Chinningi Venkatesh, Medak vs P.P., Hyd
2022 Latest Caselaw 5420 Tel

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

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.818 of 2014

JUDGMENT: (per Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha)


1.    Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is the judgment

that is rendered by the Court of VIII Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Medak, in S.C.No.452 of 2012, dated

20.02.2014.

2.       The appellant, who is arrayed as accused No.1 in the

afore-mentioned Sessions Case, having been found guilty of

the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, was

convicted and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for

life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the said

conviction and sentence, he preferred the present Criminal

Appeal.

3.    Heard Smt. Nandita Guha, learned counsel for the

appellant, and Sri Khaja Vizarath Ali, the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor who is representing the respondent-

State.

Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J

4. The narration of events by the prosecuting agency in

charge sheet, in brief, are that the appellant married the

deceased-Sujatha @ Bharathi (hereinafter be referred to as

"the deceased" for brevity) about six years prior to the date

of incident. Out of their wed lock, they were blessed with a

son and a daughter. The appellant was wandering idle

ignoring his wife and children. Having been addicted to all

bad vices, including consumption of alcohol, he was

torturing the deceased mentally and physically, demanding

to provide money for his bad vices. The deceased used to

work as Vidhya volunteer in a Government Primary School

and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month. She was also

getting Rs.500/- per month towards pension as she was

physically challenged. She was maintaining the family

through the said amount. On the other hand, the appellant

was taking away whatever she was earning and was

spending the same for his fancies. The father of the

appellant i.e., accused No.2 was also not of good character.

Unable to bare the harassment, the deceased left to her

parents house and stayed there for eight months. Due to

her absence, she lost her job as Vidhya volunteer. She Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J

came back to her in-laws house thereafter and joined in

DWCRA (Velugu) group. Panchayats were held by the

village elders, but there was no change in the attitude of

the appellant. One month prior to the date of incident, the

gold mangalasutram of the deceased was also taken away

by the appellant. On 06.9.2011, the father of the deceased,

who came to know about the said fact, approached the

deceased to console her. On the same day, the appellant

also came to the house, but on coming to know about the

presence of his father-in-law at the house, he did not enter

into the house. On the next day, after his father-in-law left,

i.e., on 07.9.2011, the appellant went into the house and

again picked up quarrel with the deceased demanding her

to give her gold ear studs for his expenses. The deceased

denied. On that, the appellant picked up a hammer which

was present at their house and hit the deceased with it on

her head indiscriminately. The deceased fell dead. The

appellant took away her gold ear studs and left the house

locking the same. While he was going away, he was seen by

the neighbours i.e., P.Ws.2 and 3. The appellant pledged

the gold ear studs and took Rs.5,500/-.

Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J

5. Basing on the complaint given, a case was registered

and was investigated into. Inquest was held over the dead

body of the deceased and the dead body was sent for post-

mortem examination. The scene of offence and the seizure

panchanamas were drafted. Witnesses were examined and

their statements were recorded. On 12.9.2012, the

appellant was apprehended at Yeldurthy Village outskirts

and he confessed the commission of offence in the presence

of independent witnesses. Basing on his confession, the

gold ear studs of the deceased were recovered under the

cover of seizure report and also the iron hammer which was

used for killing the deceased and the blood stained clothes

of the appellant were also recovered from his house under

the cover of seizure panchanama. The doctor who

conducted autopsy opined that the deceased died due to

head injury and injury to the left lung.

6. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 12, Exs.P-1 to P-14, Ex.D-1

and M.Os.1 to 13 formed basis for the trial Court to convict

the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

7. The points thus emerges for consideration are:-

Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J

1. Whether the prosecution established beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant is responsible for the death of his wife i.e., the deceased and he, thereby, committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

2. Whether there exists any justifiable grounds to set aside the judgment under challenge basing on the grounds urged by the appellant.

8.POINT No.1:-

Strenuously contending that appreciation of evidence

by the trial Court is improper, and suspicion however

strong may be, cannot take place of proof, the learned

counsel for the appellant contended that there is no

material whatsoever to connect the appellant with the

crime. But, without observing the said fact, the trial Court

rendered the impugned judgment which is highly

unjustifiable. Learned counsel further submitted that no

body knows who killed the deceased and there are no eye

witnesses to the incident. But, only because P.W-1, who is

the father of the deceased, deposed against the appellant

and made other witnesses to give statement against the Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J

appellant, the appellant was convicted and indeed, he has

not killed the deceased. Learned counsel also submitted

that the prosecution failed to establish that the crime

weapon is recovered from the possession of the appellant

and hence, conviction of the appellant is unsustainable.

