Telangana High Court
Sanamoni Anjaiah, Mahaboobnagar Dt., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 23 January, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.562 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER)
The appellant aggrieved by the conviction under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code has filed the present appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased is the son of
brother of PW.3. PW.3 is an eye-witness to the incident. According to
PW.3 the deceased used to run finance business. During the course
of his finance business, he lent an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the
appellant and Rs.22,000/- to another namely G.Suresh (PW.4). The
deceased used to come every month to PW.3's house for collecting
interest from the appellant. In the month of May, 2009, both
deceased and appellant quarreled with each other and PW.3 asked
the deceased not to come to his house and PW.3 would collect
interest from the appellant and PW.4. On 01.05.2009, the appellant,
deceased and PW.3 consumed liquor around 2.00 p.m. and slept.
The appellant then went and brought a boulder stone and threw on
the head of the deceased. The deceased sustained injuries, as such,
PW.3 shifted the deceased to Osmania General Hospital in an auto.
4. PW.1 is the doctor who attended to the deceased on 01.05.2009
when the deceased was taken to the hospital by PW.3. According to
PW.1, the history of the injury as informed by PW.3 was that the
deceased fell on a stone on the same day around 3.00 p.m. at Langer
House after consuming Alcohol. PW.1 examined the deceased and
found injuries on his head and other parts. CT Scan of the head was
done revealing multiple injuries in the brain. The neurological
condition of the patient gradually deteriorated and while undergoing
treatment he died on 05.05.2009 at 6.00 p.m. The Police was
informed by PW.1, about the death of the deceased, due to head
injury.
5. On the basis of the death summary which is Ex.P1, the Police
registered the crime. In the death summary, it was mentioned that
there was head injury. Ex.P1 was signed by a medical officer.
Initially, the Police registered the case under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.
and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, PW.15-
Inspector of Police went to the scene of offence and collected blood
stained mat which is M.O.2 and one whisky bottle. The body was
sent to the Mortuary where inquest panchanama was concluded. The
dead body was then sent for postmortem examination. According to
Postmortem report, the Postmortem doctor (PW.8) found the
following injuries on the body:
i) A sutured wound of 3 cms. With 3 sutures present 4 cms
above the right ear with an under line scalp condition of 25
x 10 cms on the vertex and also under the temporalis
muscle. Diffuse sub-dural and subarachnoid hemorrhage
present all over the brain. Base of the skull is fractured on
the right posterior cracial fossa present obliquely and of 3
cms. in size.
ii) A contused abrasion of 2 x 1 cms present below the left
knee.
iii) An abrasion 7 x 2 cms. from the mid pack.
6. PW.15 examined witnesses including PW.3 who is the eye-
witness. On the basis of PW.3's statement, the appellant was
identified as the perpetrator who injured the deceased with the
boulder-M.O.1. The appellant was arrested on 18.05.2009 and
pursuant to his confession, the blood stained boulder was seized at
the instance of appellant.
7. The basis for conviction is the statement of PW.3 whose
evidence was believed by the trial Court to be an eye-witness to the
incident.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that the appellant was falsely implicated which is apparent from the
fact that PW.3 stated against the appellant for the first time after the
deceased died. The alleged injury was on 01.05.2009 and while
undergoing treatment, the deceased died on 05.05.2009. PW.3 took
the deceased to the hospital and informed PW.1-doctor that the
deceased fell down on a stone in an intoxicated condition and
received injury. At the earliest point of time the said version of falling
down was given and later PW.3 had come up with a version that the
appellant had beaten the deceased with a stone.
8. Counsel for the appellant relied on the Judgment of
Honourable Supreme Court in Baby alias Sebastian and another
v. Circle Inspector of Police, Adimaly 1. The Honourable Supreme
Court while dealing with a situation where the testimony of PW.6 in
the said case was relied on to convict the accused, found that PW.6
was a chance witness and his conduct of not disclosing the incident
(2016) 13 Supreme Court Cases 333
to anyone in the village creates suspicion and renders his version of
the incident doubtful.
9. Counsel also relied on the Judgment of State of Orissa v.
Mr.Brahmananda Nanda 2 . In the said case, the Honourable
Supreme Court found that not revealing the name of the assailant
immediately after the incident gives rise to suspicion regarding the
correctness of the version of witnesses.
10. The only eye witness is PW.3 who stated that the appellant had
injured the deceased with a stone on 01.05.2009. The conduct of
PW.3 has to be looked into. PW.3 had taken the deceased to the
hospital and informed PW.1-doctor that the deceased fell on a stone
after consuming alcohol. For the first time after the death of the
deceased, PW.3 implicated the appellant as the person who injured
the deceased with a stone. No reasons are given as to why PW.3 gave
a false version when he has taken the deceased to the hospital on
01.05.2009. Further, PW.3 did not inform anyone till the death of the
deceased about appellant's involvement. No complaint was also filed
while the deceased was undergoing treatment or after the death of
the deceased. On the basis of Ex.P1 which is a death summary
(1976) 4 Supreme Court Cases 288
reflecting that the death was on account of head injury, crime was
registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. which deals with suspicious
deaths.
11. The Police thereafter recovered the blood stained boulder and
also blood stained mat during investigation. It is highly improbable
that the boulder with which the appellant had allegedly injured
would have been kept till the appellant was arrested on 18.05.2009.
It is not the case that the boulder which was tested by FSL, found
blood of the deceased on it. The possibility of the deceased falling on
the boulder in an intoxicated condition as stated by PW.3 at the
earliest point of time, cannot be ruled out.
12. The conduct of PW.3 is doubtful. The narration given by other
witnesses regarding PW.3 informing them about the appellant
causing injury to the deceased is after the death of the deceased. No
reasons are given by PW.3 as to why he gave a false version when the
deceased was taken to the hospital and what prevented him not to
reveal the alleged act of the appellant injuring the deceased, till the
death of the deceased, either to the doctor or to any of the other
witnesses examined during trial. The self contradictory evidence of
PW.3 cannot form basis to convict the appellant. PW.3 is wholly
unreliable since he has given different versions at different times.
13. In view of the above discussion, benefit of doubt is extended to
the appellant.
14. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction
recorded by the I Addl.Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in
S.C.No.197 of 2011, dated 03.04.2017, is hereby set aside. Since the
appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
__________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date: 23.01.2025
tk
