Kadamanchi Ramesh vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 752 Tel

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

& THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.842 OF 2014

JUDGMENT:- (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice A.Santhosh Reddy)

This is an unfortunate incident of killing of mother by his

son.

2. The sole accused in Sessions Case No.80 of 2014, on the file

of the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge, Kamareddy, was

convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and

was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a

fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple

imprisonment for three months, by judgment dated 23.06.2014.

Feeling aggrieved by the same, he has filed the present criminal

appeal.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Pochavva (hereinafter

referred to as 'the deceased') is the mother of the appellant

(hereinafter referred to as 'the accused'). P.W.1 is the elder

brother; P.W.2 is the elder sister; P.W.4 is the daughter; P.W.7

is the daughter-in-law and P.W.8 is the son of the deceased.

On 03.06.2013 at about 01:30 A.M., P.W.1 lodged a complaint

before the Station House Officer, Yellareddy Police Station

alleging that on 02.06.2013 at about 10:40 PM., the accused

demanded the deceased a sum of Rs.2,000/- and he threatened that

if the amount is not given to him, he will kill the deceased.

P.W.2 told the accused that the deceased will give the amount next

day morning. The accused replied that he will kill the deceased if

the amount is not provided and told P.W.2 that if you want to talk

with the deceased, talk now itself otherwise the deceased would not

be available, as he is going to kill the deceased. The accused

assaulted the deceased with a pestle on her head. P.W.3 tried to

snatch away the pestle from the accused, but he pushed her aside

and again gave a blow on the head of the deceased. As a result of

which, the deceased sustained bleeding injuries and fell down in a

pool of blood. P.W.5 called 108 ambulance and the deceased was

shifted to Government Hospital, Yellareddy. Based on such

allegations, P.W.12, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in

Cr.No.139 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 302

IPC and P.W.13 Inspector of Police took up investigation.

4. During the course of investigation, P.W.13 examined the

witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,

visited the scene of offence, prepared the scene offence observation

panchanama and rough sketch of scene of offence in the presence

of mediators. Later, P.W.13 seized the blood stained earth, control

earth, bloodstained boulder under a cover of panchanama and

conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the

presence of mediators. P.W.11 conducted autopsy over the dead

body of the deceased. P.W.13 arrested the accused on 07.06.2013

and seized the wooden pestle, which was used by him to assault the

deceased, in the presence of the mediators under a cover of

pancahnama. After completion of investigation, P.W.13 filed

charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 302 IPC.

5. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of

Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the case

against the accused for the offence alleged. The accused denied the

charge framed under Section 302 IPC. Thereupon, the prosecution

has examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and Exs.P-1 to P-10 were proved and

M.Os.1 to 5 were marked.

6. The accused, in the course of trial, was examined

under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and took up the defence of total denial.

No defence evidence, oral or documentary, was adduced by the

accused.

7. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the

learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that prosecution has

proved the complicity of appellant/accused. The learned Sessions

Judge, accordingly, convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused

in the manner as stated above.

8. Before us, learned counsel for the appellant/accused and

learned Public Prosecutor have advanced detailed arguments.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused contends that the

prosecution has not proved the offence against the accused with

any cogent evidence. Learned counsel further submits that P.Ws.1

to 4, 7 and 8 are very close relatives of the deceased and no

independent witnesses from the locality were examined and the

relationship between P.W.7 and the accused is not cordial and she

deposed against the accused. Therefore, the accused is entitled to

the benefit of doubt and prayed to acquit the accused.

10. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contends that

the prosecution had proved the alleged offence against the accused

with cogent and reliable evidence and there is no room for

reasonable doubt and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

11. We have considered all the relevant inputs. This appellate

judgment is intended to be read and ought to be read in

continuation of the judgment of the trial court. In that view of the

matter, we do not think it necessary to re-narrate the oral and

documentary evidence placed before the learned Sessions Judge.

