Dage Maruthi vs State Of Telangana

Aggrieved by the Judgment, dated 15.06.2018 passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Bodhan, in S.C.No.185 of 2017, the present Criminal Appeal is filed.

Heard Smt. D. Madhavi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.

The trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC and the conviction of the same under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., and he has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years.

The facts of the case are that on 29.03.2017 at about 6:30 p.m., P.W.1-Village Revenue Officer of Pedda Takli Village came to Madnoor Police Station and lodged Ex.P1-report stating that on the said day, at about 03:10 p.m., he received an information from the villagers of said village to the effect that at about 2:45 p.m., the accused picked up a quarrel with his second son Anil (deceased), aged about 22 years for pocket money and when the said Anil was on a cot in their house, the accused beat him with stick and caused bleeding injury on his head and the injured was in unconscious state. On such information, P.W.1 rushed to the house of the accused and then, the villagers informed him that the deceased was shifted to the Government Hospital, Madnoor, in a car for treatment. Then he rushed to the said Hospital and found the dead body of the deceased lying on a stretcher. He observed an injury on the head of the injured and it seemed that it was caused with a stick. The accused was not doing any work and was harassing the deceased and demanding money for his expenses. When the deceased refused to give pocket money, the accused became angry and beat the deceased with a stick. P.W.1 came to know that while absconding from his house, the accused had informed his villagers, who examined as P.Ws.4, 7 and 8, that he beat the deceased with a stick. The deceased died with a head injury caused by the accused with the said stick. Basing on such report, P.W.13-Investigating Officer registered a case in Crime No.48 of 2017 and investigation was conducted by them, recorded the statements of the witnesses and conducted inquest panchanama and scene of offence panchanama.

To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked Ex.P1 to P13 and M.Os.1 to 5. Basing on the evidence on record and after hearing on both sides, the trial Court convicted the appellant as stated supra.

As seen from the record, there is no eye witness to the alleged commission of offence by the accused for beating his deceased son with M.O.1-stick in their house. Whereas the death of the deceased is not in dispute and P.W.11-Medical Officer, who conducted post mortem, found bleeding injuries as much as seven injuries and death due to the bleeding injuries and there was no cross-examination by the accused. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to the death of the deceased is homicidal. Now, it is to be seen whether the same is caused by the appellant herein.

P.W.2, who is the mother of the deceased and wife of the accused, deposed that she came to know that the accused has demanded the deceased for money for playing cards, on that, the deceased did not give money, as such, the accused beat the deceased with a stick on his head and killed him. P.W.2 evidence is useful to prove the motive for commission of offence. Further, the evidence of PW-2 is that on the date of incident, she was away from her village and went to Sangi Village in the State of Maharashtra and on being informed about the incident over telephone by P.W.4 (D. Hanmanth Rao), she rushed to her house and found the deceased lying with bleeding head injury. P.W.4 informed to P.W.2 that he is also eye witness to the incident.

P.W.4 evidence is that accused confessed the commission of offence to himself, P.Ws.7 and 8, who were at the hotel in the village. The evidence of P.Ws.4, 7 and 8 shows that the accused had confessed before them that he committed the offence but he has not confessed about demanding of money with the deceased for playing cards. There is no other evidence to show that the accused is addicted to any bad vices. Whereas the tenor cross-examination of the said witnesses reveals that accused want to prove that the he was not in that village as on the date of incident and have taken plea of alibi.

P.W.3 is the son of the accused and he also deposed on the same lines as that of P.W.2. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 consistently prove that the accused was very much present in the village on the date of incident and there is no necessity to give false evidence against the accused by P.W.3.

The accused adduced evidence of D.W.1 (Ismail Khan) in support of his defence alibi. DW-1 deposed that he knows the accused and his family members. It is stated by P.W.2-wife of the accused in her cross examination that her family has Ac.10-00 gts., of land in the village and her husband used to cultivate the said land at the time of the alleged incident. D.W.1 stated that he is having agricultural land beside the land of accused in the village. According to D.W.1, at the relevant time of alleged incident, the accused went to Nanded in order to discharge his debts, whereas there is discrepancy in the plea of alibi put forth on behalf of the accused as well as to the presence of the accused in the village at the relevant time. The examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. reveals that his younger brother to be the witness in his defence but the said younger brother was not examined by the accused. In his cross-examination, D.W.1 admitted the misconduct of the accused with the deceased and he also admitted that at the request of the younger brother of the accused, he appeared before the Court and it is the crucial admission of D.W.1 to prove that his evidence is false.

P.Ws.2 and 3 being mother and elder brother of the deceased Anil stated about their return to the village soon after receiving information of the accused beating the deceased with a stick and then finding the deceased with bleeding injury to his head and the Doctor of Government Hospital, Madnoor, has declared the deceased to have been brought dead. P.W.3 stated that the accused used to quarrel with his mother-P.W.2 and his younger brother, who is the deceased Anil, demanding money for playing cards. P.W.3 is working at Nanded for the past 7 to 8 years and he used to visit his house at Pedda Takli Village on occasion of festivals.

P.Ws.4, 7 and 8 are the crucial witnesses and the accused confessed the commission of offence to these three witnesses. Nothing was elicited in favour of the accused during their cross examination.

P.W.5 is the driver of the Car belonging to one Raju Desai of Pedda Takli Village. His evidence is that on the date of incident, at about 03:00 p.m., he was in the said village. P.W.2 approached him and requested to shift her injured son to Government Hospital, Madnoor, and then accordingly, shifted the said injured to the Hospital in the said Car after obtaining permission from his employer.

The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 and the evidence of P.Ws.13 and 14, who are Investigating Officers, corroborating with each other. As such, there are no infirmities in the judgment of the trial Court and the trial Court rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC. Accused is in jail from 01.04.2017. Keeping in view of the age of the accused, as the accused is in jail from last six (6) years, the sentence is reduced to already undergone by the accused.

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The sentence imposed on the appellant/accused in Sessions Case No.185 of 2017, dated 15.06.2018, by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Bodhan, is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.