Telangana High Court
Pettepu Ramesh, Nizamabad Dt., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 21 January, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.188 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant/accused
aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.12.2015 in S.C.No.328 of
2014, on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, at Nizamabad.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/accused and Sri
Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State.
3. The appellant was charge sheeted for the offence under
Section 302 of IPC for the alleged commission of murder of his
mother in the house on the intervening night of 6-7/01/2014.
4. The complaint was filed by P.W.1 who is the elder sister of
the deceased namely Rajeshwari. The appellant is son of
Rajeshwari who was doing mason work. According to P.W.1, the
appellant was habituated to bad habits, as such, his wife deserted
him and the appellant was staying with his deceased mother in
the house. On 07.01.2014, the appellant went to P.W.1 and
informed her that his mother died. P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 to 4
went to the house and found that the deceased was dead and they
also found contusion around the throat of the deceased. They
suspected that the appellant who quarreled with the deceased the
night before would have committed the murder of his mother.
5. The crucial witness of the prosecution is P.W.7 and
according to the prosecution, he is the ward member of Sonpet
village. According to him, on 08.01.2014, the appellant went to
P.W.7's house around 12 noon and informed that he quarreled
with his mother and killed her. Further, appellant also confessed
to P.W.7 that he informed his relatives that his mother committed
suicide by hanging herself. P.W.7 took the appellant to Police
Station and handed over the appellant to Inspector of Police,
Pochampad, who is P.W.10.
6. The complaint was filed on 07.01.2014 at 9 a.m. On the
basis of the complaint, P.W.10 went to the scene of offence,
conducted scene of offence panchnama in the presence of
witnesses. Thereafter, inquest proceedings were also concluded in
the presence of very same mediators. The body was sent to post
mortem examination. Dr.Spandana who was listed as witness
No.11 in the charge sheet conducted autopsy. Hyoid bone was
sent for FSL examination. Ex.P.6 is the PME report, Ex.P.7 is the
final opinion and Ex.P.8 is the expert opinion regarding hyoid
bone. The said Dr.Spandana was not examined. However, P.W.9
who is Dr. Arun Kumar deposed before the Court that he can
identify the writing of Dr.Spandana and marked Exs.P.6 to P.8.
7. In Ex.P.6, post mortem examination, following external
injuries and findings were given:-
"1. Patterned abrasions looking like finger impressions present
over the neck at the level of thyroid cartilage noted. These are
variable in size and multiple in number.
2. Petechial haemorrhages noted in conjunctiva.
3. Peripheral cyanosis present.
4. Brain and lungs are congested.
5. Prominent and engorged neck veins noted.
6. Ruptured injury to thyroid cartilage noted. All the above
mentioned findings are ante mortem in nature."
8. In Ex.P.6, the cause of death was left blank since hyoid bone
was sent to Gandhi Medical College Forensic Department for the
purpose of analysis. Ex.P.7 is the final opinion report dated
24.04.2014 issued by Dr.Spandana giving the reasons for cause of
death as asphyxia which is a result of throttling. Ex.P.8 is the
expert opinion. On examination of hyoid bone, it is mentioned in
Ex.P.8 that hyoid bone and tracheal cartilage, attached with
muscle bone present. In his opinion, it is mentioned that "there
is no evidence of any ante-mortem injury in and around
hyoid bone. No fracture. Hyoid bone morphologically
intact."
9. No reason is given as to why Dr.Spandana who had
conducted autopsy of the dead body was not examined.
Injury/findings at page No.2 of post mortem examination/Ex.P.6
were written by Spandana. The accused did not have the chance
of cross-examining Dr.Spandana as to what formed the basis for
finding that death was result of throttling. The non-examination
of Dr.Spandana is fatal to the prosecution case since Ex.P.8 which
is an expert opinion clearly states that there is no evidence of any
ante mortem injuries in and around hyoid bone. The injury that
was mentioned as patterned abrasions looking like finger
impressions over the neck were noted. It is not specifically
mentioned that the abrasions over the neck were the cause of
manual strangulation. In the absence of prosecution failing to
examine Dr.Spandana who had given the details, the case of the
appellant is prejudiced. Unless specific expert opinion is placed
on record by the prosecution which withstands cross examination,
the question of concluding that the death was homicidal on the
assumption is incorrect.
10. The prosecution has placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.7
to whom alleged confession was made by the appellant stating
that he had strangulated his mother. The reason why the
appellant went to P.W.7 is not stated by the prosecution. What
were the reasons which necessitated the appellant to reach out to
P.W.7 and confess to him were also not mentioned. The extra
judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and cannot form
basis to convict without any further corroboration either medical
or oral.
11. In the background of discrepant medical evidence which fails
to substantiate that the death was homicidal and in the absence
of examination of Doctor who conducted autopsy, the
contradictory medical opinion in Ex.P.8 i.e., the findings that
there were no ante mortem injuries create suspicion regarding
actual cause of death.
12. In the absence of prosecution proving that the death was
homicidal and on account of manual strangulation as projected by
the prosecution, the question of sustaining the conviction under
Section 302 of IPC, for murder does not arise. Accordingly, benefit
of doubt is extended to the appellant.
13. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
____________________________
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
Date: 21.01.2025
dv
