Telangana High Court
Persika Chinna Venkateswarlu, ... vs State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., Hyd on 18 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.1396 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU)
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused in Sessions Case
No. 299 of 2012 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge
(FTC), Khammam at Kothagudem, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), challenging the Judgment dated 18.02.2013,
wherein the trial Court found him guilty of the offense punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and convicted him under
Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. The appellant herein was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of
payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months
for the offense under Section 302 of IPC.
2. The appellant was prosecuted by the State with an allegation that he
killed his wife due to his suspicion against her character. The brief history of
the case on hand is that the marriage of the appellant and one Persika
Tirupathamma (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was performed about
10 years prior to the date of the offense and out of the wedlock, they were
blessed with two male children. Since there were frequent quarrels between the
couple, PW.1, the elder brother of the deceased, and other family members
advised the appellant and the deceased to come to Bonthagudem Village
whereat the other family members were staying.
3. Thereupon, about four years prior to the date of the offense, the
appellant and the deceased along with their children migrated to Bonthagudem
Village. The appellant was working as a cleaner on a lorry. As the deceased was
moving closely with one Sode Raju of Anandapuram, the appellant suspected
that the deceased developed illicit intimacy with the said Raju and he used to
pick up quarrels with his wife frequently.
4. The prosecution alleged that on the intervening night of 18/19.05.2012,
the appellant had a quarrel with his wife; however, at the intervention of the
family members, the same was subsided. It was alleged by the prosecution that
due to the said suspicion, the appellant decided to kill his wife and hatched a
plan, according to which, on 19.05.2012, at about 03:00 P.M., the appellant
along with his wife left the village by saying that they were proceeding to
Mondivarre Village to collect money, which was due to him. According to the
averments in the charge sheet and as per the complaint lodged by PW.1, the
elder brother of the deceased, when the family members found that the
deceased and her husband did not return by the evening, they went on a
search. Later, they found the dead body of the deceased in the agricultural
fields of Keesari Jogulu and there were injuries on her person. Thereby, PW.1
approached the police on 20.05.2012 and presented a complaint narrating the
above-referred incident. Basing on the said complaint, police registered a case
in Crime No. 21 of 2012 on the file of the Mulakalapalli Police Station, for the
offense under Section 302 of IPC, issued FIR, and sent copies thereof to the
concerned. PW.18, Inspector of Police, Paloncha, took up the investigation and
examined the material witnesses and also completed the formalities like an
inquest over the dead body of the deceased and referred the corpse for post-
mortem examination.
5. The prosecution has alleged that on 21.05.2012, at about 10:30 A.M.,
the appellant herein said to have made an extra-judicial confession before
PW.13, and PW.13 had produced the appellant before PW.18. PW.18
interrogated the appellant in the presence of PWs.11 and 12, to whom the
appellant confessed to the commission of the offense and produced M.O.1-
towel, which he said to have used in the commission of the offense. Later,
PW.18 produced the appellant before the Magistrate concerned for judicial
custody. After the completion of further investigation, police have laid the
charge sheet, which was registered as P.R.C.No. 28 of 2012, and the same was
committed to the Sessions Court. The trial Court has framed charges under
Section 302 of IPC. To prove the prosecution case, PWs.1 to 18 were examined
and Ex.P.1 to P.17 and M.O.1 were marked. On behalf of the defense, Exs.D.1
and D.2 were marked.
6. The trial Court, having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence,
came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the
appellant for the offense under Section 302 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt
and convicted the appellant; he was sentenced as indicated above. According to
the report presented by PW.1 and as per the evidence of all the material
witnesses, it is very clear that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged offense.
The prosecution tried to establish the guilt of the appellant for the offense
under Section 302 of IPC based on circumstantial evidence. Ex.P.1 is the first
version of PW.1 before the police. According to the said report, it is the version
of PW.1 that on 19.05.2012, at about 03:00 P.M., the appellant and the
deceased left the house by saying that they were proceeding towards
Mondivorre, and since the couple did not return home even after 05:30 P.M.,
he, along with some others, went on the search of his sister, and later, they
found the dead body of the deceased with injuries in the agricultural land;
however, he did not rush to the police station nor was there any attempt made
to present a report immediately after they found the dead body of the deceased.
