KL,J & VRKR,J
i) There is clear evidence from the prosecution witnesses to
connect the guilt of the accused in commission of offence.
ii) Though there is no direct evidence, the circumstantial
evidence forms a complete chain to convict the appellant.
iii) There was motive on the part of the appellant and the same
was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
iv) Having considered all the aforesaid aspects only, the trial
Court convicted the appellant and, therefore, there is no error in it.
With the aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
sought to dismiss the appeal.
10. In view above rival submissions, the point that falls for
consideration by this Court is:
Whether the conviction and sentence of imprisonment
recorded by the trial Court for the offences under Sections -
498A and 302 of IPC against the appellant herein - accused
are sustainable, both on facts and in law?
11. In this case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13 of
which, PW.1, PW.5 and PW.7 are the mother, younger brother and
younger sister of the deceased respectively, while PW.2 is her relative
and all of them along with PW.3, PW.4 and PW.6 are circumstantial
KL,J & VRKR,J
witnesses to the occurrence; PW.8 is the panch witness for the scene
of offence, PW.9 is the panch witness for the confession of the
accused and seizure; PW.10 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy
over the dead body of the deceased; PW.11 is the Sub-Inspector of
Police, who received report from the father of deceased and issued
Ex.P6 - FIR; PW.12 - the Tahsildar, who took steps for conducting
autopsy over the dead body of the deceased; PW.13 - Investigating
Officer, who conducted investigation and filed charge sheet.
12. Before dealing with the discussion, it would be apt to
discuss with regard to depositions of prosecution witnesses.
13. PW.1, mother of the deceased, deposed that LW.1 is her
husband (died) and he is the complainant, who set the law into motion
by giving report with the police. She got four daughters and one son.
The deceased - Nagamani is her last daughter and she performed her
marriage with accused. Out of their wedlock, her daughter was
blessed with two (02) sons and her daughter and the accused started
living at Huzurnagar.
i) PW.1 further deposed that the accused addicted to alcohol
and started suspecting the character of her daughter attributing that
KL,J & VRKR,J
she was having affair with others. On the day of incident, the accused
remained at his rented house opposite her house complaining stomach
pain and her daughter was watching T.V. in her house. After
watching T.V., her daughter went to her rented house and she took
food to her daughter and the accused. Her daughter requested the
accused to have dinner. In spite of her request to have diner, her
daughter informed her that she would take dinner after arrival of her
brother, who was studying at Kodad. Her daughter sprinkled water in
her front-yard and in front of rented house of her daughter and her
daughter drawn some flowers with lime powder in the front yard and
she went to her house for sleeping and her daughter went to her house
for sleeping.
ii) PW.1 further deposed that at about 12.00 mid night, she
heard the cries of Vishnu, the eldest son of her daughter and on
hearing cries, PW.2 being the neighbor of her daughter came out for
passing urine and went to Vishnu and enquired with him as to what
happened. Vishnu informed PW.2 that the accused beaten her mother
and running. Then, PW.2 entered the house and tried to wake up the
deceased, but there was no response from the deceased. PW.2 came
and knocked her doors and opened the doors and then she and her
KL,J & VRKR,J
husband went to the house of her daughter, found her daughter dead
and no response. There are injuries on the cheeks and neck of her
daughter. On her cries, PW.2 and PW.4 and her neighbours came.
She found missing of ear studs from the ears of her daughter. They all
took her daughter to PW.3, the RMP Doctor, who examined and
declared her daughter dead. Her villagers searched for the accused,
but not traced out.
iii) During cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that the accused
is the son of her husband's younger sister. Her husband (LW.1) gave
report to the police that the accused killed her daughter.
14. PW.2, neighbor of PW.1, deposed that the accused and
deceased took the house of LW.7 (died), which is beside her house for
rent and started living therein. On the date of incident, while she was
sleeping at midnight, she heard the cries of son of the deceased and
she came out from her house and found the son of deceased in front of
the house and she enquired with him and the boy stated that his father
(accused) going in that way. Then, she took the boy into the house of
deceased and tried to wake up her and there was no response. Then,
she went to PW.1 and informed the same. Thereafter, she and PW.1
KL,J & VRKR,J
took the deceased to the doctor (PW.3), who declared the deceased as
died. The police examined her.
i) During cross-examination, PW.2 admitted that PW.1 is her
relative. Before cries of the son of the deceased, she did not know
what happened inside the house.
