Telangana High Court
Anupuram Ramachandri , Ramachandraiah ... vs The State Of Telangana on 17 October, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA,
HYDERABAD
***
Criminal Appeal No.1184 of 2015
Between:
1. Anupuram Ramachandri @ Ramachandraiah
2. Chittiri Kirshna
Appellants/accused
Versus
The State of Telangana
Respondent
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 17.10.2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR
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 His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes/No
_____________________
K. SURENDER, J
_____________________
J. ANIL KUMAR, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR
+ Criminal Appeal No.1184 of 2015
% 17.10.2024
Between:
1. # Anupuram Ramachandri @ Ramachandraiah
2. Chittiri Kirshna
... Appellants/accused
And
# The State of Telangana
... Respondent
!Counsel for the appellant : Mr. T. Anirudh Reddy Rep. by
Sri. T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy
^Counsel for the respondent : Sri. Arun Kumar Doddla
respondent Additional Public Prosecutor for
-State.
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred: NIL
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1184 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. Both the appellants who are arrayed as
accused Nos.1 and 2 were convicted by the learned
Sessions Judge for the offence under Section 302 of IPC
and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Questioning
the said conviction, the present appeal is preferred.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.11.2012, in
the evening, accused Nos.1 and 2 went to the house of the
deceased and asked her to participate in sexual intercourse
with them. However, when the deceased refused, there was
a quarrel and accused No.2 caught hold the deceased and
accused No.1 hit her with a stick on her left eye and also
pierced the stick into her vagina. Due to which, she died.
3. A complaint was filed by PW1 who is the mother of
the deceased on 21.11.2012 at 10:00 A.M. In the
complaint, she narrated that her sister namely
Sugunamma/PW2 informed about the death of the
deceased and accordingly, when she went to the house at
around 07:00 A.M., she found that the deceased was lying
in one of the rooms with injuries and was dead. She came
to know that accused Nos.1 and 2 went to the house and a
quarrel took place between them and accused Nos.1 and 2
killed her. The dead body was found without clothes and
with injuries to the eye.
4. Having received the complaint, Police registered a
case against the appellants for the offence under Section
302 read with 34 of IPC and commenced investigation.
They went to the scene of offence and panchanama
proceedings/Ex.P3 was conducted. Thereafter, inquest
proceedings were undertaken under Ex.P5. After inquest
proceedings, the body was sent for post-mortem
examination. The Doctor who conducted post-mortem
examination on the body of deceased found following
injuries:-
1. Laceration of Left Upper eye lid 4 x 3 cm with
depression and rupture of eye brow.
2. Laceration of left lower eye lid 4 x 3 cms with tear
with inner campus of eye lid.
3. Abrasion over back of left elbow in lower 1/3rd of arm
1 x 1 cm.
4. Abrasion over front right knee about 1 x 1 cm.
5. Tearing of posterior commission of vegina 2 cms.
Deep x bleeding explosing muscles.
6. Multiple small abrasions of ½ cms over front of upper
part of thigh.
7. Contusion of 5 x 3 cms. Over front of left side of neck
just above clavity. Abrasions are bright red in colour
5. According to PW9/Doctor, after receiving the analysis
report, he opined that the cause of death of deceased was
due to multiple injuries and there was a possibility that
victim was subjected to rape.
6. During the course of investigation, the accused were
arrested on 26.11.2012. Pursuant to their confession,
stick that was used in the commission of offence was
recovered at the instance of accused.
7. Having concluded the investigation, the Police filed
charge sheet against the appellants. Charges under Section
302 read with 34 of IPC were framed against the
accused Nos.1 and 2 by learned Sessions Judge.
8. During the course of trial, on behalf of the
prosecution, PWs.1 to 12, Exs.P1 to P12 and Material
Objects i.e., MOs.1 to 5 are marked.
9. Learned Sessions Judge mainly relied on the evidence
of PW3, who is the daughter of the deceased to record
conviction. According to the learned Sessions Judge, the
evidence of PW3 corroborated with the injuries that were
found by the Doctor/PW9, who conducted post-mortem
examination on the dead body of deceased.
10. According to PW3, on the date of incident, she found
accused Nos.1 and 2 consuming alcohol with her mother
when she came from school at around 03:00 P.M. PW3
informed that she was having head ache and her mother
asked her to go and sleep in the bed room. When PW3 was
sleeping she heard accused Nos.1 and 2 shouting, she
woke up and found that accused Nos.1 and 2 have broken
the glass bottles and injured the right eye of the deceased.
Accused saw PW3 and accused No.1 threatened that if PW3
informs to anyone about the incident, she would be killed.
Further, PW3 stated that accused pushed the bottles into
her mother's vagina. Due to fear, she went into the
bedroom and slept. On the next day morning, she woke up
and found that her mother was not breathing and
immediately, she went to the house of PW2 and informed
her. PW2 in turn informed PW1 who is the mother of the
deceased. PW1 went to police station and filed complaint.
Thereafter, Police went to the house and conducted scene
of offence panchanama which is Ex.P3. Inquest
proceedings were also concluded. Thereafter, the body was
sent for post-mortem examination. During investigation the
appellants were arrested. Having concluded investigation
charge sheet was filed. The learned Sessions Judge framed
charges and examined witnesses. Basing on the evidence
of PW3 child witness who was the only eye witness to the
incident, conviction was recorded.
11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants would submit that the version of PW3 who is
child witness cannot be believed. There is no other
evidence apart from PW3 for the prosecution to prove that
it was accused Nos.1 and 2 who had committed the
murder. The evidence of PW3 is highly doubtful since it is
apparent from the record that she was tutored to depose
against the accused Nos.1 and 2. There is no evidence to
determine as to how accused Nos.1 and 2 were either
related to the deceased and why they went to the said
house for consuming alcohol with the deceased. Since the
entire evidence of PW3 is an improvement and omission in
the earlier Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3, the same
cannot be believed.
