Telangana High Court
Kotha Kurva Narsimhulu, Mahabubnagar ... vs State Of Ap., Rep. Pp And Anr., on 15 April, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.485 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)
The present appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant
assailing the judgment of acquittal dated 03.01.2014 passed by the
learned I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short,
'the Trial Court') in S.C.No.615 of 2011.
2. Heard Smt. G.Uma Rani, learned counsel for the appellant and
learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State.
3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has found the
accused/respondent No.2 not guilty of the offences punishable under
Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after
referred to as 'the Act') and Section 136 of the Electricity Act.
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the
accused/respondent No.2 is said to have developed an extra marital
relationship with the deceased (Smt. Padmamma). However, on
14.02.2011 when the accused/respondent No.2 visited the house of
the deceased seeking sexual favours, it was refused and the deceased
also asked the accused/respondent No.2 not to come to her house
any further as she is not further interested in continuing the
relationship with him. The next day it is said that when the deceased
had gone to the field, the accused/respondent No.2 is said to have
caught hold of the deceased with a scarf round her neck, choked her
to death, thrown her body on a live electricity wire and thereafter the
accused/respondent No.2 is said to have thrown the body in one of the
wells in the field in order to hide the offence.
5. It is also the case of the prosecution that the live electricity wire
was erected by accused/respondent No.2 only with an intention of
showing the deceased to have died of electrical shock. The dead body
of the deceased was found in the well by the villagers who later on
informed the matter to the daughter (P.W.2) of the deceased and the
matter was also reported to the Itikyala Police Station where Crime
No.16 of 2011 was registered for the offences under Section 302 and
201 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 136 of the Electricity
Act. Subsequently, the charge sheet was filed and the matter was put
to trial before the Trial Court where the case was registered as
S.C.No.615 of 2011.
6. In all, the prosecution examined seventeen (17) witnesses and
defence examined two (02) witnesses. Thereafter, the statement under
Section 313 of the accused/respondent No.2 was recorded and finally
the impugned judgment was passed where it was the finding of the
Trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt.
7. On a query being put to the learned Public Prosecutor, she
accepts the fact that the State has not filed any appeal against the
said judgment of acquittal and it is only the present complainant's
appeal which is filed.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that from the post-
mortem report that was made available during the course of trial,
Ex.P.12 has been marked by the Doctor (P.W.15). P.W.15 who
conducted the postmortem examination has opined that the cause of
death to be "asphyxia due to strangulation or throttling". According to
the appellant it appears that the deceased before she was killed was
subjected to rape, which fact has not been properly appreciated by the
Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal which
therefore needs reconsideration.
9. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the Trial Court has also not appreciated the evidence of
P.W.2 who otherwise was a strong witness of the incident which again
has not been properly dealt with by the Trial Court. The impugned
judgment therefore needs reconsideration and if necessary be remitted
back for re-appreciation of evidences in its entirety. So also the
evidence of P.W.1, the husband of the deceased, who has corroborated
the evidence of P.W.2 again, has not been properly dealt with.
10. Based upon these evidences, the learned counsel for the
appellant prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment of
acquittal.
11. It would therefore be relevant at this juncture to take note of the
relevant portion of the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2. If we look into the
evidence of P.W.2, what is evident is that, P.W.2 was a grown up girl
aged around seventeen (17) years of age. In her deposition she has
stated as under:
"One day prior to the death of my mother in the night
time about 10-00 or 10-30 pm the accused of this case
came to our house in an intoxicated condition and
quarreled with my mother, that my mother has to slept
alongwith him, on that my mother warned the accused
and abused him on that he went away.
On the next day morning at about 7-00 I along with my
mother were proceeding to our fields in order to bring the
fire sticks. While we were proceeding in the fields of
accused, the accused pulled my mother with the help of
towel, due to fear I went to my house and from there to the
fields for coolie work. I have not informed this incident to
any one. At about 12-00 noon I came to know through
Goverdhan Reddy that my mother was died. I came to my
house and informed to my father all the incident that
happened in the previous day night. I along with my
younger sister went to the well and saw the deadbody of
my mother."
