Telangana High Court
Mudawath Chander vs The State Of Ap., on 2 January, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman, P.Sree Sudha
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.195 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)
Heard Smt.G.Jaya Reddy, learned counsel for appellant -
Accused No.1 and Sri Muthyala Muralidhar, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.
2. This appeal is filed to set aside the judgment dated
18.12.2013 passed in S.C.No.325 of 2010 by the V Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad (for short,
'the trial Court').
3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court convicted the
appellant for the offences punishable under Sections - 302 and 498 -A
of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and sentenced to
suffer imprisonment for life.
4. The case of the prosecution is as under:
This is a case of dowry harassment and committing of murder
of the deceased/wife by the appellant/husband. The marriage of A.1
with the deceased was performed 5 years prior to the date of the
KL,J & PSS,J
incident i.e. 10.10.2009. They are blessed with two female children.
According to the prosecution, A.1 harassed the deceased demanding
additional dowry and also suspecting fidelity. He has also harassed the
deceased on the ground that she gave birth to two female children.
Panchayat was also held, wherein it was decided that the parents of
the deceased shall pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to A.1 towards
additional dowry. Accordingly, P.W.2-brother of the deceased had
paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- out of the agreed amount of
Rs.50,000/- and balance amount shall be paid shortly. Even then, A.1
started harassing the deceased on the ground that they have not paid
balance amount of Rs.20,000/- and killed her by throttling and
escaped with the baby aged 4 months.
5. To prove the said facts, prosecution has examined P.W.1-
cousin of the deceased, P.W.2-brother of the deceased, P.W.3-owner
of the house and circumstantial witness, P.W.5-neighbour of the
appellant/A.1 and circumstantial witness. P.W.4 is the witness before
whom A.1 made extra judicial confession. P.W.6-one of the elders
who participated in the panchayat. P.W.7-Panch witness for the scene
of offence and rough sketch etc. P.W.8-Panch witness for inquest and
P.W.10-the panch witness for confessional statement- cum - seizure
KL,J & PSS,J
panchanama of the accused. P.W.9 is the Doctor who conducted
autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.11 is the Mandal
Revenue Officer, who conducted inquest, P.W.13 is the Investigating
Officer who conducted investigation in the said case. On consideration
of the entire evidence both oral and documentary, the trial Court
convicted the appellant/A.1 for the aforesaid offences and imposed
sentence of life imprisonment whereas acquitted the A.2 to A.5.
Challenging the said judgment, the appellant/A.1 preferred the present
appeal.
6. Smt. G.Jaya Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant sought
to set aside the impugned judgment on the following grounds:-
i. There is no eye witness to the incident.
ii. Entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence.
iii. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not
forming complete chain.
iv. There is break of chain with regard to the circumstances
relied upon by the prosecution.
v. There are serious contradictions in the depositions of the
prosecution witnesses, more particularly, among PWs.1
to 4.
KL,J & PSS,J
vi. The prosecution failed to prove motive.
vii. Even P.W.9-Doctor who conducted autopsy over the
dead body of the deceased gave his opinion (Ex.P.9)
stating the cause of death is asphyxia ligature
strangulation.
viii. The prosecution failed to examine any of the neighbours
of the accused and the deceased. They have not even
examined co-tenant of the A.1. Prosecution also failed to
prove the alleged harassment of the deceased demanding
additional dowry beyond reasonable doubt. None of the
witnesses spoke about demand of dowry and harassment
meted out by A.1 on the deceased. Even then, without
considering the said aspects, the trial Court convicted the
appellant/A.1.
7. Whereas, Sri Muthyala Muralidhar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor would contend that both the P.Ws.1 and 4 specifically
deposed about the dowry harassment of the deceased by the appellant/
A.1. Even as per the depositions of P.W.3-owner of the house, P.W.5-
neighbour of the deceased, on the date of incident also i.e. 10.10.2009
also there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. A.1
KL,J & PSS,J
being the husband of the deceased failed to intimate anybody
including parents, brother of the deceased or neighbours or to the
Police with regard to the alleged suicide committed by the deceased.
P.W.2 specifically deposed about holding panchayat, wherein it was
decided that the deceased parents have to pay an amount of
Rs.50,000/- and as per the said agreement P.W.2- brother of the
deceased has paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- as first installment and he
was also agreed to pay balance amount shortly. The prosecution also
proved the motive. The appellant started demanding additional dowry
and started suspecting fidelity of the deceased. He also harassed the
deceased on the ground that she gave birth to two female children.
