Telangana High Court
Mindala Nanda Gopal , Nandu, W.G.Dt., vs State Of Ap., Rep. Pp. Hyd., on 16 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.510 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)
The present is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 filed by the appellant/accused challenging the
judgment of conviction dated 23.08.2013 passed by the learned III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court') in S.C.No.713 of 2012.
2. Heard Ms. Padmalatha Yadav (Legal Aid), learned counsel for the
appellant and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-
State.
3. Vide the said impugned judgment, the Trial Court has found the
appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short, 'the Code') and has sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default
stipulation.
4. The entire facts revolve around the death of the deceased
(Smt. Basavamma) on the night of 03.06.2012. The place of incident is
the hut provided to the appellant to reside by his employer.
5. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.06.2012 at around
12.30 hours Pathi Venkatram Reddy, a Contractor of Himayathnagar,
Hyderabad, lodged a complaint with the Ibrahimpatnam Police Station
which was registered as Crime No.213 of 2012. The said Pathi
Venkatram Reddy stated that on the morning of 04.06.2012 at around
8.30 hours, he received a call from one of his mason Marala Yellapa
informing him that one Smt. Basavamma was found murdered on the
night of 03.06.2012 and it is suspected that the appellant who
occupies the hut in which the dead body was found must have killed
her as he was absconding from the spot. Based on the report so
received, the police registered a case and took up the investigation.
They inspected the spot i.e. the hut where the dead body was found
and the body was later sent for post-mortem at the Government
Hospital, Ibrahimpatnam. In the course of post-mortem examination,
the following antimortem injuries were found:
"1. Lacerated injury on temporal region measuring 2 × 1 ×
cms
2. Lacerated injury on the left mandible regions measuring 1
× 1 ½ cms
3. Abrasions on abdomen measuring about 10 × 6 × 1 cms
4. Fracture of temporal bone, fracture of mandible zone
The cause of death to the best of my knowledge is due
to multiple injuries on the neck and head injury leading to
death. Ex.P-1 is the postmortem examination report."
6. In the course of investigation, it was revealed that the deceased
was staying along with the appellant at the said hut where she was
found dead. It was further informed by the neighbors that the
appellant and the deceased were living as husband and wife and that
from the time of the incident, the appellant was found absconding
from his hut and also from his workplace.
7. On 19.06.2013, the police apprehended the appellant and took
him to the police station and in the course of interrogation, the
appellant is said to have confessed about having committed the
offence. Immediately, the police authorities called the panchas and in
their presence they recorded the confessional statement. The appellant
was thereafter taken to the scene of offence where he is said to have
picked up a Sana used by him for attacking the deceased and handed
over the same to the police authorities. The matter was thereafter sent
to the Trial Court where it was registered as S.C.No.713 of 2012.
The prosecution in the course of trial examined as many as twelve (12)
witnesses. No witnesses were examined in defence. Subsequently,
after recording the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C, the impugned judgment was delivered on 23.08.2013, which is
under challenge in the present appeal.
8. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the
prosecution case does not reveal cogent strong evidence so as to
convict the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Code.
That the appellant never had any intension whatsoever to kill the
deceased and the prosecution has also failed in this regard. In the
absence of any mens rea or motive on the part of the appellant and
without any strong cogent evidence in this regard, the finding of guilt
for the offence under Section 302 of the Code is not sustainable.
9. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the entire judgment of conviction is based on
assumptions and presumptions and that even for making it a case of
circumstantial evidence, chain of links to meet the circumstances is
not available with the prosecution. Nor has it been brought before the
Trial Court and on this ground also the Trial Court's judgment
deserves to be interfered with. It was further contended that the Trial
Court failed to appreciate the fact that the prosecution case is not
supported by any of the independent unbiased witnesses.
10. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the
prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt in the course of establishing consistently to arrive at
the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant. It was also contended that
the material witnesses, particularly, the panch witnesses with regard
to the confession and recovery of materials at the behest of the
appellant having not supported the case of the prosecution and as
they have turned hostile, the Trial Court could not have reached to the
conclusion of holding the guilt to have been proved beyond reasonable
doubt and passed the judgment of conviction.
11. On the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor supporting the
judgment of conviction contended that though there are no eye
witnesses to the incident, but the materials and the witnesses
examined in the course of investigation and many of whom have also
been examined during the course of trial clearly indicate the motive
behind killing of the deceased by the present appellant. The
circumstances prevailing on the previous date and also in the recent
past coupled with the appellant suddenly absconding from the scene
of offence clearly establishes the hypothesis of the guilt on the
appellant alone and it does not point towards any other theory.
12. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the evidences
particularly that of P.W.1, establishes the fact that the hut belonged to
the appellant provided by his employer. P.W.2 in his evidence before
the Trial Court has clearly stated that one day prior to the incident he
had found the appellant herein and the deceased together in the
house and on the next day morning when he went to the hut of the
appellant saw the deceased lying dead in the house and the appellant
absconding from the said place. P.W.3 (V.Thimappa) in his evidence
has made two important revelations. First is, about few days prior to
the incident, appellant and the deceased had a quarrel. The second is
that the quarrel between the two was in respect of an alleged illicit
relationship that the appellant has developed with another woman
belonging to the neighboring village at Gowlidoddi. P.W.3 in his
deposition has also stated that when the appellant and the deceased
were quarrelling, the appellant had assaulted the deceased and it was
P.W.3 who had intervened and pacified the fight between the two.
13. Surprisingly, to the statements of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 there has
been no effective cross-examination done whatsoever to disprove the
statement so made by these witnesses or even to give rise to an
element of doubt in the statement so made by them. Under the
circumstances there does seem to be any good ground to deny or
dispute the statements so made by them.
14. The evidence of P.W.8 (Y.Niranjan Reddy) also establishes the
confession that the appellant had made. According to P.W.8 when he
had gone to the police station, he found that the appellant was there
and when he asked the appellant about the incident, the appellant is
said to have confessed that he has killed the deceased. To the
aforesaid extent, the statement of P.W.8 has not been controverted.
15. For all the aforesaid reasons, the learned Public Prosecutor
prays for dismissal of the present appeal as no sufficient strong case
has been made out by the appellant.
16. It would be trite at this juncture to mention a recent decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arvindkumar Anupalal
Poddar vs. State of Maharashtra 1, wherein in paragraph Nos.13 to
19, it has been held as under:
"13. As in the case on hand conviction imposed on the
appellant is only based on circumstantial evidence, we feel
that the various decisions of this Court laying down the
principles of appreciating the circumstantial evidence while
imposing the sentence can be highlighted. The earliest case
on this subject was Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State
of M.P. [(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1953 Cri LJ
129] In para 10, the position has been succinctly stated as
under: (AIR pp. 345-46)
"10. ... It is well to remember that in cases where
the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully
established, and all the facts so established
should be consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances
should be of a conclusive nature and tendency
and they should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In
other words, there must be a chain of evidence so
far complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for a conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and it must be such as
to show that within all human probability the act
must have been done by the accused. In spite of
the forceful arguments addressed to us by the
learned Advocate General on behalf of the State
we have not been able to discover any such
evidence either intrinsic within Ext. P-3(a) or
outside and we are constrained to observe that the
courts below have just fallen into the error against
which warning was uttered by Baron Alderson in
the abovementioned case."
14. The decision in Hanumant Govind [(1952) 2 SCC 71 :
AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] was followed in the
Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Govinda
(2012) 11 Supreme Court Cases 172
Reddy v. State of Mysore [AIR 1960 SC 29 : 1960 Cri LJ
137] . The said position was subsequently reiterated in the
decision in Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi Admn. [(1974) 3 SCC
668 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 198] In para 10 of the decision
in Naseem Ahmed [(1974) 3 SCC 668 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 198] ,
the legal position has been stated as under: (Naseem Ahmed
case [(1974) 3 SCC 668 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 198] , SCC p. 670)
"10. This is a case of circumstantial evidence and
it is therefore necessary to find whether the
circumstances on which prosecution relies are
capable of supporting the sole inference that the
appellant is guilty of the crime of which he is
charged. The circumstances, in the first place,
have to be established by the prosecution by clear
and cogent evidence and those circumstances
must not be consistent with the innocence of the
accused. For determining whether the
circumstances established on the evidence raise
but one inference consistent with the guilt of the
accused, regard must be had to the totality of the
circumstances. Individual circumstances
considered in isolation and divorced from the
context of the overall picture emerging from a
consideration of the diverse circumstances and
their conjoint effect may by themselves appear
innocuous. It is only when the various
circumstances are considered conjointly that it
becomes possible to understand and appreciate
their true effect. If a person is seen running away
on the heels of a murder, the explanation that he
was fleeing in panic is apparently not irrational.
Bloodstains on the clothes can be attributed
plausibly to a bleeding nose. Even the possession
of a weapon like a knife can be explained by citing
a variety of acceptable answers. But such
circumstances cannot be considered in watertight
compartments. If a person is found running away
from the scene of murder with bloodstained
clothes and a knife in his hand, it would in a
proper context, be consistent with the rule of
circumstantial evidence to hold that he had
committed the murder."
15. In the decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 487] , this
Court has laid down the cardinal principles regarding
appreciation of circumstantial evidence and held that
whenever the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the
following features are required to be complied with which
has been set out by this Court which reads as under: (SCC
p. 185, para 153)
"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 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] where the following
observations were made: [SCC p. 807, para 19 :
SCC (Cri) p. 1047, para 19]
'19. ... 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.' (emphasis in original)
(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."
The above principles have been followed and reiterated in
the recent decision of this Court in Mustkeem v. State of
Rajasthan [(2011) 11 SCC 724 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] .
16. In the decision in Rukia Begum v. State of
Karnataka [(2011) 4 SCC 779 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 488] ,
this Court again restated the principles as under: (SCC p.
