Telangana High Court
S.Shiva Kumar And Anr vs The State Of Telangana on 6 August, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy, N.Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1067 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)
Challenging the judgment of conviction dated 07.09.2016 in
S.C.No.239 of 2015 passed by the VIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge at
Medak; the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants -
accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.
2. Heard Mrs. Y.Ratna Prabha, learned counsel for the appellants
and Mr. Syed Yasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
for the respondent - State.
3. Vide the impugned judgment, the appellants herein have been
found guilty for having committed the offence punishable under
Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and have been
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/- each
and in default of payment shall undergo simple imprisonment of six
(06) Months.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.10.2014 the
complainant Shankuri Chinna Sathaiah (PW.1) lodged a complaint at
Police Station, Alladurg, stating that at approximately 10:00 A.M., a
villager named Gandali Lachaiah (PW.6) came to his house and
informed him that his cousin sister, Shankuri Narsamma (hereinafter,
the 'deceased') was found dead near Gandi Cheruvu (Lake). Alarmed
by this news, the complainant immediately went to the scene along
with his family members and discovered the deceased's body lying in
the bushes near the lake where he saw neck was covered with a saree
pallu indicating that she had been strangulated and her face was also
covered with a piece of the saree. The complainant further stated that
certain gold ornaments including a gold nose stud, gold ear studs, a
gold 'puste' and a silver ring were missing from her body as well as
Rs.1700/- in cash was also missing. Given these observations and the
circumstances, the complainant strongly suspected that the deceased's
son Shiva Kumar (Appellant No.1) was responsible for her murder who
had a notorious reputation in the village for his alcohol addiction, bad
habits and involvement in petty thefts. He frequently quarrelled with
his mother for money pressurizing her to sell their agricultural land to
fund his vices. However, the deceased consistently refused to sell the
land leading to increasing tensions between them.
5. On the night of 19.10.2014, just before the murder, the
complainant noticed that both the deceased and the appellant No.1
were present at their house. The next morning, after discovering the
deceased's body and noting that appellant No.1 is missing from the
village, the complainant's suspicions grew stronger. He immediately
went to the police station and filed a written complaint detailing his
observations and suspicions where the appellant No.1 had murdered
the deceased.
6. The police authorities registered the complaint as Cr.No.96 of
2014 for an offence under section 302 of IPC. During the course of
investigation, PW.7 (G.Rama Goud) came to the police station and
stated that the appellant No.1 had confessed the commission of the
murder of the deceased by strangulation. During the investigation on
21.10.2014 acting on reliable information the police authorities
apprehended appellant No.1 at Alladurg bus stand and he confessed
to the crime where police recovered a gold nose stud, gold ear stud
and Rs.1700/- in cash. Later, on 05.11.2014, the police apprehended
Talari Pandu (appellant No.2) at his residence in Appajipally village.
He also confessed to the crime and the police recovered a gold 'pusthe'
and a silver finger ring from him.
7. The investigation further revealed that both the appellants had
conspired to murder the deceased for financial gain. On the night of
19.10.2014 after another heated argument over money, appellant
Nos.1 and 2 lured the deceased to Gandi Cheruvu (Lake) under the
pretense of catching fish and once they reached a secluded area near
a mango tree, the appellant No.1 assaulted the deceased by delivering
fist blows to her chest. When the deceased fell on the ground,
appellant No.2 tied her saree pallu around her neck and tightened it
and strangulated her to death. To stifle her cries, appellant No.2 tore a
piece of saree and stuffed it into her mouth while appellant No.1
kicked her in the chest ensuring her death. After committing the
murder both the appellants robbed the gold ornaments, cash and
disposed the body of the deceased in the bushes near the lake to
conceal the evidence. Based upon the said confessional statement and
the recovery so made, a charge-sheet was filed and the matter was put
to trial before the Trial Court i.e. the VIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge
at Medak where the case was registered as S.C.No.239 of 2015.
8. In all, the prosecution examined ten (10) witnesses and marked
twelve (12) exhibits Ex.P1 to P12. There was no evidence led on behalf
of the defence, neither was there any document marked in defence.
Later on examination of the appellant was done under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C and finally the impugned judgment was passed convicting the
appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced
to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/-.
9. It is this judgment which is under challenge in the present
appeal.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants challenging the impugned
judgment of conviction contended that the prosecution has failed to
prove the charges against the appellant Nos.1 and 2 beyond a
reasonable doubt. It was also contended that the evidence presented
by the prosecution is largely circumstantial and does not conclusively
establish the guilt of the appellants. It was pointed out that the
testimonies of key witnesses including PW.1 and PW.2 are based on
suspicion and lack of substantial proof. Suspicion no matter how
strong, cannot replace the need for concrete evidence in a criminal
trial. This fundamental principle ensures that convictions are based
on solid, reliable evidence rather than conjecture.
11. Moreover, the learned counsel for the appellants highlighted
inconsistencies in the statements of PW.7 and PW.8 and contended
that these witnesses cannot be relied upon. PW.7 admitted during
cross-examination that his statement was recorded at the police
station raising questions about its credibility and the possibility of
coercion. Such admissions cast doubt on the authenticity and
voluntariness of the statements provided. Similarly, PW.8 being a
stock witness often used by the police in multiple cases undermines
the reliability of the alleged recovery of MOs.1 to 5.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that the
prosecution's reliance on such dubious witnesses significantly
weakens their case and creates room for reasonable doubt. The
credibility of witnesses is paramount in establishing guilt and any
inconsistencies or questionable backgrounds can severely undermine
the prosecution's case.
