Telangana High Court
Kondam Gangadhar, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 6 June, 2024
1
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 141 OF 2012
Between:
Kondam Gangadhar
aged 38 years, S/o. Rajalingam
Gharumpalli Mandal, Nizamabad
... Appellant/
Accused
And
The State of A.P. rep. by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court
of A.P., Hyderabad ... Respondent/
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 06.06.2024
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. 141 OF 2012
% Dated 06.06.2024
# Kondam Gangadhar, aged 38 years,
S/o.Rajalingam
Gharumpalli Mandal, Nizamabad ...Appellant/
Accused
And
$ The State of A.P. rep. by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,
Hyderabad. ... Respondent/
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M.Sanga Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor for State
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.141 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused
questioning the judgment of conviction dated 07.02.2012 in
S.C.No.231 of 2011 on the file of the Sessions Judge,
Nizamabad, for the offence under Section 304-II of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the
record.
3. The appellant/accused was convicted for the offence
under Section 304-part II of IPC and sentenced to undergo four
years of imprisonment. The case against the accused is that
he was married to the deceased 18 years prior to the incident.
On 02.12.2010 at about 1:00 p.m. the accused went to the
house and there was an altercation in between the spouses. In
the said altercation, the accused according to the prosecution,
grew angry and attacked his wife with sickle. On account of
11 injuries received by his wife, death occurred. According to
the opinion of post mortem Doctor-P.W.15, the death was on
account of severe head injury with intracranial hematoma.
Ex.P15 is the final opinion.
4. Learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section
302 of IPC against the accused. P.Ws.1 to 17 witnesses were
examined and Exs.P.1 to P.20 were marked on behalf of the
prosecution. The prosecution also brought on record M.Os.1
to 5.
5. On the basis of evidence, the learned Sessions Judge
found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302-
part II of IPC. Learned Sessions Judge found that though
there were no eye-witnesses to the alleged incident, conviction
was recorded on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
According to the learned Sessions Judge, the circumstances
are that (i) the accused was alone present in the house along
with the deceased at the time of commission of offence and (ii)
the accused also cut his throat with a knife when the deceased
fell on the ground with bleeding injuries and the said injury on
the neck of the accused is self inflicted. On the basis of the
said inference drawn by the learned Sessions Judge, conviction
was recorded.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that there were no eye-witnesses to the said incident.
On the basis of alleged circumstantial evidence, the conviction
was recorded. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh 1 and argued that the chain of
circumstances must be established beyond reasonable doubt
and the said circumstances should unerringly point towards
guilt of the accused. In the absence of such circumstances
being made out by the prosecution, the question of convicting
the accused with the help of circumstantial evidence does not
arise.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings of the
learned Sessions Judge and argued that it was the accused
who was alone present in the house when the incident
happened. He was also found at the scene which is stated by
P.W.1 and P.W.9 during their examination in Court. In the
said circumstances, when the accused had inflicted injuries on
himself and it was proved that the there were self inflicted
1952 LawSuit (SC) 46
injuries, the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge
cannot be set aside.
8. Having gone through the evidence, P.W.1 and P.W.9
(house owner) evidence is circumstantial in nature. They
stated that having received information they went to the house
and found the deceased and the accused with bleeding injuries
and were lying on the floor in unconscious state, both were
shifted to the hospital. However, complaint was given by P.W.1
on 02.12.2010 on the day of incident. The said version of the
accused being found on the floor in unconscious state with
bleeding injuries was not stated in the complaint. P.W.9 was
declared hostile to the prosecution case.
9. The said version of P.W.1 and P.W.9 finding the accused
at the scene is contrary to the evidence on record. P.W.17 who
is the Investigating Officer stated that he apprehended the
accused on 16.12.2010 at 9:00 a.m. at his house. Thereafter,
accused confessed the commission of the said offence and he
was arrested. The said version of the Investigating Officer is
contrary to version given by P.W.1.
10. The prosecution has not brought on record any evidence
convincing the Court that there were any injuries on the
accused or that he was treated in a hospital. In the absence of
any such evidence being brought on record regarding any such
self inflicted injuries and being treated in the hospital, the
version of P.W.1 and P.W.9 at the time of trial that accused
was found on floor with bleeding injuries, which is contrary to
the case of the prosecution and Ex.P.1 cannot be considered.
11. Further, M.Os.2, 3 and 4 which were alleged
weapons/instruments used in attacking the deceased were not
recovered at the instance of the appellant but found at scene of
offence. Learned Sessions Judge having found that no
recoveries were effected at the instance of the appellant has
erred in coming to a conclusion that the appellant was present
in the house and found in unconscious state with bleeding
injuries, on the basis of confession of accused and assumptive
evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.9.
12. In a case such as this when there is no direct evidence,
the Court ought to have relied upon any convincing
circumstance to prove the case of the prosecution. Learned
Sessions Judge had assumed that the accused was found in
the house in unconscious state, without any evidence. Such
assumptions contrary to the investigation and evidence on
record cannot be formed basis to find the accused guilty.
Since the basis for conviction of the accused by the Sessions
Judge is result of his imagination and inadmissible confession,
without any admissible evidence, the said conviction has to be
set aside.
13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and
sentence imposed against the appellant/accused is hereby set
aside. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if not
required in any other case. The bail bonds of accused shall
stand cancelled. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any,
shall stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 06.06.2024
Note:
Dispatch copy forthwith
(B/o) dv