15. PW.3, RMP Doctor, deposed that on 28/29.11.2011, PW.1,
LW.1 and PW.2 brought the deceased to his clinic and on
examination, he declared her dead. He found some nail scratches on
the neck and face of the deceased. According to him, the deceased
died due to throttling.
i) During cross-examination, PW.3 admitted that he got a
certificate to practice as Registered Medical Practitioner. He did not
know the personal details of the accused.
16. PW.4, circumstantial witness, deposed with regard to the
disputes between the accused and the deceased. His house is located
abutting the house of PW.1. On the date of incident, PWs.1 and 2
were crying during night time and he went there and found the
deceased was in unconscious state. Then, he shifted the deceased to
KL,J & VRKR,J
the hospital of PW.3, which is at a distance of 20 yards from the
rented house of the accused. The accused was not found in the house.
i) During cross-examination, PW.4 admitted that he did not see
the actual incident.
17. PW.5, son of PW.1 and brother of the deceased, deposed
with regard to accused beating the deceased. On the date of incident,
he came back to his house from Kodad as he was studying
Polytechnic at Kodad and after having dinner he went to sleep. At
about 0.30 hours, PW.2 raised cries that the children of deceased were
weeping and his sister was not woke up despite attempts made by
PW.2. Then, he, PW.2 and 4 along with his parents went to the house
of accused and found the deceased was in immobile condition, the
children weeping and the accused already escaped. Then, they all
shifted the deceased to the clinic of PW.3, who declared her sister
dead. There is a contusion and nail marks on the neck of her sister.
i) During cross-examination, PW.5 admitted that he did not
state before the police as in Ex.D1, which is relevant portion of his
statement recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. Only the accused
and the deceased were living in the house of LW.7 on rent.
KL,J & VRKR,J
18. PW.6, circumstantial witness, deposed that his house is
opposite the house of LW.7. On the date of incident at about 12.00
mid night, he woke up to attend calls of nature, found the accused
going on Janpahad Road and he presumed that the accused going to
attend calls of nature and after one hour, he heard some cries from the
rented house of accused, found the deceased lying on the ground in
the house.
i) During cross-examination, PW.6 admitted that the deceased
was related to him as daughter. He did not know about the disputes
between the accused and the deceased. There was darkness on that
night when he woke up to attend calls of nature. Due to darkness, he
cannot identify the persons. He did not know the reason for the death
of the deceased.
19. PW.7, elder sister of the deceased, deposed that after death
of her husband, he came to her parents' house and living with them.
The deceased complained about beating by the accused. On the date
of incident, after having dinner by them and deceased, the deceased
proceeded to her rented house to go to sleep. When they were
sleeping, PW.2 came to them and informed that the elder son of
deceased was weeping and the deceased was not moving while in
KL,J & VRKR,J
lying condition. Then, they went to the house of deceased and shifted
her to the clinic of PW.3, who declared the deceased as dead. The
accused escaped. Prior to the death of deceased, she gave her ear
studs (MO.1) to the deceased and they found missing them. However,
MO.1 were returned to her upon filing an application.
i) During cross-examination, nothing useful was elicited from
PW.7.
20. PW.8, panch witness for scene of offence and inquest,
deposed that he found some black scar marks on the neck. The police
held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his presence as in
Ex.P1 - scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P2 is the sketch mark and
Ex.P3 is the inquest report.
i) During cross-examination, nothing useful was elicited from
PW.8.
21. PW.9, panch witness for confession of the accused and
seizure, deposed, on 02.12.2011, the Inspector of police, called him to
the police station, and accordingly he went to the police station,
where the accused was present and asked him to ask the accused for
what purpose he was in the police station, on which the police
recorded confessional statement of the accused as in Ex.P4.