Though there is no direct evidence, the trial Court recorded conviction
relying on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances formed into a
complete chain. The impugned judgment is a reasoned one and it
does not require interference by this Court in the present appeal.
8. As discussed supra, to prove guilt of the accused, prosecution
has examined P.W.1, the President of Uppuguda, who is cousin of the
deceased. He specifically deposed that on 10.10.2009 at around 3.00
or 3.15 P.M., P.W.2 informed him through telephone that the deceased
was killed by A.1 and requested P.W.1 to visit A.1's house and to
KL,J & PSS,J
make an enquiry. Immediately, he went to the house of A.1 and found
that the door was bolted from outside. He opened the latch and found
the deceased on ground with her tongue protruding outside and
articles in the room were scattered. He observed the ligature mark on
the neck of the deceased. A.1 was absent when he visited the house of
the A.1. He enquired with P.W.3-owner of the A.1's house who in
turn told him that there was some quarrel in the morning between the
deceased and A.1 and he observed A.1 going out of the house with
baby in the hands and sometime thereafter, he came back to the house
with milk packet and again he had seen A.1 going with the child.
Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P.1) with Police.
9. Nothing contra was elicited during the cross-examination of
the P.W.1. However, referring to the cross-examination of P.W.1,
Smt. G.Jaya Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that the P.W.1 during cross-examination categorically admitted that in
Ex.P.1 complaint, he did not mention as to when he went to the house
of A.1, he found the door was bolted from outside, he opened the
same, found the deceased on the ground and the articles in the room
were scattered.
KL,J & PSS,J
10. It is relevant to note that the complaint is not an
encyclopedia, it is only a First Information Report. However, in his
deposition, P.W.1 deposed the said aspects.
11. P.W.2, brother of the deceased, deposed about the
harassment made by A.1 demanding additional dowry. He has also
deposed about the panchayat held in his native village Mailaram. The
elders in the panchayat decided that the parents of the deceased shall
pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards additional dowry and he has
paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- out of agreed amount of Rs.50,000/-.
Thereafter, both the A.1 and deceased shifted to Hyderabad. He
received phone call from Village when he was at his workplace
informing him that A.1 killed the deceased. Thereafter, he informed
P.W.1, his cousin over phone requesting him to go to the A.1's house
and make enquiry. He also went to the house of A.1 and found the
deceased was laid on rug in the room. He observed the tongue of the
deceased was protruding out of the mouth and also observed throttling
marks. A.1 was absent in the house. P.W.3, owner of the house,
informed him that the appellant/A.1 went away with baby. He was
informed that some quarrel took place between A.1 and deceased in
the morning of the same day of the incident.
KL,J & PSS,J
12. During cross-examination, he admitted that he arrived at the
scene of offence at about 4.00 P.M.
13. P.W.3-owner of the house deposed that A.1 was his tenant
for two months. The deceased/wife of the A.1 joined with him 15 days
prior to the incident. A.1 was tenant of the single room with a partition
for kitchen. They were having two children. On the date of incident,
he went to the room of the A.1 in the morning for collecting rents.
There was a verbal quarrel between the wife and the husband.
Observing the said quarrel, he did not ask for rent and left from there.
In the evening hours, owner of the neighbouring house telephoned
him and informed about the arrival of the police at his house.
14. Referring to cross-examination of P.W.3, Smt. G.Jaya
Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that during
cross-examination, P.W.3 categorically admitted that one of the
tenants by name Sandhya was working in the cloth shop, used to
reside along with her mother and children. Her duty hours are from
10.30 A.M. to 6.00 P.M. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.5 that she
heard quarrel between the A.1 and the deceased etc., are unbelievable
and she is a planted witness.
KL,J & PSS,J
15. P.W.5 Co-tenant of A.1 stated that on 10.10.2009 she heard
some quarrel between the A.1 and the deceased from the morning
onwards. In the evening at about 6 to 7 P.M., some persons came to
the portion of A.1 and found the deceased died. It is relevant to note
that the incident was occurred on 10.10.2009 and P.W.1 gave her
evidence in Court on 05.02.2013 i.e. after 2 ½ years. Therefore, minor
contradictions with regard to timing in a matter like this can be
ignored. In the light of the said specific evidence of P.W.5, the
contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.5 is a
planted witness cannot be believed.
16. P.W.4-wife of cousin of the deceased deposed about A.1
demanding additional dowry, conducting a panchayat, payment of
additional dowry and that sending the deceased along with the A.1 to
Hyderabad. She visited the house of the deceased who in turn
informed her that A.1 did not change his behavior and continue to
harass her demanding additional dowry and also suspecting her
character. She accompanied P.W.2 to the house of the deceased on the
date of incident and found the deceased died by that time. A.1 was not
there in the house. On the next day, A.1 came to her house along with
KL,J & PSS,J
the children and dropped the minor child there and confessed that he
committed murder of the deceased.
