Dheeravath Sankar Naik vs The State Of A.P.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 5122 Tel

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

                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No.209 of 2014

JUDGMENT: (per Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha)


1.     Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is the judgment

that is rendered by the Court of III Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District in S.C.No.583 of

2012, dated 20.11.2013. The appellant was found guilty of

the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and thereby,

he    was      convicted      and      was        sentenced   to   suffer

imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-.

Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the

appellant is before this Court.

2.     Heard Ms. M.Bhagyasri, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant, and the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor who is representing the respondent-State.

3. Making her submission, the learned counsel for the

appellant contended that the trial Court erred in convicting

the appellant without there being any convincing evidence

on record in proof of the guilt of the appellant for the Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J

charge levelled. Learned counsel further contended that the

judgment of the trial Court is based on assumptions and

presumptions and the learned judge of the trial Court

ought not to have relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4.

On relying upon the evidence of those witnesses, the

learned judge of the trial court came to an erroneous

conclusion and thereby, convicted the appellant. Learned

counsel further contends that when the motive for the

incident was not established by the prosecution, the

appellant ought to have been acquitted, but he was

convicted by the trial court unjustly. She further contends

that the impugned judgment of the trial court depicts that

basing on the last scene theory, conviction was based, but,

when the motive was not made out, the last scene theory

ought not to have been applied. The evidence of P.Ws.3 and

4 is contradictory to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. But, the

learned judge of the trial court came to a conclusion that

P.Ws.3 and 4 supported the case of the prosecution. When

there are no direct witnesses to the alleged incident, basing

conviction on the sole testimony of P.W-3, that too, which

is uncorroborated, is unjustifiable. By stating so, the Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J

learned counsel for the appellant seeks to set aside the

impugned judgment and thereby, to acquit the appellant.

4. Contradicting the submission made by the learned

counsel for the appellant, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor arguing in respect of the merits of the case,

contended that the acquaintance between the appellant

and the person whom he killed is established by the

prosecution through the evidence of the material witnesses

and furthermore, on the date of the incident, the appellant

and the deceased were seen together not only by P.W-3 but

also by P.W-4. Further more, an altercation regarding the

missing of amount took place between those two persons

and the same was observed by the material witnesses and

within no time, the person who was with the appellant i.e.,

the deceased, was found dead, that too, not at a far off

place and all these facts were established by the

prosecution before the trial court beyond all reasonable

doubt and therefore, the trial court by appreciating the said

evidence, rightly convicted the appellant and hence, there

are no grounds whatsoever to interfere with the said well-

reasoned judgment of the trial Court. Thus, the learned Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J

Assistant Public Prosecutor ultimately prays the Court to

confirm the conviction and sentence passed against the

appellant by the trial court.

5. In the light of the afore-mentioned submissions thus

made, the points that arise for consideration are:

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

2. Whether the trial court erred in appreciating the facts of the case and in applying the established principles of law, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant.

6.POINT No.1:-

The matrix of the prosecution case, as could be

perceived through the contents of the charge sheet, is that

the deceased-Sunkapalli Narahari (hereinafter be referred

to as "the deceased" for the sake of convenience of

discussion) used to work as Carpenter and was residing at

Sri Ram Nagar Colony, Balaji Nagar, Shamirpet Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District. The appellant used to work in a wine Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J

shop and used to reside at foot path of Balaji Nagar. He

used to sell empty liquor bottles and make money. He was

having acquaintance with the deceased. Both of them used

to consume liquor frequently. After consuming liquor, the

deceased used to go to his house and the appellant used to

sleep on the foot path. On every meeting, the appellant

used to miss his hard-earned money. The appellant

suspected that every time after consuming liquor, the

deceased is committing theft of his money from his pocket.

To enquire the said fact, the appellant used to approach

the house of the deceased. But every time, the deceased

and his family members used to send the appellant back.

Due to losing money, the appellant developed grudge

against the deceased and threatened him with dire

consequences. On 01.4.2012, while the appellant was in

deep sleep, at about 4.00 am, the deceased approached the

appellant, woke him up and called him for having a cup of

tea at Balaji Nagar bus stop, but the appellant refused. On

that, the deceased left the appellant and went to Balaji

Nagar Bus stop and was having tea. The appellant woke up

and found a sum of Rs.300/- missing from his pocket.

Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J

Immediately, suspecting the deceased, the appellant

approached the deceased and caused enquiries about his

money. The deceased denied the allegation. However, as he

was losing money on every meeting with the deceased, the

appellant decided to eliminate the deceased and

accordingly, he dragged the deceased from the tea stall

towards Sri Sai Jewellery shop. One auto driver by name

G.Vijay Kumar (P.W-3) found the deceased and the

appellant quarrelling with each other regarding the theft of

money. Near Sri Sai Jewellery shop, the appellant noosed

the neck of the deceased with a towel by taking support of

an iron pipe and thereby, killed him. On the complaint

given by the son of the deceased i.e., P.W-1, a case was

registered and was investigated into. The scene of offence

was photographed, a panchanama was conducted, a rough

sketch of the scene of offence was drawn and the dead

body was sent for autopsy. On 08.4.2012, the appellant

was apprehended and that, on interrogation, he confessed

the commission of offence in front of the panchayatdars.

The doctor, who conducted autopsy, opined that the death Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J

is due to manual strangulation. Thus, the appellant

rendered himself liable for punishment.

7. Subjecting the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8, Exs.P-1 to P-7

and M.O-1 to scrutiny, the learned judge of the trial court

came to a conclusion that the prosecution succeeded in

establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond all

reasonable doubt for the charge levelled and thereby,

convicted him.

8. The prosecution case, as rightly projected by the

learned counsel for the appellant, totally rests upon the

circumstantial evidence. Sufficient material is produced by

the prosecution in proof of the fact that the deceased was

last seen with the appellant and that, very soon thereafter,

he was found dead, that too, very near to the place where

they were last seen together. The fact that the appellant

was suspecting the deceased regarding missing of his

money is also established by the prosecution through the

witnesses it examined.

9. The evidence of P.W-1 is that the deceased is his

father and on the date of the incident, his father left the

house at 4.00 am to have a cup of tea. His father and the Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J

appellant used to meet at tea stall everyday. He further

stated that on the date of the incident, at 5.00 am., one

Anil Kumar came to his house and informed him that his

father was found dead at Sri Sai Jewellery Shop and on

that, himself and his family members rushed to the spot

and found his father hanged with a towel to an iron pipe,

which was present in front of Sri Sai Jewellery shop, and

on that, he gave report to Police. P.W-1 also stated that the

appellant visited his house on two or three occasions and

demanded his father to return money which he borrowed

and in that connection, there were disputes between his

father and the appellant.

10. P.W-2-the wife of the deceased deposed on the same

lines of P.W-1. Though both the witnesses were subjected

to cross-examination, no material points could be elicited

through them to discredit their testimony about the

disputes between the appellant and the deceased, the

deceased leaving the house at 4.00 am on the date of the

incident and also regarding the scene of offence.

11. The prosecution rests its case mainly upon the

evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4. The evidence of P.W-4 is that he Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J

is running a tea stall at Balaji Nagar Bus stop. The

deceased now and then used to come to his tea stall to

have a cup of tea. He is in the habit of opening his tea stall

at 4.00 am. On the date of the incident, the deceased and

the appellant came to his tea stall at 4.00 am., had a cup

of tea and the appellant took the deceased along with him.

He also stated that the appellant was telling that he lost

his money and that, both of them were discussing about

money. About 15 to 30 minutes thereafter, he came to

know that the appellant hanged the deceased and the

deceased died. He visited the place of offence and found the

deceased hanging to an iron pipe with a towel. During the

course of cross-examination, P.W-4 stated that when both

of them left his tea stall, they were discussing about

money. He also stated that on the date of the incident, the

deceased and the appellant came to his tea stall in between

4.30 am and 5.00 am.

12. Coming to the evidence of P.W-3, he deposed that

P.W-4 is running a push cart tea stall near Balaji Nagar

bus stand and he got acquaintance with the deceased at

the said tea stall as they used to meet there. On the date of Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J

the incident, at 4.00 am., he went to the tea stall to have a

cup of tea and after some time, the deceased came there.

