Telangana High Court
Hari Peter, Neredmet., vs The Stateof Telangana, Rep Pp., on 7 January, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.889 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant/accused
aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.07.2017 in S.C.No.121 of
2015, on the file of VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga
Reddy at L.B.Nagar, convicting him for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short
'IPC').
2. Heard Mr. K.Venumadhav, 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 PW1 is the de
facto complainant and the wife of the deceased. She lodged a
telugu written complaint on 02.07.2014 at 07:30 p.m. at
Neredmet Police Station. In the said complaint, she stated
that she is the wife of the deceased and her husband was a
painter. There were disputes between the deceased and her
brother-in-law (appellant) regarding the pension amount
received by their mother (PW4). On account of disputes with
the appellant and PW4, the deceased and PW1 were living
separately in the very same building. PW4, mother-in-law,
used to live on the ground floor and the appellant was also
living on the ground floor. Both the deceased and the
appellant used to quarrel about the pension amount received
by PW4. On the date of incident i.e., 02.07.2014, at 06:40
p.m., while the deceased was resting in his house, the
appellant went there and started assaulting him, due to
which, the deceased ran down. Meanwhile, the appellant took
a bicycle and threw it on the deceased. Then, the appellant
caught hold of the deceased by his banian and hit him on his
head with a rock. On account of the injuries, the deceased
died instantaneously. The complaint was filed at 07:30 p.m.,
within fifty minutes of the incident.
4. On the basis of the complaint, PW12-Investigating
Officer went to the scene of the offence and conducted
panchanamma. The inquest proceedings were also conducted
and the body was sent to the post mortem examination.
PW13 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased
on 03.07.2014 and found antimortem crush injury on the
head and face with multiple fractures of both frontal bones,
left orbital bone, left zygomatic, left mandible with multiple
lacerations of muscles and brain seen blood and blood clots.
5. The learned Sessions Judge, mainly placing reliance on
the evidence of eye witnesses PWs.1 and 3, convicted the
appellant.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
appellant was not present in the house, when the incident
had taken place and that he was in the office. The said
version was also stated during Section 313 Cr.P.C.
examination. PW4-mother of the deceased also did not state
about the appellant committing the murder during
examination. Since PWs.1 and 3 are interested witnesses,
their evidence cannot be considered to convict the appellant.
7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor
supported the findings of the learned Sessions Judge and
stated that there is no reason why PWs.1 and 3 would speak
against the appellant.
8. PW1 is the wife of the deceased. She narrated that on
02.07.2014, at around 06:40 p.m., the appellant went to
their portion on first floor, assaulted the deceased and when
the deceased ran downstairs, he threw a bicycle and hit the
deceased on the head with a boulder. PW2, who is an eye
witness to the incident, turned hostile to the prosecution
case. PW3 is an independent eye witness and her house was
located behind the house where the incident had taken place.
PW3 stated that she saw the appellant hitting the deceased
on the head with a boulder and that the deceased died
instantaneously.
9. The arguments of the learned counsel that the
appellant was not present when the incident had taken place
is an alibi. Since the appellant pleads that he was not present
at the scene, the burden shifts on to him to prove that he was
not present. Except for making a pleading and a statement
during Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination, no proof was filed to
show that the appellant was present in the office when the
incident had taken place. The incident happened at 06:40
p.m. and the complaint was lodged immediately at 07:40
p.m., within fifty minutes of the incident. There is no delay in
lodging the complaint. Nothing is urged by the appellant
regarding false implication. PW4 (mother of the deceased)
turned hostile to the prosecution case. The said hostility is of
no consequence in view of the findings and reliable evidence
of PWs.1 and 3.
10. There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of
the learned Sessions Judge and the appeal fails.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
___________________
J. ANIL KUMAR, J
Date: 07.01.2025
KRR
