Telangana High Court
Tewar Jagan, Asifabad vs The State Of Ts., Rep. By P.P. on 4 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1259 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
This Criminal Appeal is filed aggrieved by the
judgment dated 19.09.2017, in S.C.No.232 of 2012 on the
file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge at
Asifabad, convicting the appellant/accused for the offences
under Sections 302 and 324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short, 'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo
imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment
for one month for the offence under Section 302 IPC and
further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six
(6) months for the offence under Section 324 IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/accused,
and Mr. Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
3. The appellant/accused was convicted for the murder
of husband of PW.1. The only eye witness is PW.2. On
KS, J & JAK, J
Crl.A.No.1259_2017
22.09.2010, there was a procession of Vinayaka Idols in
the village. PW.2, along with others, went along with the
procession to a distance and while returning back, at about
11:30 P.M., PW.2 reached in front of the house of the
appellant/accused. PW.2 saw the appellant/accused
cutting the neck of husband of PW.1 with an axe. The
deceased - Raju, who is the brother of PW.2, was lying on
the road with bleeding injuries. The appellant was standing
by the side of the deceased. On seeing PW.2, the appellant
attacked PW.2 with the same axe and fled. Immediately,
PW.2 informed about the incident to his friends and took
the deceased to the Government Hospital at Asifabad,
where the Doctor declared the deceased as brought dead.
PW.2 went home from the hospital and informed PW.1 and
others about the incident. The reason for the appellant
murdering the deceased, according to the witnesses, is that
there was business rivalry in between them.
4. PW.1 is the wife of deceased. She went to police
station and lodged a Telugu written complaint, which is
Ex.P1, on the next day at about 9:30 A.M., i.e., on
23.09.2010. A case was registered vide Crime No.114 of
KS, J & JAK, J
Crl.A.No.1259_2017
2010 under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC. PW.10, who is
the Inspector of Police, received the complaint. PW.10 then
went to the Government Hospital, Asifabad, where the dead
body was kept in the mortuary. Statements of PW.2 and
others were recorded and inquest proceedings were
concluded. PW.9 - Doctor conducted autopsy on the dead
body and found the following injuries.
1. Cut laceration over the right occipital region of
the skull measuring 6x4x2 cm.
2. Two cut lacerations over the right side of neck
measuring 4x4x1 cm and 3x2x1 cm
3. A cut laceration over the right shoulder
measuring 4x1x1 cm
4. Cut laceration over the left side of the neck
measuring 4x2x2 cm.
5. PW.9 - Doctor stated that there was an internal
injury on right cardio artery severed (main artery which
supplies blood to the body). PW.9 then issued Ex.P22 -
post mortem report.
6. The appellant/accused was arrested on 29.09.2010
at 4:30 P.M., at his house, and was interrogated in the
KS, J & JAK, J
Crl.A.No.1259_2017
presence of PW.9 and other witnesses. Pursuant to his
confession, MO.3, which is the axe, allegedly used to
assault the deceased, was seized.
7. PW.10 - Inspector of Police, I Town, Khammam,
handed over investigation to PW.11. PW.11, having
concluded investigation, filed charge sheet.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that the trial Court has rightly disbelieved the
evidence of PWs.1, 3, and 4 on the basis of the complaint -
Ex.P1. However, PW.2's eye witness account, which formed
basis for conviction is doubtful. Further, the appellant did
not abscond from his residence and PW.10 arrested the
appellant from his house six days after the incident.
Though MO.3 - axe was seized and sent to the Forensic
Science Laboratory (FSL), the FSL did not find any blood
stains of the deceased on it.
9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other
hand, would submit that PW.2 is an eye witness and also
injured person. Ex.P23 is the certificate, which was issued
by the Doctor. PW.2 received a laceration on his right foot,
KS, J & JAK, J
Crl.A.No.1259_2017
which clearly indicates that PW.2 witnessed the incident
and when he tried to resist the acts of the appellant, PW.2
received the injuries.
10. According to PW.2, the incident happened at 11:00
P.M. From there, PW.2 had taken the deceased to the
hospital and after the deceased was declared dead, he
came back and informed about the incident to PW.1 and
others. Learned Sessions judge has rightly discarded the
evidence of PWs.1, 3, and 4, who stated that they
witnessed the incident of the appellant attacking the
deceased.
11. It is admitted by PW.10 - Investigating Officer that
the hospital and police station are side by side. If at all,
PW.2 had taken the deceased to the hospital, it cannot be
believed that no one was present in the police station or in
the outpost of the hospital.
12. The complaint was filed at 9:30 A.M., on the next day
with a delay of 11 hours. If the incident was witnessed at
11:00 P.M., on the previous night, and the dead body was
taken to the hospital, the information would have been
given by PW.2 to the Doctor attending to the deceased.
KS, J & JAK, J
Crl.A.No.1259_2017
PW.9 is the post mortem examination Doctor, who treated
the deceased at the first instance when he was taken to the
hospital, and he was not examined. The case sheet of the
deceased was also not filed by the prosecution. The
earliest version given by PW.2 at the time of the deceased
being taken to the hospital would have thrown light on the
exact version of the deceased receiving injuries. Why there
was a delay of 11 hours in lodging the complaint is not
explained, either by PW.1 or PW.2, when the hospital and
police station are side by side. The delay caused in lodging
the F.I.R. is fatal to the prosecution case, in the present
facts and circumstances of the case. No reasons are given
by either PW.2, or any other prosecution witnesses for not
lodging complaint with the police, when the police station
was beside the hospital.
13. Though it is stated by PW.2 that he received injury on
his right foot, the same cannot be believed that the
appellant had in fact inflicted injury on PW.2.
It is evident from the facts that the complaint - Ex.P1 came
into existence after due deliberations. PWs.1, 3, and 4
have stated falsely before the Court that they have
KS, J & JAK, J
Crl.A.No.1259_2017
witnessed the appellant attacking the deceased. The events
that transpired at the earliest point of time are suppressed
and a concocted version was given by the prosecution at
9:30 A.M., on the next day with a delay of 11 hours.
14. For the said reasons, benefit of doubt is extended to
the appellant/accused. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is
allowed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this
Criminal Appeal shall stand cancelled.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
____________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date:04.02.2025
KH
KS, J & JAK, J
Crl.A.No.1259_2017
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1259 OF 2017
Date:04.02.2025
KH