KL,J & VRKR,J
i) During cross-examination nothing was elicited from PW.9.
22. PW.10, the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead
body of the deceased, deposed that on 29.11.2011, he commenced
autopsy from 1.15 P.M. and concluded at 2.30 P.M. and found the
following injuries:
i) Ten nail bite marks over the neck on both sides, right side (3) in
number and left side (7) in numbers;
ii) A small laceration 1x1 cms., over left chin.
He also found the following internal injuries:
i) Neck muscles are congested of red in colour;
ii) Thyroid Cartilage fractured at the mid line;
iii) Hyoid bone fracture at junction body and left horn.
23. According to him, the cause of death is due to throttling.
Ex.P5 is the post-mortem report.
i) During cross-examination, PW.10 admitted that there is no
possibility of nail injuries at the time of epilepsy. If any third person
meddled with the person suffering from epilepsy, such injuries are
possible. There is no possibility of the said injuries at the time of
heart attack.
KL,J & VRKR,J
24. PW.11, the Inspector of Police, deposed with regard to his
receipt of report from LW.1 and his registration of Crime No.135 of
2011 under Sections - 498A and 302 of IPC and issuance of Ex.P6 -
original FIR. He also recorded the statement of LW.1 under Section -
161 of Cr.P.C. He visited the scene of offence along with PW.13,
Inspector of Police and assisted him for further investigation.
i) During cross-examination, nothing useful was elicited from
PW.11.
25. PW.12, the then Tahsildar, Damerachaerla, deposed with
regard to receipt of requisition from Sub-Inspector of Police,
Wadapally for conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased.
Accordingly, she went to the house of deceased and conducted inquest
in the presence of PW.8 and LW.11 and noted down the injuries as in
Ex.P7 - inquest report.
i) During cross-examination, nothing useful was elicited from
PW.12.
26. PW.13 - the Investigating Officer deposed with regard to
conducting of investigation, examination and recording of statements
of the witnesses etc. He also took steps for inquest over the dead
body of the deceased.
KL,J & VRKR,J
i) During cross-examination, nothing useful was elicited from
PW.13.
27. As discussed above, in the present case, there is no direct
evidence or eye-witness, and the entire case rests on circumstantial
evidence. There is no dispute with regard to legal position that relying
on circumstantial evidence, conviction can be recorded provided
circumstances relied upon by the prosecution should form a concrete
unbreakable complete chain of events. The said principle was also
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.
State of Maharashtra 1, wherein it was held:
"152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by
the High Court we would like to cite a few
decisions on the nature, character and essential
proof required in a criminal case which rests on
circumstantial evidence alone. The most
fundamental and basic decision of this Court is
Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1952) 2
SCC 71:AIR 1952 SC 343:1952 SCR 1091: 1953
Cri LJ 129]. This case has been uniformly
followed and applied by this Court in a large
number of later decisions up-to-date, for instance,
the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar
Pradesh [(1969) 3 SCC 198:1970 SCC (Cri) 55]
. (1984) 4 SCC 116
KL,J & VRKR,J
and Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra [(1972) 4
SCC 625: AIR 1972 SC 656]. It may be useful to
extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in
Hanumant case [(1952) 2 SCC 71:AIR 1952 SC
343:1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129]:
"It is well to remember that in cases where the
evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance
be fully established, and all the facts so
established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again,
the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency and they should be such
as to exclude every hypothesis but the one
proposed to be proved. In other words, there
must be a chain of evidence so far complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for a
conclusion consistent with the innocence of
the accused and it must be such as to show
that within all human probability the act must
have been done by the accused."
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.
KL,J & VRKR,J
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 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
KL,J & VRKR,J
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.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say
so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case
based on circumstantial evidence."
The aforesaid principle was also reiterated by the Apex court in a
catena of decisions.
28. In the present case, perusal of evidence of prosecution
witnesses proves the motive on the part of the accused in commission
of offences. The motive behind the commission of offences by the
accused was that he addicted to alcohol, he used to suspect the
character of the deceased and there used to be quarrels between them.
