Telangana High Court
Prabhu Das , Shiva vs The State Of Telangana on 19 November, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.845 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated
20.01.2016 in S.C.No.528 of 2014, on the file of the Judge,
Family Court-Cum-VIII Additional Sessions Judge,
Mahbubnagar, convicting the appellant for the offence under
Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment for
committing murder of husband of P.W.3.
2. Learned legal aid counsel is absent. However, we have
gone through the record. Heard learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution according to the charge
sheet is that on 09.03.2012 while the appellant was
proceeding towards Yenugonda railway track, the deceased,
who is the husband of P.W.3 saw the appellant while grazing
cattle at TNGO's open plot and humiliated him. Unable to
bear the humiliation, the appellant went near the deceased
and argument ensued between them. In the process, the
appellant snatched the axe from the hands of the deceased
and beat him on his head resulting in his death.
4. The dead body was found by the side of the railway
track by other persons who were also grazing cattle. It was
informed to P.W.3 that her husband was killed. P.W.1 who is
relative of the deceased lodged a complaint on the same day
i.e., 09.03.2012 at 4:30 p.m. In the said complaint, he
narrated that the deceased was grazing his cattle in the open
plot of TNGO's colony, in the mean time, one unknown
person came there and quarreled with the deceased,
snatched axe which was in the hands of the deceased and
beat him on his head. Since he was a stranger and
unknown, the Police was requested to take action against the
said unknown person.
5. The Police went to the scene of offence, conducted scene
of offence panchanama and inquest proceedings were also
concluded. Post mortem examination was also conducted.
6. During the course of investigation, on 26.07.2012
around 9 a.m. i.e., nearly 4½ months after the incident, the
Investigating Officer got information about the appellant and
he was arrested. His confession was recorded in the
presence of P.W.8. The appellant allegedly confessed to have
committed murder of the deceased on 09.03.2012.
7. The Police thereafter concluded investigation and filed
charge sheet.
8. Learned Sessions Judge placing reliance on the eye
witnesses account of P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 convicted the appellant.
9. It is admitted in the complaint/Ex.P.1 that an unknown
person had committed the murder of the deceased and the
complainant/P.W.1 sought the Police to take action against
the unknown person. The names of P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 are not
mentioned in the complaint that they have seen the person
who attacked the deceased. In fact, there is no mention in
the complaint/Ex.P.1 as to who witnessed the incident nor
any descriptive particulars of any person who had inflicted
injuries on the deceased.
10. P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 as already stated, their names were not
mentioned in the complaint. Admittedly, there was no Test
Identification Parade of the appellant after his arrest on
26.07.2012. P.W.2's evidence was on 20.11.2015 i.e. after
3½ years and the evidence of P.W.4, another witness was on
24.11.2015 after more than 3½ years, similarly evidence of
P.W.5 was on 24.11.2015. In their chief examination, they
have identified the appellant stating that he was the person
who attacked the deceased with an axe.
11. The evidence of P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 cannot be considered
since they admitted that for the first time, they were
identifying the appellant in the Court after 3½ years. Firstly,
names of eye-witnesses were not mentioned in complaint,
secondly there are no identification or descriptive particulars
of the appellant and thirdly, it was admitted by P.W.2 during
cross examination that the appellant was shown in the Police
Station as the person who beat the deceased.
12. In fact, P.W.4 admitted that he was at a distance of
1/4th k.m. when the incident happened. P.W.5 stated that
his shop where he was sitting on the date of the incident is
around 1 k.m. away from the place of incident.
13. From the above discussion, it is apparent that the
witnesses were planted subsequently. It is highly improbable
that P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 were witnesses to the alleged incident.
Without there being identification particulars, identifying the
appellant for the first time after 3½ years is highly
improbable and not possible.
14. As seen from the record, the appellant was not mentally
fit. Even according to the prosecution evidence and the
Investigating Officer and the learned Sessions Judge, the
appellant was being treated for mental illness. It appears
that the Police have implicated the appellant whose mind was
unstable in an unsolved case after 3½ months.
15. In the said circumstances, the Criminal Appeal stands
allowed. Since the appellant is in jail, he shall be released
forthwith, if not required in any other case.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
________________
K. SARATH, J
Date: 19.11.2024
dv
