Kedewar Ramesh vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 3356 Tel

       THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.184 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 06.12.2017 passed by the

learned Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad in S.C.No.233 of 2014,

the present Criminal Appeal is filed.

2. Heard Smt. D. Madhavi, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the appellant, as well as Smt. Shalini Sakena, learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.

3. The trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence

punishable under Section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (for short 'the IPC') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple

imprisonment for a period of six (6) months.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial

Court failed to see that the ingredients to constitute the offence

punishable under Section 304 part II of IPC are not made out by

the prosecution and failed to appreciate the evidence of PWs.1, 2

and 4 and they are none other than the parents and the brother of

the deceased. According to them, the deceased informed about the

alleged harassment made by the appellant. He further submitted SKS,J Crl.A.No.184 of 2019

that the learned Sessions Judge should have seen that after the

death of the deceased the prosecution has come forward with an

allegation against the accused that he was addicted to alcohol and

harassed the deceased for the first time. He further submitted that

the evidence on record is not corroborating with each other and the

material witnesses are turned hostile. The evidence of P.W.3 who

is the son of the deceased and the accused, turned hostile. Even

though, he turned hostile, his evidence was considered by the trial

Court which is against the settled principles of law. Therefore, he

prayed the Court to set aside the judgment by acquitting the

accused.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

vehemently opposed stating that there is ample evidence on record

to prove the accusation against the appellant. Evidence of

witnesses is corroborating with each other. Though P.W.3 not

supported the case and declared as hostile, chief examination of

P.W.3 supports the prosecution case with regard to the occurrence

of incident on the alleged date of incident. PWs.1 to 4 evidences

are sufficient to prove the motive for commission of offence. As

such, there are no infirmities in the judgment of the trial Court and

there are no merits in the appeal and prayed the Court to dismiss

the appeal.

SKS,J Crl.A.No.184 of 2019

6. To prove the case of the prosecution, they examined PWs.1 to

18 and Exs.P1 to P17 are marked. Basing on the evidence on

record, the trial Court convicted the accused/appellant.

7. The facts of the case are that on 12.06.2014 at about 08:00

A.M., the de-facto complainant i.e., Dasari Bohajanna went to

Police Station and lodged complaint stating that he performed the

marriage of his younger daughter by name Vijaya (deceased) with

the accused, he was addicted to alcohol, not attending any work

and was quarrelling with his daughter. On 11.06.2014, his

daughter went to field work and returned home lately. Due to

tiredness, she could not prepare food. Thereupon, the accused

picked up a quarrel with her, beat her with hands and throttled

her to death. The same was informed to him by Sarpanch on

phone and he was further informed to the deceased father that his

daughter was admitted in Government hospital, Bhainsa and

therefore, he requested necessary action against the accused. On

that, the Police, Kuntala registered a case for the offence

punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The Police examined the

witnesses and recorded their statements and conducted scene of

offence, inquest panchnama and handed over the dead body. After

completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet against the

accused.

SKS,J Crl.A.No.184 of 2019

8. To prove the same, the evidence on record is P.W.1-de-facto

complainant, father of the deceased and PWs.2 to 5 are mother of

the deceased, son of the accused and the deceased and eyewitness

brother of the deceased, and Cousin brother of the deceased.

PWs.6 to 8 and 13 are circumstantial witnesses. P.W.6 is the

person to whom P.W.3 informed the incident on that night. P.W.8

is the Sarpanch who informed the incident to the parents of the

deceased over phone. P.W.13 is the auto driver. PW.9 is the

photographer. P.Ws.10 and 11 are Panch for inquest, P.W.12 is

the Panch for CDF, P.W.14 is the Panch for confession of accused

and P.W.15 is the Medical Officer and P.W.16 is the Investigating

Officer.

9. There is no dispute that deceased and accused are the wife

and the husband and they had two sons. According to the

prosecution, the accused was addicted to alcohol, he was not doing

any work. He is depending on the earnings of the deceased and

harassing the deceased for money. On 11.06.2014, the deceased

was went to field work and returned to house lately. Due to

tiredness, she could not prepare food, for which, the accused

quarreled with her, beat her and throttled her to death.

10. P.W.1 who is the father of the deceased deposed that P.W.2

is his wife. Deceased and the accused were married and they were

blessed with two sons namely Akash and Abhishek. He further SKS,J Crl.A.No.184 of 2019

deposed that accused was beating the deceased under the

influence of alcohol without doing any work and he depended on

the deceased earnings. He further deposed that there were regular

quarrels between the accused and the deceased. On the date of

incident, he quarreled with the deceased and committed murder.

Though he was cross-examined at length nothing was elicited

except stating that he has not lodged any complaint with the police

with regard to the harassment made by the accused against the

deceased.

