two

children, came into contact with the deceased and

developed intimacy with her. Ten months prior to the date

of the incident, the appellant and the deceased approached

P.W.2 projecting themselves to be husband and wife and

sought to let out a portion of her house. Considering them

to be husband and wife, a portion in the first floor of the

house was let out to them on monthly rent of Rs.1,200/- by

P.W.2. Since then, both of them started residing together

at the said house. For the past few days to the date of the

incident, the appellant was avoiding the deceased so as to

set right his disturbed family. In that regard, the deceased

used to pick up quarrel with the appellant and was

insisting him not to visit his family. In the light of her

aggressive attitude, the appellant decided to eliminate her.

On 15.01.2012, at about 6.00 pm, the appellant went to

the deceased after attending his duty. The deceased picked

up a quarrel with the appellant. Heated arguments were

exchanged between them. On hearing the same, the house Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J

owner-P.W.2 approached them and advised them not to

quarrel. Later, P.W.2 left the place. Taking advantage of the

absence of the neighbours and that the deceased was

alone, the appellant beat the deceased with a wooden

kitchen instrument (pappu guthi) on her fore head and

caused injury. Thereafter, the appellant took a chunny, tied

the same around the neck of the deceased, strangulated

her and also pressed her face with a pillow. By so, the

appellant killed the deceased. After confirming the death of

the deceased, the appellant kept the chunny under the

clothes in the said room and left the premises by latching

the door outside.

5. On noticing that the door of the house was latched

outside and there was no response from inside even after

repeated calls, P.W.2 along with a local leader opened the

door and found the deceased dead with bleeding injuries.

Then, P.W.2 gave information to P.W.1, who is the brother

of the deceased, and on that, P.W.1 rushed to the spot

along with the family members and found the dead body of

his sister (deceased) with bleeding injuries. On that, he

gave a complaint to Police. A case was registered basing on Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J

the complaint given and thereafter, the scene of offence

panchanama was drafted and the dead body of the

deceased was shifted to mortuary of Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad and a requisition was given for conducting

post-mortem examination. Subsequently, on receiving

credible information, the appellant was apprehended on

18.01.2012 and on interrogation in the presence of the

panchayatdars, he confessed commission of offence and

basing on his confessional statement, the material objects

which were used for commission of offence were seized.

6. The above set of facts formed basis for the State to

prosecute the appellant. Having found the appellant guilty

of the offence charged, the trial Court convicted him. The

judgment thus rendered is under challenge in this Criminal

Appeal.

7. Factual scenario being thus, the points that

culminates for consideration are:

1. Whether the prosecution established beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under Section 302 IPC.

                                                              Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J





             2. Whether    the       trial   court     erred     in
               appreciating the facts of the case in

their right perspective, as contended by the appellant, and thereby, arrived at a wrong conclusion, which in turn requires interference of this Court exercising appellate jurisdiction.

8.POINT No.1:-

The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 10, Exs.P-1 to 13 and

M.Os.1 to 5 formed basis for the trial Court to convict the

appellant. However, the contention of the learned counsel

for the appellant is that the prosecution has absolutely and

miserably failed to establish the charge levelled against the

appellant.

9. Making his submission, the learned counsel for the

appellant contended that the death of the deceased was not

homicidal. Learned counsel states that one of the essential

ingredients of the offence of culpable homicide is to prove

that the person charged has caused the death of another

person. Learned counsel states that the prosecution is,

therefore, under obligation to establish the cause of death Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J

and that the death is homicidal. Learned counsel states

that there is no trustworthy evidence unerringly leading to

an inference that the death of the deceased is homicidal

and thus, on that ground alone, the appellant is entitled

for acquittal.

10. Vehemently opposing the said submission, the

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the

evidence of P.W.7 and Ex.P-8-Post-mortem examination

report have clearly established that the death of the

deceased is homicidal and nothing more is required to

establish the said fact. As rightly projected by the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor, the death of the deceased is

not natural. The evidence of P.W.7 is that on 16.01.2012,

he received requisition from Police to conduct post-mortem

examination over the dead body of the deceased and

accordingly, he conducted post-mortem examination. He

deposed that he found a lacerated injury of 3 x 2 cms bone

deep with surrounding contusion present over left side of

forehead and on opening of skull, he found diffused

subdural contusion present over left frontal lobe of brain.

