Telangana High Court
Sri Mungimalla .Ashok vs The State Of Telangana on 20 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.235 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed questioning the
conviction and sentence imposed against the
appellant/accused vide Judgment, dated 13.12.2016 in
Sessions Case No.177 of 2016 by the learned Special
Sessions Judge-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions
Judge at Mahabubnagar, wherein the appellant/accused
was convicted and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "I.P.C.")
and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple
imprisonment for one (01) year.
2. Heard Mr.A.Durga Bhaskar, learned counsel for the
appellant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/complainant-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the
intervening night of 27/28.11.2015, the appellant, who is
2 KS,J and EVV,J
the brother-in-law of Mungimalla Anantha Laxmi-
deceased No.1 and the son of Mungimalla Sayappa-
deceased No.2, quarrelled with his mother about the
transfer of land to an extent of Acs.3.10 guntas in
Sy.No.215 situated at Kuppagiri Village, Shivar, in his
name. Meanwhile, deceased No.2 promised to transfer the
land the next day. However, the appellant dragged his
mother out of the house, and when deceased No.2
intervened and quarrelled, the appellant picked up a
pestle and hit deceased No.2 on his head, resulting in his
instantaneous death. Upon seeing the attack by the
appellant, deceased No.1 tried to rescue deceased No.2,
but she was also beaten by the appellant on her head,
causing her instantaneous death. PW1, the brother of the
appellant, PW2, the wife of the appellant, and the mother
of the appellant, were present in the house when the
incident happened. PWs.1 and 2 were frightened on
account of the threats by the appellant. The body of
deceased No.2 was dragged near Basavanna temple, and
after learning about the incident, the villagers gathered at
the temple. On seeing the villagers, the appellant fled
3 KS,J and EVV,J
from the place. PW.1 went to the police station and
lodged a complaint on 28.11.2015 at 6.00 A.M.
4. Even prior to lodging the complaint, PW9, who is S.I.
of police, Doultbad, received information around 3.00
A.M. about two persons being killed at Chandrakal
Village. On enquiry made by PW9, he came to know that
there was an attack in the early hours of 27/28.11.2015,
resulting in the appellant beating both the deceased to
death. Having received the complaint from PW1, the
same was registered. PW10 is the Inspector of Police who
took up the investigation after registration of the crime.
He went to the scene of offence and collected samples for
the purpose of FSL examination. Thereafter, the bodies
were sent for postmortem examination. PW6, who is the
postmortem doctor for both the deceased, found the
following injuries:
1. Multible fracture of the left side of frontal bone measuring-
1x6 cm
2. Fracture of the left Mandible bone
3. Laceration over the occipital region measuring 1x6 cm
4. Laceration over the right cheek
5. Laceration over the back side of left ear
On cut section I did not notice any abnormalities. Cause of
death is due to shock with hemorrhage, 12 to 13 hours
before to PME. Ex.P-8 is PME report of D-1.
4 KS,J and EVV,J
During PME of D-2 Sayappa I observed the following ante
mortem injuries:-
1. Deep laceration over frontal region measuring 1x6cm
2. Laceration over the occipital region measuring 1x5 cm
3. Laceration over the right leg measuring 1x8cm
4. Mouth and nasal bleeding
According to PW6-doctor, the death of both the
deceased was on account of shock with hemorrhage.
5. A charge sheet was lodged against the appellant for
committing the murders under Section 302 of I.P.C.
6. Learned Sessions Judge, having considered the
entire record, convicted the appellant.
7. Learned counsel submitted that though PW9
received information at 3.00 A.M., however, no F.I.R. was
registered. F.I.R. was registered at 6.00 A.M., i.e., after
the written complaint was given by PW1. No reason is
given as to why F.I.R. was not registered when PW9 had
received the information at 3.00 A.M. itself. Further, the
body of the deceased No.2 was found near Basavanna
temple. The prosecution failed to explain as to why the
dead body of D2 was dragged till the temple, thereby
attracting the witnesses. The said version given by PWs.1
5 KS,J and EVV,J
and 2 is highly improbable, and the appellant is falsely
implicated.
8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other
hand, argued that PWs.1 to 3 are the eye-witnesses to the
incident. Their evidence is consistent regarding the
manner in which the incident took place. Further, PW1 is
the brother of the appellant and PW2 is the wife of the
appellant. There is no reason why they would speak
falsely against the appellant.
9. PW1, who is the brother of the appellant, and PW2,
who is the wife of appellant, have narrated the incident
that on the said night there was an altercation, and
during the said altercation, the appellant picked up a
pestle and beat deceased No.2 on his head, leading to his
instantaneous death. When deceased No.1 intervened,
she was also assaulted on the head, causing her
instantaneous death. Thereafter, the body of deceased
No.2 was taken towards the temple, and when villagers
gathered, the appellant fled away, leaving the body near
the temple. PW3, who is the independent witness, stated
that at around 1.00 A.M. on the said night, she heard a
6 KS,J and EVV,J
galata from the house of the appellant. She woke up and
saw the appellant beating deceased Nos.1 and 2 on their
heads with a pestle. PW3 further stated that she got
frightened by the appellant and came out of the house
after some people gathered. PW4, who is the panch
witness for the scene of offence, stated about deceased
No.2's body being found near the temple. PW5 is the
independent witness to the confession and seizure of the
pestle at the instance of the appellant. PWs.7 and 10 are
police officials who conducted the investigation at the
scene of offence.
10. The incident happened around 1.00 A.M. in the
night, and the police was also informed that the appellant
had committed the murder at 3.00 A.M. PW1, who is
handicapped and crippled in the leg, had gone to the
police station at around 6.00 A.M. to lodge the complaint.
There cannot be any adverse inference drawn for the
reason that the complaint was lodged at 6.00 A.M. The
evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is consistent and there is no
reason why the wife of the appellant and the brother of
the appellant would speak against the appellant. The
7 KS,J and EVV,J
defence taken by the appellant is one of denial. Even in
the examination of the appellant under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C, nothing was stated regarding the incident, to cast
any doubt about the involvement of the appellant.
11. There are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the
findings of the learned Sessions Judge in convicting the
appellant.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE K.SURENDER
___________________________
JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
Date: 20.03.2025
EDS