11. P.W.2 who is the mother of the deceased also deposed on the

same lines as of P.W.1 and in cross examination, she suggested

that the accused was not responsible for the death of her daughter

and the complaint is false. P.W.3 is the son of the deceased and

accused and an eye witness to the incident. He deposed that about

three years back, his mother died in their house during night

hours. At that time, his parents, himself and his younger brother

Abhishek are present in the house. On that day, at the time of his

mother's death he was sleeping. On the next day morning he came

to know through his paternal uncle that his mother was killed by

his father and he took him to Government Hospital, Bhainsa,

where he saw his mother in mortuary. In cross-examination, P.W.3

stated that on the date of incident at about 02:30 P.M., his father

quarreled with his mother for not preparing food and thereupon, SKS,J Crl.A.No.184 of 2019

the accused raised voice on deceased for that scene he woke up

and saw that his father was beating his mother with hands and

was pressing her neck with hands, on seeing the same, he ran

immediately towards the house of P.W.6 and informed him and he

came to his house and on seeing him, his father ran away. He also

admitted that P.W.7-Pentaji also came to his house and P.Ws.6

and 7 shifted her to Government Hospital, Bhainsa. Whereas, in

cross-examination by the accused he deposed that he do not know

anything about the case.

12. P.W.4 is the brother of the deceased and he also deposed on

the same lines as of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.5 is the cousin brother of

the deceased, he is also not an eye witness to the incident.

13. P.Ws.1 to 5 evidences clearly establishes that the accused

was habituated to consuming alcohol and he was not doing any

work and was totally depending on the earnings of the deceased.

14. P.W.6 is the circumstantial witness and he deposed that on

the date of death of the deceased, he came back to his village, then

P.W.3 came to him and informed him that his mother was shifted

to Government Hospital, Bhainsa in Auto and he informed the

same to P.Ws.1 and 2 due to non-availability of their number, he

informed the same to Sarpanch i.e., P.W.8 and he further deposed

that he do not know where the deceased died and do know

anything about the case and he was also declared as hostile.

SKS,J Crl.A.No.184 of 2019

15. P.Ws.7 and 8 not supported the prosecution case and turned

hostile. P.W.9 is the photographer and P.Ws.10 and 11 are Panch

for inquest and P.W.12 is Panch for Crime Detail Form. P.W.13 is

the circumstantial witness and his evidence is that at the request

of the son of the deceased that his mother was not keeping good

health he went with him in his auto to his house and by the time,

he reached there 10 to 15 persons were present in front of the

house of the accused. Then, he went along with P.W.6 and another

neighbour of the accused, shifted the deceased in his auto to

Government Hospital, Bhainsa for treatment and after one hour on

his return from the hospital, he came to know about the death of

the deceased. He has also not supported the prosecution case and

turned hostile.

16. P.W.14 is the panch for confession and recovery and he

stated in his evidence that accused confessed the commission of

the offence in his presence and there is no recovery basing on the

confession. As such, the evidence of P.W.14 is not at all useful to

the prosecution case. P.W.15 who is the Doctor deposed that Dr. A

Mukesh conducted Post Mortem examination and informed that

scratch marks in front of neck, Crush injury of larynx, crush injury

of pharynx and fracture of hyoid bone and according to him, the

death was due to 'Asphyxia secondary to throttling'.

SKS,J Crl.A.No.184 of 2019

17. P.Ws.16 to 18 who are the Investigating Officers deposed

about the investigation. There is no dispute that the accused and

the deceased were residing in the same house. As per Section 106

of the Indian Evidence Act, burden lies on the accused to explain

what happened to his wife since the offence occurred within the

four walls of the house and there is no cogent explanation by the

accused. Though there is no motive for the commission of offence,

the accused was admittedly in drunken condition and the evidence

of P.Ws.1 to 3 proves that he used to quarrel with the deceased for

money. He was not earning anything and depending on the

deceased.

18. Due to that quarrel in a drunken condition, he committed

offence. Evidence of P.W.3, who is the son of accused and

deceased proves that accused and deceased were there in the

house, quarrel took place, as the deceased not prepared food

properly. Though he failed to depose in the chief examination, in

cross-examination by Assistant Public Prosecutor, he deposed

about the incident. Though he turned hostile, his evidence proves

presence of the accused. When the evidence on record proves all

the circumstances showing guilt of the accused, it is the accused

that who has to explain what happened to his wife under Section

106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Admittedly, there is no SKS,J Crl.A.No.184 of 2019

explanation from the accused as such it can be held that he killed

his wife in a sudden quarrel in drunken condition.

19. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the judgment passed by

the trial Court in convicting the accused whereas, the accused is in

jail for almost six (6) years, as such, this Court deems it

appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment maintaining

the conviction against the appellant for the offence punishable

under Section 304 part II of I.P.C.

20. IN THE RESULT, the present Criminal Appeal is partly

allowed and the judgment dated 06.02.2017 in S.C.No.233 of 2014

passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad, is

modified. However, as the appellant/accused is in jail since the

date of conviction, the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the

period of imprisonment already undergone by him. The

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

any other case or crime. The bail bonds of the appellant/Accused

shall stand cancelled.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall

stand closed.

______________ K.SUJANA, J

DATE: 20.10.2023 SAI SKS,J Crl.A.No.184 of 2019

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.184 of 2019

DATE: 20.10.2023 SAI