7. According to his evidence before the trial Court, he went to the police
station on the next date, i.e., on 20.05.2012, at about 10:00 A.M. and
presented Ex.P.1. However, as per the endorsement on Ex.P.1, Ex.P.1 report
was lodged at about 06:00 A.M. on 20.05.2012. There are so many important
aspects which create doubt as to whether such an incident occurred or these
witnesses have implicated the appellant herein in the murder case of the
deceased. The claim of PW.1 is that they went on the search of his sister simply
because they found she did not return home in the evening hours itself creates
any amount of doubt. As per Ex.P.1, they have information that the appellant
and his wife left the village at 03:00 P.M. by specifically saying that they are
going to a particular village; therefore, there is nothing to suspect foul play
simply because the deceased did not return by 05:30 P.M. or 07:30 P.M. on the
same day.
8. According to the evidence of PW.1, he was not present when his sister
and the appellant herein left the house. During his examination-in-chief, PW.1
has claimed that they waited for the arrival of the appellant and the deceased
till 05:30 P.M., then they started the search. He also stated before the trial
Court that he, along with his brother, who was examined as PW.4, proceeded
to Mondivorre Village and inquired of the villagers about the deceased and the
appellant, and they came to know from the villagers that the deceased and the
appellant did not visit the said village on that particular day; therefore, they
returned from the said village, on the way, they found the dead body of the
deceased in the fields of Sri Keesari Jogulu. In the cross-examination of PW.1,
he added that his sister has a mobile phone. PW.1 testified before the rial
Court that at about 05:00 P.M./05:30 P.M., the appellant visited their house
and inquired of PW.1 about the whereabouts of his wife, and PW.1 informed
the appellant that the deceased had been to Aswapuram in connection with the
marriage of the daughter of his elder sister, particularly, to attend the
marriage. It is elicited from PW.1 that on the next date when he visited the
police station, he found PW.4 and the appellant were present at the police
station. However, the prosecution has claimed as if the appellant approached
PW.13 and is said to have made an extra-judicial confession. PW.1 voluntarily
stated before the trial Court that the appellant herein surrendered before the
police and Ex.P.1 was drafted at the police station.
9. Whereas, according to PW.2, who is the mother of the deceased and who
was examined by the prosecution to how that the appellant and his wife left the
house in the afternoon of the particular day. She had categorically admitted
during the cross-examination that on that particular day, she went to Paloncha
in the morning hours for the purpose of milling groundnut oil and returned
home at about 04:30 P.M. Therefore, PW.2 had no occasion to see that the
appellant and his wife were leaving the house; of course, PW.2 claimed before
the trial Court that after her return, she inquired of her granddaughter and
came to know that the appellant and the deceased went to Mondivorre.
10. PW.3 is the father of the deceased, who categorically stated before the
trial Court that he was away from the house on that particular day, and when
he returned home at 06:00 P.M., by that time, he was told about the alleged
murder committed by the appellant.
11. Whereas, according to PW.4, who is the another brother of the deceased,
since the deceased did not return home, when he and PW.1 went on search of
the couple in Mondivorre Village, they caused inquiry at Mondivorre Village and
they came to know as if the appellant and the deceased already returned from
that particular village. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 with regard to
their inquiry about the visit of the appellant and the deceased to Mondivorre
Village and they came to know about the presence of the appellant and
deceased at Mondivorre Village creates doubt. According to PW.4, they found
the dead body of the deceased in the agricultural fields of Keesari Jogulu and it
was at about 07:00 P.M. Even though PWs.1 and 2 had deposed before the trial
Court that they found the dead body of the deceased with bleeding injuries in
the agricultural fields, they did not present any report nor there was any
request to the villagers to get the dead body of the deceased shifted and
nothing has been stated by these two brothers as to what happened to the
dead body during that night. It is not known as to why PW.4 was present at the
police station even before the visit of PW.1 and as to what happened to the
appellant who was present at the police station even before the arrival of PW.1.