784, paras 17-18)
"17. In order to sustain conviction, circumstantial
evidence must be complete and incapable of
explanation of any other hypothesis than that of
the guilt of the accused. Such evidence should not
only be consistent with the guilt of the accused
but inconsistent with his innocence. No hard-and-
fast rule can be laid to say that particular
circumstances are conclusive to establish guilt. It
is basically a question of appreciation of evidence
which exercise is to be done in the facts and
circumstances of each case.
18. Here in the present case the motive, the
recoveries and abscondence of these appellants
immediately after the occurrence point out
towards their guilt. In our opinion, the trial court
as also the High Court on the basis of the
circumstantial evidence rightly came to the
conclusion that the prosecution has been able to
prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt so far
as these appellants are concerned."
17. When we apply the above principles to the case on
hand, the circumstances stated by the trial court and
concretised by the High Court, namely, were that the
deceased and the accused were last seen together on 6-12-
2001 as per the version of PWs 1 and 6; the body of the
deceased was recovered at the instance of the appellant as
stated by PW 7; the recovery of knife by the IO from the
place of occurrence; the frequent quarrels between the
deceased and the accused as stated by PWs 1 and 2; the
theory of the deceased having run away from the
matrimonial home not properly explained by the appellant
apart from the fact that no steps were taken by him to trace
his wife; the weapon used, namely, the knife containing
bloodstains; that the nature of injuries found on the body of
the deceased; that as per the version of PW 5, the post-
mortem doctor, the death was homicidal and that the
injuries could have been caused with the weapon marked in
the case; that the appellant wanted to flee from the town
itself and that the clothes seized from the appellant were
found containing human blood.
18. When the above circumstances relied upon by the
courts below for convicting the appellant are examined, we
find that the principles laid down by this Court in the above
referred to decisions are fully satisfied. The circumstances
narrated above as held by the courts below were all
established without any doubt and are conclusive in nature.
They were not explainable with any other possibilities. The
circumstances are consistent which lead to the only
hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant alone and none else
and the said circumstances exclude every other hypothesis
and show that in all probabilities, the killing of the
deceased could have been done only by the appellant. The
motive along with the chain of circumstances which stood
proved against the appellant only go to show that the
appellant alone was responsible for the killing of the
deceased. The appellant has miserably failed to show any
missing link in the chain of circumstances demonstrated by
the prosecution for the offence alleged against him.
19. We are in full agreement with the above conclusions of
the High Court and we find no good grounds to interfere
with the same. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for
the respondent, the appellant did not dispute the identity of
the body at any point of time, that he did not state anything
in the course of Section 313 CrPC questioning about the
running away of his wife and that there was no missing link
in the chain of circumstances demonstrated before the
courts below. If according to the appellant the deceased ran
away from the matrimonial home he should have
established the said fact to the satisfaction of the Court as
it was within his special knowledge. In this context it will be
worthwhile to refer to the recent decision of this Court
in Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 1 SCC 10 :
(2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 1] . In p. 30, para 53, it has been held
that a fact which is especially in the knowledge of any
person then the burden of proving that fact is upon him
and that it is impossible for the prosecution to prove certain
facts particularly within the knowledge of the accused."
17. The said principles of circumstantial evidence in the case of
Arvindkumar Anupalal Poddar (supra) has been further reiterated by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tukaram, s/o Banshilal
Marar vs. State of Chattisgarh 2 and Subhasish Mondal Alias Bijoy
vs. State of West Bengal 3.
18. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on
perusal of records, particularly taking note of the evidences which
have been relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor and which are
referred to in the preceding paragraphs, one of the major facts in the
instant case is the admission of P.Ws.1 and 2 of the hut where the
body of the deceased was found belonging to the appellant. Secondly,
the appellant and the deceased staying together as husband and wife.
Thirdly, the appellant and the deceased were found at the house the
previous night. P.W.3 in his deposition has stated that about a few
days earlier there was a fight between the two on account of some
illicit relationship that the appellant had with another woman in the
neighboring village. Further, the two i.e. the appellant and the
deceased having a fight and the appellant having assaulted the
deceased and P.W.3 had to intervene and pacify the two. Last but not
the least, the most crucial part of the circumstances being the sudden
absconding of the appellant from the scene of occurrence from the
time of the death of the deceased. This absconding of the appellant
from his hut with no plausible explanation rendered by him anywhere
in the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 of
(2015) 12 Supreme court Cases 786
(2014) 4 Supreme Court Cases 180
Cr.P.C leads to the only conclusion of the appellant alone to have
committed the offence. The statement of P.W.3 further gives the motive
which the appellant had to eliminate the deceased.
19. In the given factual backdrop and the evidences which have
come on record, coupled with the fact that there is no strong cogent
substantial cross-examination doubting the evidences led by the
prosecution and no material to disbelieve the said witnesses examined
by the prosecution, we do not find any strong case made out by the
appellant calling for an interference with the impugned judgment of
conviction passed by the Trial Court.
20. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
21. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall
stand closed.
__________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
___________________________
SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU, J
Date: 16.04.2024
GSD
