Nukam Yadaiah vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 2890 Tel

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
                           AND
            THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.747 OF 2015

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Smt Justice K.Sujana)

      This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated

07.07.2015 in S.C.No.517 of 2014, on the file of Special Sessions

Judge-cum-VII Additional Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar. The

appellant herein is the Accused in S.C.No.517 of 2014.       By the

said judgment the appellant was convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short

'the IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous Life Imprisonment

and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default of payment of fine to

suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months.


2.    The facts of the case are that on 24.06.2014, Pw.1 who is

the brother of the deceased-Nukam Yadamma lodged a complaint

stating that his sister Yadamma married to the accused and out of

their wedlock, they were blessed with two sons and a daughter.

The accused had addicted to liquor and used to force his sister to

part the amounts from her earnings for consuming liquor.        On

23.06.2014 evening the deceased returned to the house on

completion of labour work and accused picked up quarrel with her

demanding to give money for which the deceased refused.          At
                                                            KL,J &SKS,J
                                                    Crl.A.No.747 of 2015


                                 2


about 9.00 p.m., when the deceased was sleeping, the accused

came in an intoxicated condition by consuming liquor and

assaulted her with an Axe on her neck causing bleeding injury

resulting in her instantaneous death and therefater accused

escaped from the place of incident.


3.    Basing on the said complaint, the S.I. of police, Talakonda

P.S., registered case in Cr.No.76 of 2014 under Section 302 of the

IPC, investigated the case, recorded the statements of witnesses,

held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, conducted scene

of offence panchanama and sent the body to autopsy, later,

apprehended the accused on 26.06.2014.           Basing on the

confession of accused, he seized crime weapon Axe and filed

charge sheet under Sections 498-A and 302 of the IPC.


4.    The trial Court framed charge for the offence under Section

302 of the IPC, the same was explained to the accused, and the

accused pleaded not guilty.


5.    To prove the case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 8 and

got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 and M.Os.1 to 3.


6.    Basing on the oral and documentary evidence on record, the

Sessions Judge convicted the accused.
                                                                KL,J &SKS,J
                                                        Crl.A.No.747 of 2015


                                   3


7.    Heard Smt Uma Devi Nama, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri T.V.Ramana Rao, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt. The evidence on record is not sufficient to

prove the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Basing on the

assumptions and presumptions, the Sessions Judge convicted the

accused. Though the witnesses are interested witnesses, without

considering the same, placing reliance on highly interested

witness, convicted the appellant; there are discrepancies in the

evidence of Pws.1 to 8 and seizure of M.Os.1 to 3 is not in

accordance with the procedure. Therefore, there are lapses on the

part of investigating agency and the evidence on record is not

reliable. Therefore, prayed the Court to acquit the accused by

allowing the appeal.

9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

submits that the evidence on record is corroborating with each

other and the mother of the accused who is Pw.2 herself deposed

that she witnessed the incident and she raised hues and cries on

seeing the murder. Being a mother she deposed against the son

which is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. He further KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.747 of 2015

submitted that Pw.2 deposed about the attitude of appellant and

seizure of M.O.1 is also establishing guilt of the accused. As such

he prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal.

10. Now, the point for consideration is :

1. Whether the death of the deceased is a homicidal, if so, the accused hacked the deceased with an Axe on her neck and murdered her ?

2. Whether the judgment of the trial Court needs any interference ?

POINT NO.1 :

11. After going through the rival contentions and the evidence

on record, the prosecution case is that the accused axed the

deceased when she was asleep on the night of incident at about

9.00 p.m, for her failure to give money to consume liquor. To

prove that accused murdered the deceased, the prosecution

mainly relied on the evidence of Pw.2 who is the mother of accused

apart from Pw.5-mediator for confession and recovery

panchanama.

12. Pw.2- mother of the accused deposed that the deceased and

accused used to stay along with their children at Padakal Village

and the deceased was beaten by the accused with an Axe on her

neck during night time. She witnessed the incident through

window and rushed to rescue the deceased, raised hues and cries KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.747 of 2015

and on hearing the same, the neighbours and her another son

Nukam Anjaiah rushed to the deceased. Her further evidence is

that Pw.3- son of the accused also used to stay along with them

whereas at the time of incident, the accused and deceased were

only present in the house. She also deposed about the attitude of

the accused that he is addicted to drinking. Pw.5 is mediator for

confession and recovery panchanama. His evidence is that on

inquiry the accused confessed commission of offence and he

disclosed the whereabouts of Axe used in the commission of

offence and led them to Padakal village and handed over Axe

M.O.3 to the police which was seized under the cover of

panchanama.

13. To prove the guilt of the accused and the incident, the direct

witness to the incident is Pw.2 who is the mother of the accused

deposed that she witnessed the incident and to prove his attitude,

the prosecution examined Pw.1 who is the brother of the deceased

and Pw.3-son of the accused and deceased. Both of them deposed

that the accused is habituated to drinking and he used to harass

the deceased for money for consuming alcohol. The evidence of

Pw.6-doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body is that

there is one injury on the neck of the deceased i.e., a laceration of

11 x 9 x 3 on anterior part of the neck with sharp edges. He KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.747 of 2015

opined that the cause of death is due to severe hypovolumic shock

due to acute blood loss with cut off great blood vessels on anterior

part of the neck and Ex.P.6 is the Post mortem report.