He also stated that he found contusion of 3 x 2 cms at Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J

1 cm outer to angle of right side of mouth and also

contusion of 2 x 1 cm, at 1 cm outer to angle of left side of

mouth. He further deposed that he found ante-mortem

dark red pressure abrasion i.e., ligature mark measuring

30 x 3 cm placed obliquely on and above thyroid cartilage

running upwards and backwards on both sides of neck

with a gap on back of neck. Ligature mark is hard end

patchment like on feel and on cut section, underlined neck

structures are severely contused, bruises seen over base of

tongue and in neck muscles. Inward fractures of greater

horn of Thyroid bone on both sides seen and these injuries

are ante-mortem in nature. He also stated that the cause of

death, to the best of his knowledge and belief, was due to

asphyxia due to ligature strangulation associated with

head injury.

11. Though P.W.7 was subjected to extensive cross-

examination by the learned counsel for the appellant before

the trial Court, nothing could be elicited through him to

discredit his testimony. Further more, the evidence of the

crucial witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 4 is more than sufficient to

hold that the death of the deceased is not natural and it is Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J

homicidal. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the

argument of the learned counsel for the appellant in this

regard needs no appreciation.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant during the course

of his submission, high-lighted the absence of any direct

evidence regarding the happening of the incident. In this

regard, as rightly projected by the learned counsel for the

appellant, the whole prosecution case rests on the

circumstantial evidence.

13. The submission of the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor is that P.W.2 has seen the appellant and the

deceased quarrelling with each other and soon thereafter,

the deceased was found dead and therefore, it is for the

appellant to explain the circumstances by which the

deceased was found dead. The learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor also contended that by all the evidence the

prosecution has produced, it has clearly established before

the trial Court that the appellant is responsible for the

death of the deceased.

14. Though P.W.1 deposed that he has not seen the

appellant in association with the deceased directly, Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J

however, his evidence established that his sister i.e., the

deceased used to stay along with the appellant. The

evidence of P.W.1 is that the husband of the deceased left

her and subsequently, she started staying with one Venu

Gopal. He had no acquaintance with the said Venu Gopal,

but he had seen the family photograph of Venu Gopal and

the said Venu Gopal is the appellant. He further stated

that on 16.01.2012, he was informed by P.W.2 over phone

that his sister-Anusha died and that the dead body is lying

in a pool of blood and on that, he immediately along with

family members reached the house of the deceased and

found the dead body of the deceased and on enquiry, he

was informed by P.W.2 that there was a quarrel between

the deceased and the appellant on the previous day and

she pacified the matter and on the same day evening, the

appellant went away. He further deposed that on the same

night, at about 11.00 pm., another tenant by name-

Archana and her husband came home and slept at their

house and the said Archana woke at about 1.00 am and

found the door of the house of the deceased latched from

outside and she went and slept at her house. On the next Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J

day morning, at about 10.00 am., when she saw the door

of the house of the deceased bolted from outside, she

informed the same to the house owner-P.W.2 and P.W.2

approached the elders, brought them, opened the door and

found the dead body of the deceased and that, P.W.2

informed the matter to him.

15. The evidence of P.W.2 is that she owns a house at

Borabanda, Hyderabad. The appellant and the deceased

informed her that they are husband and wife and they

occupied one of the portions of her house as tenants. P.W.8

and his wife used to reside in another portion. She deposed

that on 15.01.2012, at about 6.00 pm., there was a quarrel

between the appellant and the deceased and on hearing the

said quarrel, she went to them and pacified the matter by

admonishing them. The appellant came down from the first

floor at about 7.00 or 7.30 pm. P.W.8 and his wife came to

house at about 12 mid night and on the next day morning,

the wife of P.W.8 informed her that the door of the house of

the deceased was bolted from outside and the light and the

fan were put on. On that, she went to the upstairs and

called the deceased, but there was no response. She got Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J

scared and went to a basti leader i.e., P.W.3 and all of them

opened the door of the house of the deceased and found

the deceased lying dead on the floor in a pool of blood on a

bed sheet. She found an injury on the head of the

deceased. She informed the matter to P.W-1-brother of the

deceased and the brother of the deceased came along with

family members and lodged a complaint to Police.

