Telangana High Court

Koppula Rama Krishna, Khammam Dt., vs State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 25 July, 2024

            HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                        AT HYDERABAD

                                   *****
                 Criminal Appeal No. 552 OF 2015
Between:

Koppula Rama Krishna
                                                 ... Appellant/Accused

                                 And

State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor.
                                                      ... Respondent/
                                                        Complainant

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 25.07.2024

Submitted for approval.

              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                                   AND
           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SRINIVAS RAO



 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


                                              _____________________
                                              J.SRINIVAS RAO, J
                                               2


                   * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
                                          AND
               THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SRINIVAS RAO


                                + CRL.A. No. 552 OF 2015


% Dated 25.07.2024

# Koppula Rama Krishna

                                                           ... Appellant/
                                                            Accused

                                        And

$ State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor.
                                                           ... Respondent/
                                                             Complainant


! Counsel for the Appellant: Ms.Padmalatha Yadav

^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri V.Jitender Rao
                                  Additional Public Prosecutor

>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred
1
    (2021) 10 Supreme Court Cases 706
                                     3
           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                                  AND

         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SRINIVAS RAO

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.552 OF 2015

JUDGMENT:

(per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER)

The appellant/accused was convicted by the Additional

Sessions Judge, for the offence of murder for throwing his

daughter into the well. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is

filed.

2. Heard Ms.Padmalatha Yadav, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri V.Jitender Rao, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

3. According to the case of the prosecution, the marriage of the

appellant was performed eight years prior to the incident. The

appellant was addicted to Alcohol and was beating his wife, for

which reason she lodged a complaint with the Police. Thereafter,

unable to bear the harassment, she went away and started staying

with her parents. On the basis of complaint given by the wife, the

accused was sent to jail and later released on bail. The appellant

bore grudge against his wife for sending him to jail. One and half

months prior to the incident, the appellant took his deceased

daughter to his village without intimating to his wife and in-laws.

4. The case of the prosecution, further, is that on 23.04.2013,

he took the girl and threw her in a well in Korakal village with an

intention to kill her, since he had grudge towards his wife and in-

laws.

5. PW1 is the complainant and father-in-law of the appellant.

He lodged a complaint on 24.04.2013 at 7.30 a.m.. According to

PW.1, there were differences in between the appellant and his wife

and he had forcibly taken the deceased along with him while, his

daughter i.e. appellant's wife was staying at his village along with

him. On 23.04.2013, around 11.45 p.m., appellant took the girl to

the government well at Korakal village and threw her into the well

and went away.

6. The said complaint-Ex.P1 was filed on the basis of suspicion

that it was the appellant who had thrown the deceased into the

well. However, during the course of investigation, the police

examined PW.4 and PW10 who were the persons whose houses

were located near the well. However, their names were not

mentioned in the complaint-Ex.P1. The evidence of PW.4 and

PW.10 in the Court is that on the night of 23.04.2013, they saw

that the appellant was carrying the deceased and the deceased

was crying. PW.4 brought the deceased and the accused to his

house to save her, however, while PW.4 sat there due to leg pain,

the appellant took her and threw her into the well and went away.

PW.10 also stated that he saw PW.4 talking to appellant and

thereafter the appellant threw the deceased in the well.

7. The only evidence to support the prosecution case is that of

PW.4 and PW.10.

8. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit

that the names of PW.4 and PW.10 are not mentioned in the

complaint. If at all, in the night, if PW4 and PW.10 had seen the

accused throwing the deceased in the well, they would have

informed the other villagers. For the said reason, only on the basis

of suspicion, complaint was filed by PW.1 and the accused was

charge sheeted.

9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

would submit that admittedly, the deceased was taken by the

appellant from his in-laws house and both were living together

1 ½ months prior to the incident. It is not the case of the

appellant that someone else has thrown the girl into the well and

caused her death. In the said circumstances, the Court below has

rightly concluded regarding the complicity of the accused.

10. Having gone through the record, there is no reason as to

why PW.4 and PW.10 would speak false against the appellant.

They are independent witnesses. Though the names of PW.4 and

PW.10 are not mentioned in the complaint, their evidence cannot

be rejected only for the said reason.

11. No antimortem injuries were found on the body of the girl.

She died due to asphyxia and drowning. According to PW.4 and

PW.10 the appellant went near the well, threw her in well and

went away from there.

12. It is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant had

caused any harm before the girl being thrown in the well or

ensured that the girl died after throwing her into the well. The

case would fall under Section 304-I of IPC and not 302 of IPC.

13. The Honourable Supreme Court in Mohd.Rafiq Alias Kallu

v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1 held as follows;

"Held: The question of whether in a given case, a homicide is murder, punishable under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide of either description, punishable under Section

(2021) 10 Supreme Court Cases 706

304 IPC, has engaged the attention of courts in India for over one-and-a-half century, since the enactment of the IPC. A welter of case law, on the aforesaid aspect exists, including perhaps several hundred rulings by the Supreme Court. The use of the term "likely" in several places in respect of culpable homicide, highlights the element of uncertainty that the act of the accused may or may not have killed the person. Section 300 IPC which defines "murder", however refrains from the use of the term 'likely', which reveals absence of ambiguity left on behalf of the accused. The accused is for sure that his act will definitely cause death. It is often difficult to distinguish between culpable homicide and murder as both involve death. Yet, there is a subtle distinction of intention and knowledge involved in both the crimes. Such difference lies in the degree of the act. There is very wide variance of degree of intention and knowledge among both the crimes."

14. Following the aforesaid observations of the Honourable

Supreme Court that conviction under Section 302 of IPC can only

be inflicted if the intent of accused to cause death is of a definitive

character. In the present case, the appellant had knowledge that it

is likely to cause death if the girl was thrown in the well,

accordingly, the conviction under Section 302 of IPC is set aside

and appellant is convicted under Section 304 part I of IPC.

15. The appellant is in jail from March, 2015 onwards and since

9 years have passed by, the sentence of imprisonment of the

appellant is reduced to the period already undergone. Since the

appellant is in jail, he is directed to be released forthwith, if he is

not required in any other case.