12. Similarly, if we look into the evidence of P.W.1, the husband of
the deceased which reads as under:
"At the time of this offence I was wearing Shiva Mala
and I was residing in a temple at a distance from the
village. One Goverdhan Reddy (LW.7) telephoned me at
about 11-00 am and informed me that my wife Padamma
died at the well of Vangal Reddy. Immediately I went to
that well. By the time I reached the said well the deadbody
was taken out and kept on the gadda of the well. I saw
electric shock to her legs. I cam to know that the accused
killed my wife.
My daughter informed me that while my daughter and
my wife was going to the fields the accused caught hold
my wife and killer her. I lodged a complaint."
13. All the major witnesses have turned hostile and have not
supported the case of the prosecution.
14. From the statement of P.W.2 it is evidently clear that on the
previous night of the incident, she was at home when the
accused/respondent No.2 had come to their house in an intoxicated
condition and upon her mother scolding and abusing the
accused/respondent No.2, he went away. Then on the next day P.W.2
had accompanied the deceased to the fields to bring fire sticks when
the accused/respondent No.2 is said to have pulled her mother with
the help of a towel and at that point of time out of fear she ran away
from the place. The next reaction on the part of the daughter (P.W.2) is
very unnatural and highly improbable and it is difficult to accept the
version as it is. The grown up girl around seventeen (17) years of age,
if she finds her mother being pulled by someone forcefully, the first
reaction would be an immediate resistance to help her mother. Second
would have been raising of an alarm calling for attraction of the people
in the nearby vicinity if any. Thirdly, she would have run to the nearby
place and would have called upon the villagers seeking help for
rescuing her mother. Above all she would have immediately phoned
her father intimating about this development. Surprisingly, there is no
such reaction reflected to have been undertaken by her. On the
contrary, in her deposition itself it reflects that out of fear she went
home without informing anybody about this development. Secondly,
she says that after a while, she went for her work where she was
working as a coolie. Both of these facts are never expected of a person
of the age group of 17-18 years, particularly, when the victim is
his/her mother. Therefore, the statement of P.W.2 is highly
improbable and hard to accept.
15. Further if we read the deposition of P.W.1, the relevant portion of
which has already been reproduced, it will also show that there are so
many contradictions and omissions between the statement of P.W.1
and P.W.2. P.W.1 says he was informed by one Mr. Goverdhan Reddy
over telephone. On the other hand, P.W.2 says she had come home
and had informed her father about everything that has transpired. She
does not say that she had telephoned her father; rather she says that
she came home and informed her father as if the father was available
at home. When the statement of P.W.2 itself is not reliable, the
evidence of P.W.1 all the more becomes weaker.
16. From the evidence of P.W.15 who had conducted the autopsy,
the cross-examination does not show any questions being put to him
in respect of the deceased being raped before she was allegedly killed.
No suggestions whatsoever were being put to P.W.15 as regards the
deceased being subjected to rape. P.W.15 has specifically opined that
there was fracture on the left bone of hyoid. Thus, the apprehension of
the appellant that the deceased being subjected to rape is not
established.
17. The main fact still remains to be considered is, what is the
material to show that it was the accused/respondent No.2 who had
strangulated or throttled the deceased to death. There is no eye
witness, there are no circumstantial evidences available except for the
statement or version of P.W.2. There are also no independent
witnesses to show the motive or intention of accused/respondent No.2
to have murdered the deceased. Neither is there any evidence of last
seen together. The statement of P.W.2 is so unrealistic and hard to
believe so far as the immediate reaction of a 17-18 years old girl
witnessing her mother being forcefully taken away by a single
assailant. Secondly, reaction of not rising an alarm and calling for help
and thirdly not informing any neighbors or anyone in the village
seeking for help to protect her mother. The evidence of P.W.2 therefore
is highly doubtful and cannot be accepted for the purpose of
convicting accused/respondent No.2.
18. We are therefore of the considered opinion that no strong case
has been made out by the appellant calling for an interference with the
impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. The
present Criminal Appeal therefore devoid of merits, deserves to be and
is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
19. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall
stand closed.
__________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
____________________________
SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU, J
Date: 15.04.2024
GSD