13. Subsequently, the learned counsel for the appellant also stated
that the prosecution's case is built on the weak foundation of the
appellants confessions which were allegedly obtained under duress.
She emphasized that confessions alone without corroborative evidence
are insufficient to sustain a conviction. The learned counsel for the
appellant highlighted that the appellant Nos.1 and 2 were under
severe pressure and may have been coerced into confessing crimes
they did not commit. She further pointed out that the law requires
confessions to be voluntary and supported by independent evidence
which is lacking in this case. Learned counsel for the appellants
stressed that coerced confessions cannot be considered reliable and
that the integrity of the judicial process demands that only voluntary
confessions be accepted.
14. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellants asserted that the
appellants should be given the benefit of the doubt as the prosecution
has not provided irrefutable evidence to conclusively link them to the
crime. He further argued that the standard of proof in criminal cases
is beyond a reasonable doubt and the prosecution has failed to meet
this high threshold. The learned counsel for the appellant also pointed
out that the prosecution did not adequately address the possibility of
other suspects or alternative explanations for the crime. Thus, for all
the aforesaid reasons, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for
setting aside the judgment of conviction and also prayed for acquittal
of the appellant.
15. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had opposed
the appeal and argued that the prosecution has proved the charges
leveled against the appellant beyond reasonable doubts. He
highlighted that PW.1 (S.Sathaiah) and PW.2 (S.Mallaiah) who are the
brothers of the deceased provided consistent and corroborative
testimonies. PW.1 testified that appellant No.1, the son of the
deceased, used to commit petty thefts in the village and was addicted
to alcohol and often quarreled with the deceased for money. PW.1
recounted how PW.6 (G. Lachaiah) informed him about finding the
dead body of the deceased in Gandi Cheruvu and how they discovered
that her gold and silver ornaments were missing which led them to
suspect appellant No.1.
16. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further emphasized the
testimonies of PW.7 (G.Rama Goud) and PW.8 (V.Adivappa) which
supported the evidence provided by PW.1 and 2. PW.7 deposed that
the appellant No.1 came to his house and informed him about finding
the dead body in Gandi Cheruvu. He testified that the appellant No.1
confessed killing the deceased with the help of appellant No.2 when
she refused to give him money and that they stole her ornaments and
some cash. PW.8 who was present during the confession and seizure
corroborated the evidence of PW.7.
17. Moreover, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out
the medical evidence provided by PW.10 (Dr. Sushma) who conducted
the post-mortem examination. PW.10 confirmed that the cause of
death was asphyxia due to strangulation which aligned with the
prosecution's narrative of how the deceased was killed. Further, the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that this medical evidence
strengthened the case against the appellants as it directly supported
the testimonies of PW.1, PW.2, PW.7 and PW.8 regarding the manner
of death.
18. After thorough and meticulous consideration of the evidence
presented put forth on either side and on perusal of records, it is
determined that there is insufficient evidence to convict the appellants
beyond a reasonable doubt. The testimonies provided by the key
witnesses including PW.1, PW.2, PW.7 and PW.8 are largely based on
circumstantial evidence and suspicion. The learned counsel for the
appellants has effectively highlighted significant gaps and
inconsistencies in the prosecution's case particularly questioning the
reliability and credibility of the witnesses. Furthermore, the confession
of the appellants which form a substantial part of the prosecution's
case have been argued to be obtained under duress casting doubt on
their voluntariness and authenticity.
19. This Court observed that the testimony of PW.10, the medical
examiner, indicated the cause of death was due to strangulation.
However, during the autopsy it was noted that there was a 4 mm deep
abrasion around the neck and such an abrasion could not be caused
by merely using a saree pallu, as claimed by the prosecution. Instead,
PW.10 suggested that the depth and nature of the abrasion were more
consistent with a wire-like structure which would exert a more
focused and intense pressure on the neck. This crucial piece of
medical evidence raised significant doubts about the prosecution's
narrative. If the strangulation had indeed been carried out using a
wire or similar object it contradicted the testimonies of PW.1, PW.2,
PW.7 and PW.8 who all claimed that the deceased was strangled with
a saree pallu. The learned counsel for the appellants seized upon this
inconsistency arguing that the prosecution's theory was
fundamentally flawed and that the actual method of strangulation had
not been accurately determined. Furthermore, the learned counsel for
the appellant highlighted that the presence of a wire-like structure was
never mentioned or recovered during the investigation indicating a
possible oversight or flaw in the investigative process. This
discrepancy undermined the credibility of the prosecution's case as it
suggested either a lack of thoroughness or a potential mis-
representation of the facts. Given the substantial doubt cast by
PW.10's testimony regarding the actual cause and method of
strangulation, this Court finds it difficult to rely solely on the
prosecution's version of events which lacks concrete evidence making
it impossible to convict the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
20. With the aforesaid factual matrix and the discrepancies and
lacunas in the prosecution case, as discussed in the preceding
paragraphs, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution
does not seem to have proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts
and the benefit of which has to go in favour of the appellants.
21. In view of the same, the impugned judgment of conviction
becomes unsustainable and the same is accordingly set-aside /
quashed and the appellants stand acquitted from the charges leveled
against them. If the appellants are in jail, they be set free forthwith.
22. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed.
23. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall
stand closed.
__________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
__________________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 06.08.2024
GSD
