Telangana High Court
Smt. Kyasagari Shanthamma, Hyd And ... vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 3 October, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1020 OF 2015
Between:
1. Kyasagari Shanthamma
2. Sirigani Sangeeetha @ Venkatamma
... Appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2
And
The State of Telangana.
... Respondent/Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 03.10.2024
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
_________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
2
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
+ CRL.A.No.1020 OF 2015
% Dated 03.10.2024
1. Kyasagari Shanthamma
2. Sirigani Sangeetha @ Venkatamma
...Appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2
And
$ The State of Telangana, rep. by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court at
Hyderabad.
... Respondent/Complainant
! Counsel for the Appellants: Sri T. Bala Jayasree
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor for State
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
NIL
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1020 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Surender)
1. This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated
24.06.2015 in S.C.No.19 of 2015, on the file of the
learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-VII Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
counsel for the respondent-State and perused the entire
material placed on record.
3. The appellants are mother and daughter, who were
convicted for murdering the deceased who is the husband
of accused No.1 and father of accused No.2.
4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that PW.1
lodged a complaint on 28.05.2014 at 09.00 am stating
that he was informed by someone over phone that his
brother died on 26.05.2014 at 11.00 PM. In the
complaint he narrated that deceased was addicted to bad
vices and was harassing wife and daughter, who are
accused Nos.1 and 2. Since he was found dead evidently
by strangulation, PW.1 suspected that accused Nos.1 and
2 would have committed the murder. On the basis of the
said complaint, PW.8 registered a case and issued
FIR/Ex.P8. Thereafter, PW.8 went to the house of the
deceased and found the dead body. There were relatives
near the dead body. PW.8 secured the independent
witnesses and conducted scene of offence panchanama
and thereafter inquest panchanama were prepared. On
completion of inquest, the body was sent for Post-mortem
examination. Autopsy was conducted and the Doctor was
of the opinion that cause of death was "Homicidal
Asphyxia due to Cardio Respiratory arrest caused by
strangulation".
5. It is further alleged that both accused Nos.1 and 2
then met PWs.3 and 7 on 31.05.2014 and confessed that
they committed the murder of the deceased and they
feared the relatives of the deceased. Accordingly, PWs.3
and 7 took accused Nos.1 and 2 to the Inspector/PW.9.
PW.9 stated that both accused Nos.1 and 2 confessed in
the presence of independent witnesses that they
murdered the deceased and at their instance,
MO.2/Saree which was allegedly used to strangulate the
deceased was recovered at the instance of accused Nos.1
and 2.
6. On the basis of the evidence collected during the
course of investigation and also the facts known to the
investigating officer during investigation, charge sheet
was filed allegeing that accused Nos.1 and 2 killed the
deceased, since he was harassing them and suspecting
their character.
7. Learned Sessions Judge examined the witnesses
PWs.1 to 9 produced by the prosecution. The prosecution
also relied on Exs.P1 to P11/documents. MO.1 are the
seized clothes of deceased and MO.2/Saree was allegedly
seized at the instance of the accused on 31.05.2014.
8. Learned Sessions Judge found that the evidence of
PWs.3 and 7 and other circumstantial evidence was
believable and accordingly convicted both the wife and
daughter of the deceased.
9. Learned legal aid counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants would submit that there is any amount of
delay in lodging the complaint. The version given by
witnesses are contradictory and cannot be relied on.
Further, the alleged seizure of the saree MO.2 with which
deceased was strangulated is doubtful, since the police
though having gone to the residence on 28.05.2014 have
only recovered the saree on 31.05.2014.
10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of the state would submit that the sequence of
events when looked into, clearly makes out the offence
against the appellants. There is no reason why PWs.3
and 7 would speak false against the accused stating that
they confessed about the crime. In the background of the
relatives of husband trying to harm accused Nos.1 and 2,
they approached PWs.3 and 7 and inturn PWs.3 and 7
took them to PW.9/Inspector before whom they
surrendered. All the circumstances relied on by the
prosecution clearly makes out a case of murder against
the appellants.
11. The death according to the prosecution was on
26.05.2014 around 11.00 PM. The complaint was filed on
28.05.2014. Firstly, the prosecution is not in a position to
explain the delay in lodging the complaint and secondly
as to what transpired from 11.00 PM on 26.05.2014 to
09.00 AM on 28.05,2014. Unless the prosecution brings
on record convincing evidence to show as to what
transpired in the 34 hours prior to the complaint, the
version of the prosecution becomes doubtful. None of the
investigating officers have explained as to what
transpired during said 34 hours.
12. The prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW.2,
who states in his chief examination that hearing loud
cries from the house, he rushed into the house of the
deceased and found dead body. On enquiry with the
accused, who were beside the dead body, they stated that
they have killed him. In the cross examination PW.2
stated that by the time he rushed into the house accused
and other relatives were also present. PW.2 was examined
five days after the alleged incident. The events narrated
by PW.2 before the Court, creates any amount of doubt
regarding his evidence being correct about entering into
the house and finding the dead body. PW.2's name was
not mentioned in the FIR, that was lodged on 28.05.2014
nor the relatives who were present when PW.2 entered.
13. PWs.3 and 7 stated that while they were at
Kodangal cross road, around noon, the accused Nos.1
and 2 approached them and stated that they killed the
deceased and they are apprehending danger from
relations of deceased. The alleged confession was on
31.05.2014 five days after the death. PW.7 admitted that
he has no personal acquaintance with accused Nos.1 and
2. PW.3 though had stated that the accused informed
him regarding committing murder, however, the version
given by PW.3, is doubtful. It is not the case that all the
five days, the accused were absconding from the village. If
the accused were not absconding from the village, what
action or investigation did the police do until the allegedly
confession to PWs.3 and 7. It is not the case of the
prosecution that accused Nos.1 and 2 were attacked or
harassed by any of the relatives.
14. The prosecution case cannot rely on circumstances
which are loosely knit and there being several
discrepancies and inconsistencies in the version of the
prosecution. The prosecution version should always be
convincing and without an element of doubt or suspicion.
As already discussed, the delay of nearly 36 hours in
lodging the complaint is not explained. The accused
though in the village and not absconding they were not
arrested. The alleged surrender before the police is after
the extra judicial confession made to PW.7 who is not
acquainted with accused Nos.1 and 2. No convincing
reasons are given as to why the accused would go to
PW.3 and confess about the alleged murder.
15. From the facts it is apparent that the actual version
was suppressed and the prosecution has come up with a
story which is totally unconvincing and gives rise to any
amount of doubt regarding its correctness. The
prosecution has failed to prove its case against the
accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, benefit
of doubt is extended to the appellants.
16. Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and
the appellant is acquitted. Since the appellant is on bail,
bail bonds shall stand discharged.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
__________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date: 03.10.2024
mmr
