Kanaganti Jaganmohan, Sarangapur Mandal vs S.H.O., Dharmapuri

The instant is an appeal preferred by the appellant / accused under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, ‘the Code’) assailing the judgment of conviction dated 11.12.2014 in Sessions Case No.498 of 2014 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, at Jagtial (for short, ‘the impugned order’).

Heard Mrs. M. Bhagyasri, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, for the respondent-State.

Vide the impugned judgment, the appellant has been found guilty of the charges framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of  Rs. .5,000/- with default stipulation.

From the date of arrest, i.e., 19.06.2014 till date, the appellant is in jail almost for a period of 9 years 10 months.

The case of prosecution in brief is that on 17.06.2014, P.W.1 (Mr. Kanaganti Thirupathi), the son of the deceased and the younger brother of the appellant / accused lodged a report at P.S. Sarangapur (Ex.P.1). In the said complaint, it was alleged that when P.W.1 was at Jagtial in connection with certain purchase of kirana items for his shop that he operates at Arpapally, he received a phone call from P.W.3 (Mr. A. Satish). P.W.3 informed him on phone that the appellant / accused was assaulting his father with a pestle and that his father has received grievous injuries. Based on the said information, P.W.1 rushed back home and found his father lying dead in front of his house with grievous injuries on the head and also on the face. An F.I.R. was lodged and the appellant / accused was taken in custody and the matter was put to trial. The prosecution, in all, examined as many as nine (09) witnesses. Five (05) witnesses were examined in defence. Thereafter, on the recording of statement of the appellant / accused made under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the impugned judgment was passed by the Court below holding the appellant / accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C., and sentenced the appellant / accused to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of  Rs. .5,000/- with default stipulation.

It is this judgment of conviction which is under challenge in the instant appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant / accused primarily contended that the entire conviction of the appellant has been based upon the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 who are said to be eye-witnesses whose deposition before the Trial Court otherwise have large number of discrepancies, omissions and self-contradictions.

Thus, they are not reliable witnesses so as to hold the appellant guilty of having committed the murder of his own father. He further contended that PWs.2 and 3 are interested witnesses and therefore their evidence should not have been given due weightage that was otherwise given by the Trial Court.

He further contended that the statement of PWs.2 and 3, if they are at all taken into consideration, would reveal that by the time they reached the spot the deceased had already fallen dead and that they had not in fact seen the present appellant / accused assaulting the deceased. Thus, the evidence relied upon by the trial Court for convicting the appellant / accused being a weak piece of evidence should not have been relied upon, and therefore, the judgment of conviction to the aforesaid extent deserves to be set aside. He further contended that the prosecution has failed to give a proper explanation as to why the wife of the deceased was not examined. He further contended that the prosecution also committed an error while giving up the evidence of the wife of the appellant / accused without assigning any reasons, thus causing substantial prejudice to the case of the appellant / accused.

Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal strongly contending that the instant is an appeal which does not deserve any sympathetic consideration at all. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, it is a case where the appellant has killed his own father. It was also the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a case where there are two witnesses who have witnessed the accused / appellant assaulting the deceased and who have in very clear terms through their deposition before the Trial Court have supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, at this juncture, there is hardly any scope of interference left for this Court.

Learned Public Prosecutor further took the Court through the cross-examination of P.Ws.2 and 3 and pointed out the fact that there are hardly any questions put to the two witnesses i.e. P.Ws.2 and 3 to doubt their witnessing the attack as narrated by them in their examination in chief. In the absence of any strong evidence available on record to either hold the statement of the two witnesses to be incorrect and false and also in the absence of any substantial materials to show that P.Ws.2 and 3 have deposed against the appellant / accused for extraneous reasons or for the reason that they had an animosity with the accused / appellant. In the absence of which also, the statement of P.Ws.2 and 3 cannot be discarded, nor the finding of guilt by the Trial Court relying upon the two witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3 can be said to be unreasonable and contrary to the evidence available on record.

Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, it is necessary at this juncture, to take note of the fact that the date of incident is 17.06.2014. The deceased is the father of the accused / appellant. Complainant P.W.1 (Mr. Kanaganti Thirupathi) is the brother of the accused / appellant. There are two eye-witnesses examined in the course of evidence by the prosecution before the Trial Court. P.W.2 is the paternal uncle of the accused / appellant and brother of the deceased and P.W.3 is the neighbor whose house is opposite the house of the deceased. There is consistency in the statement of P.W.2, the brother of the deceased and the paternal uncle of the accused / appellant and the statement by another neighbor P.W.3 (Mr. A. Satish).

For better understanding of the evidence that has come on record, it would be relevant at this juncture to reproduce the relevant portion of the deposition of the two eye-witnesses, viz., PW.2 and PW.3.

PW.2 (K. Nadipi Gangaram), narrated the incident before the Court below stating as under, viz.,

“On 17.06.2014 at about 02:30 p.m. when we saw the accused giving beatings on his father and while he fleeing away after giving beatings then myself and that Satish made attempts to rescue my brother Gangaiah and to caught hold the accused. The accused gave beatings on his father with a pestle. He sustained injuries on his head and also on his stomach. He had instant death on the spot. The accused used to quarrel with the deceased by saying that the deceased expending entire amount for the welfare of PW.1 and not keeping anything for him. The police examined me.”

Likewise, PW.3 (A. Satish), also in his deposition before the Court below has narrated the incident that he saw, as under :

“About 5 months back, while I was at my house at 02:30 p.m. upon hearing the shouts of that Gangaiah, I came out from the house and noticed the accused herein beating his father with a pestle. Along with me, P.W.2 was also there at the scene and we both witnessed the beatings given by accused on his father. Both of us made attempts to rescue the father of the accused from the beatings, but the accused beat mercilessly on the head of the father. Due to those beatings lot of blood oozed out from the head and after his falling on the ground, the accused beat him with a stick also. When myself and PW.2 made attempts to caught hold the accused, he escaped from the scene along with pestle by throwing the stick at the scene. Immediately, I informed about the incident to PW.1 on phone who was at Jagtial.”

Going through the cross-examination of these two eye-witnesses, there does not seem to be a suggestion put to these two eye-witnesses of them having making a false statement for extraneous reasons or because of any strained relationship that they have with the appellant / accused.

Both P.Ws.2 and 3 who are the eye-witnesses to the incident reside in the close vicinity of the house of deceased and from the house of the aforesaid eye-witnesses, the place of incident is clearly visible. Another fact which needs to be appreciated is the fact that both P.Ws.2 and 3 did not have any animosity with the accused / appellant.

In the given factual backdrop, what is relevant to be considered is, the deposition of P.Ws.2 and 3. A plain reading of their evidences would clearly reflect that there is a consistency in the statement that they make in respect of the death of the deceased. Both of them have in very categorical terms made a statement that when they heard loud cry of the deceased in the afternoon, they came out of their house and saw that the accused / appellant beating his father, the deceased, with a pestle. Immediately, P.Ws.2 and 3 rushed to the place of incident, however, the accused / appellant escaped from the spot. No plausible explanation has been provided by the accused / appellant as to why the two eye witnesses would depose against the accused / appellant. There is nothing even to suggest that P.Ws.2 and 3 have made a false statement for extraneous consideration.

Thus, taking into consideration the proximity of their house from the place of incident and the location of their house, gives a clear view of the surroundings, and therefore, there does not seem to be a false statement being made by them or it was practically not possible to have seen the incident.

Another fact which needs to be considered is that the statement of P.W.1, the complainant, whose evidence also strengthens the deposition made by P.Ws.2 and 3 as a narration of the facts till the stage of offence being committed being same without any exaggeration by any of the witnesses. Therefore, the finding arrived at by the Trial Court is strictly in accordance with the evidence it has come on record.

For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any strong case made out by the accused / appellant calling for interference to the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and the present appeal deserves to be and is thereby, rejected. No costs.

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