Telangana High Court
Battu Loordu Mariyamma, Madhira vs State Of Telangana, Rep. By P.P., Hyd on 27 June, 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.183 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Sambasiva Rao Naidu)
The sole accused in Sessions Case No.178 of 2014 on
the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam has filed this
Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure
Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') and seeks to assail the judgment of
the trial Court dated 28-01-2015, where under, the learned
District Judge found him guilty for the offence under Section
302 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') and sentenced
him to undergo Imprisonment for Life along with fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer Simple
Imprisonment for six (6) months.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant on the
ground that the trial Court committed an error by finding him
guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, without
considering the fact that PWs.1 and 2 are highly interested
witnesses and there are discrepancies and contradictions in
their evidence. The trial Court did not consider the fact that
2 PSK,J & SSRN, J
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.183 of 2015
the material witnesses, who are examined as PWs.7 and 10
did not support the prosecution and were declared as hostile
by the Public Prosecutor. The trial Court committed an error
and failed to see that the chain of circumstances sought to be
proved by the prosecution was incomplete, thereby could not
have convicted the appellant, as such, sought for setting aside
the impugned judgment and prayed for his acquittal.
3. Before adverting to the grounds under which this
appeal is filed, it is just necessary to refer the brief case of
the prosecution as could be unfolded from the averments
made in the charge sheet. One Lazar (herein after will be
referred as 'deceased') was the husband of PW.1 and father of
PW.2. The appellant herein along with his family and the
deceased along with his wife and children were residing in the
same locality and used to share water from a common water
tap that was arranged by the land-lord. On 01-09-2012, at
about 4.00 p.m., when PW.1 was taking water from the water
tap, the daughter of the appellant also came there for taking
water and there was a quarrel between the daughter of
appellant herein and wife of deceased i.e., PW.1. At about
7.00 p.m., when the appellant herein came to the house, his
3 PSK,J & SSRN, J
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.183 of 2015
daughter informed him about the dispute with PW.1, thereby,
he started abusing PW.1 in filthy language. PW.8 tried to
pacify the matter and warned the appellant not to interfere
with the ladies disputes.
4. The prosecution has alleged that because of the
presence of deceased in the house he was facing problems as
such, he wanted to eliminate the husband of the deceased, so
that there may not be further problems, and therefore, he has
purchased a knife and came back and was waiting for a
chance. The prosecution further alleged that at about 10.00
p.m., the husband of PW.1 i.e., the deceased returned home.
PW.1 had informed about the quarrel and there was a verbal
altercation between the deceased and appellant herein.
5. It was the further case of prosecution that
subsequently, the deceased left the house for getting food for
the family and did not return home. However, in the late
night, one Mr. Prasanna Kumar, who is examined as PW.3 and
LW.5 Medepally Anil Kumar came to the house of PW.1 and
informed her that they found the dead body of her husband
lying by the side of RCM Church. Therefore, PWs.1 and 2
rushed to the spot and having found the dead body of the
4 PSK,J & SSRN, J
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.183 of 2015
deceased, they presented a report to police basing upon
which the police have registered a case against the appellant
herein and proceeded with the investigation.
6. PW.14, the then Inspector of Police, Madhira, who
has completed the entire investigation, filed charge sheet
against the appellant herein alleging that he has committed
the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. As could be
seen from the charge sheet the prosecution has alleged that
the appellant was arrested and interrogated before
independent witnesses and he said to have produced the knife
which he has used in the offence and his clothes which were
stained with the blood of the deceased.
