Gutti Satyanarayana, R.R.Dt., vs State Of Telangana, Rep Pp.,
2023 Latest Caselaw 3291 Tel

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

                CRIMINAL APPEAL No.893 OF 2014


JUDGMENT: (PER HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJANA)


      This appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the

judgment dated 09.07.2014 passed by the Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Rangareddy District, in S.C.No.18 of

2011 wherein, the appellant was convicted for offences punishable

under Sections 498-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short

'IPC'). For offence under Section 498-A of IPC, he was sentenced to

undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and to

pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. Further, for offence under Section 302 of IPC,

he was sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay fine of

Rs.10,000/-. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.


2.    The appellant/accused filed this appeal stating that the

learned Judge ought not to have convicted him as the evidence on

record is not substantiating the charges against him under Sections

498-A and 302 of IPC and none of the ingredients of the said

Sections are proved by the prosecution beyond any reasonable

doubt. The trial Court ought to have appreciated that in a case based
                                                               KL, J & SKS, J
                                                        Crl.A.No.893 of 2014

                                      2


on circumstantial evidence, there must be a chain of evidence so

complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion

consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in

all human probability that the act must have been done by the

accused. Though there is no conclusive evidence, the learned Judge

wrongly convicted the appellant/accused. The trial Court also failed

to appreciate that the death of the deceased was the result of

genuine accident and the medical evidence apart from defence

evidence    clearly     establishes       the   same.     Therefore,    the

appellant/accused prayed this Court to allow the appeal by

acquitting him.


3.    Heard Sri B.Laxman, learned counsel representing Sri Jetty

Anjaneyulu,   learned    counsel      for   appellant/accused,    and   Sri

T.V.Ramana Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for

respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that to prove the case

for offence under Section 302 of IPC, first of all, the prosecution has

to prove that the death of the deceased is a homicidal death,

whereas, there is no evidence on record to prove the same. Further,

without there being any evidence on record, the circumstances relied

on by the prosecution cannot be believed. Therefore, the learned KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.893 of 2014

Judge has erroneously convicted the appellant, as such, prayed this

Court to acquit the appellant by allowing the appeal.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor,

submitted that the evidence on record is very clear and the evidence

of independent witness is sufficient to prove that the appellant, after

killing his wife, tried to portray the same as an accident, whereas,

the Investigating Officer, rightly investigated the case and filed

charge sheet for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and the

circumstances conclusively prove the guilt of the appellant. As such,

prayed this Court to dismiss the appeal as there are no infirmities in

the judgment of the Court below.

6. To prove the case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 out

of 19 witnesses cited in the charge sheet. Basing on the evidence of

PW.12 and after hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge

convicted the appellant supra.

7. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.01.2010 at about

09:00 A.M., one Burla Kumar, lodged complaint with the Police

alleging that on 30.04.2006 he performed the marriage of his sister

Navaneetha with Gutti Sathyanarayana i.e., appellant/accused No.1.

Later, his sister Navaneetha was blessed with a female child. Since

the date of marriage, her husband, along with parents-in-law i.e., KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.893 of 2014

accused Nos.2 and 3, apart from the sister and brother-in-law of her

husband, were harassing his sister for want of additional dowry, as

such, the panchayats were held on many occasions and complaint

was also lodged in Chevella and Shabad police Stations but still the

attitude of the accused did not change towards Navaneetha. On

23.01.2010 at about 07:00 A.M., he received information that his

sister was found dead beside road, hence, he along with his family

members ran to the said place and saw his sister lying dead on the

road with injuries on her throat. Therefore, he contended that his

sister was killed by her husband after harassing her for additional

dowry. On the basis of the said complaint, crime was registered

against the appellant under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC. The

Investigating Officer prepared the scene of offence panchanama,

examined the witnesses, conducted inquest panchanama and then

shifted the dead body to the Government hospital, Chevella, for

postmortem examination.

8. After postmortem examination, the dead body was handed over

to the relatives of the deceased. During the course of the

investigation, the Police apprehended accused Nos.1 to 3 on

04.02.2010 at about 08:00 A.M., and interrogated accused No.1

thoroughly. He voluntarily confessed having committed the offence

and the same was recorded in the presence of the panchas. Later, KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.893 of 2014

they also recovered the clothes (pant and shirt) of accused No.1

which he wore at the time of commission of offence, under the

panchanama in the presence of panchas. The post mortem

examination report mentioned that the victim died as a result of

asphyxia due to direct pressure over the neck. Basing on the same,

charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Sections

498-A and 302 of IPC.

9. To prove the case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and

got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and MOs.1 to 4.