While both of them were having tea, the appellant came

there and started demanding the deceased to give his

money. So saying, the appellant dragged the deceased to a

gully where a jewellery shop is situated. After some time,

he proceeded towards the said shop and found the

deceased hanging to an iron pipe with the help of a towel

which was tied to his neck. The appellant ran towards the

wine shop gully and hid. P.W-3 during the course of cross-

examination, deposed that the distance between the scene

of offence and the tea stall is about 50 yards. He also

stated that there are no lights in the gully and it was dark.

13. Thus, by the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, it is

abundantly clear that the deceased was found present with

the appellant at the tea stall on the date of the incident, a

discussion went on between them regarding the missing

amount and later, both of them left the place towards the

gully where the deceased was found dead.

Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J

14. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 establishes that there

were instances where the appellant approached the

deceased and demanded him to pay the amount.

15. Therefore, the facts that P.W-4 was running a tea

stall at Balaji Nagar bus stop; that P.W-3 used to visit the

said tea stall regularly for having tea; that P.W-3 having

acquaintance with the deceased; that the deceased also

used to visit the said tea stall for having tea; and that, on

the date of the incident, P.Ws.3 and 4 found the deceased

in the company of the appellant, cannot be doubted in the

light of the convincing evidence produced by the

prosecution to that effect. Though P.W-3 stated that the

appellant dragged the deceased and P.W-4 stated that the

deceased and the appellant left the place, the said

discrepancy is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The

evidence of both these witnesses is that there was a

discussion between the appellant and the deceased about

the missing of amount from the possession of the

appellant.

16. By the evidence of P.W-3, it is also clear that the

scene of offence is located at a distance of about 50 yards Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J

from the tea stall. Though responsibility heavily rests upon

the prosecution to establish its version beyond all

reasonable doubt, yet when a fact is within the special

knowledge of any person, it is for that person to explain

and establish the said fact. Thus, it is for the appellant at

least to offer a plausible explanation as to what happened

after both of them i.e., himself and the deceased left the tea

stall on the date of the incident. But, no explanation

whatsoever is given by the appellant at least during the

course of 313 Cr.P.C. examination. That apart, the cause of

death of the deceased is not in dispute.

17. The evidence of P.W.6 and Ex.P-6-Post-mortem

examination report reveals that the cause of death of the

deceased is due to manual strangulation. P.W-6 clearly

stated that he found an anti-mortem ligature mark below

the thyroid cartilage in front of the neck of the deceased

measuring 17 x 3 cms. He further stated that the left

thyroid horn was found fractured at its tip. Thus, the

cause of death of the deceased is also established by the

prosecution.

Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J

18. Though, as rightly contended by the learned

counsel for the appellant, the alleged confession of the

appellant regarding the commission of offence is

inadmissible in evidence, yet the other evidence produced

by the prosecution establishes the culpability of the

appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus, the

prosecution, by all the evidence it has produced, has

clearly established the fact that the appellant, who entered

into conversation with the deceased on the date of the

incident regarding missing of his amount, has caused his

death by strangulation. The motive is also established.

Therefore, this court is of the view that the convincing

evidence produced by the prosecution can be relied upon to

hold that the appellant committed the offence charged.

19.Point No.2:-

When the judgment of the trial Court is looked into,

this Court finds that the learned judge of the trial Court

has appreciated the facts of the case in a right perspective

and applied the established principles of law to the said

facts. The learned judge, thereby, came to a just

conclusion. None of the grounds urged by the appellant Dr.CSL , J & SAR, J

can be applied to come to a different conclusion than that

of the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court. Therefore,

this Court holds that there are no grounds whatsoever to

interfere with the said well-reasoned judgment of the trial

Court and to set aside the conviction and sentence

imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court.

20. Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The

judgment that is rendered by the Court of III Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District in

S.C.No.583 of 2012, dated 20.11.2013 is, therefore,

confirmed.

21. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

______________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

_________________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J

14.10.2022 dr