12. The unnatural conduct of these two witnesses coupled with their
admissions that the appellant present before the police before lodging the
complaint creates doubt as to whether the alleged incident happened or they
filed a false complaint. There are some other admissions by these witnesses.
Even as per the charge sheet, it is alleged that the appellant used to suspect
his wife. It is evident from the evidence that the appellant was working as a
lorry cleaner and he used to leave the house on duty and stay away from the
house for more than a week or 10 days. As per the evidence of PW.1 only
because of this particular issue, the appellant and his wife moved from one
village to another village and they have finally settled at Bonthagudem Village.
13. When PW.1 was specifically asked as to whether his sister had any illegal
intimacy with one Dare Venkateswarlu, PW.1 did not deny the allegation, but
deposed before the trial Court that he has no knowledge about the alleged
illegal intimacy, and it was elicited from PW.1 that on one occasion, the
appellant made a complaint to PW.2 about the behavior of his sister. PW.2
asked him to catch her red-handed and prove that she had such illegal
relations. PW.1 was asked about the illegal intimacy of the deceased with Sode
Raju of Anandapuram, for which PW.1 stated that he has no knowledge about
the said aspect. It is also in the evidence of PW.1 that one Dare Venkateswarlu
questioned the deceased and her parents as to why the deceased was talking
with Sode Raju. However, PW.1 deposed that he does not know whether the
deceased used to talk with Sode Raju and in that connection, whether there
was any dispute between Dare Venkateswarlu and his parents.
14. According to the evidence of PWs.1 and 4, though they have deposed that
they went to Mondivorre Village in search of their sister, they did not state
anything about PW.2 accompanying them in the said search. But, PW.2 stated
as if she was also present along with her sons and all of them had been to
Mondivorre Village. Even though PW.1 claimed that he has presented a report
to the police and before his arrival at the police station, PW.4 was already
there, and it is the evidence of PW.4 that he presented a signed report to the
police. However, the said report did not see the light of the day, and it was
suppressed by the prosecution. PW.4 categorically stated before the trial Court
that the Sarpanch of Chavatigudem has prepared a report to his dictation and
he has presented the said report to the police. PW.4 also stated that he went to
the police station about one hour before PW.1 visited the police station.
15. According to the averments in the charge sheet and as per the evidence
of PW.6, who is an independent witness, about five months prior to his
evidence, at about 07:00 P.M. while he was proceeding to the house of his in-
laws, he found the dead body of the deceased in the agricultural land of Jogulu
and about 20 minutes thereafter, PWs.1 to 4 and some other villagers reached
the spot and he found scratch injuries on the dead body of the deceased and
bleeding from the nose of the deceased. Admittedly, PW.6 is a close relative of
PW.3, who is the father of the deceased. PWs.1 to 4 who have deposed that
they have noticed the dead body of the deceased in the agricultural fields, did
not state anything about the presence of PW.6 nor is it their case that by the
time they found the dead body, PW.6 was already present at the place of
offense. Therefore, the evidence of these material witnesses creates any amount
of doubt as to whether they really found the dead body of the deceased in the
agricultural fields at about 07:00 or 08:00 P.M. on that particular day or they
have presented a false report on the next date as if they found the dead body
on the previous night itself.
16. In addition to this oral evidence, the prosecution sought to rely on the
evidence of one Babu Rao before whom the appellant is said to have made an
extra-judicial confession about the commission of the murder of his wife.
However, according to PW.13, he has no acquaintance with PWs.1 to 5, and he
has no acquaintance with the deceased, and that he does not know how she
died. The appellant never made any extra-judicial confession before him. This
witness was declared as hostile by the prosecution, and the learned Public
Prosecutor cross-examined PW.13 suggesting that he made a statement before
the police as in Ex.P.9 to the effect that he has informed that the appellant
herein made an extra-judicial confession before him about the commission of
murder. In addition to this witness, the prosecution examined PWs.11 and 12
to show that the appellant herein made a confession about the commission of
the alleged offense.