 PW.1 is the complainant and brother of the deceased. He

deposed that his sister was married to accused No.1 on

30.04.2006 and was living with him and his family i.e.,

accused Nos.2 and 3. He further deposed that after six months

of the marriage, the accused Nos.1 to 3 started demanding

additional dowry of Rs.1 lakh and were harassing his sister for

the same, as such, panchayats were held in village for about 2

or 3 times and in the said panchayat, the Sarpanch and the

village elders advises accused No.1 to live amicably with his

sister apart from advising accused Nos.1 to 3 to look after the

deceased and not to harass her but the accused continued to

harass her for additional dowry, as such, the deceased even KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.893 of 2014

attempted suicide by consuming poison but was rescued after

a treatment and then another panchayat was held wherein, the

accused undertook to look after his wife. On 22.01.2010 the

accused No.1 and Navaneetha came to Tangadpally Village to

attend the cradle ceremony of the daughter of their cousin

(PW.3) and left the village in the night but on the next day in

the morning on receiving information, he went to the place at

Nagaram Village and saw the dead body of his sister lying on

the road beside a stream, while the scooter of accused No.1

was lying at a distance and the body had throttling marks and

beating marks, as such, he lodged complaint against accused

Nos.1 to 3.

 PW.2 is the mother of the deceased. Her evidence is that her

daughter married accused No.1 about nine years ago and that

the accused No.1 and his daughter lived happily till a daughter

was born and then the accused No.1 started beating her

daughter for the reasons not known to her, as such, the

deceased was back to her house but later, accused No.1 took

her back with a promise to look after his wife but about four

years later, accused along with the deceased came to attend

the function at the house of PW.3 at Tangadpally Village and

the left the said place after dinner. On the next day morning, KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.893 of 2014

she came to know that accused No.1 killed her daughter and

the same was informed to the Sarpanch, as such, the

Sarpanch informed the same as they visited the body of her

daughter on the Nagarguda Road and found that she had

injury marks on the chest and also on the private parts and

other clothes of the deceased were found to be loose.

 PW.3 is the cousin of the deceased. Her evidence is that on the

date of incident, there was cradle ceremony in her house and

the same was attended by the accused No.1 and the deceased.

Later, both of them left her house in the night but in the

morning she received a phone call from PW.1 stating that

Navaneetha died while returning from the function, as such,

they went to the place of offence at Nagarguda and saw the

dead body of Navaneetha which had nail marks, rupture

marks on the neck and thigh. She deposed that accused Nos.1

to 3 harassed Navaneetha for want of additional dowry and

accused No.1 might have killed Navaneetha at the instance of

accused Nos.2 and 3.

 PW.4 deposed that about four years ago he was called to

Venkateshwara Temple at Chevella as the elder in the

panchayath held with regard to the dispute between the KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.893 of 2014

accused No.1 and his wife i.e., Navaneetha who consumed

some poisonous substance and attempted suicide. He further

stated that in the said panchayath the accused No.1 was

asked to execute a document transferring one acre of his land

in the name of his daughter and settled the issue. Later, when

he went to the scene of offence to see the dead body of

Navaneetha.

 PW.5 is another panch. His evidence is that he attended the

panchayat pertaining to resolve the disputes between

Navaneetha and her husband i.e., accused No.1 about four

times, at request of father of Navaneetha. He deposed that the

accused No.1 used to suspect his wife as she received a phone

call from a male person, as such, he started harassing the

deceased. The panchayat advised the accused and deceased to

live amicably.

 PW.6 is the neighbour of the deceased who knows Navaneetha

and her father. His evidence is that accused Nos.1 to 3

suspected harassed the deceased for want of dowry, as such,

panchayaths were also held in the village to resolve the dispute

between accused No.1 and Navaneetha. The Panchayat advised

them not to quarrel and live amicably.

KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.893 of 2014

 PW.7 is the panch for scene of offence panchanama. His

evidence is that he noticed a scooter near the dead body of

Navaneetha. Later, when Police held inquest panchanama, he

signed on the same.

 PW.8 deposed that on receiving a call from the Police station,

he went to the Police Station where the C.I., read out a written

matter stating that the accused No.1 killed his wife and then

obtained signatures on the same. Later, accused No.1 led them

to the Thimmareddyguda in Police jeep and stopped infront of

his house and brought his clothes i.e., pant and shirt, that he

wore at the time of the offence. The said pant and shirt was

torn and had blood stains and the Police seized the same.

 PW.9 is the Tahsildar, Shabad, who held inquest panchanama

in presence of PW.7 and another.