Learned counsel further stated that as per the version of

the prosecution, the crime weapon was found at the house

of the appellant and the said house consists of not more

than a single room and therefore, Police, who conducted

inquest and shifted the dead body of the deceased from the

said place, ought to have observed the said weapon in case

it was present there and there is no need for the appellant

to lead Police to the said house again and show the said

weapon, and that itself goes to show that the investigation

done is a table investigation.

9. Opposing the said submission, the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor contended that it is not the case of the

prosecution that the crime weapon i.e., hammer was

thrown near the dead body. Police were not aware that the

said hammer was used for killing the deceased till the

appellant stated so before the independent witnesses.

Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J

Thus, Police could not recover the said incriminating

material from the scene of offence till the appellant gave his

confessional statement regarding the use of the said

hammer. Basing on his confessional statement, M.O-2-

hammer was recovered and therefore, the contention of the

learned counsel for appellant in this regard is

unsustainable.

10. The whole case of the prosecution is that after

killing the deceased, the appellant locked the house and

went away and subsequently, the lock was broke open and

the dead body of the deceased was shifted. Such being the

situation, this Court is in full agreement with the

submission of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that

Police cannot predict use of a hammer for commission of

offence by the appellant and recover the same.

11. The fact that the appellant being addicted to bad

vices was torturing the deceased for money is established

by the prosecution through all the evidence it has

produced. Besides P.W-1, who is the father of the

deceased, the other crucial independent witnesses also

spoke about the said fact. P.W-2 stated that the appellant Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J

was not doing any work and was wandering here and there

consuming liquor. The deceased was physically challenged

having deformity in leg. His house is visible from the house

of the appellant. Once he came to know that the appellant

snatched away the pusthalu of the deceased and went

away and that, he came to know about the said fact

through P.W-1. The evidence of P.W-3 in this regard is that

her house is situated beside the house of the appellant.

The appellant was not doing any work and there were

quarrels between the appellant and his wife. P.W-4 stated

that the deceased worked as Teacher. But, due to quarrels

between her and her husband, she left for her parents

house and stayed there for eight months and on her

return, as she lost her job, she joined her to work in

Velugu group. P.W-7 also stated that two months prior to

the date of incident, she was informed by the deceased that

her husband attempted to kill her and snatched away her

pusthalu and went away and that, she gave report to Police

about it.

12. Thus, from the evidence of the above witnesses, it is

abundantly clear that the deceased was maintaining the Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J

family by working and that the appellant was subjecting

her to cruelty demanding money for his bad vices.

13. The version of the prosecution that within no time

after the appellant left the house, the deceased was found

dead is also established. The evidence of P.W-2 in this

regard is that on the date of incident, at about 1 pm., he

saw the appellant going away from his house adjusting his

T-shirt and craf. Within five minutes or half-an-hour, he

came to know that the deceased died and on that, he went

to the house of the appellant and saw the dead body of the

deceased in a pool of blood. He further stated that his

house is visible from the house of the appellant. The

evidence of P.W-3 is that her house is situated beside the

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

deceased came to her and sat with her and at about 12

noon, she left to her house and thereafter, she heard

accused No.3 shouting and on that, she went there and

noticed the dead body of the deceased. The evidence of

P.W-4 is that on the date of incident, at about 9 am., the

deceased approached her and both of them, who are

working in Velugu group, collected some amounts and Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J

distributed the same to their members and the deceased

was with her till 11.30 am and after one hour, she noticed

the appellant coming out from his house adjusting his

shirt. She telephoned to the deceased, but it was found to

be switched off and after one hour, she went to the house

of the appellant and noticed accused No.3 opening the door

and thereafter, they noticed the dead body of the deceased

in a pool of blood.

14. The evidence of P.W-6 is that on the date of

incident, he visited the house of the appellant and found

the dead body of the deceased. He deposed that the people

gathered there informed that the appellant just left the

house. On that, himself and others searched for the

appellant. They noticed accused No.2 standing with his

cycle on tank bund and they also noticed the appellant

running away.

