Telangana High Court

Dagam Sateesh vs State Of Telangana on 20 February, 2025

                                    1




      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                      AND
     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1479 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

1. The Appeal is filed by the appellant/Accused aggrieved by

the judgment dated 17.11.2017, in S.C.No.52 of 2016, on the

file of Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal. The appellant was

convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and

sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun

Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

respondent-State.

3. P.W.1 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased, Sammakka.

P.W.2 is the son. According to P.Ws.1 and 2, on 02.05.2015,

deceased was sleeping outside. P.Ws.1 and 2 were sleeping

inside the house. They went inside the house around 12' o

clock in the midnight. Within few minutes, P.Ws.1 and 2 heard

the deceased's shouts, they came out and saw the appellant

fleeing from the scene. Then, they observed that the deceased

had a cut injury on the right side of the neck which was

profusely bleeding. She died in front of the house, when she

was sleeping, on account of injuries. P.W.1 went to the Police

Station and lodged a complaint at 7:45 a.m., i.e., the next day,

03.05.2018. P.W.14/Inspector of Police on receiving the

complaint, went to the scene of offence, where inquest

panchnama was conducted, clothes of the deceased were

seized, and the evidence of witnesses were marked. Scene of

offence panchnama was drafted, which is Ex.P14. P.W.14,

thereafter apprehended the appellant on 06.05.2015. Appellant

was interrogated in the presence of independent witnesses,

P.W.8 and L.W.17. The appellant confessed to committing the

murder of the deceased and produced M.O.1/knife, with which

the appellant allegedly attacked the deceased.

4. Having concluded the investigation, P.W.14 filed charge

sheet.

5. Learned Sessions Judge mainly placed reliance on the

evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.W.12 who is an eye witness to the

incident. Mainly on the basis of their evidence, learned

Sessions Judge concluded that the appellant, who bore grudge

against the deceased, had caused the injury, which resulted in

her death. It is admitted that appellant is agnate to P.W.1.

6. The motive as projected by the prosecution is that there

were disputes in between the families of P.W.1 and the

appellant, since their childhood. Keeping in view, the said

disputes, the appellant believed that the deceased, Sammakka

was practicing sorcery and she was responsible for the death of

his son.

7. P.Ws.1 to 3 stated that in the night around 11:30 p.m., on

02.05.2015, while the deceased was sleeping outside the house,

on a cot, they heard her shouts. Then, P.Ws.1 to 3 came out

and saw the appellant running from the house. According to

P.W.3, she identified the appellant in the moonlight. P.W.12 is

the eye witness to the incident. He stated that he went to the

shop of P.W.9 to purchase tea powder. Meanwhile, the

appellant went there and asked for some items, for which P.W.9

refused to give. For the said reason, the appellant quarreled

with him. P.W.12 returned home after purchasing tea powder.

When he was sleeping on a cot, outside his house, he observed

the appellant in the moon light, coming with a knife near the

deceased and stabbing her. P.W.12 then approached near the

deceased and saw the appellant running away from the

deceased. Immediately, P.Ws.1 to 3 came running to the scene.

Further, the appellant threatened P.W.12 to stop by gesturing

at him and ran away.

8. P.W.9 stated that, on the said day, around 8 p.m., the

appellant quarreled with him regarding some groceries. The

appellant grew angry and came with an axe to assault him.

Some people gathered, mother of the appellant came there and

took the appellant away. P.W.9 took the axe and kept it in his

house.

9. Though the incident happened at 12' o clock midnight,

P.Ws.1 and 2 stated that they were outside the house till 11:30

p.m. and thereafter, they went inside the house and slept. No

reason was given as to why P.Ws.1 and 2 went inside the

house, though they were sleeping besides the deceased. P.W.3

stated that she also witnessed the appellant running from the

scene. P.W.12 is an eye witness to the assault by the appellant.

However, neither the name of P.W.3, nor P.W.12, was

mentioned in the complaint which was given after 7½ hours of

the incident. If P.W.12 had made any attempt to catch hold of

the appellant, the same would have found a place in the

complaint. Neither P.W.1, nor P.W.2 spoke about trying to

catch hold of the appellant. As seen from the sketch, houses of

the deceased, appellant, and P.W.9 are side by side. P.W.1 did

not make any attempt to go near the house of the appellant, nor

tried to catch him. The said conduct creates doubt in the

background of the delay in lodging the complaint.

