Kodari Raju Kumar vs State Of Telangana

This appeal is filed against the Judgment dated 17.06.2014 in S.C.No.263 of 2013, passed by the learned Special Judge for trial of offences under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act-cum-VI–Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad.

The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused murdered his mother, as she did not hand over her gratuity pension to him. The trial Court examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and marked Exs.P1 to P15 on behalf of the prosecution and also marked M.Os.1 to 7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted the accused under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and he is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, accused preferred the present appeal.

The appellant/accused mainly contended that there is no direct witness to the occurrence and the present case is based on the circumstantial evidence. It was also contended that the trial Court erred in holding that the death of the deceased was homicide and there is no absolute motive for the accused to kill his mother. P.Ws.3, 4 and 7 did not support the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile. The deceased died due to fall on hard surface, but the trial Court wrongly convicted the accused basing on inadmissible evidence. The trial Court erred in thinking that non-availability of the accused near the dead body proves his guilt. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Judgment of the trial Court.

P.W.1 in his evidence stated that accused is his own brother. He along with his mother, accused and his wife were residing in the same house. His father died in the year 2004 while he was in service, as such his mother was given a job in the water works department. The accused was an Auto driver. He also stated that accused always used to make galata with his mother demanding amount, which she received from the department, as he was habituated to liquor. On 29.07.2012 at around 09:00 PM, accused came to the house in a drunken condition and made galata with his mother demanding the amount. The accused picked up knife and attacked his mother. When he intervened, he sustained injuries on left hand fingers and to his left ribs. Immediately, he went to the Tukaramgate Police Station and Police referred him to the Gandhi Hospital. He returned to his house from hospital at around 11:00 PM, and found his mother dead with injuries on her face in their house. He found granite stone nearby dustbin. When he left the house, his mother, accused along with his wife and the daughter of his sister were present in the house, but when he returned to the house, no one was present in their house. He returned to the Police Station and gave complaint under Ex.P1 stating that accused might have killed his mother. In his Cross-examination, he stated that Police accompanied him to the Gandhi hospital on 29.07.2012. After treatment, when he returned to the house, he found the dead body of his mother. He stated that Police recorded his statement prior to his return to the house. On 30.07.2012, at around 5:00 PM, the dead body was handed over to him. He performed the funeral of his mother and completed it by around 9:00 PM. He also stated that Ex.P1 was scribed by one Yadagiri on his instructions. The wife of the accused was pregnant as on 29.07.2012. It was suggested to him that on the date of incident, his sister-in-law was not present in their house and she went to her parent’s house for delivery, but he denied it. He also stated that one Supraja was also examined by the Police at the Police Station, but she was not in a position to state all the facts at that time. It was also suggested to him that his mother accidentally slipped and fell down and sustained injuries on head and died, only to get the job of her mother, he falsely implicated the accused in this case, but he denied it. He also stated that he did not put any application for the job of his mother, but he approached the officials of his mother’s office and enquired about the employment and it’s procedure.

P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased. He supported the version of P.W.1 and stated that accused habituated to drinking and used to demand the deceased for money and also used to make galata with P.W.1 and they pacified the matter on 2 or 3 occasions. Even prior to the incident, his sister gave report to the police against the accused about his galata with her and a petty case was also registered. He also stated that P.W.1 telephoned to him and informed that accused beat his mother with granite stone and caused her death. She sustained injuries on her head and P.W.1 sustained injuries on his left hand fingers.

P.W.3 is the neighbour. He stated that occasionally accused used to quarrel with the deceased. When he went to the house of the deceased, he found the dead body of the deceased and found that she sustained injury on the head and he turned hostile. P.W.4 also turned hostile and stated that he found the dead body of the deceased with injury on her head. He further stated that accused, his brother and deceased used to consume alcohol. P.W.5 is another neighbour. He also stated that he found the dead body of the deceased with injury on her head and in the Cross-examination he stated that people who gathered there were talking that deceased fell down on the stone and died. P.W.6 is also the neighbour. He stated that he came to know that accused killed the deceased, but in his Cross-examination, he has not mentioned the name by whom he came to know that accused killed the deceased. P.W.7 stated that deceased is the wife of his brother-in-law. The deceased was habituated to alcohol. He came to know that accused consumed alcohol and fell down on the stone and died. P.Ws.8 and 9 are Panch witnesses for scene of offence Panchanama and for inquest Panchanama. They are husband and wife. P.W.10 is  the Panch witness for confessional Panchanama and M.Os.1 to 3 was marked through him. In the Cross-examination, he stated that by the time he went to the Police Station, Exs.P8 and P9 were already typed and prepared and he signed on the documents at the Police Station within half an hour. P.W.11 is another Panch witness for confessional Panchanama. In the Cross-examination, he stated that when he went to the Police Station, accused was already in the lockup. The Inspector informed him that accused had already confessed about the offence and he has to sign on the Panchanama.