15. Thus, it is abundantly clear that within no time of

the appellant leaving the house, in a suspicious manner,

the deceased was found dead.

16. To connect the appellant with the crime, the

prosecuting agency also relied upon the recovery of M.O-1-

Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J

gold ear studs from the shop where they were pledged by

the appellant. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

contended that M.O-1-gold ear studs were seized from the

Pawn Broker's Shop basing on the confessional statement

of the appellant and that apart, Ex.P-7-receipt, which was

recovered from the possession of the appellant, clearly

establishes that the said gold ear studs, which belongs to

the deceased, were pledged by the appellant. The incident

admittedly occurred on 07.9.2011. Ex.P-7-receipt goes to

show that on the same day, M.O-1-gold ear studs were

pledged by the appellant. Further, the prosecuting agency

by examining the relevant witnesses has established that

the said receipt was recovered from the possession of the

appellant and thereafter, M.O-1-gold ear studs were seized.

17. Therefore, this Court does not find any grounds

whatsoever to suspect the recovery of M.O-1-gold ear

studs. P.W-1 clearly deposed that when he noticed the

dead body of the deceased, he found gold ear studs

missing. He also stated that the plastic supporters of the

gold ear studs were found in the pool of blood. He identified

M.O-1-gold ear studs.

Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J

18. As earlier narrated, the fact that the appellant was

subjecting the deceased to cruelty for money is established

by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. Also, it is

established that M.O-1-gold ear studs were found missing

from the body of the deceased. The said gold ear studs

were recovered basing on the confessional statement of the

appellant. Thus, the chain of circumstances undoubtedly

connects the appellant with the crime.

19. As per the version of the prosecution, basing on the

confessional statement of the appellant, the hammer which

is marked as M.O-2 and the apparel of the appellant which

he was wearing on the date of the incident were recovered.

The prosecution has successfully established the recovery

of those material objects.

20. Ex.P-14-Forensic Science Laboratory Report goes to

show that blood stains were detected on M.O-3-shirt and

also on M.O-2-hammer and that, those blood stains are of

human blood. Thus, the recovery of M.Os.2 and 3 and also,

the fact that the said recovered objects i.e., M.Os.2 and 3

contained blood stains is also established by the

prosecution. Therefore, this Court, though concurs with Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J

the submission of the learned counsel for appellant that

suspicion however strong may be, cannot take place of

proof, is of the view that the said proposition cannot be

applied to the facts of the case on hand.

21. The prosecution has placed sufficient proof to

connect the appellant with the crime. The conviction of the

appellant is not based on mere suspicion, but on

substantive piece of evidence that is produced by the

prosecution. As rightly contended by the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor, all the links to the chain of

circumstances are well connected, ultimately connecting

the appellant with the crime. The prosecution by all the

evidence produced by it, has established beyond all

reasonable doubt that it is the appellant who had killed his

wife i.e., the deceased by hitting her on her vital parts with

a hammer. Thus, the point taken up for discussion is

answered accordingly.

22.POINT No.2:-

The facts and circumstances of the case were

discussed in detail point-wise and definite conclusions were

arrived at by the trial Court. The pleas taken by the Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J

appellant before the trial Court were also discussed and the

trial Court ultimately came to a conclusion that it is the

appellant who had killed the deceased and taken away her

gold ear studs. This Court, while concurring with the

opinion expressed by the trial Court that the prosecution

established by strong circumstantial evidence beyond all

reasonable doubt that the appellant intentionally killed his

wife i.e., the deceased causing injuries to her, holds that

the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302

IPC was proved by the prosecuting agency. Therefore, there

are no grounds whatsoever to interfere with the well-

reasoned judgment of the trial Court. Also, the punishment

imposed upon the appellant is proportionate to the crime

committed by him.

23. Ultimately, this Court thus holds that the present

Criminal Appeal lacks merits.

24. Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed

confirming the judgment that is rendered by the Court of

VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak, in

S.C.No.452 of 2012, dated 20.02.2014, by which the

appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Dr.CSL , J & ASR, J

Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-.

25. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

______________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

_________________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J

28.10.2022 dr