Telangana High Court
Jampala Vajra, Khm Dist. vs Sho, Sanathnagar P.S., R.R.Dist. on 17 October, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No. 1084 OF 2015
Between:
Jampala Vajra ... Appellant
And
The State of Telangana ... Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 17.10.2024
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
And
THE HON'LE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No
2 Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
_________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
And
THE HON'LE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
+ CRL.A. No. 1084 OF 2015
% Dated 17.10.2024
# Jampala Vajra ... Appellant
And
$ The State of Telangana ... Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Srinivas Srikanth
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla,
Additional Public Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
And
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1084 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302
IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment vide judgment in
S.C.No.309 of 2013 dated 28.03.2014 passed by the Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar. Questioning
the said conviction, present appeal is filed.
2. Heard Sri Srinivas Srikanth, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the
appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the
brother-in-law of the deceased namely Sunkari Krishna. The
deceased was residing in Flat No.A-120 of Laxmi Complex,
Erragadda. According to the prosecution, the appellant was having
relation with the deceased and they were living together without
marriage. P.W.1 received information that the deceased was taken
to the Gandhi Hospital with burn injuries. He went there and found
that the deceased died. P.W.1 also informed P.W.2, who also went
to Gandhi Hospital. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 then went to the flat where
the incident has taken place and on enquiries, they came to know
that the appellant was in a live-in relationship with the deceased.
Further, she was responsible and caused the death of deceased by
burning him. Ex.P1 complaint was filed with the police. In the said
complaint, P.W.1 narrated that on information, he went to Gandhi
Hospital and found the deceased dead. He went to the house and
found that there was burnt chair and bed in the house and on his
enquiry, he came to know that the appellant was living with the
deceased for the past 11 months. Further, deceased and appellant
were quarrelling with each other constantly. When he enquired with
the appellant at the scene, she informed that the deceased
committed suicide. However, P.W.1 did not find any kerosene tin
and suspected that the appellant poured kerosene on him and
burnt him as the watchman informed that the appellant poured
kerosene on the deceased and set him on fire.
4. The police, having received complaint on 12.07.2011 at 9.30
a.m, went to the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence
panchanama, which is Ex.P2. Thereafter, inquest panchanama was
conducted which is Ex.P3. On the basis of confession, MO6/Pestle
was seized at the instance of the appellant. During post-mortem
examination, the following injuries were found:
i) Antemortum Dermo Apidermo burns present all over the
body.
ii) Two lacerated injuries measuring 7 x 1 cm bone deep with a
distance of 0.5 cms between them present over left tempero
occipital area of scalp.
iii) On opening of Scalp fissure fracture measuring 5 cm lg
placed obliquely below injury side surrounding contusion present.
On opening of scalp diffused sub orphaloid and subdural
haemorrhage present all over brain.
5. The Doctor who conducted post-mortem examination gave
opinion that the cause of death was due to head injury associated
with burns and the said injuries were antemortem in nature.
Further, the dead body was smelling of kerosene.
6. Investigation was concluded and charge sheet was filed on the
allegation that the appellant caused injuries with pestle on the head
of the deceased and then burnt the deceased resulting in his death.
Since the death was homicidal, which was caused by the appellant,
charge sheet was filed under Section 302 of IPC.
7. Learned Sessions Judge, having framed charge for murder,
examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked by the
prosecution. During the course of trial, MOs.1 to 6 of which
M.O.6/pestle with which the alleged injury on the head of the
deceased was caused were also placed on record.
8. Learned Sessions Judge found that on the basis of the
circumstances adduced by the prosecution, it was the appellant
who had committed the murder of the deceased initially by hitting
with the pestle on his head and thereafter pouring kerosene on to
him and lit him on fire.
9. Learned Legal Aid counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that the conviction was based on assumptions. In fact, there
is no direct evidence either to the alleged assault or burning of the
deceased or to show that the appellant was staying along with the
deceased. The only evidence relied on by the prosecution is the
circumstantial evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also the testimony of
P.Ws.3 and 9, who are the watchmen at the premises. The evidence
does not disclose in any manner that the appellant was responsible
for causing the death.