10. The motive is a double edged weapon. The motive as

projected by the prosecution is that the appellant suspected the

deceased of practicing sorcery, resulting in the death of the

appellant's son. Further, P.W.1 states that since childhood,

there were differences with the appellant. In the background of

delay in lodging the complaint, and names of P.Ws.3 and 12 not

being mentioned in the complaint, there arises any amount of

doubt regarding the actual manner in which the incident had

taken place and the witnesses projecting the present version

implicating the appellant.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallappa v. State of

Karnataka 1, held as under:

"In our opinion, however, the evidence of PW5 cannot be accepted in full. There are contradictions in PW5's deposition as regards the P.W.5 having seen Mallappa at the spot of occurrence. She stated in her cross examination, which we have referred to earlier, that by the time she saw the accused persons, they were in front of the house of Devendrappa. That is the evidence of PW3 as also PW6. We can ignore the contradictions in her evidence concerning presence of Honappa at the PO on the night of occurrence of the incident as the same not having any material impact on the case. But her contradictory statements as regards when and where she saw the

(2021) 5 SCC 572

appellant and as to whether she saw him committing the act of assault is of significance. In her examination in chief, she deposed that when she opened her eyes on hearing the sound "dhup", she saw A1 (i.e. the appellant) with a club assaulting on the head of her husband, whereas A2 (Veerappa) was standing beside him. But as we have already observed earlier, she stated in her cross examination that by the time she woke up, injury had been caused. She claimed to have had seen the accused in front of Devendrappa's house. This part of her deposition in her cross examination is otherwise compatible with rest of her statements made in cross examination. In this perspective, only one conclusion is possible and that is she was not a witness to actual act of assault. She is the widow of the deceased victim and deserves to be considered with an element of compassion. But as a witness, she does not inspire confidence."

12. In Rajeevan And Another v. State of Kerala 2, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"15. As feared by the learned counsel for the appellants, the possibility of subsequent implication of the appellants as a result of afterthought, may be due to political bitterness, cannot be ruled out. This fact is further buttressed by the delayed placing of FIR before the Magistrate, non-satisfactory explanation given by the Police Officer regarding the blank sheets in the Ex. P30 counter foil of the FIR and also by the closely written bottom part of

(2003) 3 SCC 355

Ex.P1 statement by PW 1. All these factual circumstances read with the aforementioned decisions of this Court lead to the conclusion that it is not safe to rely upon the FIR in the instant case. The delay of 12 hours in filing FIR in the instant case irrespective of the fact the Police Station is situated only at a distance of 100 meters from the spot of incident is another factor sufficient to doubt the genuineness of FIR. Moreover, the Prosecution did not satisfactorily explain the delayed lodging of FIR with the Magistrate.

16. This Court in Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala, , while deciding a case which involves a question of delayed dispatch of the FIR to the Magistrate, cautioned that such delay would throw serious doubt on prosecution case, whereas in Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar, 1994 Supp. 2 SCC 372, it was reminded by this Court that:

"...the forwarding of the occurrence report is indispensable and absolute and it has to be to forwarded with earliest despatch which intention is implicit with the use of the word 'forthwith' occurring in Section 157 CrPC, which means promptly and without any undue delay. The purpose and object is very obvious which is spelt out from the combined reading of Sections 157 and 159 CrPC. It has the dual purpose, firstly to avoid the possibility of improvement in the prosecution story and introduction of any distorted version by deliberations and consultation and secondly to enable the Magistrate concerned to have a watch on the progress of the investigation..."

13. The Inspector of Police/P.W.14 failed to explain the

reason for delay in FIR reaching the Court. FIR reached the

Court with a delay of nearly 10 hours and complaint/Ex.P.1

was lodged with a delay of more than 7 hours. In the

background of there being differences between appellant and

P.W.1's family, P.W.3 and P.W.12 developing their versions

during the course of trial, and their names not being found in

the complaint, it cannot be said that the prosecution has

succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt.

14. For the said reason, benefit of doubt is extended to the

appellant.

15. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Since the