The same was proved by the prosecution by examining PW.1 - mother
of the deceased; PW.5 - brother of the deceased; PW.7 - elder sister of
the deceased and PWs.2, 4 and 6 - neighbours of the deceased. PW.1,
mother of the deceased, deposed that the accused addicted to alcohol
and started suspecting the character of her daughter attributing that she
was having affair with others. Her daughter also informed her that the
KL,J & VRKR,J
accused used to beat her in a drunker state and suspecting her
character. PW.4, neighbour of the parents of the deceased, deposed
that during the days of incident, the accused and deceased were living
at Huzurnagar. During disputes between them, father of the deceased
brought her to his house. After ten days, the accused came to his in-
law's house at Janapahad road of Damaracherla Mandal and deceased
and accused started living in a rented house opposite the house of
parents of the deceased. There used to be quarrels between the
accused and the deceased. PW.5, brother of the deceased also
deposed with regard to the vices of the accused and suspecting her
sister's characters. PW.7 - sister of the deceased also deposed the
same. Thus, from the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, the
prosecution proved the motive on the part of the accused in
commission of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
29. Now, coming to the circumstance, which also forms a
complete chain of events is as to whether the accused and the
deceased were present in their house on the date of incident or not.
PW.4 deposed that on the date of incident PWs.1 and 2 were crying
during night time and he went there and found the deceased was in
KL,J & VRKR,J
unconscious state. Before the death, the deceased and the accused
along with their children were residing in a rented house of LW.7,
who was not examined as he is no more. The same was also admitted
by the accused in his examination under Section - 313 of Cr.P.C.
PW.2 deposed that on the date of incident, while she was sleeping at
mid-night, heard the cries of son of deceased and she came out from
her house and found the son of the deceased and on her enquiry, he
told her that the accused was going in that way. Then, she took the
boy and went to the house of deceased and tried her to wake up, but
there was no response and then she and PW.4 took the deceased to
PW.3, who declared her died. Even PW.3, RMP doctor, found that the
deceased died due to throttling. PW.4 also deposed that the accused
was not found in the house and they came to conclusion that the
accused killed the deceased.
30. PW.6, whose house is located opposite the rented house of
the accused, deposed that on the date of incident at about 12.00 mid
night, he woke up to attend calls of nature and found the accused
going on Janpahad road and he presumed that he was going to attend
calls of nature and after one hour, he heard some cries from the rented
KL,J & VRKR,J
house of the accused and found the deceased lying on the ground. The
deceased was shifted to the PW.3's hospital, where she was declared
dead.
31. PW.5, brother of the deceased, deposed that on 28.11.2011
at 11.30 p.m., he came back to his house from Kodad as he was
studying Polytechnic at Kodad. At about 0.30 hours, PW.2 raised
cries that the children of his sister were weeping and her sister did not
wake up despite the attempts made by PW.2. Then, he, PW.2 and
PW.4 along with his parents rushed to his sister's house and found her
sister was in immobile condition. The accused already escaped. There
is a contusion and nail marks on the neck of her sister. The accused
killed his sister by throttling suspecting her character.
32. PW.7 - sister of the deceased deposed that on the night of
the incident, PW.2 came to her and informed that the elder son of
deceased was weeping and the deceased was not moving while in
lying condition. Her parents proceeded to the house of the deceased
and shifted her to PW.3's clinic. Then, she and Srinu went to the clinic
of PW.3, where the deceased was declared dead. There are marks on
the neck of the deceased. Prior to the death of deceased, she gave her
KL,J & VRKR,J
ear-studs to the deceased and she found missing of the same. The
accused might have taken the same.
33. In view of the said specific evidence of PWs.2, 4, 5, 6 and
7, an inference can be culled out that as on the date of incident, the
accused was at his house and after commission of offence he fled
away. Nothing useful was elicited from their cross-examination to
disprove the case of the prosecution that the accused was not at all
present at his house on the date of incident. Therefore, it can be
presumed that the accused was responsible for the death of the
deceased.
