Telangana High Court
Chilukala Krishnaih, Mahaboobnagar ... vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 5 November, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.688 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
This Criminal Appeal is filed aggrieved by the
judgment dated 29.01.2016 in S.C.No.229 of 2015 on the
file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional
Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, convicting the
appellant/accused of the offences under Sections 498A and
302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and
sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay
a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to
suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence
under Section 302 IPC. The appellant/accused is further
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years
and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment
of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months
for the offence under Section 498A IPC.
2. Heard Ms. B. Niveditha, learned counsel for the
appellant/accused, and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
KS, J & JAK, J
3. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that PW.1, who
is the mother of the deceased, lodged a Telugu written
complaint on 10.01.2015 stating that her daughter
(deceased) was married to the appellant/accused five years
prior to the incident. The appellant was addicted to alcohol
and was harassing the deceased mentally and physically
and beating her indiscriminately. Due to the conduct of
the appellant, the deceased went to her parents' house.
Unable to bear the harassment of the appellant, the
deceased lodged a criminal case registered as Crime No.83
of 2010 under Sections 498A and 324 IPC against the
appellant. The Nawabpet Police arrested the appellant and
sent him to jail. Thereafter, the case was compromised
and the appellant was released on bail and promised that
he would look after his wife and children (PWs.4 and 5)
properly. However, the appellant started ill treating the
deceased again by coming home in a drunken condition
and was beating the deceased. PW.1 came to know that on
the night of 09.01.2015 at about 4:30 P.M., the appellant
picked up a quarrel with the deceased in a drunken
condition demanding to give money to him for consuming
liquor. Since the deceased refused, the appellant developed
KS, J & JAK, J
grudge and on the same day, at about 10:00 P.M., the
appellant attacked the deceased and stabbed her with a
knife and also beat her with a stick on her head, hand and
legs, due to which the deceased died on the spot. After
registration of the crime, PW.10 - Circle Inspector of Police
went to the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence
panchanama, seized the blood stained earth and controlled
earth and the same were sent to Forensic Science
Laboratory and thereafter, examined the witnesses. After
conducting scene of offence panchanama, inquest was
conducted and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased
was sent for post-mortem examination. The next day, the
appellant was apprehended. At his instance, MOs.4 and 5,
which are the knife and stick, were seized.
4. Charge sheet was filed under Sections 302 and 498A
IPC. Learned Sessions Judge, having framed the charges
under Sections 302 and 498A IPC, examined the witnesses.
On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence,
learned Sessions Judge found that the appellant was guilty
of the offences and accordingly convicted the appellant.
KS, J & JAK, J
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused
would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove that
it is the appellant who caused the death of the deceased.
There is no evidence of any eye witness and only on the
basis of circumstantial evidence, which is inconclusive,
the appellant was convicted. He further argued that
though the alleged incident happened on the night of
09.01.2015, the complaint was lodged with inordinate
delay of more than 24 hours on 10.01.2015 at 6:00 P.M.
The said delay is not explained and it is also not explained
as to what transpired immediately after her death. In the
absence of any direct evidence and since the conviction
was based on suspicion, the said finding of the learned
Sessions Judge has to be set aside. Learned counsel for
the appellant/accused relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raja Naykar vs. State of
Chhattisgarh 1, wherein the issue of circumstantial
evidence was dealt with.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of the
(2024) 3 SCC 481
KS, J & JAK, J
prosecution witnesses is consistent regarding the
harassment meted out by the deceased and that there was
a motive for the appellant to commit murder of the
deceased.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raja Naykar (supra)
dealt with the principles of circumstantial evidence and
held as follows:
"16. Undoubtedly, the prosecution case rests on
circumstantial evidence. The law with regard to
conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence has
very well been crystalized in the judgment of this Court
in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of
Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116], wherein this Court
held thus:
"152. Before discussing the cases relied upon
by the High Court we would like to cite a few
decisions on the nature, character and essential
proof required in a criminal case which rests on
circumstantial evidence alone. The most
fundamental and basic decision of this Court is
Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1952) 2
SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091]. This
case has been uniformly followed and applied by
this Court in a large number of later decisions
up-to-date, for instance, the cases of Tufail v.
