Telangana High Court
Bheepangu Chinna Venkanna, Nalgonda ... vs P.P., Hyd on 24 July, 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.1233 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant -
accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C assailing the judgment of
conviction dated 26.09.2014 in S.C.No.134 of 2012 passed by the
VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Miryalguda.
2. Heard Mr. Shaikh Karimulla, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mrs. Shalini Saxena, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent - State.
3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has found the
appellant guilty of having committed the offence punishable under
Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'). Upon
convicting the appellant, he was sentenced imprisonment for life with
fine of Rs.500/- and with default stipulation of one (01) month.
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 16.02.2011 at
around 15:30 hours, the appellant is said to have brutally killed his
wife Bheemapangu Naga Rani (hereinafter, the 'deceased') and the
reason for the said murder was that of suspecting her fidelity. The
incident occurred at Village Sarvara under the limits of Police
Station, Garidepalli. As per the prosecution's case, the appellant is
said to have got married to the deceased about six (06) years prior to
the date of incident and from the said marriage they were blessed
with a daughter and a son. It is the case of the prosecution that for
the past many days, the appellant used to suspect the fidelity of the
deceased and about a week earlier to the date of incident, the
appellant is said to have dropped the deceased at her parental house
and refused to lead a conjugal life with her. Somehow the family
members though tried to pacify the appellant; he did not accept and
left the deceased at her parental home.
5. It is said that on 16.02.2011, at around 3:30 PM, when the
deceased went to the outskirts of the Village towards Choudamma
Temple to answer nature call, the appellant is said to have found the
deceased at a lonely place and taking advantage of the same he
followed with a wooden cricket bat in his hand and with which he
gave a hard blow on her head which caused instantaneous death of
the deceased. It is said that in the rage of anger when the appellant
was returning, he saw PW.5 (N. Gurvaiah) and on a query put by
PW.5 to the appellant, the appellant informed him that he has killed
his wife, the deceased and the body is lying near Choudamma
Temple. PW.5 is said to have went and saw the dead body lying as
informed by the appellant and he in turn informed PW.1 (Barigela
Venkaiah) and other villagers who also came and found the dead
body there.
6. Immediately, the matter was reported to the Police Station,
Garidepalli where Cr.No.13 of 2011 was registered for the offence
under Section 302 of IPC. The investigating agency reached the spot
and started investigation. The inquest was conducted, panchnama
was also prepared and the dead body was sent for post-mortem.
PW.13 (Dr. K. Pavan Kumar) who conducted the autopsy found that
there was wound of about 5 × 0.5 × 0.5 in semi-circular shape back
and below of the right external ear with bleeding. Upon opening the
head, PW.13 found fracture in the light parietal occipital bone with
subdural hematoma and the fracture was anti-mortem in nature.
PW.13 further opined the cause of death to be asphyxia due to cardio
respiratory arrest on account of the subdural hematoma.
7. The matter was thereafter put to trial after the charge-sheet
was filed before the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge at
Miryalguda where the matter was registered as S.C.No.134 of 2012.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as
sixteen (16) witnesses and marked equal number of exhibits i.e.
Exs.P1 to 16. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence,
however, six (06) documents were marked in defence i.e. Exs.D1 to 6.
Thereafter, the examination of the appellant was conducted under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C and later on the impugned judgment of
conviction was passed holding the appellant guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo
imprisonment for life which is under challenge in the present appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Trial
Court has erroneously appreciated the evidence of the prosecution
while holding the appellant guilty of the offence and the finding being
contrary to law warranting interference in the present appeal and the
impugned judgment is liable to be set-aside. According to the learned
counsel for the appellant, the prosecution has failed to adduce any
cogent and trustworthy evidence strong enough to convict the
appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
9. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, all the
prosecution witnesses, particularly PW.3 (B. Mangaiah), PW.4
(B. Veeraiah), PW.5 (N. Gurvaiah) and PW.6 (Thammisetty Ramu)
have given inconsistent, uncorroborated and contradictory evidence.
For the material discrepancy and disparity, the evidence is not
trustworthy so as to convict the appellant. According to the learned
counsel for the appellant, all the material witnesses are all closely
related to each other which further reduce their trustworthiness as
they are all highly interested witnesses and their version cannot be
accepted on its face value.
10. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Trial
Court has not properly appreciated the fact that as the case of the
prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence, there were
various missing links to connect the appellant with the offence and
the prosecution witnesses examined did not complete the chain of
links so as to reach to the only conclusion of the offence to have been
committed by the appellant alone and not by anybody else. The Trial
Court has grossly erred in not giving due weightage of the aspect
that the prosecution case is weak as they have not examined a
material witness namely Thulasamma who is the first person to have
seen the respondent following the deceased with a cricket bat in his
hand and which was then thereafter informed to PW.3 and PW.5 who
were asked to follow as they were suspecting something fishy in the
conduct of the respondent.
11. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the
circumstantial evidence brought on record are wholly inconsistent
with which the sole hypothesis of guilt of the respondent stands
established. Thus, for the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel
for the respondent sought for judgment of conviction to be set-aside
and the appellant be acquitted of all the charges leveled against him.
12. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposing
the appeal contended that the depositions of PW.3 and PW.4 are
strong piece of evidences on behalf of the prosecution to establish
the offence against the appellant. According to the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, PW.3 is the person who had seen the appellant
assaulting the deceased with the cricket bat and PW.4 is the person
before whom there has been an extra judicial confession made by the
appellant. Hence, in the teeth of these two strong evidences, both of
whom have not been effectively cross-examined to disbelieve the two
versions, there is nothing to doubt these two versions and the
judgment of conviction needs to be upheld / confirmed.
13. It was also the contention of the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor that the case of the prosecution also stands proved
beyond all reasonable doubts from the deposition of PW.5 who
corroborates the version of PW.1. It was contended that from the
cross-examination of these witnesses also there does not seem to be
much which has got elicited so as to disbelieve or disprove the
statement of the prosecution witnesses and hence the finding of guilt
arrived at does not warrant interference.
14. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and on perusal
of records, what is necessary to be seen is the version of PW.1, the
father of the deceased, who has accepted the fact that there was
strained relationship between the appellant and the deceased. It was
also stated by PW.1 that few days back the appellant had brought
his daughter and left her at his house i.e. the parental home of the
deceased and the appellant also threatened of killing the deceased
doubting her fidelity. As regards the date of incident, in PW.1's
statement it is also reflected that in the evening PW.5 informed PW.1
of the appellant having informed PW.5 of having killed his wife, the
deceased.
15. PW.2 (B. Venkatravamma) also deposed before the Court so far
as being informed by PW.4 of the appellant having killed the
deceased, PW.2's daughter. PW.2 also came along with PW.4 at the
place of incident and found the dead body of her daughter lying in a
pool of blood and a bat and plastic tumbler near the dead body.
16. PW.3 again is a person who is said to be eye witness. According
to PW.3, it was Thulasamma who saw the deceased going to answer
the nature's call into the fields and she saw the appellant following
the deceased with a cricket bat. Sensing something fishy, she
informed PW.3 and PW.3 on going towards area where the deceased
had moved, saw the appellant beating the deceased with a bat.
Though there seems to be some contradictory stand taken that PW.3
has taken in the cross-examination, but so far as the version of
Thulasamma having told him about the appellant following the
deceased towards the field carrying a cricket bat is not controverted
or disproved. So also the version that is said to have been made
before PW.4 by the appellant does not seem to be false, incorrect or
doubtful as the statement of PW.2 gives strength to the deposition of
PW.4.
17. From the deposition of all the prosecution witnesses, at least
the presence of the appellant near the place of occurrence stands
established and to which there does not seem to be any denial or
rebuttal made by the appellant in his 313 statement that was
recorded, so also there does not seem to be any strong materials
brought in defence or in denial or contradictory stand taken by the
prosecution witnesses so as to weaken the case of the prosecution.
There is also not much material available even to doubt the
involvement of the appellant of having not committed the said offence
or somebody else to have committed the said offence. All the
circumstances and the circumstantial evidence that have been
collected and adduced during the course of trial leads us to the only
inference that the crime was committed by none other than the
appellant.
18. The prosecution in the present case has also collected all the
necessary chain of links and has also established the motive since
there a motive attributed against the appellant and the corroborating
evidence collected in the course of investigation. There is sufficient
strength on the case of the prosecution and the finding of guilt
arrived at by the Trial Court cannot be found fault with.
19. As a consequence, the present appeal fails and is accordingly
dismissed. No costs.
20. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall
stand closed.
__________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
___________________________
SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU, J
Date: 24.07.2024
GSD
