Telangana High Court
Yekula Eshwaraiah vs The State Of Telangana, on 27 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1400 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER)
The appellant/A1 was tried along with A2 for committing the
murder of wife of A1, namely Sayamma, for the offences under
Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to
undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the
offence under Section 302 of IPC; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment
for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- for the
offence under Section 201 of IPC.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the said Sayamma
(deceased) was married to A1 (appellant herein), 20 years prior to her
death. PW.1 is the younger brother of the deceased. According to
PW.1, after marrying his deceased sister, appellant went to Bombay
and returned to their village, two years prior to the incident. The
deceased informed PW.1 that the appellant was having illicit
intimacy with A2. PW.1 questioned the appellant regarding the
whereabouts of his deceased sister and why she could not be
contacted. The appellant replied that she was at home. PW.1 then
went to the house of appellant, but did not find the deceased. He
grew suspicious and went to the Police Station on 03.01.2015, and
lodged complaint Ex.P1.
3. The Investigating Officer-PW.9 registered the crime as 'woman
missing'. On 05.01.2015, the appellant was arrested and
interrogated about the deceased. When the appellant confessed that
he killed his wife with the help of A2, PW.4 and another person
M.Venkat Reddy were present during the confession of the appellant
on 05.01.2015. From the police station, the appellant took the police
and the independent witnesses to Feel Good Homes, Gandhamguda.
The dead body was buried in between the compound wall and bath
room of the house. The Police exhumed the body from the place and
the relatives of the deceased identified the body as that of the
deceased-Sayamma. On the same day, inquest proceedings were held
in the presence of PW.7 and other witnesses. After concluding the
inquest proceedings, the body was sent for postmortem examination.
The postmortem doctor-PW.8 found the following injuries:
"An obliquely placed ligature mark measuring 22 cms. with
varying width of 1 ½ to 2 cms. around the neck placed over
above the thyroid cartilage in front and extending obliquely
upwards and backwards on either side of neck disappearing
at the scalp hairline below and behind the right angle of
mandible and scalp hairline on left side back of neck. Soft
tissues of the neck are decomposed and mummified. Hyoid
bone shows postmortem disarticulation of both greater horns
from the body of hyoid. Thyroid cartilage decomposed and
softened into mass like structure. Ligature mark is brownish
black colour. All internal organs are decomposed sharunkern
and mass like."
4. The postmortem doctor opined that the cause of death was
suggestive of hanging, and the death must have occurred 2 to 3
months prior to the postmortem examination. PW.8, further stated
that on 19.08.2015, he received clarification from the SHO to state
whether the death was homicidal or suicidal. PW.8 stated that there
were no other ante mortem injuries, except the ligature marks, which
is suggestive of suicidal hanging. PW.8 again stated that homicidal
hanging cannot be presumed unless proved during investigation.
5. The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the circumstantial
evidence, found the appellant guilty. However, the learned Sessions
Judge found that, other than the confession of the appellant/A1,
there is no other evidence against A2 and accordingly, acquitted A2.
In fact, A2 was arrested on 16.02.2015, which is nearly 1 ½ month
after the arrest of A1.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that the trial court acquitted A2 and that the same benefit has to be
extended to the appellant also, since the illegal intimacy between A1
and A2 was not proved.
7. The Honourable Supreme Court in Shankar v. State of
Maharashtra 1, held as follows;
"In the decision of Prakash v. State of Rajasthan (2013) 4
SCC 668, this Court took note of the following principles
laid down regarding the law relating circumstantial evidence
in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984)
4 SCC 116:-
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show
that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a
case against an accused can be said to be fully
established:
(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It
may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not
2023 SCC OnLine SC 268
'may be' established. There is not only a
grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may
be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as
was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade
v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793] where
the following observations were made:
19. ......"certainly, it is a primary principle that the
accused must be and not merely may be guilty
before a court can convict and the mental distance
between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides
vague conjectures from sure conclusions"
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that
is to say, they should not be explainable on any
other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency,
(4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved, and
(5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the
accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute
the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial
evidence."
8. It is not disputed that the appellant was married to the
deceased and she was staying along with him. Though, the deceased
was missing, the appellant did not inform anyone and when
questioned by PW.1, he stated that the deceased was in the house.
PW.1 went to the house of the appellant and did not find the
deceased. Then PW.1 went to the police station and lodged complaint
suspecting that the appellant was responsible for the disappearance
of his deceased sister.
9. After the complaint was filed on 03.01.2015, the police
suspected the appellant and arrested the appellant on 05.01.2015.
During investigation, he confessed to the crime and informed the
Police that he has murdered his wife and buried her. Ex.P2 is
admissible portion of the confession. Ex.P2, when translated, reads
as follows:
"Me and Thirupathamma killed my wife and buried her. If
you accompany me I will show the place where she was
burried"
10. On the basis of the said information given, PW.9-Police Officer,
PW.4-Panch, and other witnesses proceeded to the place where the
body was buried. The police exhumed the body in the presence of
witnesses, and the body was identified as the wife of the appellant.
11. The appellant did not deny that the dead body was not that of
his wife's. Further, no explanation is given by the appellant regarding
the missing of his wife. The appellant had exclusive knowledge of the
dead body of the deceased. The Police came to know about the death
of the deceased and also discovered the body of the deceased at the
instance of the appellant, pursuant to his confession. The said
confession is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Section 27 is an exception to the inadmissibility of confession of an
accused, however, discovery of a fact is made admissible to the
extent that the discovery of such a fact was at the instance of an
accused. The dead body of the wife of the appellant was discovered
at the instance of the appellant. The other circumstance about
appellant concealing the missing of his wife, lends credibility to the
case of the prosecution. It is apparent that it was the appellant, who
murdered the deceased and buried her body in between the
compound wall and bath room.
12. There are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned
Judgment of the trial Court.
13. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
__________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date: 27.02.2025
tk