34. One more circumstance which forms a chain of events is
with regard to the injuries that were found over the body of the
deceased. To prove the same, PW.3, the RMP doctor deposed that
according to him, the deceased died due to throttling. PW.8, a panch
witness for scene of offence and inquest as in Exs.P2 and 3, also
specifically deposed that she found some black scar marks on the
neck. PW.10, the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body
of the deceased, found the external and internal injuries as mentioned
above. As per Ex.P5-postmortem examination report, the cause of
KL,J & VRKR,J
death was due to throttling. During cross-examination, he admitted
that there is no possibility of nail injuries at the time of epilepsy. If
any third person meddled with the person suffering from epilepsy, the
said injuries are possible. There is no possibility of the aforesaid
injuries at the time of heart attack. PW.10, the doctor, who conducted
autopsy over the dead body of the deceased found the aforesaid five
injuries. In view of the aforesaid specific evidence, it can be inferred
that the injuries were caused only due to the throttling of neck of the
deceased by the accused.
35. As per evidence of PW.13, the Investigating Officer, on
02.12.2011 at about 19.30 hours, the accused surrendered before him
at his office and confessed the offence. Pursuant to such confession,
he seized MO.1-ear studs from his possession. PW.9, panch witness
deposed with regard to the confession made by the accused and
pursuant thereof, seizure of MO.1 as in Ex.P4.
36. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the
deceased was the legally wedded wife of the accused. The evidence
on record establishes that the accused habitually subjected the
deceased to cruelty and physical assault and constantly suspected her
KL,J & VRKR,J
character frequently beat and harassed her. On the date of incident, the
deceased was found dead inside the rented house. Medical evidence
clearly establishes that death was caused on account of throttling.
Manual throttling is a homicidal act and cannot be self-inflicted. It is
settled law that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial
evidence if the circumstances are fully established; they form a
complete chain; the chain excludes every hypothesis except the guilt
of the accused. As already stated above, the evidence proves that the
accused frequently beat the deceased and suspected her character.
Persistent suspicion of infidelity provides a strong motive for the
commission of murder. Motive assumes greater importance in cases
based on circumstantial evidence. When the death occurs inside the
rented house of the accused, burden shifts on the accused under
Section - 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to explain how the
deceased died. The accused failed to offer any plausible explanation.
37. It is apt to note that repeated physical assaults and
suspicion of illicit relations amount to mental cruelty and physical
cruelty. The prosecution witnesses have consistently deposed about
the accused's violent behavior and harassment. Learned trial Court
KL,J & VRKR,J
has properly appreciated evidence. Unless findings are perverse or
contrary to evidence, the appellate Court should not interfere with
conviction. The judgment is based on appreciation of evidence.
Therefore, the findings of learned trial Court regarding cruelty are
supported by evidence and do not warrant interference for the offence
under Section - 498A of IPC.
38. As far as offence under Section - 302 of IPC is concerned,
throttling involves applying force to the neck, obstructing breathing.
The neck is a vital and vulnerable part of the body. Any reasonable
person knows that such an act is likely to cause death. Thus, the
accused had knowledge that his act was imminently dangerous.
Medical evidence confirms that the injuries caused due to throttling.
Therefore, the act falls squarely within the definition of murder. Thus,
the impugned judgment of conviction is well-reasoned, based on
cogent evidence, and requires no interference. Thus, the present
appeal fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.
39. The present Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed
confirming the conviction and sentences of imprisonment recorded
and imposed against the appellant - accused vide judgment dated
KL,J & VRKR,J
22.03.2017 in S.C. No.244 of 2012 by learned VIII Additional
Sessions Judge at Miryalguda.
40. Since the appellant - accused is on bail, he is directed to
surrender before VIII Additional Sessions Judge at Miryalguda, within
one (01) month from today for serving out remaining sentence of
imprisonment. If he fails to surrender, learned VIII Additional
Sessions Judge at Miryalguda, shall take necessary steps in
accordance with law.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending
in this appeal shall stand closed.
_________________________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
_________________________________
VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J
26th March, 2026
Mgr
