Telangana High Court

Kankati Lingamurthy, Adilabad Dt., vs Ummagani Laxmi, Karimnagar And 2 Othrs, ... on 19 November, 2024

                                   1




     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                     AND
      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

 CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.340 OF 2015, 168 OF 2013
                         & 903 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

1. Crl.A.No.340 of 2015 is filed by P.W.2/father of the

deceased questioning the acquittal of the

respondents/accused Nos.1 and 2. The conviction was

recorded by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 304-II

of IPC against A-1 and A-2 and sentenced to undergo 5 years

of imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said conviction

Crl.A.No.903 of 2012 is preferred by A-1 and Crl.A.No.168 of

2013 is preferred by A-2.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/P.W.2 questioning the acquittal, learned counsel

for respondents/accused and the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for respondent-State.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased

was son-in-law of A-1, and A-2 was close acquaintance of

A-1. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and daughter of A-1.

The allegation is that A-1's husband died and thereafter, she

had illegal contact with A-2. According to P.Ws.1 to 11, A-1

had illegal contact with A-2, for which reason, the deceased

was chastising A-1 for her illegal contact. The accused were

insulted in the society on account of comments being passed

by the deceased. Further, there were frequent quarrels in

between A-1 and the deceased regarding the allegations made

by the deceased about physical/sexual intimacy in between

A-1 and A-2.

4. On the date of incident, according to P.Ws.4 to 11 who

are the eye witnesses, there was galata (quarrel) in between

the deceased and A-1. The deceased and A-1 started pushing

each other on account of the deceased passing comments on

A-1 about her intimacy with A-2. A-1 beat the deceased with

iron rod. Immediately, A-2 arrived and he also beat the

deceased on his head with iron rod. P.W.1, thereafter came

there and intervened and seeing P.W.1, both the appellants

ran away.

5. The complaint was filed by P.W.1 who is the wife of the

deceased. She stated in her complaint that A-1 and A-2 were

having illegal intimacy. On the said date when the dispute

broke up in between them, A-1 and A-2 attacked the

deceased with iron rod and he was beaten on his head. The

said beating on the head of the deceased resulted in the

deceased receiving bleeding injury. Further, P.W.1 narrated

that there was dispute about the amount of LIC amount

which was received on account of death of husband of A-1.

6. Learned Sessions Judge having examined the witnesses

and having considered the evidence placed on record by the

prosecution held that A-1 and A-2 were guilty for the offence

under Section 304-II of IPC and not under Section 302 of

IPC. The reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge is

that there was no premeditation to commit murder of the

deceased. In fact, while the deceased was going in front the

house of A-1, there was altercation resulting in pushing one

another and both assaulted one another. On account of

quarrel and provocation on the part of the deceased, both A-1

and the deceased physically pushed each other and then A-1

beat the deceased. In the said circumstances, learned

Sessions Judge found that it will not amount to murder in

accordance with exception (4) of Section 300 of IPC.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would

submit that there is no necessity that there should be

premeditation in the case of murder. From the facts gathered

in the case, all the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 14 have stated about

illegal intimacy between A-1 and A-2. Further, on account of

the amount received pursuant to death of husband of A-1,

there was quarrel in between A-1 and the deceased. In the

said circumstances, only logical inference that can be drawn

is that A-1 has grudge against son-in-law/deceased because

he was chastising her for having affair with A-2 and also for

the reason of money that was received through LIC after the

death of A-1's husband.

8. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Nanhe vs. State of U.P. 1. The facts of the

case in the said judgment are that appellant had shot the

deceased with a country made pistol after there was a quarrel

and the deceased had walked away for 15 to 20 steps. In the

said circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it

cannot be said that death was not committed intentionally

and not premeditated. Further, provision under Section 86

of IPC was of no avail to reduce the sentence from 302 of IPC

to Section 304-II of IPC.

9. The facts in the case cited by the learned counsel for

the appellants are different from the facts on the case on

hand. In the judgment cited by the learned counsel, the

assault was with a country made pistol. In those

circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that it was

a murder punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

10. In the case on hand, the deceased was son-in-law who

had passed comments and chastising A-1 for having affair

with A-2 frequently. Though there are 14 witnesses who

stated about affair between A-1 and A-2, none of them have

seen them having physical intimacy or that they had sexual

relation. It appears that the deceased chastising her had let

others also believe that A-1 and A-2 were having affair. Even

on the date of incident which happened in the front of house

of A-1, deceased passed comments against A-1 and

thereafter, there was a quarrel and deceased and A-1 started

pushing one another. In the said melee, A-1 hit the deceased

on his head. A-2 also came there and also hit the deceased

on his head. It is apparent, as rightly pointed by the learned

Sessions Judge, there was provocation on part of the

deceased. No mother-in-law would accept or suffer such

chastisation by son-in-law alleging illegal contact with

another person after death of her husband.

11. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and

another 2, stated that while dealing with an appeal against

acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the

trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one,

particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The

reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the

presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the

appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order

of the trial court rendering acquittal.

12. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 3 the Hon'ble

Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding

the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate

Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as

follows:

"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles

(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536

(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450

crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:

1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.

A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:

i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong:

ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;

iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice";

iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;

v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;

vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.

vii)This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.

2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court.

3. If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction __the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."

13. In the present facts of the case, there are no grounds to

find the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 of

IPC by reversing the judgment of the trial Court. Accordingly,

Crl.A.No.340 of 2015 is dismissed.

14. Insofar as other two Appeals preferred by A-1 and A-2

are concerned, we are not inclined to interfere with the

findings of the learned Sessions Judge convicting the

appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Section

304-II of IPC.

15. However, the incident is of the year, 2010 and nearly 14

years have passed by, the sentence of imprisonment imposed

by the Sessions Court for 5 years under Section 304-part II of