Telangana High Court
Feroz Khan, Hyderabad., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 7 November, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1080 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated
03.11.2015 in S.C.No.25 of 2014, on the file of the
Metropolitan Sessions Judge Court at Nampally, Hyderabad,
convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of
IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused
and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State.
3. The appellant was convicted for murder of his wife by
cutting her throat and also slitting her wrists. Learned
Sessions Judge found appellant guilty.
4. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.3 is the
daughter of the deceased-mother and the appellant is the
father. According to her, at about 2:30 or 3:00 a.m., the
appellant cut the throat and also both wrists of the deceased
with a blade that he brought. P.W.3 heard the deceased
shouting and when she woke up, she saw that the appellant
had cut the throat and wrists of her mother. She went to the
house of P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased and
informed him regarding the acts of the appellant. P.W.1 then
went to the Police Station and lodged Ex.P.1/complaint at
9:30 a.m. In the said complaint/Ex.P.1, P.W.1 narrated that
P.W.3 came to him and informed regarding the incident.
Thereafter, he went to the house and saw the deceased lying
on the floor dead with grievous injuries. After lodging the
complaint, the Police went to the scene of offence, conducted
scene of offence panchnama, thereafter inquest proceedings
were also concluded. The body was then sent for post
mortem examination. The post mortem Doctor/P.W.6 found
that the deceased had a cut injury on the neck and contusion
on left side of neck, cut injury on front, lower part of the right
wrist and cut injury muscle deep on front and lower part of
left wrist. All the said injuries were ante mortem in nature.
The cause of death was cut injury of the throat and also the
wrists.
5. Learned Sessions Judge mainly placed reliance on the
evidence of P.W.3 and also corroborating evidence of the
Doctor regarding injuries received and recorded conviction.
The grounds raised on behalf of the accused are that the
incident was suicidal and the appellant had nothing to do
with the injuries that were caused.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the question of
injuries being suicidal is ruled out.
7. P.W.3 is the daughter who was aged around 7 years
when the incident had taken place. After the appellant had
cut the throat and wrists of the deceased/wife, having
witnessed the said incident, P.W.3 went to P.W.1 and
informed him. Thereafter, other circumstances of lodging the
complaint, Police doing their part of investigation, all the
other aspects are not disputed. During the cross-
examination of P.W.3, except suggesting that she was tutored
to depose against the accused, nothing is elicited to discredit
the evidence of child witness.
8. The suggestion was that the deceased had committed
suicide. The appellant has not disputed his presence in the
house.
9. P.W.6 is the Doctor who conducted post mortem
examination. In the cross-examination, he stated that in
case of suicide, there is a chance of possessing many cut
injuries on the body if a person attempts suicide, however,
there are no such injuries.
10. It is highly improbable that a woman would cut both
her wrists and cut her throat to commit suicide. Medical
evidence rules out even a remote chance that death was on
account of suicide.
11. The ground raised by the counsel is that if the death is
not suicide, the offence may fall under Section 304-II of IPC.
The manner in which the cut injuries were inflicted on the
deceased firstly on the throat and then on the wrists of both
hands would go to show that the appellant was determined to
cause the death of the deceased. P.W.3's evidence is that
appellant was in the house and she had seen him injuring
the deceased. Under Section 106 of Evidence Act, burden
shifts onto the appellant to explain the death of his wife.
Suggesting to the witnesses that he was not present or
deceased committed suicide will not suffice to discharge his
burden. Even under Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination, except
denial, appellant did not come up with any reasoning or
explanation.
12. There are no reasons to interfere with the findings of
the learned Sessions Judge on the basis of evidence, as such,
the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
14. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the
appellant is on bail, the concerned Magistrate shall summon
him and send him to prison to serve out the remaining part
of the sentence.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
___________________
J. ANIL KUMAR, J
Date: 07.11.2024
dv