17. It is relevant to note that during cross-examination, P.W.4
admitted that on the next day of the incident, A.1 came to her house
along with minor child, handed over the child, intimated to her that he
killed the deceased and leaving the child there, he went away. Nothing
contra was elicited from her cross-examination.
18. Smt. G.Jaya Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that the P.W.5 during cross-examination categorically admitted
that she has not seen any physical abuse between A.1 and the
deceased in their portion, she did not know the internal affairs of the
deceased and A.1 since they joined recently. But she has admitted that
she heard sound of bolting the door by A.1. Therefore, according to
learned counsel for the appellant, the evidence of P.W.5 cannot be
believed and she is a planted witness. But during cross-examination,
nothing was elicited from her evidence. In fact, she has specifically
deposed about the aforesaid facts in her chief examination itself.
Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant
cannot be accepted.
KL,J & PSS,J
19. P.W.6 is the elder who participated in the panchayat
conducted with regard to the disputes between the families of the
deceased and A.1, wherein P.W.2 and parents of P.W.2 agreed to pay
an amount of Rs.50,000/- and that P.W.2 has already paid an amount
of Rs.30,000/-. Nothing contra was elicited from him during the cross-
examination.
20. P.W.7 is the panch witness for recovery of M.O.1 plastic
mat, M.O.2-towel, M.O.3-black bag, M.O.4-steel Chembu, M.O.5-
white colour shawl (Lungi), M.O.6-Saree, M.O.7-Plastic Bucket and
M.O.8-Blanket. He also deposed about the Police obtaining his
signature on the identity slips affixed to M.Os. 1 to 8. Panchanama
(Ex.P.2) for the scene of offence was conducted and he was signed on
it. Ex.P.3-rough sketch which contains his signature.
21. P.W.8 is the panch witness for inquest. He deposed about
conducting of inquest and recording of Ex.P.4 inquest panchanama
which contains his signature.
22. P.W.9 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead
body of the deceased and according to him, he found the following
injuries:-
KL,J & PSS,J
"1) A Ligature mark of 17cm length present over middle part of
back and right side of neck, transversely placed. The mark started
8cm below the right mid mandibular point passed backwards on to
the nape of week 7cm below right ear and terminated 8 cm below
and behind the left angle of the Mandible. Ligature mark reddish
brow with varying width of 2-3 cm present, interrupted, no
evidence of pattern. Abraded contusion (2x1cm) present over the
left side of the neck 6cm below the left ear lobe. All abrasions are
red in colour. Diffuse contusion of the strap muscles on both sides
of neck below the ligature mark. Hyoid intact. Fracture isthonus of
Thyroid present
2) An Abrasion ½ x ½ cm tip of middle finger.
3) An Abrasion 3 x ½ cm on outer aspect of middle of right arm"
He has issued Ex.P.5-post-mortem report and on receipt of FSL report
dated 31.10.2009, he had issued Ex.P.6 - opinion. According to him,
the cause of death of the deceased is 'Asphyxia ligature strangulation'.
However, during cross-examination, he has admitted that in case of
hanging also the ligature marks can be present and seen. Immediately
after conducting the post mortem examination, he has not given any
opinion till receiving FSL report. Referring to the same, learned
counsel for the appellant would submit that the deceased committed
suicide, but the said contention cannot be accepted in view of the
specific evidence of P.W.9-Doctor and also the nature of the injuries.
In fact, P.W.1 also observed about the ligature marks.
KL,J & PSS,J
23. P.W.10 is the panch witness for confession-cum-seizure
panchanama. M.O.9 is stove, M.O.10 is milk packet and M.O.11 is
vessel. He has signed on Ex.P.8. Nothing contra is elicited from him.
24. P.W.11 is Deputy Tahsildar who deposed about conducting
of inquest and Ex.P.4 is the inquest report. P.W.12 is photographer.
P.W.13 is Investigating Officer.
25. Referring to cross-examination of P.W.13, learned counsel
for the appellant would contend that P.W.13 categorically admitted
that he did not obtain any document to show the said house belongs to
the P.W.3, he has not examined neighbours of P.W.3. He has not
examined other family members of P.W.5. Therefore, his evidence
cannot be believed as P.W.3 did not conduct investigation properly.
26. As discussed supra, the prosecution has examined P.W.3-
owner of the house and P.W.5-neighbor and co-tenant. Therefore, the
contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that prosecution
failed to examine any other independent witness including family
members of P.W.5 cannot be accepted, more particularly when there
is specific evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.5 corroborating with the
prosecution case.