State of Uttar Pradesh [(1969) 3 SCC 198 : 1970
SCC (Cri) 55] and Ramgopal v. State of
Maharashtra [(1972) 4 SCC 625]. It may be useful
to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in
Hanumant case [(1952) 2 SCC 71]
"It is well to remember that in cases
where the evidence is of a circumstantial
nature, the circumstances from which
the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
should in the first instance be fully
established, and all the facts so
KS, J & JAK, J
established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused. Again, the circumstances
should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency and they should be such as to
exclude every hypothesis but the one
proposed to be proved. In other words,
there must be a chain of evidence so far
complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for a conclusion consistent with
the innocence of the accused and it must
be such as to show that within all
human probability the act must have
been done by the accused."
153. A close analysis of this decision would
show that the following conditions must be fulfilled
before a case against an accused can be said to be
fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated
that the circumstances concerned "must or
should" and not "may be" established. There is
not only a grammatical but a legal distinction
between "may be proved" and "must be or
should be proved" as was held by this Court in
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC
(Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the
observations were made: [SCC para 19, p.807 :
SCC (cri) p.1047]
"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the
accused must be and not merely may be guilty
before a court can convict and the mental
distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long
and divides vague conjectures from sure
conclusions."
(2) the facts so established should be consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused, that is to say, they should not be
explainable on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty,
KS, J & JAK, J
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete
as not to leave any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of
the accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the
accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may
say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a
case based on circumstantial evidence."
17. It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for
the prosecution that the circumstances from which the
conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established. The Court holds that it is a primary principle
that the accused 'must be' and not merely 'may be' proved
guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been
held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal
distinction between 'may be proved and 'must be or
should be proved. It has been held that the facts so
established should be consistent only with the guilt of the
accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on
any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It
has further been held that the circumstances should be
such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved. It has been held that there must be
a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and must show that in all
human probabilities the act must have been done by the
accused."
8. Admittedly, the evidence is circumstantial in nature.
There are no eye witnesses to the incident. In a case of
circumstantial evidence, the burden is on the prosecution
to prove every circumstance, which the prosecution relied
on, beyond all reasonable doubt. Except stating that there
KS, J & JAK, J
were disputes between the deceased and the appellant,
there is no other evidence. The mother-in-law of the
deceased and the children of the deceased i.e. PWs.4 and 5
speak about a quarrel between the appellant and the
deceased and that the appellant beat the deceased. In fact,
according to PW.1, the deceased was brought home 15
days prior to the incident and since then the deceased was
staying at her parents' house. What transpired 15 days
prior to the incident is not stated by any of the witnesses,
as correctly argued by learned counsel for the appellant.
9. Thought the incident of death happened in the house
of the appellant, it is for the prosecution to prove that the
appellant was present in the house when the incident took
place. There is no evidence of "last seen". Only on the
ground that the dead body of the deceased was found in
the house of the appellant, it cannot be held that the
appellant is responsible for the death of the deceased.
When PW.2 stated that the parents of the appellant were
also staying in the house, it is for the investigating officer
to ascertain as to how many members were present in the
KS, J & JAK, J
house at the time of incident, specifically whether the
appellant was present in the house or not.
10. The suspicion however strong cannot take place legal
proof. The appellant being the husband of the deceased in
itself would not suffice to infer that he had committed the
murder of his wife.
11. The prosecution relied on recovery of MOs.4 and 5,
which are knife and stick, seized at the instance of the
appellant. PW.9 - Doctor, having given the details of
the injuries, stated in his cross-examination that he cannot
say as to whether the injuries are possible, if a person is
beaten. Further, the Doctor stated that head injury would
be possible by falling on a stone or on ground. The Doctor
was not shown MOs.4 and 5 to ascertain whether the
injuries found on the dead body of the deceased were
caused by MOs.4 and 5.
12. In view of the same, the appellant succeeds and the
conviction is liable to be set aside.
KS, J & JAK, J
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the
conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant vide
judgment dated 29.01.2016 in S.C.No.229 of 2015 on the
file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional
Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, is hereby set aside. The
bail bonds of the appellant, if any, shall stand cancelled.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this
Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
____________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date:05.11.2024
KH
KS, J & JAK, J
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.688 OF 2016
Date:05.11.2024
KH