Suffice it to say that we have been meticulously thorough with the

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

12. The motive pleaded by the prosecution is that the

accused decided to kill his mother as she was not giving

Rs.2,000/-, as demanded by him. The prosecution had mainly

relied on the ocular testimony of eye-witnesses to the occurrence.

13. According to the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4, 7 and 8 are

eye-witnesses to the incident. Among these witnesses, P.W.1 is

the elder brother, P.W.2 is the elder sister, P.W.3 is the relative

and P.W.4 is another sister of the deceased, P.W.7 is the wife

of the accused and P.W.8 is another brother of the accused.

The scene of offence is situated at Yerramannukucha, Yellareddy.

14. P.W.1 is the maternal uncle of the accused. In his evidence,

he stated that the accused, who is son of the deceased, beat the

deceased two times with a pestle on the head of the deceased and

she sustained bleeding injury. The accused beat the deceased as

she has not paid money of Rs.2,000/- as demanded by him on the

date of incident at about 10:00 P.M. P.W.1 further stated that at

the time of incident, P.Ws.2 and 3 were present. After assaulting

the deceased with the pestle, the accused fled away from the

scene of offence. The deceased was shifted to Government

Hospital, Yellareddy and she succumbed to injuries at the scene of

offence itself. A complaint in Ex.P-1 was lodged by P.W.1. P.W.1

categorically stated that the deceased was attacked with a pestle

and in his cross-examination, nothing material is elicited to

disbelieve his testimony.

15. P.W.2 is the sister of the deceased and she deposed that on

the day of incident at about 10:00 PM., the accused demanded a

sum of Rs.2,000/- for his expenses. The accused threatened the

deceased that if the she did not give the amount, he will kill her.

P.W.2 stated that she intervened and stated to the accused that she

will arrange the amount next day morning, but the accused

demanded money to be paid immediately. Interestingly, P.W.2

further deposed that the accused told her that if she wants to talk

with her sister, talk with her during night itself, as he is going to

kill the deceased if the amount is not paid in the night itself.

Meanwhile, when the deceased was moving out of the house to

inform the same to the village elders, the accused attacked her

with the pestle M.O.1 and beat on her head. When P.W.3 tried to

intervene, the accused pushed her aside. The deceased sustained

bleeding injury to her head and fell down in front of the house and

died on the spot. P.W.2 identified the weapon i.e., pestle M.O.1

used in the commission of the offence with which he assaulted the

deceased. In her cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that the deceased

fell down at a distance of 50 feet from her house and nothing

material was elicited to discredit her testimony.

16. P.W.3 is an independent eye-witness. P.W.4 is the sister of

the accused. P.Ws.3 and 4 narrated the whole incident and they are

eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.3 stated that on the day of

incident at about 10:00 PM a quarrel took place between the

accused and the deceased, as the accused demanded Rs.2,000/-

from the deceased. P.W.3 also tried to convince the accused,

but he demanded the amount to be paid immediately otherwise he

will kill his mother. When the deceased was moving out of her

house to inform the matter to the elders, the accused beat her on the

head with the pestle M.O.1 and the deceased sustained bleeding

injury and fell down outside the house. The accused pushed P.W.2

aside and assaulted the deceased. P.W.4, who is sister of the

accused, also deposed on similar lines and corroborated the entire

testimony of other eye-witnesses.

17. Interestingly, the wife of the accused P.W.7 also deposed

that on the date of incident, the accused demanded amount from the

deceased and when she refused to give the money and was going

out of the house to inform the matter to the elders, the accused beat

her with the pestle on her head and she fell down outside her house.

When P.W.3 tried to intervene, the accused pushed her aside.

Again the accused beat the deceased with pestle on her head, as a

result of which the deceased sustained bleeding injuries and died.

In cross-examination, P.W.7 also stated that the accused used to

assault her and she is not in cordial relationship with the accused

due to his harassment. Though there is no cordial relationship with

her husband, they were living in the same house. P.W.8, who is

brother of the deceased, deposed on similar lines and corroborated

the testimonies of eye-witnesses.

