Telangana High Court
Rummulla Laxman, Mudhol Village vs P.P., Hyd on 17 October, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1157 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
(per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER)
The appellant was tried for committing the murder of his
mother and found guilty by the learned Sessions Judge. Aggrieved
by the said finding of guilt by the Court below, the present appeal
is preferred.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Narsi Bai is
the mother of the accused. PW.2 who was declared hostile is
another son of the deceased and brother of the accused. PW.1 who
is the grand-daughter of the deceased is the main eye-witness to
the incident. According to the prosecution case, the accused was
married in the year 1996 and has a female child. He went to
Dubai for livelihood and came back. He was addicted to drinking
and was not doing any work. He used to pick up quarrels,
frequently, with his mother for money to buy liquor and also was
forcing his mother to get back his wife, who deserted the accused
on account of his conduct.
3. The incident happened on 25.02.2014. According to PW.1
who lodged Ex.P1-complaint, at about 3 p.m. she returned home
and witnessed quarrel between the deceased grandmother and the
accused (her junior paternal uncle). She brought the deceased out
of the house and later deceased went inside. Again at 5 p.m. she
heard quarrel in between the accused and the deceased. When she
rushed to the house, she found the accused hacking the deceased
with an axe on the neck, face and head. When PW.1 tried to
intervene, the accused threatened her. She came out of the house
and called her neighbours. On seeing the neighbours, the accused
who was holding the axe fled. PW.1 went to the Police Station and
lodged a Telugu written complaint which was drafted by Sarpanch
(PW.5). The said written complaint was given at 6:20 p.m. The
Police having received the complaint registered the case under
Section 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Immediately, the Police went to the scene of offence and
found the dead body of the deceased. Inquest proceedings were
conducted and police drafted the inquest panchanama which is
Ex.P19. The blood stained earth, bed sheet etc. were taken from
the scene of offence. The Police in search of the accused
apprehended him on 05.03.2014 near the bus-stop. He was
questioned in presence of PW.9-panch witness and another
person. The accused allegedly confessed to the offence and led the
Police to a drainage where they recovered M.O.1-Axe. M.Os.7 and
8 which are the clothes of the accused worn at the time of offence
were also recovered. The accused was produced before the learned
Magistrate, who remanded the accused to judicial custody.
5. Having completed the investigation, the Police filed charge
sheet under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing
the murder of his mother and also trying to kill PW.1, punishable
under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. The learned Sessions Judge examined the eye-witness-PW.1,
PW.2- brother of the accused. However, PW.2 turned hostile.
PWs.3 and 4 are the neighbours who went to the scene after
hearing PW.1 shouting.
7. The learned Sessions Judge found favour with the version
given by PW.1, PW.3 and PW.4 and other corroborating evidence
of seizure of axe and clothes and recorded conviction.
8. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would
submit that the father of PW.1 turned hostile to the prosecution
case. Except the version of PW.1 who is the sole eye-witness, there
are no other eye-witnesses to the incident. Though PW.5 stated
that he drafted the complaint, however, the complaint was not
shown to PW.5 during trial. In fact, PW.5 stated that he did not
follow the complainant to the Police Station.
9. Learned Counsel relied on the Judgment of Honourable
Supreme Court in Chotkau v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1, wherein
the Honourable Supreme Court was dealing with a case of
circumstantial evidence wherein several contradictions were
placed on record with respect to the mode in which the FIR was
lodged, the place where the dead body was first seen by the Police
and the date, time, place of inquest. Further, contradictions were
also found regarding clothes worn by the appellant at the time of
incident. In the said circumstances, the Honourable three Judge
bench of the Supreme Court held that the said discrepancies are
material and accordingly acquitted the accused.
10. The other Judgment relied on by the learned Counsel in
Mohammed Ankoos and others v. Public Prosecutor, High
Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 2, wherein the Honourable
Supreme Court found favour with the innocence of the accused
since several contradictions had crept into the evidence of
witnesses.
2023 (1) ALD (Crl.) 26 (SC)
(2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 94
11. On the other hand, Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the solitary
testimony of PW.1 who is an eye-witness, would suffice to prove
the case of the prosecution that it was the appellant who had
hacked his mother to death. In fact, PWs.3 and 4 who are the
neighbours have also stated that when they went there, they saw
the appellant coming out of the house with an axe in his hand and
from there he fled.
12. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant apart from the contradictions that were placed on
record, is that PWs.1, 3 and 4 state that the axe was thrown at the
scene outside the house. The incident happened on 25.02.2014,
however, recovery of the axe was shown on 05.03.2014, after the
accused's arrest. It is a material contradiction in the case of the
prosecution and the very genesis of the prosecution case has to be
doubted.
13. Having gone through the record, PW.1 is the eye-witness to
the incident. She stated that around 5:00 p.m. there was a quarrel
and when she went there, she saw the accused hacking the
deceased with an axe and when she tried to intervene, the accused
threatened her. She shouted for help and PWs.3 and 4 went there
and saw the accused coming out of the house with blood stained
axe in his hand.
14. Written complaint was filed at 6:20 p.m. i.e. within one hour
twenty minutes of the incident. In the said complaint, PW.1
narrated regarding the accused being an Alcoholic and harassing
the deceased for money. In fact, the presence of PWs.2, 3 and 4 at
the scene was also mentioned in Ex.P1-complaint. Though PW.2
who is the brother of the accused turned hostile to the
prosecution case, PWs.3 and 4 supported the prosecution stating
that they went to the scene hearing the shouts of PW.1 and saw
the accused coming out of the house with a blood stained axe and
fled.
15. PW.3 stated that the accused had thrown the axe in-front-of
the house and went away and the Police seized the axe from that
place. PW.4 stated that the accused had carried the axe with him.
16. PW.1 and PW.4's version is that the accused carried the axe
along with him and fled. During the course of cross-examination
of PW.3, the witness admitted that the accused had thrown the
axe in-front-of the house and went away. It is not a material
contradiction in the case of prosecution. Only for the reason of the
falsity of the statement of PW.3 in the cross-examination that the
axe was thrown in-front-of the house, will not in any manner
affect the case of the prosecution. Even accepting that the version
given by PW.3 is incorrect, that in itself would not falsify the entire
version of the prosecution regarding the attack by the appellant.
17. In Criminal cases, the Latin maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in
omnibus' cannot be applied. Only for the reason of PW.3 stating in
his cross-examination that axe was thrown at the scene, it cannot
be said that the entire version of PW.1, PW.3 and PW.4 witnessing
the incident has to be disbelieved. When the evidence of PWs.1, 3
and 4 in its entirety is considered, it is consistent with the version
given at the earliest point of time in the complaint-Ex.P1 which
was lodged within one hour twenty minutes of the incident. PW.1
had seen the appellant causing injuries with the axe and fleeing
from the place.
18. The accused was arrested on 04.03.2014. Admittedly, he
was living along with his mother. No reasons are given as to why
he absconded from his house from the date of the incident. The
said circumstance also lends credibility to the version of the
prosecution when the accused had not given any reasons
regarding his abscondance till his arrest by the Police.
19. There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the
learned Sessions Judge.
20. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
__________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date: 17.10.2024
tk
