S.Venkatreddy, Dichpally M., vs State Of Telangana, Rep. Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 5480 Tel

      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY
                           AND
     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

               CRIMINAL APPEAL No.647 of 2014

JUDGMENT : (Per G.Anupama Chakravarthy, J)

        This appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 20.01.2014

in S.C.No.118 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Sessions,

Nizamabad Division, Nizamabad.


2.      The appellant is the accused. A charge sheet is filed against

the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, convicted

the accused under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced him to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of

Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, and in default,

to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.


3.      The brief case of the prosecution is that the accused/Sarasani

Venkata Reddy is the 2nd son of the deceased Sarasani Rajavva.

The deceased was blessed with three sons and a daughter. The

elder and younger sons of the deceased are staying at Dubai and

Nizamabad respectively.       The accused and the deceased were
                                   2
                                                         AVR, J & GAC, J
                                                     Crl.A.No.647 of 2014



residing in different portions of the same house at Mittapally

village. It is the further case of the prosecution that 17 years prior

to the date of offence, the accused took three tulas of gold from his

mother/deceased and did not return to her, for which, the deceased

used to demand the accused for return of the said gold.              On

19.08.2012 at 2.00 p.m., when the deceased demanded the accused

for return of the gold, the accused became angry, abused her in

filthy language, pushed her, went into the house, brought an axe

and hacked on her throat, as a result, the deceased died on the spot.

Later, the accused ran out, shouting that he killed his mother,

which was heard by PW-2. Basing on the information given by

PW-2 to PW-1 i.e. the daughter of the deceased, she came to the

scene of offence, saw the dead body of the deceased with cut

injuries in a pool of blood and preferred a report i.e. Ex.P-1 to PW-

10/S.I. of Police, Dichpally.


4.    Basing on the report/Ex.P-1, the S.I. of Police, Dichpally

registered a case against the accused, for the offence punishable

under Section 302 of IPC, vide Crime No.178 of 2012 and issued

express FIRs. to all the concerned.       Later, the CI of Police,
                                 3
                                                       AVR, J & GAC, J
                                                   Crl.A.No.647 of 2014



Dichpally took up investigation.         During the course of

investigation, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the

deceased and also prepared crime detail report in the presence of

panchayatdars, recorded the statements of witnesses and later,

forwarded the dead body of the deceased to the Government

Hospital, Nizamabad for postmortem examination. PW-11/Doctor

conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued

Ex.P-11/ postmortem report, opining that the cause of death of

deceased was due to hemorrhagic shock and due to cut throat

injury. Further, the investigating officer has seized the material

objects, affected arrest of the accused on 13.08.2012 at 3.00 p.m.

and on interrogation, the accused confessed his guilt, for which, a

confession panchanama was recorded in the presence of

panchayatdars. Later, the accused was produced before the Court

for judicial custody and the material objects were forwarded to

RFSL, Nizamabad for chemical analysis. After receiving medical

reports, FSL reports and on completion of investigation, the

investigating officer laid charge sheet against the accused for the

offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
                                  4
                                                        AVR, J & GAC, J
                                                    Crl.A.No.647 of 2014



5.    During the course of trial, charge was framed against the

accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and the same was

denied by the accused and he claimed to be tried. On behalf of the

prosecution, PWs.1 to 12 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-15 and

M.Os.1 to 6 got marked. The accused was examined under Section

313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the incriminating evidence of the

prosecution and pleaded not guilty of the offence charged.


6.    As already stated supra, the trial Court, after considering the

entire oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the

accused/appellant.


7.    Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned

Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.


8.    It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that

there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the entire case is

based only on the circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has

failed to prove the complete chain of circumstances connecting the

events so as to convict the appellant, therefore, the conviction is

bad in the eye of law and accordingly prayed to set aside the
                                  5
                                                         AVR, J & GAC, J
                                                     Crl.A.No.647 of 2014



judgment of the trial Court; as the prosecution has miserably failed

to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.