7. After committal proceedings, the charge sheet
that was formally registered as PRC.No.48 of 2012, the
District Court registered the said case as SC.No.178 of 2014
and proceeded with the trial. The trial Judge had framed a
charge under Section 302 of IPC against the sole accused and
he denied the accusation, therefore, conducted the trial
during which the prosecution could examine PWs.1 to 15 and
marked Exs.P1 to P20 and also marked MOs.1 to 7. The
5 PSK,J & SSRN, J
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.183 of 2015
contradiction elicited during the evidence of PW.4 from his
161 Cr.P.C. statement has been marked as Ex.D1.
8. After conclusion of the trial, the entire
incriminating material has been put to the appellant herein
during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However,
he denied the said evidence. The learned District Judge
having appreciated the evidence, came to the conclusion that
the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of appellant for the
offence under Section 302 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt
and accordingly, convicted him as indicated above.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that there is no eye-witness to the alleged offence,
thereby, the prosecution tried to prove the guilt of the
appellant based on the circumstantial evidence. In such a
case, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove a complete
chain of circumstances that would show the involvement of
the appellant and the commission of offence by the appellant
beyond all reasonable doubt. But in the case on hand, there
are number of missing links. But in spite of it, the trial Court
simply relied on the evidence of PW.1, convicted the appellant
6 PSK,J & SSRN, J
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.183 of 2015
for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, therefore, sought for
setting aside the conviction.
10. On the other hand, the Assistant Public Prosecutor
had submitted that the evidence of PW.1 has been supported
by PW.4, who happened to hear the conversation between the
appellant and deceased over phone and the threat that was
made by the appellant herein while quarreling with the
deceased. The report received from Forensic Science
Laboratory clearly indicates that the clothes of the appellant
recovered from his House as well as clothes of the deceased
contained the same Blood group. Therefore, the charge under
Section 302 of IPC has been proved against the appellant
beyond all reasonable doubt, thereby, sought for dismissal of
the appeal.
11. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the
appellant, the prosecution wanted to prove the guilt of the
appellant based on circumstantial evidence. Admittedly, no
eye-witness was examined to prove that he has witnessed the
appellant herein stabbing the deceased. Out of 15 witnesses
examined by the prosecution, PWs.1 and 2 are wife and
daughter of the deceased, who were examined to prove the
7 PSK,J & SSRN, J
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.183 of 2015
quarrel that took place at the water tap and also to prove that
the appellant had a motive to kill the deceased. PW.3 is a
witness, who saw the dead body of the deceased at the first
instance and who forwarded the message to the wife of the
deceased. PW.4 is a friend of deceased and he has been
examined to show that the appellant herein had an intention
to kill the deceased and he followed the deceased, who was
proceeding to a Hotel for collection of food. The others are
only circumstantial witnesses.
12. There is no dispute about the homicidal death of
the deceased whose dead body was found in the late night by
the side of one RCM Church at Madhira. The Medical Officer,
who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the
deceased, was of the opinion that the deceased died due to
Cardio Respiratory failure due to hypovolaemia and puncture
to the left lung.
13. As could be seen from the evidence of PWs.1 and
2, there appears to have been a quarrel between PW.1 and
daughter of the appellant herein in connection with sharing of
water from the water tap. It is the evidence of PW.1 that
soon after the arrival of appellant having been informed about
8 PSK,J & SSRN, J
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.183 of 2015
the incident through his daughter, he made a quarrel with
PW.1 and her husband. It is the further case of PWs.1 and 2
that after a while, the deceased left the house for procuring
food for the family but did not return. As per the evidence of
PW.2, who was Intermediate student, she returned home in
the evening and she was present when the quarrel between
the appellant and deceased took place. Even though, these
two witnesses have categorically stated that the deceased left
the house for getting food to the family and in spite of he did
not return home till late night, they did not venture to search
nor PW.2 made any attempt to approach the police
apprehending some danger to her father. It was specifically
stated by PWs.1 and 3 that the family of the deceased came
to know about the dead body of the deceased lying behind a
Church only through PW.3 in the late night. It is true, the
trial Court based on the evidence of PW.4 came to the
conclusion, as if he has got entire knowledge of the offence.
14. According to the evidence of PW.4 before the trial
Court, he was working as a Constable. He has got
acquaintance with the deceased and his father. According to
his evidence before the trial Court that on 01-09-2012, he
9 PSK,J & SSRN, J
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.183 of 2015
received a call from the deceased and he was told about the
quarrel that took place between the appellant and PW.1 at
4.00 p.m., and when he went to enquire the appellant, there
was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. PW.4
further deposed before the Court that since he was on
deputation at Madhira, he was on duty and also he was not
feeling well, but he could hear the calls by using speaker
phone of his mobile and claimed that he could hear the
abusive language used by the appellant. It is also his
evidence that again at 11.00 p.m., he received a call from the
deceased and he requested him to come down to his House in
view of the abuses and galata caus ed by the appellant. He
has also claimed that he was informed by the deceased that
he was going to Bazar for purchasing biryani and accused was
following him. Finally, he was stated before the Court that at
12.30 night, he received a call from PW.3 and informed about
the murder of deceased.