17. According to the evidence of PW.11, about five months prior to the date
of his evidence, he received a phone call from Mulakalapalli Police Station, and
he was informed about the surrender of the appellant after murdering his wife.
At the instance of police, he searched the dead body of the deceased, which
was found in the land of Jogulu, and four days thereafter, he has received
another phone call from police, and when he went to the police station, he
found the appellant in the custody of the police. The appellant is said to have
made a confession about the commission of murder, thereby, he and one
Muthyalu, who was examined as PW.12, signed on the confession statement.
According to PW.11, the police have seized one towel from the dead body of the
deceased, and, by the time of seizure of the said towel, the appellant was
present. In view of the inconsistent statements made by this witness, the
learned Public Prosecutor having declared him as hostile and proceeded with
the cross-examination during which PW.11 deposed as if the accused made a
confession as if he committed murder of his wife.
18. PW.12 did not support the case of the prosecution and deposed that
about four or five months prior to the date of his evidence, the police, Paloncha
obtained his signature, but he did not witness any seizure. As per the case of
the prosecution, the de facto complainant presented a signed complaint on the
next date on which they found the dead body of their sister, and the appellant
herein is said to have made an extra-judicial confession before PW.13, and
PW.13 produced the appellant before the police on 21.05.2012, i.e., on the 3rd
day of the alleged murder. As could be seen from the evidence of PW.15-
Medical Officer, he has conducted a post-mortem examination over the dead
body of the deceased on 20.05.2012 and issued Ex.P.12 post-mortem report.
The prosecution has claimed that in pursuance of the alleged confession, the
appellant is said to have produced a towel which he allegedly used for the
commission of the offense, but according to the evidence of PW.11, the towel
was seized from the dead body. Therefore, the alleged recovery of M.O.1-towel
from the appellant in pursuance of the alleged confession is ruled out.
19. In view of the above, it is very clear that though according to the
prosecution case, the complaint was said to have been presented by PW.1 at
about 06:00 A.M. on 20.05.2012, the evidence of the other witnesses indicates
that prior to the said report, PW.4 has visited the police station and prepared a
report with the help of the Sarpanch, and by that time, the appellant herein
was also present at the police station. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 depicts that
they went in search of their sister and brother-in-law on the ground that the
deceased did not return home by 05:30 P.M., also creating any amount of
doubt, more particularly, when PWs.1 and 4 have no personal knowledge that
the deceased and the appellant herein left the house at 03:00 P.M. in order to
proceed to Mondivorre.
20. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 along with the other family members
transpires that they found the dead body of the deceased in the agricultural
fields of the said Jogulu at odd hours, but they did not present the report to
the police until the next day morning. It also creates doubt as to whether they
really found the dead body of the deceased during the night time. According to
the evidence of the investigating officer, they conducted an inquest on the next
date at the scene of the offense; therefore, if the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is
accepted, they must have left the dead body of the deceased unguarded at the
scene of the offense itself during the entire night, which is highly unbelievable.
Therefore, all these circumstances create doubt about the correctness of the
allegations made by PW.1 and his family members. Therefore, the appellant is
entitled to the benefit of the doubt as such the appeal stands allowed.
21. Based on the findings recorded, this Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the
sentence of conviction imposed against the appellant/accused, as per the
Judgment dated 18.02.2013 passed in S.C.No.299 of 2012 by the learned V
Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Khammam at Kothagudem, is set
aside. Consequently, the appellant/accused is acquitted of the said offense and
is set at liberty, provided he is not required to be detained for any other offense.
Any fine amount already paid by the appellant, if applicable, shall be refunded
after the expiry of the appeal period.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
__________________________________
JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
Dated 18.04.2024
ynk
