Tekumatta Chakrapani, Medak Dt., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp.,
2025 Latest Caselaw 14 Tel

Telangana High Court

Tekumatta Chakrapani, Medak Dt., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 1 May, 2025

Author: N. Tukaramji

Bench: P.Sam Koshy, N.Tukaramji

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
                        AND
        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 552 OF 2016

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice N. Tukaramji)

This appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment of

conviction and sentence dated 03.03.2016 in Sessions Case No.23 of

2014 passed by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak.

2. By the impugned judgment the appellant/convict/accused

(hereinafter 'the accused') was convicted for the offence punishable

under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC')

and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also pay fine of

Rs.200/- in default simple imprisonment for six months.

3. We have heard Mr.Chitneni Vidyasagar Rao, learned Senior

Counsel on behalf of Mr. Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the

appellant and Mr. Syed. Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

The prosecution case:

4. On 16.09.2013, the police received a written report (Ex.P-1) from

the mother of the deceased (PW-1), stating the following facts:

2 PSKJ & NTRJ Crla_552_2016

Eight years ago, the accused, who was already married and had a

daughter, eloped with her daughter (the deceased) and married her at

Lord Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadagirigutta. Later, in the

presence of caste elders and with the consent of his first wife, he

remarried her daughter (the deceased), and they begot a son.

After five years of marriage, the accused began to suspect the

fidelity of her daughter and subjected her to both physical and mental

harassment. On three or four occasions, the matter was brought before

caste elders. Subsequently, after the accused beat his first wife, she left

for her parents' house.

The deceased used to visit nearby villages to sell dolls and toys.

The accused, suspecting her fidelity due to these visits, would beat her.

Later, the accused took a room in Medak for business purposes and

pledged 15 tolas of silver ornaments, a 3.5 tola silver chain, and 4.2½

grams of gold ornaments belonging to the deceased and used that

money for his own purposes. He later redeemed these ornaments and

gave them to his first wife without informing the deceased.

One month prior to the incident, in Medak, the accused, acting on

suspicion, attempted to kill the deceased by causing a head injury, but

she was rescued by Shivkumar and neighbors. In another incident, the 3 PSKJ & NTRJ Crla_552_2016

accused took the deceased and their son to Yedupayala dam. While the

deceased was bathing, he pushed her into the water, telling her to die.

However, when their son began to cry, the accused pulled her back. The

accused also proclaimed that he would kill the deceased and go to

prison.

On 14.09.2013, as usual, the accused took the deceased to

villages for their doll/toy business but did not return. At about 9 p.m.,

the accused called T. Balaraju (PW-4) and asked whether his wife (the

deceased) had returned home, stating that she had left him and

returned to the village. PW-4 informed him that she had not returned.

The accused returned to the village a day later, on 16.09.2013, at about

6 p.m. When PW-1 and other caste members questioned him, the

accused revealed that on 14.09.2013, he had taken the deceased on his

moped to sell dolls/toys. At about 3:30 p.m., he took her to a forest

area beside the Ablapur to Gajulagudem road and, as per his plan,

strangled her with a towel. After she fell, he smashed her head with a

stone and killed her. Immediately, they rushed to the place and found

the deceased's body with a head injury, lying in a pool of blood. Thus,

PW-1 prayed for appropriate action.

4 PSKJ & NTRJ Crla_552_2016

Proceedings before the trial Court:

5. Upon the police report/Ex.P-1 the crime was registered and after

due investigation charge sheet was laid against the accused for the

offence under Section 302 IPC. Learned Magistrate took cognizance and

after the proceedings committed the matter to the Sessions Division and

upon numbering the Sessions Case the file was made over to the trial

Court for adjudication.

Learned Sessions Judge after examining the accused framed the

charge under Section 302 IPC and proceeded with trial. In trial the

prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and got marked Exs:P-1 to P-17 and

M.Os.1 to 11 and the defence got marked certain portions of 161 Cr.P.C.

statements of PWs.3 and 4 as Exs:D-1 to D-3. The incriminating

materials were denied by the accused in Section 313 Cr.P.C.

examination. However no defence evidence was placed.

Learned Sessions Judge after considering the materials held that

the prosecution has proved the charge under Section 302 IPC beyond

reasonable doubt and accordingly recorded conviction and sentenced as

mentioned above.

5 PSKJ & NTRJ Crla_552_2016

Contentions of the Learned Counsel for the Accused:

6. The learned counsel for the accused, in appeal, contended that

there is no direct evidence linking the accused to the incident, and that

the prosecution's evidence is insufficient to establish the accused's

involvement in the offence. It was argued that the trial court erred in

relying solely on the testimonies of PWs 1 to 4 without corroboration,

and failed to properly consider the discrepancies present in their

accounts. Additionally, the counsel pointed out that there was no

explanation provided for the three-day delay in filing the First

Information Report (FIR). Further submitted that the deceased was a

divorcee who later married her sister's husband and subsequently had

other relationships; therefore, concluding the guilt of the accused on

such evidence would be unreasonable. It was also argued that the time

of death recorded in the autopsy report (Ex.P-13) does not align with

the evidence of the witnesses. Considering these inconsistencies, the

trial court should have acquitted the accused. The counsel thus prayed

for reconsideration of the case and for the acquittal of the accused.

6 PSKJ & NTRJ Crla_552_2016

Submissions of the Additional Public Prosecutor:

7. The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused was

last seen together with the deceased, and that the trial court, after

observing the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the accused

and considering the statements of witnesses regarding his ill feelings

towards the deceased, rightly concluded that the accused committed the

offence. It was argued that there is no valid ground for interference with

the trial court's findings and that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

8. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned

counsel and perused the materials on record.

