Telangana High Court
Buram Chandraiahah vs State Of Telangana on 27 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.967 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
(per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER)
This appeal is filed by appellant/Accused, aggrieved by the
conviction recorded by the Judge, Family Court, Mahabubnagar,
FACP:IV Addl.District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Nagarkurnool, in
S.C.No.462 of 2014, dated 09.02.2018. The appellant was convicted
for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and
sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- for the offence under section 302 of IPC.
2. The allegation against the appellant is that on 20.03.2014, the
appellant, his wife, Venkatamma (deceased) and several other relatives
performed the marriage of the daughter of appellant in Tabulapur
village of Dindi Mandal. After performing the marriage they returned to
the Tadoor village. After having dinner, PWs.1 to 3 slept beside the
deceased in front of the house of the accused under the pandal. After
some time, they observed the appellant wandering here and there.
When questioned, the appellant stated that some of their goats were
missing, and thereafter, the appellant switched off the power and slept.
Around 11.00 p.m., PW.1 and others heard some sound, woke up, and
found the appellant running towards the fields. PW.1 also ran behind
him for some distance, and came back and switched on the light.
Then, she noticed that blood was oozing from the mouth and head of
her sister (wife of the appellant). There was a boulder-MO.1 beside her
sister's head which was used for cooking. A complaint was filed at
06.00 A.M. In the complaint, the appellant's act of causing the death of
the deceased was written.
3. The Police, having received the complaint, went to the scene of
offence, took photographs, and concluded the scene of offence
panchanama proceedings. Thereafter, the body was taken to the
hospital where the inquest panchanama was conducted. The body was
then sent for postmortem examination.
4. PW.11 conducted the postmortem on the deceased and found the
following injuries.
1. Bleeding from nose, mouth, and ears
2. Right side skull fracture
3. Incisor tooth absent.
The postmortem doctor-PW.11 opined that the death of the deceased
was on account of the cardiorespiratory arrest.
5. The appellant was apprehended on 26.03.2014, i.e., 5 days after
the incident. His confession was recorded and the blood stained shirt
of the accused was recovered from his possession. He was sent to
remand. The material objects seized at the scene of offence, i.e., the
wearing apparel of the deceased and the shirt of the accused, were
sent for the FSL examination.
6. The learned Sessions Judge, relying on the evidence of PWs.1 to
4, who are the eye-witnesses to the incident, recorded the conviction.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that
none of the witnesses have specifically stated that they saw the
appellant throwing the stone on the head of the deceased. The only
evidence is that appellant was seen running from the scene. His going
away from the scene can only be attributed to the appellant trying to
find his sheep.
8. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the Judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court in Mallappa v. State of Karnataka 1 ,
wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held that:
"10. In our opinion, however, the evidence of PW 5 cannot be
accepted in full. There are contradictions in PW 5's deposition as
regards PW 5 having seen Mallappa at the spot of occurrence. She
stated in her cross-examination, which we have referred to
earlier, that by the time she saw the accused persons, they were
in front of the house of Devendrappa. That is the evidence of PW 3
as also PW 6. We can ignore the contradictions in her evidence
concerning presence of Honappa at the PO on the night of
occurrence of the incident as the same not having any material
impact on the case. But her contradictory statements as regards
when and where she saw the appellant and as to whether she
saw him committing the act of assault is of significance. In her
examination-in-chief, she deposed that when she opened her eyes
on hearing the sound "dhup", she saw A-1 (i.e. the appellant) with
a club assaulting on the head of her husband, whereas A-2
(Veerappa) was standing beside him. But as we have already
observed earlier, she stated in her cross-examination that by the
time she woke up, injury had been caused. She claimed to have
had seen the accused in front of Devendrappa's house. This part
of her deposition in her cross-examination is otherwise compatible
with rest of her statements made in cross-examination. In this
perspective, only one conclusion is possible and that is she was
not a witness to actual act of assault. She is the widow of the
(2021) 5 Supreme Court Cases 572
deceased victim and deserves to be considered with an element of
compassion. But as a witness, she does not inspire confidence."
9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that PWs.1 to 4
are closely related to the appellant and there is no reason why they
would speak false against the appellant.
10. The facts of the case dealt by the Honourable Supreme Court in
Mallappa's case differ from the present facts. Discrepancies were
found in the evidence of the hostile eye-witness- PW.5 in the said case
regarding him witnessing the incident. In the said circumstances, the
Honourable Supreme Court extended the benefit of doubt.
11. In the present case, the appellant is the husband of the
deceased. He admitted that he was present at the scene and he left
only to find his sheep. His further defence is that the stone-M.O.1
accidentally fell on the head of the deceased. The facts in the aforesaid
Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court are not applicable to the
facts of the present case.
12. In the cross-examination of the witnesses, the witnesses gave
contradictory versions. Though in the chief examination they stated
that the appellant was running from the scene, however, in the cross-
examination, they developed their version and stated that they saw the
appellant throwing a stone on the head of the deceased. DW.1 is the
daughter of the appellant and she stated that the incident did not take
place as projected by the prosecution. Further, two of the other
witnesses, PWs.6 and 7, who are the daughters of the appellant and
deceased, did not support the case of the prosecution.
13. PWs.1 and 2 are the sisters of the deceased, and PW.3 is the
sister-in-law of the deceased. PW.4 is the paternal aunt of the
deceased. They stated in unison that they saw the appellant running
from the scene after causing the injury to the deceased with a boulder-
MO.1.
14. The defence of the appellant is that a pandal was erected in front
of the house of the appellant, and one of the stones from the pandal
must have accidently fallen on the deceased, resulting in injuries to
the deceased.
15. It is admitted that the appellant was present at the scene. The
normal conduct of a husband would be to attend to his injured wife,
however, the appellant fled from the scene.
16. Under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, the conduct of a
party to any fact in issue is relevant. The relevant fact in the present
case is that the appellant ran away from the scene and such conduct
is not in consonance with the act of the appellant throwing stone on
the deceased as alleged by the witnesses. Admittedly, the deceased
and all other relatives had gone to the marriage, returned tired, and
were taking rest. The incident happened around 11.00 P.M. in the
night. The appellant, having caused the injuries as stated by the
witnesses, fled from the scene. The argument of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the appellant went from the scene only to look
after his sheep cannot be considered. No husband would go looking for
the sheep after finding his wife with bleeding injuries.
17. The postmortem doctor opined that the death was on account of
the cardiorespiratory arrest. The doctor did not speak about the
injuries being a direct cause of death. It was for the prosecution to
elicit during the course of examination of the doctor whether any of the
three injuries found were either vital or whether the cardiorespiratory
arrest was a direct result of the injuries caused. In the absence of the
expert speaking on whether the injuries directly resulted in death, the
prosecution cannot rely on inference to establish that injuries were the
direct cause of death.
18. The appellant injured his wife with a boulder, resulting in a
partial skull fracture on the right side of the head, causing bleeding
from the mouth and head of the deceased.
19. Since the doctor failed to attribute the injuries directly to the
cause of death, we deem it appropriate to convict the appellant under
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for causing grievous injuries
which intended to cause her death.
20. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part and the
appellant is convicted under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years. Since the
appellant/accused is on bail, the Court below is directed to cause
appearance of the accused and send him to prison to serve out the
remaining part of the sentence.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
_____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 27.03.2025
tk
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.967 OF 2018
Date: 27.03.2025
tk