P.W.12 is the in-charge of clues team. They collected the samples and shifted the dead body from the scene of offence. P.W.13 is the Assistant Professor in department of Forensic Medicine at Gandhi Hospital, who conducted autopsy and found that injuries were caused by a blunt object. He issued Ex.P10 Postmortem examination report. He further stated that injury No.1 was possible by fall. The blunt object may be either rod, wooden piece or any blunt object. It was suggested to him that if a person sustained injury No.1, again raised and if fallen due to consumption of alcohol, injury No.3 is possible, but he denied it. The injury No.2 can be caused depending upon the height of the person and height of area from which the fall occurred and the force. The injury No.3 can be caused by a fall from a height of 10 feet. He also stated that injury No.3 may be possible, if deceased was in scuffle and to avoid the scuffle while running away from the place, if she fallen on the granite stone with force. P.W.14 is the Doctor, who issued wound certificate and stated that the said injuries might have caused by any sharp object, but the age of the injuries was not mentioned. P.W.15 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who received complaint under Ex.P1 and registered a case in Cr.No.110 of 2012 under Section 302 of IPC and issued F.I.R under Ex.P12. Ex.P16 is the Inspector of Police, who conducted investigation and filed Charge sheet basing on the statement of P.W.1 and added Section of law i.e., 307 of IPC under Ex.P14. He also stated that accused beat his mother on 11.05.2012 and created nuisance, as such a petty case was registered in Cr.No.1234 under Section 70(b) of City Police Act and 323 and he was fined to Rs.250/-under STC No.2552 of 2012 on 30.05.2012.

The case of the prosecution is that accused was addicted to drinking. When his father died, his mother was given compassionate appointment and she received certain benefits, when accused demanded amount from his mother, she refused to give the amount, as such he killed her with a knife or he might have killed her with a granite stone. P.W.1 was another son of the deceased. He stated that accused picked up quarrel and intended to kill his mother with knife. When he intervened he caused injury to his left hand fingers, as such immediately he rushed to the Police Station and they referred him to the hospital. When he returned to home at around 11:00 PM, he found the dead body of his mother with injuries on the head. He also stated that when he left the house, wife of the accused, his sister’s daughter aged about 7 years were present in the house, but no one was present when he returned.

In fact, the sister’s daughter of the accused was not examined. It was also stated that wife of the deceased went to her parent’s house for delivery and it was also stated that deceased might have fell down on a stone and sustained head injury and died, as such there is no direct evidence for the death of the accused. Except the evidence of P.W.1, there is no other evidence to prove the case of the prosecution. Some of the witnesses stated that she might have consumed alcohol and fell down or the injuries sustained by her might have caused when she fell down to avoid scuffle and it might have caused head injury. P.W.2 supported the version of P.W.1 regarding the quarrel between accused and the deceased for the amount, but he was not a direct witness. He came to know about the incident only through P.W.1 and neighbours also turned hostile and the prosecution miserably failed to connect the accused with the offence. Even in the medical evidence, P.W.13 stated that all the injuries were caused by the blunt object, she sustained the following three injuries:

i) Laceration of 6 X 2 cm X deep to cranial cavity present on right side forehead. Scalp, underlying vault menages and brain lacerated, vault fractured forehead region depressed inwards brain tissue coming out of the injury.

ii) Abrasion of 12X10 cm present on right side face, underlying maxillary bone fracture, depressed right to left.

iii) Comminuted fracture of 15X8 cm present in anterior cranial fossa in the base of the skull.

In the Cross-examination, she stated that injuries might have been caused by falling or by blunt object, whereas P.W.14 issued Ex.P11 and stated that injuries might have been caused by a sharp object. Initially, when accused intended to kill his mother and picked up galata, P.W.1 intervened. When he sustained injuries to his left hand fingers, he went to Police Station and then he was referred to hospital, as such he was not present at the time of death of his mother. There is no other direct witness to the offence. No doubt even on previous occasion, accused beat his mother, she gave complaint, it  registered as petty case and he was fined Rs.250/- under STC No.2552 of 2012 on 30.05.2012. It can’t be presumed that accused might have attacked his mother, as he has previous criminal history and he was fined in it. Mere suspicion is not proof, however strong it may be. In Criminal cases, it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused and investigation was not done properly. P.Ws.3, 4 and 7 turned hostile. It was not established whether the injuries sustained by the deceased are caused by blunt object or by sharp object. There are several lacunas in the investigation. Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence accused is entitled for benefit of doubt, but the trial Court erred in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and also for the offence under Section 324 of IPC for causing injuries to P.W.1. In fact, as per the medical evidence, he sustained only simple injury. Accused has no intention to cause injury to P.W.1. When he intervened, he sustained injury, as such this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to set aside the Judgment of the trial Court passed against the accused.

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, against the Appellant-Accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 324 of I.P.C., by judgment dated 17.06.2014 in S.C.No.263 of 2013, is hereby set aside and he is acquitted for the said offences under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C and he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. M.Os.1 to 7 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.