Telangana High Court
Kasha Yadaiaha , Yadagiri, R.R.Dist. vs State Of Telangana, Rep. By P.P., Hyd on 25 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.184 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU)
The present is a Criminal Appeal filed by the sole accused, who was
in jail since the date of his first appearance and continued to stay in jail
after pronouncement of Judgment, under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') assailing the Judgment
dated 07.01.2015 passed in S.C.No.597 of 2014 by the XIII Additional
District Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, whereunder the
appellant was found guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 201
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'I.P.C') and convicted him
under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. The appellant was sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment
of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the
offence under Section 302 of IPC and also he was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-,
in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for
three months for the offence under Section 201 of IPC.
2. As could be seen from the material allegations made in the
charge sheet, one Mala Balaiah (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'),
who used to graze his goats in the outskirts of Bakkaram Village, left the
house on 15.01.2014 at about 11.00 A.M. and proceeded to the outskirts
of the village to graze the goats. PW.1, who is the son of the deceased,
came to know that his father was found dead in the agricultural fields of
Madi Madhavareddy with head injury. On receipt of the said information,
PW.1 rushed to the said spot and having found the dead body of his
father with a head injury and he has filed complaint against the
appellant on the ground that prior to the said offence, the appellant
herein picked up a quarrel with his father in a drunken condition and
also threatened his father with dire consequences. PW.13 registered the
said complaint as a case in Crime No.7 of 2014 of Moinabad Police
Station and investigated into the same. PW.13 has examined PWs.1 and
2 recorded their detailed statements, visited the scene of offence and
conducted panchanama before PW.9 and LW.10-M.Shankarayya. He
referred the dead body of the deceased to Osmania General Hospital,
Hyderabad, for post-mortem examination, where inquest was conducted.
The prosecution further alleged that on 17.01.2014 the appellant was
apprehended by ID party and was produced before PW.13 and the
appellant made confession about the commission of offence before PW.13
in the presence of PW.11 and LW.13-K.Sashikanth Rao. PW.12-Medical
Officer who conducted post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased,
issued post-mortem report opining that the deceased died due to the
multiple blunt injuries on the head. After completion of further
investigation and other formalities including production of the appellant
before the Court for judicial custody, PW.13 has filed the charge sheet
against the appellant.
3. Learned XIII Additional District Judge having received the record
from the District Court, proceeded with the trial and framed charges
under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC against the appellant herein. In order
to prove the charges, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 13 and
marked Exs.P.1 to P.9 and M.Os.1 to 3. After conclusion of the
prosecution evidence, the incriminating material has been placed before
the appellant herein, who denied the entire evidence and specifically
stated before the trial Court that he used to sell vegetables and three
days prior to the death of the deceased, he saw the deceased at a hotel.
The deceased had quarreled with him. However, the trial Court having
heard both parties came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able
to prove the guilt of the appellant and convicted him as indicated above.
4. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.
on the ground that the trial Court failed to appreciate the oral and
documentary evidence and there is no acceptable and cogent evidence to
believe the commission of offence by the appellant and that there was no
eye witnesses to the alleged offence. The trial Court failed to see that the
motive for the offence is completely different from the evidence produced
before the trial Court. The trial Court committed an error in accepting
the recovery since it is hit by Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
5. Heard Mr.Dharmesh Jaiswal, learned legal-aid counsel for the
appellant as well as Smt.Shalini Saxena, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the record.
6. Learned legal-aid counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has
submitted that though the evidence of prosecution witnesses is not
corroborated with each other and the presence of PWs.7 and 8 at the
scene of offence and witnessing the appellant causing injuries to the
deceased is highly doubtful. The trial Court gave an unnecessary
importance to these two witnesses (PWs.7 and 8) whose presence was not
spoken by the other witnesses, who were examined by the prosecution.
PW.1 did not state the presence of these two witnesses and they are
witnessing the offence while presenting Ex.P.1 to the police. Learned
legal-aid counsel further informed this Court that though the offence is
not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the appellant has been languished
in jail since more than 11 years and undergone maximum period of
sentence which trial Court ought not to have imposed against him.
Therefore, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt and sought for his
acquittal.
7. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the
findings recorded by the trial Court and also argued that the evidence of
PWs.7 and 8, which is corroborated by the other witnesses in all material
particulars, can be accepted and rightly accepted by the trial Court.
Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the findings of the trial Court
as such she prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
8. There is no dispute about the homicidal death of the deceased due
to multiple injuries. There is no dispute about the relationship between
PW.1 and the deceased. According to the evidence of PW.1, who is no
other than the son of the deceased, on 15.01.2014 at about 04.30 P.M.
he came to know from the villagers that his father was lying in the fields
of Madi Madhavareddy with injuries. Therefore, he proceeded to the spot
and found his father dead with bleeding head injury. PW.1 is not an eye
witness but he has claimed that the appellant herein used to cause
nuisance in the village after consuming toddy and his father used to
warn the appellant not to cause any such nuisance, thereupon, the
appellant herein used to threaten his father that he would kill him and
there was such an incident about three days prior to the death of his
father. In the cross-examination of PW.1, he stated that by the time he
went to the fields of Madi Madhavareddy there was nobody and he found
the dead body of his father lying in the open fields. He has presented a
report to the police at 07.30 P.M. on the same day.
9. PW.2 is another son of the deceased and he came to know about
the death of his father through the villagers. He did not witness the
actual offence. According to his cross-examination, by the time he went
to the scene of offence, he found the dead body of his father facing
downwards towards floor.
10. PW.3 is the younger brother of the deceased and he is not an eye
witness to the alleged offence and according to his evidence before the
trial Court, he came to know that his brother was beaten by somebody
and he was lying in the fields of Madi Madhavareddy and immediately, he
rushed to the scene of offence where he found the dead body of his elder
brother.
11. PW.4 is the Sarpanch of Bakkaram village and according to his
evidence, during Sankranthi days of 2014 at about 04.30 P.M. he heard
from the villagers that the deceased was killed by the appellant herein
thereby he went to the fields of Madi Madhavareddy and found the dead
body of the deceased. PW.4 did not explain as to from whom he got the
said information. Had it been the truth, PW.4 had information about the
commission of offence by the appellant herein, there was no occasion for
PW.1 to present Ex.P.1 by raising some suspicion against the appellant
and he could have categorically mentioned in the report that he came to
know about the commission of offence by the appellant.
12. PW.5 also stated the same version and he has claimed that at
about 04.30 P.M. he was told by the villagers that the deceased found
dead in the fields of Madi Madhavareddy and it was also told by the
villagers that prior to the said murder, the appellant herein was
admonished by the deceased when he caused some nuisance at toddy
compound.
13. However, PWs.7 and 8 were produced by the prosecution as if they
were personally witnessed the appellant herein causing injuries to the
deceased. According to the evidence of PW.7, he is a resident of
Bakkaram Village and he was an agriculturist and on the date of offence,
when he was talking to another person by standing in his own fields, he
has observed that the appellant herein attacking the deceased with a
stick.
14. Similarly, PW.8 also deposed the same version and claimed that at
about 04.00 P.M. when he was at his fields, he has observed the
appellant herein was attacking the deceased with a stick and causing
injuries on his head.
15. The evidence of PWs.7 and 8 creates any amount of doubt. If really
these two witnesses who have got acquaintance with the deceased and
appellant herein did not disclose their witnessing the offence either to the
son of the deceased or to the other witnesses. The report about the
alleged offence was presented by PW.1 at about 07.30 P.M. and there
was no mention about the presence of these two witnesses in the said
report. The investigating officer did not explain as to how he came to
know the presence of these two witnesses at the scene of offence in spite
of the fact that none of witnesses whom he first examined informed
about their seeing the witnesses either at the scene of offence or in the
village.
16. In a place like Bakkaram Village, which is a small village, if really
these two witnesses happen to see the actual commission of offence, they
will inform the same first to the family members of the deceased and in
such a case there is every likelihood of PW.1 present the report soon after
he came to know about the involvement of the appellant to the police.
Therefore, the averments made in the complaint presented by PW.1,
which itself contradicts the oral evidence of PWs.7 and 8 and it is quite
clear that they are planted only to depose against the appellant. Thereby,
the appellant is certainly entitled to benefit of doubt but the trial Court
by giving unnecessary importance to these two witnesses without
considering the cross-examination of the other witnesses and
circumstances, which creates any amount of doubt about the presence of
these two witnesses (PWs.7 and 8), recorded the conviction against the
appellant, which is liable to be set aside.
17. In view of the findings recorded hereinbefore, this Criminal Appeal
deserves to be allowed, and accordingly allowed, setting aside the
sentence of conviction imposed against the appellant/accused vide
Judgment dated 07.01.2015 passed in S.C.No.597 of 2014 by the
learned trial Court. The appellant/accused is acquitted for the said
offences and he shall be set at liberty, if he is not required in any other
case. The fine amount paid, if any, shall be refunded to him after the
expiry of appeal time.
Miscellaneous applications pending in the Criminal Appeal, if any,
shall stand closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
__________________________________
JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
Dated 25.07.2024
ynk