Analysis of the evidence:

9. The de facto complainant (PW-1), the sister of the deceased (PW-

2), and villagers/relatives (PWs 3 and 4) testified to discovering the

dead body of Prameela (the deceased) in the forest near Annaram

village. The mediator (PW-7), who participated in the scene observation

(Ex.P-7) and inquest report (Ex.P-9), along with PW-9, deposed that

they found the deceased's body with injuries and a towel around her

neck in the forest area on the outskirts of Annaram village. The doctor

(PW-10), who conducted the autopsy, detailed the ante-mortem injuries

on the body and opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to 7 PSKJ & NTRJ Crla_552_2016

throttling. The above evidence clearly establishes that Prameela's death

was homicidal.

10. With regard to the involvement of the accused and to prove the

charge, the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence. It is a settled

legal principle that, in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the

prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances without

any gaps, and a cumulative reading of the evidence must point solely to

the guilt of the accused, excluding any other hypothesis or possibility

consistent with innocence.

11. In this context, it is worth mentioning the landmark dictum of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court and the guiding factors enumerated in the

evaluation of the circumstantial evidence in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.

State of Maharashtra - (1984) 4 SCC 116 in para No. 153, it has been

held as under:

"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be"

established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction 8 PSKJ & NTRJ Crla_552_2016

between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807:

SCC (Cri) p. 1047]

"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."

12. In the light of the above guidelines the evidence on record is

evaluated, as per the testimony of PW-1, on the date of the incident, the

accused took his wife, Prameela (the deceased), on his moped to

Ablapur village, after that she never returned and was later found dead.

PW-2, the sister of the deceased, deposed that the accused and the 9 PSKJ & NTRJ Crla_552_2016

deceased were residing together in one room and used to travel

together on a moped to sell toys. On the day of the incident, both the

accused and her sister left home together for this purpose. PWs 3 and 4,

who are villagers and relatives of the deceased, also confirmed that the

accused had taken the deceased with him on his moped to sell toys.

PW-1 further stated that on the night of the same day, the accused

called PW-4 to ask whether the deceased had returned home. PW-4

corroborated this, stating that at about 9 p.m., the accused telephoned

him to inquire if his wife had come back to the village, to which he

replied that she had not. PW-2 also gave similar testimony. Additionally,

PWs 1 and 2 stated that the accused returned to the village only on the

following day, a fact supported by PWs 3 and 4.

13. These statements are consistent and in corroboration establishing

that the deceased left home with the accused on his moped and did not

return. Despite being informed that his wife had not returned, the

accused came back to the village only in the evening of the next day.

14. What transpired after the accused and the deceased left home

would be within the specific knowledge of the accused. The accused

claimed that the deceased left him midway; if that were true, the details

up to that point would still be within his knowledge, especially as she

was his wife and he had taken her along for selling toys. However, the 10 PSKJ & NTRJ Crla_552_2016

accused remained completely silent and failed to explain any of these

aspects. Thus, the burden to explain these facts under Section 106 of

the Indian Evidence Act remained unfulfilled.

15. It is a settled proposition, reiterated in several Supreme Court

decisions, that when the facts proved show the accused was last seen

with the deceased, and in the absence of any other explanation, a

negative inference can be drawn against the accused.

16. Furthermore, the first information statement (Ex.P-1) and the

evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 clearly and consistently state that the accused

informed them, in the presence of caste elders, about the commission of

the offence, after which they went to the location, searched, and found

the dead body. This version remained uncontroverted except for denial

suggestions. The discovery of the dead body based on the accused's

statement is another material circumstance.

17. Regarding motive, while proof of motive alone does not establish

guilt, it supports the possibility of the accused's involvement. PWs. 1 to

3 testified that the accused used to suspect the deceased's fidelity and

referred to two specific incidents at Medak and Yedupayala Dam.

Although there are minor variations in the details, the core facts remain

consistent. While the failure to take prompt legal action may favour the 11 PSKJ & NTRJ Crla_552_2016

accused, the evidence collectively establishes the accused's ill feelings

towards the deceased.

18. The circumstances specifically, the accused taking his wife with

him on the relevant day, remaining absent even after knowing she had

not returned, the discovery of the dead body based on his information,

the established ill feelings, and his silence regarding facts within his

specific knowledge point solely to the accused's guilt.

19. The accused's contention regarding the delay in filing the first

information report was explained by PW-1, who stated that there was a

search for the deceased after she went missing and before receiving

information from the accused. Moreover, delay in filing the FIR cannot,

by itself, be a ground to discard the material evidence and the

prosecution's case. It is well settled that in cases of delay, the relevant

consideration is whether there was any deliberation for falsely

implicating the accused. In this case, the allegations in the first

information statement were specific and directed only against the

accused, and cross-examination did not reveal any reason for false

implication. Thus, this ground of defence is without merit.

20. For the aforementioned reasons, it is our considered view that

the prosecution has established all relevant circumstances and proved

the charge against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. Thus it shall 12 PSKJ & NTRJ Crla_552_2016

be held that the trial Court had assessed the materials and evidence on

record in a proper perspective and arrived at just conclusion including

the sentence. In the absence of merit in the appeal the impugned

judgment of conviction and sentence deserves affirmation.

21. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending stands

closed.

________________ P. SAM KOSHY, J

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date:01.05.2025 ccm