Telangana High Court
Methari Gangadhar, Nizamabad District vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., Hyd ... on 5 July, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No. 274 OF 2011
Between:
Methari Gangadhar
... Appellant/
Accused
And
The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor
High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, through
P.S., Velpoor.
... Respondent/
Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 05.07.2024
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.A. No. 274 OF 2011
% Dated 05.07.2024
# Methari Gangadhar
... Appellant/
Accused
And
$ The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor
High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, through
P.S., Velpoor.
... Respondent/
Complainant
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Lakshman Batchu
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Suresh Goud,
Assistant Public Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.274 OF 2011
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused
aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Sessions Judge at
Nizamabad, in S.C.No.71 of 2010, dated 05.10.2010, for the
offence under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal code and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five
years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 21.09.2009,
around 3.30 p.m., the appellant attacked the deceased and
inflicted injuries with a cart peg on his head. Due to which he
sustained injuries and died on the spot. On the basis of the
complaint filed, Police registered case.
4. On 29.09.2009, the appellant was arrested in the village and
on interrogation, he confessed that he committed the offence and
took the Police to his house and produced M.O.5 which is Cart
Peg,
with which he allegedly assaulted the deceased. Cart Peg is a
wooden piece which is fixed to the wheel to ensure that the wheel
does not come off the bullock cart.
5. Having concluded the investigation, charge sheet was filed
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions
Judge framed charge under Section 302 of the IPC. The witnesses
PWs.1 to 12 and Exs.P1 to P24 were marked on behalf of the
prosecution. M.Os.1 to 5 of which M.O.5 is the Cart Peg, were also
placed on record by the prosecution.
6. The main witness for the prosecution is PW1. According to
his evidence, the deceased was his younger brother. When he
went to his house around 3.00 p.m., he found his brother dead
under the Tamarind tree and the appellant was at that place. On
seeing PW1 and others appellant ran away. Similar is the evidence
of PW2 who is the wife of PW1. The other witnesses have all
turned hostile to the prosecution case including PW7 who
according to prosecution is an eye-witness to the actual attack by
accused.
7. The learned Sessions Judge mainly based his finding on the
presence of accused at scene and fleeing on seeing PWs.1 & 2 and
also recovery of M.O.5-Cart Peg. The said Cart Peg was recovered
at the instance of the appellant and accordingly the Court found
that it was admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act. In the background of there being disputes in between the
deceased and the accused, the Court found that the
circumstances were enough to conclude that it was the appellant
who had attacked and caused injuries to the deceased, resulting
in his death. The hostility of the eye-witness-PW7 is of no
consequence.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that there are several contradictions in the evidence of witnesses.
In fact there are no eye-witnesses to the said incident. The only
eye-witness which the prosecution relies on, has turned hostile to
the prosecution case. In the absence of any direct evidence who
have witnessed assault as alleged by the prosecution, the
conviction cannot be sustained, only on the ground that he was
found at the scene running.
9. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
would submit that adequate reasons are given by the learned
Sessions Judge and on the basis of the circumstances of recovery
and motive, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the
appellant.
10. PWs.1 and 2 are closely related to the deceased. According to
them there was a panchayat held for the reason of there being a
dispute regarding the land that was used in between the house of
the accused and the deceased. The appellant bore grudge against
the deceased and accordingly attacked him. Though, the alleged
motive is spoken to by the witnesses, however, as seen from the
evidence of PWs.1 and 2, when they went to the scene, PW.1's
brother was found lying on the ground underneath the tamarind
tree and the accused was present, however, he fled from the
scene. Suspecting that the appellant would have caused injuries
on account of the disputes, complaint was filed.
11. In Ex.P1, there is no mention that the appellant was found
at the scene when PWs.1 and 2 went near the scene. It is
specifically mentioned in Ex.P1 that when PWs.1 and 2 went to
the scene, they found the deceased with injuries lying under the
tree. The presence of the accused at the scene is a subsequent
development. Further, regarding motive aspect also PW1 admitted
that there was a 'panchayat' which was held in between the
deceased and the accused in connection with a lane in between
their houses and that the deceased had threatened the accused.
The basis on which the trial Court recorded conviction about the
presence of the accused and the disputes in between them, are
both subsequent developments, which cannot form the basis for
conviction.
12. Appellant was arrested on 29.09.2009. There are no reasons
given by the Investigating Officer as to what investigation was
done in between 21.09.2009 and 29.09.2009. The appellant
belongs to the same village and it is not stated by any of the
witnesses that he had absconded. In fact, the appellant was
arrested from his house, according to PW.12-Investigating Officer.
If the appellant was staying in his house for 8 days and in the
same village, it is highly suspicious that as to why arrest was not
made. The seizure of M.O.5 is of no consequence, since no blood
was found on M.O.5. It is highly improbable that after attacking
the deceased, accused stayed in his house and also kept M.O.5
with him in the house.
13. In the said circumstances, on account of there being no
substantial evidence to believe the version of the prosecution
regarding attack by the deceased and the presence of accused at
scene and differences with the deceased are developments, benefit
of doubt is extended to the appellant.
14. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the
conviction and sentence recorded by the Sessions Judge at
Nizamabad, in S.C.No.71 of 2010, dated 05.10.2010, for the
offence under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal code. Since the
appellant/accused is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand
discharged.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending
shall stand closed.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 05.07.2024
tk