10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State would submit that P.Ws.3 and 9 stated that
when they went to the flat, they found the deceased was burning.
However, the appellant, who was standing did not extinguish the
flames. The deceased informed P.Ws.3 and 9 that the appellant had
cheated him. Thereafter, deceased was taken to the Gandhi
Hospital and while undergoing treatment, he died. Since the
appellant was staying along with the deceased, the only logical
conclusion is that she has caused his death and that the learned
Sessions Judge has rightly recorded conviction.
11. Having gone through the record, the post-mortem
Doctor/P.W.8 stated as follows:
"The cause of death may be Homicidal, Suicidal or accident. I have
not mentioned in my PME report when the burn injuries are caused
by Homicidal, Suicidal or accidental. The injury No.2 cannot be
possible in other case except blood vomit when fall on hard
surface."
12. As seen from the evidence of the Doctor, the prosecution has
failed to prove conclusively that the death was homicidal. The post-
mortem Doctor stated that the death could be either homicidal,
suicidal or accidental. If at all the death was on account of any
accident or suicide, the question of convicting the appellant for
murder does not arise.
13. The evidence of P.Ws.3 and 9 is crucial. Firstly, their names
are not mentioned in the FIR which was filed by P.W.1 with the
police. Though P.W.1 says that he enquired with watchman but
does not mention the names of the persons with whom he enquired.
P.Ws.3 and 9 did not say anything about P.Ws.1 and 2 enquiring
with them or about the arrival of police at the scene. Admittedly,
P.Ws.1 and 2 are strangers to the appellant. The deceased was
taken to the hospital and after his death, P.Ws.1 and 2 went to
scene around 7.30 a.m. Finding the deceased at the scene is highly
improbable. There is no reason why the appellant would stay at the
scene and inform P.Ws.1 and 2 that she had committed the murder
of the deceased. Admittedly, both P.Ws.1 and 2 are strangers to the
appellant.
14. P.W.3 and P.W.9 stated that they found the deceased shouting
for help when they went to the flat/scene. The appellant was also in
the flat. However, she did not try to extinguish the fire and stood
there. P.W.3 when asked the deceased about the reason, then
deceased informed that he was cheated and asked for help. Similar
is the evidence of P.W.9, who also stated that when he went to the
flat, the deceased shouted and informed that he was cheated by the
appellant, who was standing there.
15. Admittedly, the deceased did not inform either P.W.3 or P.W.9
that the appellant had either injured him or burnt him. According
to P.W.3, deceased informed that he was cheated and P.W.3 did not
state that the deceased informed that he was cheated by the
appellant. However, P.W.9 stated that the deceased informed that
he was cheated by the appellant. When the evidence of Doctor is
considered that the death could be suicidal also, it cannot be ruled
out that on account of cheating, if any, by the appellant, the
deceased would have attempted suicide.
16. At the very first instance, when the deceased was found with
burn injuries, he did not say anything against the appellant.
However, according to P.W.9, he stated that the deceased was
cheated by the appellant. Both P.Ws.3 and 9's names were not
mentioned in Ex.P1 complaint, however, considering their evidence
and accepting that what they are saying is the truth, even then no
inference can be drawn that the appellant had injured and burnt
the deceased.
17. It is for the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable
doubt. When the prosecution case as admitted by the Doctor is
that the death could be either homicidal, suicidal or accidental, the
Court cannot pick and choose one mode of death and state that it
was homicidal and convict the appellant. No clarification was
sought either by the Public Prosecutor or the Court regarding the
opinion of the doctor.
18. In the said circumstances, the conviction for murder cannot
sustain. The judgment of trial Court in S.C.No.309 of 2013 dated
28.03.2014 is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted. Since
the appellant is in jail from the date of the judgment, the authorities
are directed to release the appellant forthwith, if she is not required
in any other case.
18. Accordingly, appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
_________________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date : 17.10.2024
Note: Registry is directed to
dispatch the order forthwith.
B/o.kvs