18. On perusing the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, 7 and 8, nothing

material was elicited in their cross-examination to discredit their

testimonies. Apart from that, their evidence about the incident and

the accused attacking the deceased armed with a pestle when the

deceased refusing to give Rs.2,000/- as demanded by him, is

corroborating with each other and their evidence is consistent and

no contradictions are recorded to disbelieve their testimonies.

Though P.Ws.1 to 4, 7 and 8 are related to each other and

particularly P.Ws.2 to 4, 7 and 8, being blood relatives of the

deceased, we do not find any justifiable reasons to disbelieve their

testimonies due to the fact that they deposed with an intention to

implicate the accused with the alleged offence.

19. It is not in dispute that the death of the deceased is

homicidal which is quite evident from the testimony of P.W.11

Dr.Raghupathi, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health

Centre, Yellareddy. He deposed that on 03.06.2013, he received

requisition from Police, Yellareddy to conduct post-mortem

examination over the dead body of the deceased and on the same

day, at about 11:00 AM, he held autopsy over the dead body of the

deceased and noticed the following ante-mortem injuries:

            i)     Bleeding from nose is seen.
            ii)    Bleeding from both ears is seen.
            iii)   Fracture of right temporal bone.
            iv)    Fracture of occipital bone.

P.W.11 opined that the cause of death of the deceased is due to

intracranial bleeding due to blunt injury on head. He also stated

that the injuries sustained by the deceased could be possible with

M.O.1. Ex.P-8 is the post-mortem certificate of the deceased. The

evidence of the doctor categorically proves the fact that the death

of the deceased was not natural and she died due to head injuries

and as such, the prosecution has proved that the death of the

deceased is homicidal.

20. A careful analysis of the entire evidence, particularly

the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, 7 and 8, does not reveal any

contradictions in their testimonies on material aspects. All these

witnesses in unison clearly narrated the incident without any

contradictions. Their evidence reveals that on the day of incident

at about 10:00 PM, the accused started quarrelling with

her mother and demanded her to give Rs.2,000/- and when she

refused to give and was moving out of the house to inform the

elders, the accused attacked her with a pestle and caused head

injuries, as a result of which she sustained bleeding injuries and

succumbed to the same.

21. As per the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4, 7 and 8, the deceased

was hit with a pestle on her head and Ex.P-8 post-mortem

examination report also shows that the deceased sustained head

injuries. The evidence of the doctor P.W.11 is completely

supported by the evidence of eye-witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4, 7 and 8,

both with respect to the place and the nature of injures sustained by

the deceased. The material object i.e., pestle was recovered at

the instance of the accused behind his house and the same was

recovered in the presence of P.W.10 and another. M.O.1 was sent

to FSL and Ex.P-10 is the FSL report and it is stated that human

blood is detected on the wooden pestle M.O.1, but the blood group

could not be determined. The material object used in the

commission of the offence is also shown to the eye-witnesses

P.Ws.1 to 4, 7 and 8 and they identified the same as the one used

by the accused at the time of commission of offence. There is no

iota of doubt in the evidence of these material witnesses about the

occurrence of the incident, cause of death and recovery of weapon

with which the accused inflicted injures on the deceased and they

have been established by the prosecution with cogent and

convincing testimony.

22. From the above discussed evidence, we are of the opinion

that the prosecution has been able to prove that the appellant/

accused hit the deceased on her head with a pestle and caused

bleeding injures and as a result of which she died on the spot.

We are not inclined to accept the submissions of learned counsel

for the appellant that the witnesses are related to each other

and their evidence cannot be relied upon. The evidence of the

prosecution is credible about the occurrence of the offence and

regarding the manner in which the offence was committed by the

appellant/accused. When the version of the prosecution witnesses

is consistent and believable all through, in the absence of any

improbabilities or inconsistencies in their evidence, we can safely

rely upon the testimonies which, as noted above, have been amply

supported by medical evidence.

23. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merits in

the appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

24. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

______________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

______________________________ JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

13.02.2023 Lrkm