Gokam Yadaiah vs State of Telangana

K.Surender, J

The appellant was found guilty of committing murder of his wife by strangulation and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC vide judgment in S.C.No.530 of 2014 dated 28.10.2015 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

According to the prosecution case, the appellant is A1 and the acquitted accused A2 is father of A1 and A3 is his friend. The case as projected by the prosecution is that 14 years prior to the day on which the dead body was found i.e., 13.10.2013, the marriage of the deceased and appellant/A1 was performed. They had two sons and one of them was examined as P.W.7 and he was aged around 14 years when the incident happened. The deceased was addicted to toddy and was frequently quarrelling with A1 and father-in-law(A2). The motive, according to the prosecution is that an amount of Rs.50,000/- loan was availed by A2 from Union Bank of India and said amount was handed over to the deceased for safe custody. However, the deceased spent that amount for consuming toddy. For which reason, altercation ensued in between the deceased and the father-in-law/A2. On account of the conduct of the deceased misusing Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of consuming toddy, the appellant along with A2 and A3 planned to murder the deceased. Accordingly, A1 with the help of A2 and A3 took the deceased near to Karnamaiah kunta and strangulated her. Later, her saree was tied to a boulder and body was pushed into said tank (water body).

According to P.W.1(Village Revenue Officer), on 18.03.2014, A1 told him that he killed his wife with the help of his father (A2 and friend (A3). After killing her, he removed silver chains from her legs and handed over one chain each to A2 and A3. On the very same day, P.W.1 came to know that skeleton bones and saree of A1’s wife were floating in the water tank. Due to fear that police might harass him, A1 went and confessed to P.W.1 regarding the murder.

P.W.1 in turn went to the police and informed that A1 confessed before him regarding committing murder of his wife. The police had taken suo motu action on the basis of information and registered FIR. In the FIR Ex.P14, the type of information was shown as ‘suo motu’. On the basis of the said information, A1 to A3 were shown as accused in the FIR. Thereafter, the accused were taken into custody. In the presence of witnesses, confession was recorded under Ex.P2. At the bottom of Ex.P2, it was endorsed by Inspector of Police as follows:

“To

SHO, Hanwada.

You are invited to register the above contents of the confessional statement of the accused under Section 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC and issue FIR. Send the case diary file to my camp at Karnamaiah Kunta for further investigation.”

The skeleton remains were taken and sent for DNA examination. In the DNA examination, it was found that the bones belong to the mother of P.W.7. Accordingly, the identity of the skeleton was established as the wife of the appellant and the mother of P.W.7.

On the basis of the confession made and other circumstantial evidence, charge sheet was filed.

Having framed charges, the learned Sessions Judge examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P1 to P15 on behalf of prosecution. MOs.1 to 5 were also placed on record by prosecution. On the basis of the following circumstances, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant.

i) The appellant confessed to P.W.1 regarding commission of crime.

ii) Skeleton remains were seized and it was established that the DNA testing of the skeletal remains were that of the wife of the appellant.

iii) Though the wife was missing, the appellant never informed anyone.

iv) MOs.4 and 5 which are silver anklets of the deceased were recovered from A1, A2 and A3.

v) There was ‘last seen’ evidence of P.W.4. P.W.4 stated that the appellant entered into quarrel with the deceased and thereafter, deceased was not seen.

On the basis of the circumstantial evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found that the said circumstances formed a complete chain which points out unerringly towards the guilt of the appellant.

Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that according to the prosecution, the crime was registered on the basis of information provided by P.W.1. However, Ex.P2 confession panchanama reflects that the Inspector directed registration of FIR on the basis of confession of A1. There is any amount of discrepancy in the very registration of FIR. Further, the prosecution has failed to prove that it was the appellant who had caused her death. Only for the reason of not informing about the missing wife that in itself cannot form basis to infer that it was the appellant who had caused the death of his wife. In fact, on the very same evidence, A2 and A3 were acquitted by the learned Sessions Court.

On the other hand, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the conduct of the appellant, who is the husband, not informing about missing wife casts any amount of doubt regarding the version of the appellant. The normal conduct would be that if the wife is not found, husband would either lodge complaint with the police and/or enquire any of the villagers and try to find her. A1 kept quite till the skeleton was found. The said circumstances are enough to indicate that the appellant was responsible for causing the death of the deceased.

Having gone through the evidence, the evidence of P.W.9/doctor is as follows:

“On 19.03.2014 Sub-Inspector of Police, Hanwada, sent skeleton bones of one Gokam Chandrakala to me. As there was no possibility of conducting post mortem, I could not conduct post mortem over the said bones. I referred the said bones to Forensic Science Laboratory for DNA test to compare with the DNA of PW-

The F.S.L examined the broken skull and legs of the deceased with the blood sample of P.W.7 and sent Ex.P12 report along with DNA analysis chart stating that the Autosomal STR analysis conclusively proves that the source item No.3 (long bone) is biologically related to Gokam Naresh (P.W.7).

Basing on Ex.P12, I issued Ex.P13 final opinion stating that cause of death could not be evaluated as incomplete skeleton bones sent for PME and DNA of the skeleton bones (long bone) is biologically related to Gokam Naresh (son) as per FSL report.”

According to P.W.9, he could not give cause of death nor he could evaluate any reason for death as the skeleton bones sent for postmortem examination and DNA testing were not sufficient to draw an inference regarding cause of death.

It is the case of the prosecution that A1 had strangulated the deceased with the help of A2 and A3 and threw her into the water body. In the event of strangulation, in most of the cases, there would be hyoid bone fracture. Death may also be caused by strangulation without there being fracture of hyoid. However, the burden is always on the prosecution to prove that the death was homicidal. Death may be homicidal, suicidal or accidental. The possibility of the deceased drowning into the water body and dying was not ruled out by the prosecution by any scientific evidence. In the absence of proof that the death was caused by any external act or homicidal, only on the basis of the alleged confession made by the appellant that he killed his wife by strangulation cannot be made basis to draw an inference of homicide. Even if extrajudicial confession is made to P.W.1, it needs corroboration from other sources. The corroborating factor of the death being homicidal was not proved by the prosecution by any admissible evidence. This Court cannot assume that the death was homicidal. As already stated, accidental or suicidal death was not ruled out.

Any amount of suspicion in a case cannot form basis to convict accused. The prosecution has to stand on its own legs and not on the basis of the alleged confession or an assumption that the deceased was killed and the death was homicidal. Since the prosecution failed to prove that the death was homicidal, though explanation was given by the Doctor that the skeleton remains that were given were not enough to give an opinion regarding death, benefit cannot be extended to the prosecution but the benefit has to go to the appellant.

Giving benefit of doubt, appellant succeeds and accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction recorded vide judgment in S.C.No.530 of 2014 dated 28.10.2015. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand canceled.

l Appeal is disposed of granting liberty to the appellants to approach the Sessions Court.