 PW.10 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government Hospital,

Chevella. He deposed that on 23.01.2010 he found ligature

mark on the front of the neck with fracture of hyoid bone and

contusion below and medicalpart of sternomastoid apart from

multiple scratches and abrasions on the left shoulder, anterior

part of the chest, as such, opined that the death was due to KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.893 of 2014

mechanical asphyxia due to application of pressure over the

neck, hence, he issued certificate to that effect.

 PWs.11 and 12 are the Investigating Officers who deposed

about the investigation done by them.

10. On behalf of accused No.1, DWs.1 and 2 are examined.

 DW.1 deposed that on 23.01.2010 at about 07:30 A.M., he saw

Police taking accused No.2 along with them to the Police

Station, as such, he followed them to know why the Police are

taking accused No.2 in custody. In the Police Station he saw

accused No.1 already in the custody, as such, he enquired as

to why accused No.1 was in Police Station and came to know

that wife of accused No.1 died in an accident and he came to

the police station to lodge a complaint but the police made him

sit there. He further deposed that after sometime, the Police

took accused Nos.1 and 2 along with them from Shabad Police

Station on motor cycles. As such, he followed them and

noticed that accused Nos.1 and 2 were taken to the

Registration Office at Chevella where the accused Nos.1 and 2

executed a registered document in favour of the Sarpanch

Anjaneyulu for an extent of one acre of land.

KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.893 of 2014

 DW.2 deposed that there were no disputes between the

accused No.1 and the deceased and they lived amicably.

11. The case of the prosecution is totally based on the

circumstantial evidence. The prosecution relied on the circumstances

of the last seen theory and also the fact that earlier there were

disputes between the deceased and accused No.1 and to resolve the

same panchayats were held by PWs.4 and 5. Basing on the same, the

trial Court came to the conclusion that accused No.1 killed the

deceased.

12. Now, the points for determination are:

1. Whether the death of the deceased is homicidal ?

2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

3. Whether the judgment of trial Court needs interference?

POINT Nos.1 to 3:

13. To prove that the death of the deceased is a homicidal death,

the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW.10 - Medical Officer and

also on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 i.e., brother, mother and cousin of

the deceased.

KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.893 of 2014

14. PW.10 deposed that on 23.01.2010 he received requisition

from the Station House Officer of Police Station, Chevella, and then

when he examined the dead body of the deceased, he found ligature

mark on front of the neck with fracture of hyoid bone and contusion

below and medical part of stern mastoid apart from multiple

scratches and abrasions on the left shoulder, anterior part of the

chest. According to him, the injuries on the body were fresh ones and

injury No.1 could have been caused by application of human

pressure and injury No.2 could be possible due to road traffic

accident, as such, he opined that the death was due to mechanical

asphyxia due to application of pressure over the neck. As such he

issued a certificate to that effect (Ex.P8).

15. In the cross examination he admitted that when pressure is

applied on the neck of the human being by another human being,

the tongue of the first human being protrudes. He also admitted that

the mouth of the deceased was closed. He further admitted that

when pressure is applied on the victim, the victim struggles, as such,

the struggle marks will be present on the ground. He stated that in

Ex.P8 while describing the ligature mark, he mentioned the said

ligature mark as one inch, but he did not specifically mention that

the ligature mark of one inch is the width or breadth. He also stated

that when a man throttles another human being there will not be the KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.893 of 2014

presence of the ligature mark on the neck. He deposed that he does

not know if there would were any depression marks on the neck in

case of throttling but in the present case, he did not find any such

depression marks on the throat of the deceased. He admitted that

when throttling is done, the sternomastoid muscles get torn and the

same may result in hemorrhage. Lastly, he admitted that when a

person is travelling on a two wheeler and a sudden break is applied,

the same results in the fall of rider of two wheeler on some hard

surface and due to the same, the injuries mentioned in Ex.P8 are

possible. Hence, to conclude that the death of the deceased is a

homicidal death, the only evidence on record is the evidence of

PW.10.

16. PWs.1 to 3 suspected that the accused No.1 killed the

deceased. Though there is no doubt that accused No.1 and the

deceased were travelling together at the time of the incident and that

there were disputes between them, to prove that the death of the

deceased is homicidal death, the evidence on record is not sufficient.

PW.10 gave contradictory statement with regard to death of the

deceased. Though he deposed that the death of the deceased was

due to mechanical asphyxia due to application of pressure over the

neck, in the cross examination he was not standing on the same

lines and his admissions show that if human pressure is applied on KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.893 of 2014

the neck of the human being by another human being, the tongue of

the first human being protrudes but the mouth of the deceased was

closed. He also admitted that if a person throttles another person,

there will not be any ligature marks, whereas, ligature marks were

found over the dead body of the deceased. Therefore, the admissions

of PW.10 in the cross examination creates doubt with regard to the

death of the deceased being homicidal death.

