Telangana High Court
Rapolu Rangaiah , Ranga vs The State Of Telangana on 25 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.564 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant/accused
aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.12.2017 in S.C.No.52 of
2015, on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, at
Suryapet, convicting him for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun
Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant
killed the deceased, namely T.Ramulamma, by throttling her
neck. PW.1 is the complainant and sister-in-law of the
deceased. PW.2 is the son of the deceased. PWs.3, 4, 6, and
8 are neighbours. PWs.5 and 7 are also neighbours, however,
they turned hostile to the prosecution case. According to
PWs.1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, the appellant and the deceased were
living together next to the premises of PW.1. PW.7 is the
owner of the house, where the incident happened. According
to the witnesses, on the intervening night of 30/31.10.2014,
at around 11:00 p.m., the deceased returned from hotel and
there was a quarrel in between the deceased and the
appellant. The next day morning, the owner of the hotel,
where the deceased was working, went there and found the
deceased dead. PW.2, who is the son of the deceased,
informed PW.1 about the previous night's quarrel in between
the deceased and the appellant and thereafter, the deceased
being found dead. PW.1 went to the Police Station and lodged
a complaint.
4. The complaint Ex.P1 was given to PW.13. PW.13 went
to the scene of offence and photographed the scene. The
scene of offence panchanama was also drafted. The dead
body was found with ligature marks around the neck.
Inquest proceedings were also conducted and thereafter, the
body was sent for postmortem examination. PW.12/Post
Mortem Doctor found the following injuries on the body of the
deceased:
1. Ligature mark over front of neck about 8 x 10 x 1
cm in size (blackened) below thyroid cartilage
transversly.
2. Neck muscles under the ligature mark are
contused and some fibers damaged.
3. Haemorrhogic spots under the skin with ligature
mark are present.
4. Fracture of thyroid cartilage and hyoid bone is
present.
5. Two abrasions (nail marks) over abdomen upper
part present."
5. Above injuries are ante mortem in nature and caused
by blunt object, according to PW.12. He opined that the death
of the deceased was on account of asphyxia due to
strangulation.
6. The Police filed charge sheet under Section 302 of IPC.
Learned Sessions Judge, having framed the charge for the
said offence, examined the witnesses. On the basis of
evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, the learned Sessions Judge
found that the appellant was in the house and quarreled with
the deceased and the next day morning, she was found dead.
The burden that was shifted onto the appellant was not
discharged. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that there are no eye witnesses to the incident. None
of the witnesses stated that they have seen the appellant
strangulating the deceased. Only on the ground that they
heard a quarrel in between the appellant and the deceased,
would not suffice to infer that it was the appellant who
committed the murder of the deceased.
8. It is admitted by the appellant during the trial that he
was staying along with the deceased. No suggestion was put
to any of the witnesses stating that he was not living with the
deceased, and it was also not suggested that the deceased
committed suicide due to her financial and health problems.
9. The appellant was staying along with the deceased in
her house. The neighbours heard the deceased and appellant
quarrelling at around 11:00 p.m., on the night of the
incident. PW.2, who is the son of the deceased, was also
staying along with the deceased in her house. His evidence is
also clear that the appellant went home, quarreled with the
deceased and the next day morning, the deceased was found
dead.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Trimukh Maroti
Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra 1, held as follows:
(2006) 10 SCC 681
"Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy
inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case
would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the
nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to
establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is
required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The
burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In
view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a
corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to
give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was
committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away
by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on
the supposed premise that the burden to establish its
case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no
duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation."
11. The initial burden that is on the prosecution is
discharged by presenting evidence that the appellant was in
the house on the night of the incident and that he quarreled
with the deceased. The next day morning, the deceased was
found dead. It is not the case of the appellant, that after
quarrelling with the deceased, the appellant either went away
from the house or was not present, when the death occurred.
Since, the appellant was residing in the house, the burden
shifts onto him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
The burden can be discharged by way of preponderance of
probability. As seen from the defense, his statement is that
the deceased committed suicide on account of financial
difficulties. No evidence was found at the scene by the
Investigating Officer, during the scene of offence
panchanama, to suggest that the death was suicidal. No
signs were found at the scene for this Court to infer that the
death was suicidal.
12. There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of
the learned Sessions Judge and the appeal fails.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
___________________
J. ANIL KUMAR, J
Date: 25.02.2025
KRR