9.    On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended

that as per the last seen theory, the accused was found coming out

of the house of the deceased with the crime weapon, and therefore,

prayed to confirm the judgment of the trial Court by dismissing the

appeal, as there is no error or irregularity in the judgment of the

Sessions Court.

10.   The point for determination in this case is;

      Whether the trial Court is proper in convicting the
      accused for the offence punishable under Section 302
      of IPC and whether the prosecution is able to prove
      the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt
      for the said offence ?

11.   The criminal law was set into motion basing on the

information given by PW-1/G. Vijaya, who is the daughter of the

deceased. The report given by her is Ex.P-1. Her evidence reveal

that on 09.08.2012 at 2.00 p.m., she received telephone call from

PW-2 informing her that the accused hacked her mother with an

axe and on that, she went to the house of the deceased along with

other villagers and found the dead body of the deceased-mother in
                                  6
                                                        AVR, J & GAC, J
                                                    Crl.A.No.647 of 2014



a pool of blood, with cut injuries on the neck and right ear. Basing

on her report, a case was registered and further her statement was

recorded by the Police.


12.   It is pertinent to mention that PW-1 testified that the accused

took three tulas of gold from the deceased about 17 years prior to

the incident, for which, there were quarrels between the accused

and the deceased and further the accused used to beat her

mother/deceased whenever she used to demand for return of the

gold, for which, she tried to persuade the accused not to beat her

mother.


13.   PW-1 was cross-examined at length but nothing could be

elicited in favour of the accused. It is important to note that the

evidence of PW-1 will only reveal the motive for the murder of the

deceased as her evidence is a hearsay evidence.


14.   Admittedly, the death of deceased was not a natural one. It

is necessary to scrutinize the evidence of the Photographer, Doctor

and inquest panchayatdars in order to know the cause of the death

of the deceased.
                                    7
                                                          AVR, J & GAC, J
                                                      Crl.A.No.647 of 2014



15.      PW.3/Dusa Prabhakar, is the Photographer and his evidence

reveals that at the instance of the Police, he took photographs of the

dead body of the deceased, which are marked as Ex.P-2 (8 photos).


16.      The evidence of the Doctor i.e. PW-11 discloses that on

10.08.2012, he received requisition from the Station House Officer,

Dichpally to conduct autopsy over the dead body of the deceased.

Accordingly, he commenced the autopsy at 10.45 a.m. and

concluded at 11.55 a.m. and found three external injuries over the

dead body of the deceased corresponding with internal injuries as

under:

         "External injuries:
         1.

Laceration and deep punctured wound in front of the neck which was measuring about 10x12x15 cm.

2. Right ear laceration 10x12 cm.

3. Abrasion on arm 2x4 cm.

Internal injuries:

Trachea and Esophagus were totally punctured which is corresponding to external injury No.1."

It is specifically deposed by PW-11 that the cause of death of the

deceased was hemorrhagic shock due to cut throat injury resulted

from injury No.1 and injuries 1 to 3 are possible with an axe.

Ex.P-11 is the postmortem examination report.

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.647 of 2014

17. The evidence of PW-7 clearly discloses that the Police have

prepared the scene observation panchanama/Ex.P-4 and the rough

sketch/Ex.P-5 at the scene of offence, in his presence and in the

presence of LW-12/Bala Suresh and also collected the material

objects/M.Os.1 and 2 (blood stained cotton and control cotton).

His evidence further disclose that the Police have also conducted

inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased and Ex.P-6 is

the panchanama. Exs.P-4 to P-6 contain their signatures.

18. Ex.P-6/inquest panchanama reveals that the inquest

panchayatdars opined that the second son of the deceased/S.Venkat

Reddy (accused) took away the gold of the deceased about 17 years

back and did not return the same to the deceased and whenever the

deceased used to demand for return of gold, the accused used to

abuse and beat her and on 09.08.2012 at 2.00 p.m., when the

deceased demanded her second son for return of gold, the accused

became wild and with an intention to kill her, hacked the deceased

with an axe on her throat on the right side of the ear and ran away

from the scene of offence.