15. However, the cross-examination of this witness
clearly indicates that what all he stated before the Court was
only an after thought and development by him during the
course of trial, because the statement made by him before
10 PSK,J & SSRN, J
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.183 of 2015
the police was silent about what he stated before the trial
Court. According to his statement before the police vide
Ex.D1, on 01-08-2002, at about 10.00 p.m., received a call
from the deceased and was told about the galata made by the
appellant and requested him to come down. But as he was on
duty at the Railway Station, he asked the deceased to file a
complaint before police and disconnected the call.
Subsequently, at about 12.00 in the night, he came to know
about the murder of the deceased.
16. Therefore, what all he stated before the Court, as
if, he could hear the conversation between the appellant and
the deceased through his speaker phone etc., is not there in
his 161 Cr.P.C. statement. Therefore, it cannot be accepted
to be true. If the evidence of this particular witness is
excluded, there is no evidence to accept that the appellant
herein followed the deceased and killed him.
17. The other circumstances under which the
prosecution tried to rely is the recovery of blood stained
clothes from the possession of accused. According to the
evidence of PW.14, the report presented by PW.1 was
registered as a case against the appellant at 4.00 a.m., on
11 PSK,J & SSRN, J
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.183 of 2015
02-09-2012 and he took up the investigation on receipt of the
copy of F.I.R. He proceeded to the place where the dead
body of the deceased was lying and he could examine PWs.1
to 10 and also one Master A.Rahul (LW.3) and got the scene
of offence photographed with the help of PW.11. He has
prepared the panchanama at the scene of offence before
PW.12 and one Vijay Kumar. He completed the inquest on
the dead body of the deceased before the same witnesses and
shifted the dead body after holding inquest for post-mortem.
18. PW.14 further deposed before the Court that on
reliable information at 5.00 p.m., on the same day, he went
to the House of appellant herein and said to have arrested
him, interrogated him before mediators and said to have
seized his blood stained clothes.
19. In this case, it was specifically mentioned in Ex.P1
complaint that there was a quarrel between the appellant and
the deceased and as the dead body of the deceased was
found late night on 01-09-2012, PW.1 raised a suspicion
against the appellant. The Inspector of Police, who was
examined as PW.14 had claimed that he could leisurely
examined the witnesses, prepared panchanama at the scene
12 PSK,J & SSRN, J
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.183 of 2015
of offence and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased
and only at 5.00 p.m., he has apprehended the accused that
too at his House. As per the averments made in the
complaint lodged before PW.16 and as per the inquest that
took place at the place of offence, it was alleged that the
appellant herein was responsible for the death of deceased.
Therefore, the appellant has got every chance to know as to
what was alleged in the FIR and he was shown as prime
suspect in the murder of deceased. In such a case, the
presence of appellant inviting the police for his arrest on the
very next day at 5.00 p.m., is highly doubtful. The appellant
had got every opportunity to hide himself, but here, the
Investigating Officer claimed as if, he has effected the arrest
of appellant at 5.00 p.m., on 02-05-2012 and seized the
blood stained clothes of the appellant to connect them with
the death of the deceased. The alleged arrest of the appellant
at his House and seizure of the clothes is highly unbelievable.
If these two important links are excluded, there is no
complete chain of circumstances that could prove the guilt of
appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. But the
trial Court having given unnecessary importance to the
13 PSK,J & SSRN, J
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.183 of 2015
evidence of PW.4, without considering the omissions and
contradictions elicited during the cross-examination, wrongly
found the appellant herein guilty for the offence under Section
302 of IPC and sentenced him to Life Imprisonment, thereby,
the same is liable to be set aside.
20. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
Consequently, Miscellaneous petitions if any, are closed.
No costs.
___________________
JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
__________________________
JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
Date: 27.06.2024
PLV