KL,J & PSS,J
27. In Ex.P.8 confession - cum - seizure panchanama, the
appellant herein confessed that he felt he had committed grave offence
and picked up the baby from swing. She was crying. It is her feeding
time. He picked up the baby from swing as she was crying since it was
her feeding time. But mother is dead and no milk is available from her
breast. He took the baby and came out at about 4.00 P.M. and bolted
the door from outside. The same was seen by two neighbouring
tenants and also the house owner. He brought a milk sachet. The said
version is in corroboration with that of P.Ws.1 to 5.
28. It is also relevant to note that learned III Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, recorded the statement of P.W.4
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. wherein also she stated the aforesaid
stated facts.
29. The aforesaid stated facts would reveal that there is no
direct evidence, or eye witness. The entire facts rest on circumstantial
evidence. It is settled law that conviction can be recorded basing on
the circumstantial evidence, if the circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution forms complete chain and the said principle is also held
by the Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of
KL,J & PSS,J
Maharashtra 1 and the golden principles or the panchasheel of
proving of a case based on circumstantial evidence has been laid down
which are as follows:-
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
should be fully established.
(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 compete 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 said principle was followed by various High Courts and reiterated
by the Apex Court in catena of decisions.
30. In the light of the aforesaid principle, it is relevant to note
that the circumstances/events relied upon by the prosecution forms
complete chain. As deposed by P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 6, the marriage of the
deceased with A.1 was performed about 5 years prior to the incident
i.e. 10.10.2009. A.1 demanded additional dowry. Panchayat was held
wherein P.W.2 and his parents have agreed to pay an amount of
Rs.50,000/- to A.1 towards additional dowry out of which an amount
(1984) 4 SCC 116
KL,J & PSS,J
of Rs.30,000/- was paid. He has to pay Rs.20,000/-. A.1 and the
deceased blessed with two female children. Thus, according to the
P.W.1, A.1 harassed the deceased, demanded additional dowry and
suspected her character on the ground that she gave birth to two
female children. Thus, the prosecution proved the said aspects beyond
reasonable doubt by examining P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6. Thus, prosecution
also proved the allegations of motive and dowry harassment.
31. The prosecution has examined P.W.3-owner of the house.
P.W.5 co-tenant of the house who specifically deposed that there was
a quarrel between the A.1 and deceased on the morning of the day of
incident. P.W.1 also found that the house was bolted from outside. He
opened the latch and found the deceased on the ground with her
tongue protruding outside. It is a clear case of homicide but not
suicide. Nothing contra was elicited from them during their cross-
examination. Thus, the prosecution has proved the quarrel between
A.1 and the deceased on the day of incident beyond reasonable doubt.
32. P.W.9 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the
deceased also gave his opinion with regard to injuries on the body of
the deceased and cause of death. Therefore, the circumstances relied
KL,J & PSS,J
upon by the prosecution formed a complete chain. There is no break
of chain as alleged by the appellant/accused.
33. During trial, the defence taken by the appellant is that the
deceased committed suicide. A.1 being the husband did not report the
said fact neither to the neighbours, relatives of the deceased, his
relatives, parents nor to police. In fact, he absconded along with the
younger daughter aged 4 months who is on breast feeding. He went to
the house of P.W.4 along with the baby, dropped the baby there and
confessed before her that he committed murder of his wife and went
away. Though the extra judicial confession is weak piece of evidence,
it can be relied upon as one of the circumstances. Nothing contra was
elicited from her during the cross-examination to disbelieve the said
extra judicial confession made by A.1. Therefore, it can be used as a
circumstance. On consideration of the said aspects only, the trial Court
convicted the appellant herein.
34. Referring to the circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution, the trial Court gave specific finding with regard to the
motive, harassment and the offence committed by A.1. The impugned
judgment is reasoned one and well considered. It does not require any
KL,J & PSS,J
interference by this Court in the present appeal. Therefore, the present
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
35. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The
Conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court vide Judgment
dated 18.12.2013 against the appellant/A.1 is hereby confirmed. The
appellant/accused was released on bail on 04.01.2022. Therefore, the
appellant/accused is directed to surrender before the trial Court within
one month from today, for serving the remaining sentence. In case,
the appellant fails to surrender, the trial Court shall take steps to
secure the presence of accused in accordance with law for serving the
remaining sentence.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in
the appeal shall stand closed.
__________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
__________________
P. SREE SUDHA, J
Date: 02.01.2024
vvr