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.647 of 2014

19. Basing on the evidence of PWs.7 and 11, it can be construed

that the death of the deceased was not a natural one and it is

homicide.

20. It is the case of the prosecution that there are direct

eyewitnesses to the incident and the said fact has come to the

knowledge of the Police during the course of investigation though

report was made to the Police through a hearsay witness i.e. PW-1.

21. The evidence of PW-2/Shaik Abdulla discloses that on

09.08.2012, at around 2 p.m., while he was going to get leaves for

his goats, he found the accused shouting that he hacked his mother

with an axe. On that, he went to the house of the accused and

found the dead body of the deceased in a pool of blood with cut

injuries on her neck and ear. Thereafter, he collected the mobile

number of PW-1 and informed her about the death of the deceased.

22. The evidence of PW-4/K.Ravinder also reveals that he is the

neighbour of the accused and about a year back, he found the

accused and the deceased quarrelling at around 2.00 to 3.30 p.m.

On hearing the quarrel, he came out of his house, along with his

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.647 of 2014

wife and some others, witnessed the dead body of deceased in a

pool of blood. Further, he testified that the deceased used to

demand the accused for return of gold and they used to quarrel on

that issue, many a times and that he found the injuries on the dead

body of the deceased caused with an axe.

23. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that on the date of offence,

she went to fetch water from the borewell which is beside the

house of the accused, and at that time, she heard a galata and saw

the accused holding an axe and making sounds while coming out of

the house of the accused and further found the deceased in a pool

of blood. It is specifically deposed by PW-5 that she was pregnant

at that time, got afraid, and further stated that the accused hacked

the deceased after the quarrel which is with respect to the gold.

24. The evidence of PW-6 discloses that the accused used to

quarrel with the deceased with respect to gold. Further, she

witnessed the accused hacking the deceased on her neck with an

axe. Her evidence further disclose that the accused threatened her.

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.647 of 2014

25. Thus, the evidence of PWs.4 to 6 clearly reveal that there

was a galata between the accused and the deceased, which was

heard and seen by the witnesses and further PW-6 witnessing the

murder of deceased. All the above said witnesses in one tone,

stated about the motive for the offence and also witnessing the

death of the deceased caused by the accused, which is corroborated

with the evidence of PWs.1 and 2.

26. The rest over witnesses in this case are PWs.8 to 10 and 12.

The evidence of PW-8 discloses that he acted as panch witness

along with LW-15/K.Madhumathi for seizure of the clothes

belonging to the deceased/Rajavva. Ex-P7 is the panchnama. The

blood-stained saree and blouse of the deceased are MOs.3 and 4

respectively.

27. The evidence of PW-9 discloses that he acted as panch

witness along with LW-17/A.Anjaiah for the confession of the

accused and for recovery of crime weapon pursuant to the

confession. It is testified by PW-9 that the accused confessed his

guilt in their presence before the Police and also informed about

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.647 of 2014

the crime weapon as an axe and further stated that accused

informed them that he will show the crime weapon and his blood

stained shirt, hidden by him. Pursuant to the confession, the

accused has led them to the backside of his house and produced the

blood-stained axe from the bushes and blood-stained shirt from the

pot which are MOs.5 and 6 respectively, and that the same were

seized under the confession-cum-seizure panchnama and the

relevant portion is Ex-P8.

28. It is relevant to mention that the confession made to Police is

hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act but the information given

by the accused as to the recovery of any material object pertaining

to the crime is relevant and admissible in evidence as per Section

27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

29. PWs.10 and 12 are Police officials. PW-10 have registered

the case on 09.08.2012 at 4 p.m. vide Crime No.178 of 2012 on the

file of Dichpally Police Station against the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 302 of IPC, basing on Ex.P-1/report

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.647 of 2014

given by PW-1 and issued express FIRs to all the concerned and

the original FIR is Ex.P-10.