12. Learned Senior Counsel has relied on the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Vs. State of
Haryana 1. It was held as follows:
"8. Under the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section
4, it is laid down that in case of a child witness under 12
years of age, unless satisfaction as required by the said
proviso is recorded, an oath cannot be administered to the
child witness. In this case, in the deposition of PW1 Ajay,
it is mentioned that his age was 12 years at the time of
the recording of evidence. Therefore, the proviso to Section
4 of the Oaths Act will not apply in this case. However, in
view of the requirement of Section 118 of the Evidence
Act, the learned Trial Judge was under a duty to record
his opinion that the child is able to understand the
questions put to him and that he is able to give rational
answers to the questions put to him. The Trial Judge
must also record his opinion that the child witness
understands the duty of speaking the truth and state why
he is of the opinion that the child understands the duty of
speaking the truth.
9. It is a well-settled principle that corroboration of
the testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a
2023 SCC OnLine SC 777
measure of caution and prudence. A child witness of
tender age is easily susceptible to tutoring. However, that
by itself is no ground to reject the evidence of a child
witness. The Court must make careful scrutiny of the
evidence of a child witness. The Court must apply its
mind to the question whether there is a possibility of the
child witness being tutored. Therefore, scrutiny of the
evidence of a child witness is required to be made by the
Court with care and caution."
13. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor argued
that there is no reason why the child would speak false
against accused Nos.1 and 2. PW3 and her brother were in
the house when the incident happened which is natural.
The murder was committed by accused Nos.1 and 2. In
fact, narration given by PW3 corroborates with the medical
evidence. The injuries caused to the eye and also on the
private parts as stated by PW3 were in fact found during
the course of post-mortem examination as stated by
Doctor/PW9.
14. The evidence of PW3 has to be closely scrutinized,
since the entire case rests on her evidence. PW3 was 8
years old child when she deposed in Court. According to
the prosecution case PW3 had witnessed the assault and
attack on her mother two years prior to her deposition in
Court.
15. The evidence of Investigating Officer regarding the
improvements made by PW3 would be relevant. The extract
of Investigating Officer/PW's10 evidence is as under:
"PW3 did not state to me that A-1 and A-2
threatened her by showing a stick and asked her to
sleep. I examined PW3 in the scene of offence. PW3
did not state to me about the source of light. PW3
stated to me that on that night due to fear she slept
on the cot and what happened on that night herself
and her brother do not know and on the next day
morning when she woke up, she found the dead
body of her mother.
It is true PW3 did not state to me that the
accused poked the quarter bottles into the vagina
of the deceased. PW3 did not state to me when she
slept in the house. PW3 did not state to me that
she found her mother in naked condition. PW3 did
not state to me that she found bleeding from the
vagina of the deceased. PW3 stated to me that she
found the missing of right eye ball of her mother."
16. The version given by PW3 regarding accused Nos.1
and 2 threatening her with stick and asking her to go and
sleep and inserting the liquor bottles in vagina of the
deceased are all omissions in her earliest version when the
incident took place, as extracted above.
17. It is the case of prosecution that she informed PW2
regarding incident who in turn informed PW1, who has
lodged complaint/Ex.P1. There is no mention in Ex.P1 that
PW3 or her brother had witnessed the incident.
18. PW1 stated in her complaint and also in the
statement that she came to know that accused Nos.1 and 2
were in the house and consuming alcohol and they would
have committed murder. No reasons are given as to why
the alleged witnessing of PW3 is not stated either in the
complaint/Ex.P1 or during inquest proceedings. Except
stating that PW1 and PW2 came to know that accused
Nos.1 and 2 have committed the murder of deceased, PW1
and 2 did not say that PW3 narrated the incident. The
brother of PW3 was not examined.
19. The evidence of PW3 was recorded in Court, nearly
after two and half years from the date of incident. PW3
narrated giving specific details as to how the assault had
taken place. The said version was neither stated in the
complaint at the earliest point of time or in the 161 Cr.P.C.
statement given by PW3 to the Police after the incident.
The very narration giving specific details would only go to
show that she was tutored, when she was produced before
the Court. Since the evidence of PW3 is doubtful as the
version given in Court is an improvement not found in 161
Cr.P.C. statement, complaint or inquest proceedings, no
other evidence is available to connect the accused in any
manner. The last seen theory of the prosecution and the
eye witness account is based on the evidence of PW3. As
already discussed above, the evidence of PW3 cannot be
considered and apparently, the witness was tutored when
she had deposed before the Court. It is highly improbable
that PW3 having witnessed such gruesome and bloody
attack on her mother would go to sleep and only inform
PW2 the next day morning. No other witnesses speak
about accused visiting the house of deceased
20. MO.5/stick was recovered from the house of accused
No.1. However, said recovery is doubtful since the conduct
of keeping the stick in the house with which he had
committed murder is improbable. Further, the said stick
was not sent for forensic examination. When the
Doctor/PW9 was not shown MO.5 for his opinion as to
whether MO.1 could cause injuries that were found on the
deceased, no credibility can be attached to the recovery
and of no help to the case of prosecution. Benefit of doubt
is extended to the appellants.
21. Criminal Appeal is allowed and the sentence and
conviction imposed against the appellants in judgment
dated 23.11.2015 in S.C.No.769 of 2013 is hereby set
aside. Since the appellants are in jail, they shall be
released forthwith, if they are not required in any other
case.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
___________________
J. ANIL KUMAR, J
Date: 17.10.2024
mnv/plp
Note: Registry is directed to dispatch
the order forthwith.