16. The evidence of P.W-2 is corroborated by the

testimony of P.W-3 who stated that on the request of

P.W-2, he accompanied her to the first floor of her house,

opened the door which was bolted from outside and found

the deceased lying dead on the floor. The evidence of

P.Ws.2 and 3 is further corroborated by the evidence of

P.W.8, who deposed that he is residing in a portion at the

first floor of the house of P.W.2 as tenant and the deceased

and the appellant used to reside in the other portion. He

stated that on the eve of Sankranthi festival in the year

2012, himself and his wife went to his in-laws' house and

returned to their house in the mid night and found the

tube light and fan put on at the house of the appellant and

the latch was put outside the front door. On the next day, Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J

they woke up at 9.00 am and found the tube light and fan

put on and the latch was put outside. On that, he informed

the matter to P.W.2 and P.W.2 observed the same and

informed the matter to P.W.3 and both of them removed

the latch and found the deceased dead on the floor with a

blood stained injury. However, P.W.8 stated that the

appellant and the deceased were having cordial terms.

Except the said statement, he supported the entire version

of the prosecution.

17. By the evidence thus produced, it is abundantly

clear that on the date of the incident, a quarrel ensued

between the deceased and the appellant and the same was

subsided by P.W.2. It is not the case that there was theft of

any articles from the house of the deceased or that, there

was possibility for anyone to enter the said house and kill

the deceased. That apart, the deceased was seen with the

appellant by P.W.2 soon before the incident. As per the

evidence of P.W.2, it is the appellant who was found leaving

the house immediately after the quarrel. It is not the case

that anyone thereafter entered the house or climbed the

stairs. There is no material whatsoever to show that the Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J

appellant was having differences with anyone, more so,

with P.W.8 and his family members. Further more, as

rightly observed by the trial Court, there is no reason either

for P.W.1 or P.W.2 or P.W.8 to implicate the appellant in a

false case.

18. That apart, the prosecution has also established in

clear terms, that basing on the confessional statement of

the appellant, the material objects used for commission of

offence were recovered. The evidence of P.W.6 in that

regard is that in the month of January, 2012, on one day,

police called him to S.R. Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad,

to act as panch witness and in his presence and in the

presence of another panch witness, the appellant confessed

commission of offence and led them to Borabanda to a tin

sheets room situated at upstairs and had shown them a

pappu guthi and one orange coloured chunny and police

seized those objects under the cover of Ex.P-6-

Panchanama and M.Os.4 and 5 are those articles. This

Court does not find any justifiable grounds to discredit the

said testimony. Thus, by all the evidence produced, the

prosecution succeeded in establishing the culpability of the Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J

appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Though there is no

direct evidence, the chain of circumstances is clearly

established so as to connect the crime with that of the

appellant. The prosecution thus has clearly established the

guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt for the

charge levelled.

19. POINT No.2:-

Though the appellant raised number of grounds

contradicting the judgment of the trial Court, in the

discussion that went on in the preceding point, the mind of

this Court is made clear that the prosecution succeeded in

establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond all

reasonable doubt. Further more, when the judgment of the

trial Court is perused, this Court finds that the learned

judge of the trial Court has discussed each and every

aspect of the case and applied the established principles of

law to the said facts and thereby, arrived at a just

conclusion. None of the grounds urged by the appellant,

therefore, can be appreciated so as to set aside the well-

reasoned judgment of the trial Court. This Court does not

find any grounds, more so, justifiable grounds to honour Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J

the request of the appellant to set aside the impugned

judgment and thereby, to acquit him. Therefore, this Court

is of the view that this Criminal Appeal lacks merits.

20. Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The

judgment that is rendered by the Court of Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in S.C.No.446 of 2012, dated

26.9.2013 is, therefore, confirmed.

21. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

_________________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 14.10.2022 dr