14. The evidence of Pw.6 proves that the death of the deceased

is a homicidal and the evidence of Pw.2 who is an eye witness and

none other than the mother of the accused deposed that she saw

the incident from the window and went to rescue her daughter-in-

law. Though she was cross-examined by the counsel for the

accused nothing was elicited to discredit her evidence. Therefore,

the evidence of Pw.2 and recovery of crime weapon proves that the

accused killed the deceased and the evidence of Pws.1 and 3 and

the mediators for the confession of commission of offence shows

that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused. Accordingly,

this point is answered.

POINT NO.2:

15. Now, it is to be seen that the act of the accused and

evidence on record is sufficient to prove the ingredients of Section

302 of the IPC. The evidence on record shows that there is only

injury on the neck i.e., hack injury due to which the deceased

succumbed. The motive attributed to the accused is that he is in

the habit of drinking and in need of money and when the deceased

refused to give money, he hatched a plan to kill her.

KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.747 of 2015

16. In determining the question whether an accused had guilty

intention or guilty knowledge in a case where only a single injury

is inflicted by him and that injury is sufficient in the ordinary

course of nature to cause death, the fact that the act is done

without premeditation in a sudden fight or quarrel, or that the

circumstances justify that the injury was accidental or

unintentional, or that he only intended a simple injury, would lead

to the inference of guilty knowledge and the offence would be one

under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

17. As seen from the evidence of Pw.1, on the date of incident at

6.00 p.m., quarrel took place between the deceased and accused

and on the same day night he hacked the deceased. The injury

inflicted on the deceased is a hack injury and due to the said

injury there was severe bleeding and deceased died due to the said

injury. Though prosecution wants to prove that it is a pre planned

murder and accused hatched a plan to kill the deceased, there is

no evidence on record to prove the same, except stating that the

accused is habituated to alcohol and he is in need of money and

he used to harass the deceased. The accused had inflicted only

one injury which may not be sufficient to cause death of the

deceased and as stated by the prosecution, accused is in drunken

condition, his intention was only to extract money from the KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.747 of 2015

deceased but not to kill, whereas, he had knowledge that injured

might die with such injury.

18. In Sunil Kumar Vs State of Madhya Pradesh 1, it was held

as under :

"There was nothing in the prosecution evidence, which goes to show that there was any motive in the mind of the accused to cause the murder of his own wife. As per the evidence of 'G' (Pw.3), the accused and the deceased used to quarrel with each other and on the fateful day also some quarrel took place between them and accused picked up a wooden mallet which is meant for washing clothes and assaulted the deceased with the wooden mallet which itself shows that during the course of some altercation and quarrel between the two, the accused all of a sudden picked up the wooden mallet and assaulted the deceased with the same. Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be attributed to the accused that his intention was not to cause the death of his wife or his intention was to cause such injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. However, looking to the nature of the injuries, as the ribs of the deceased were fractured, it can safely be inferred and attributed to the knowledge of the accused that he had the knowledge that by causing such injuries he might cause the death of his wife. Therefore, offence under Section 304, Part II of the IPC was made out. The appeal of the appellant partly succeeds and the same was partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the accused/appellant under Section 302 of the IPC were set aside and he was acquitted of the said offence. However, instead of that, the accused/appellant was convicted under Section 304, Part II of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years."

1 2004 Cri LJ 209 at 211 (Chhat) KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.747 of 2015

19. In view of the observation in the above case, it is noticed

that in the present case, the intention and knowledge of the

accused cannot be inferred and the medical evidence shows that

only one injury is on the neck and by causing injury with axe,

intention can be presumed regarding causing such injury is likely

to cause death, certainly falls under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.

The evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the

accused for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Therefore,

the conviction for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC is

altered to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.

20. The trial Court found that the charge under Section 302

of the IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant

and convicted the appellant and sentenced him as stated supra.

Evidence is sufficient to show that death was caused in the house

of appellant and if death had been caused by anyone other than

the appellant, it is for the appellant to explain the circumstances

under which death had occurred. Further, Pw.2 who is none other

than mother of the accused witnessed the incident deposed

against accused proves the case beyond reasonable doubt that it

was appellant who caused the death. Whereas, the case is covered

under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and not under Section 302 of

the IPC, because there is nothing on record to show that the KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.747 of 2015

appellant had the intention of causing death or causing such

bodily injuries as were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature

to cause death. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered.

21. IN THE RESULT, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and

the judgment dated 07.07.2015 in S.C.No.517 of 2014, passed by

the Special Sessions Judge-cum-VII Additional Sessions Judge at

Mahabubnagar is modified, finding the appellant not guilty for the

offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, while finding him

guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the

IPC. However, as the appellant/accused is in jail since the date of

conviction i.e., more than eight years, the sentence imposed on

him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The

appellant/accused be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required

in any other case or crime. The Bail bonds executed by the

accused stands cancelled.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal

Appeal shall stand closed.

__________________ K.LAKSHMAN, J

__________________ K. SUJANA, J Date :05.10.2023 Rds