17. Further, PW.1 deposed that there were throttling marks and

beating marks on the dead body of the deceased. PW.2 deposed on

different footing as that of PW.1 and stated that there were injury

marks on the chest and private parts of the deceased but the same

was not deposed by PW.10. PW.3 deposed that she saw nail marks

and other ruptured marks on the neck and thighs of the deceased.

Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and PW.10 is not corroborating

with each other to conclude that the death of the deceased is a

homicidal death.

18. The prosecution relied on the circumstances to prove the

motive for commission of offence. Firstly, the disputes that prevailed

between accused No.1 and the deceased. According to PW.1, the

accused used to harass the deceased for additional dowry and with

regard to the same, the deceased attempted suicide and a panchayat KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.893 of 2014

was held by elders i.e., PWs.4 and 5 whereunder, PWs.4 and 5

advised them to live amicably. The evidence of PWs.4 and 5 does not

disclose anything about the demand of additional dowry by accused

No.1 and PW.4 remains silent with regard to the type of harassment

or the disputes prevailed between accused No.1 and the deceased,

whereas, PW.5 deposed that accused No.1 used to suspect his wife

as she received calls from a male person. Therefore, we cannot rely

on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 with regard to the harassment being

made by accused No.1 on the deceased and demanding additional

dowry.

19. The evidence of PW.4 discloses that accused No.1 and the

deceased was advised to live amicable and for the said purpose,

accused No.1 was made to execute a document transferring one acre

of his land in favour of the deceased, and the same falsifies the

evidence of PWs.1 to 3 regarding the demand of additional dowry by

accused No.1.

20. Secondly, the prosecution relied on the alleged confession of

accused No.1 leading to the recovery of MOs.1 and 2. The evidence of

PW.8 is that he received a call from the Police Station, where the C.I.,

read out a written matter stating that accused No.1 killed his wife

and obtained signatures on the same and later accused No.1 himself KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.893 of 2014

led the Police to Thimmareddyguda and recovered the MOs.1 and 2,

there is no evidence on record with regard to MOs.1 and 2 being sent

to FSL to prove that the blood on MOs.1 and 2 belongs to the

deceased. Further, in the evidence of PW.10 he has not deposed

anything about the bleeding injuries. Therefore, the circumstances

relied upon by the prosecution with regard to the alleged confession

of accused No.1 leading the Police to recover MOs.1 and 2 is not

proved. Moreover, the statement of PW.8 is that he signed on a

written statement read out by the Police. He turned hostile and has

not supported the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution failed to

prove the circumstances.

21. Learned counsel for appellant relied on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of

Maharashtra 1. The relevant paragraph No.153 reads as under:

"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a

1984 4 SCC 116 KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.893 of 2014

grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047] "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused".

22. In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove that the

circumstances established are consistent and they are not showing

that accused No.1 is the only person who is responsible for the death

of the deceased. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.893 of 2014

itself are not proved. The trial Court wrongly came to the conclusion

that the death of the deceased is a homicidal death and accused

No.1 is responsible for it. Further, in paragraph No.218 of the

judgment in Sharad (supra) it is observed that "in view of the fact

that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and further in view of the

fact that two views are possible on the evidence on record, one

pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other his innocence, the

accused is entitled to have the benefit of one which is favourable to

him...."

23. In the present case also, to prove that the death of the

deceased is homicidal death, the evidence of PW.10 is not certain.

Though PW.10 deposed that the death is due to mechanical asphyxia

due to application of pressure over the neck, in the cross

examination he admitted that it might have occurred due to an

accident. Therefore, there is no sufficient evidence on record to prove

that the death of the deceased is homicidal death. Further, the

circumstances relied on by the prosecution to prove the motive for

commission is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore,

benefit of doubt can be given to the accused. Accordingly, point

Nos.1 to 3 are answered.

KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.893 of 2014

24. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion

that the prosecution failed to prove the circumstances beyond

reasonable doubt and the trial Court wrongly convicted the

appellant/accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section

302 of IPC. Therefore, the appellant/accused No.1 is entitled for

benefit of doubt. As such, the appeal is liable to be allowed.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated

09.07.2014 in S.C.No.18 of 2011 passed by the Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Rangareddy District, is set aside.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. He is set at

liberty, forthwith, if he is not required in any other crime or case.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this

appeal shall stand closed.

____________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J

__________________ K.SUJANA, J

Date :18.10.2023 PT KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.893 of 2014

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

P.D. JUDGMENT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.893 OF 2014

(Pre-delivery judgment of the Division Bench prepared by the Hon'ble Smt Justice K. Sujana)

Date:18.10.2023 PT