30. PW-12 is the Investigating Officer who took up the entire

investigation and laid charge sheet against the accused for the

offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. His evidence

discloses the minute details of his investigation such as, recording

the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,

preparing crime detail report, conducting inquest panchanama,

seizing of material objects in the presence of pachayatdars,

forwarding the dead body of the deceased to the Government

hospital and further affecting the arrest of the accused, recording

the confession of the accused, seizure of the crime weapon,

forwarding material objects to FSL, receiving the FSL report, the

Postmortem examination report of the deceased and filing charge

sheet against the accused after completion of the investigation.

31. It is important to note that on behalf of the accused, DW-1

was examined. DW-1 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon in District

Jail, Nizamabad. His evidence discloses that on 04.09.2012, the

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.647 of 2014

accused was found suffering with Seizers (epilepsy) and was

referred to Government hospital for treatment. The certificate

issued in favour of the accused dated 18.12.2009 is Ex.D-2. In the

cross-examination, it is specifically admitted that epilepsy is a

neurological problem and it is not psychiatric problem and when a

person gets fits upto half-an-hour, he will be in a drowsy condition

and will not be capable of observing surroundings for about one

hour. Ex.A-1 is the O.P. ticket for consulting the Neuro Physician.

32. Admittedly, the death of the deceased is not a natural death

and even as per the evidence of the Doctor i.e. PW-11, the

deceased died of hemorrhagic shock due to cut-throat injury. The

oral evidence of PWs.1 to 12 coupled with Exs.P-1 to P-15 show

that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond

reasonable doubt. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was the

mother of the accused and the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 disclose that

there were quarrels between the accused and the deceased and

further the accused hacked the deceased on her throat with

MO.5/Axe which resulted in the death of the deceased. Inspite of

taking general defence under Section 84 of IPC, as unsound mind

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.647 of 2014

and examining DW-1, the accused could not prove that he was

suffering with unsound mind as on the date of offence i.e.,

09.08.2012. Moreover, the evidence of DW-1 clearly discloses

that the deceased was suffering with neurological problem rather

than psychological/mental problem. Therefore, the trial Court has

rightly given a finding that there is no evidence on record to prove

that the accused was suffering from unsoundness of mind and was

incapable of knowing the nature of the acts done by him, as to what

is wrong or contrary to law.

33. Further, the evidence of PW-1 also discloses that the accused

was not suffering from any mental disability. The evidence of

PW-2 disclose that he saw the accused at the place of crime, by

yelling out words that he killed his mother. The direct eye

witnesses in this case are PWs.5 and 6 who testified that the

accused hacked the deceased with an axe which was seized by the

Police pursuant to the confession of the accused. Therefore, the

oral evidence of PWs.4 to 6 as to the crime weapon and seizure of

the axe pursuant to the confession, corroborates with each other. It

has to be borne in mind that PWs.2 and 4 to 6 are the neighbours of

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.647 of 2014

the accused and the deceased and they cannot be treated as

interested witnesses. Moreover, there is not even a single

suggestion that these witnesses are speaking falsehood against the

accused.

34. Therefore, it can be construed that the evidence of the

prosecution on record is un-impeachable, which clearly discloses

that the accused took three tulas of gold beads from his mother and

whenever she demanded the accused for return of gold, the accused

used to quarrel with her, beat her and on the date of offence i.e,

09.08.2012, when the deceased demanded her son for the said gold,

the accused hacked his mother with an axe.

35. In a case of homicide, it is for the prosecution to prove the

intention, motive and knowledge of the offence committed by the

accused. In the present case, as per the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4

to 6, the accused had quarrelled with his mother for the purpose of

gold which proves the motive and intention to commit the offence.

Further, the accused had knowledge that the injuries inflicted with

an axe will cause the death of the deceased. Thus, the prosecution

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.647 of 2014

has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no

error or irregularity in the judgment passed by the Sessions Court

so as to interfere with the same and the trial Court is justified in

convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section

302 of IPC.

36. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the

judgment passed in S.C.No.118 of 2013, dated 20.01.2014 on the

file of District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. The conviction

and sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellant for

the offence under Section 302 of IPC shall hold good.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY, J

________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 29.10.2022

N.B: Issue C.C. today.

(b/o) ajr/dv