Metlakunta Raj Kumar, Sangareddy Dt. vs State Of Telangana

This Criminal Appeal is filed against the Judgment dated 19.10.2015 in S.C.No.446 of 2013 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak, Sangareddy.

The case of the prosecution is that appellant/accused No.1 alleged to have killed the deceased and is alleged that accused committed offences punishable under Section 302 and of IPC. To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P1 to P13 on their behalf and also marked M.Os.1 to 9. The Trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides and also the entire evidence on record, convicted the accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C, and acquitted the accused No.2 under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said judgment, A.1 preferred the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant/A.1 mainly contended that there is no direct evidence against A.1, but on the same incident, accused No.2 was acquitted and also stated that suspicion is not a sufficient proof for the offence. The Sub-Inspector/Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses till 10.09.2013. There is no legal evidence to convict A.1 and lacks credibility and truthfulness. P.W.3, in his evidence stated that due to disputes between deceased and A.1, they were living separately. There is no evidence to show that deceased was living separately with A.1. From the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, it shows that there is no corroborative evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, but still the Trial Court erred in passing the conviction basing on their evidence and erstwhile M.Os.2 to 5 are not proved. P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 9 are not blood relatives. The Trial Court even though failed to appreciate the motive of the offence and material objects, convicted the appellant/A.1. P.W.1 clearly stated that she came to know that deceased No.1 developed illicit intimacy with A.1. The prosecution failed to establish the finger prints of the appellants. Therefore, requested this Court to set aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court.

The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased No.1 and grandmother of deceased No.2. Initially, after performing the marriage of deceased no.1, she went to her in-laws house at Mogudampally and after the birth of deceased No.2, deceased No.1 and her husband got separated. After that the deceased No.1 started living with P.W.1 in Mannapur, but she developed illegal intimacy with A.1 and it was known to all the villagers, as such deceased No.1 and A.1 along with deceased No.2 left the village and started living in a rental house of Kamalamma at Bagareddypally. Accused No.1 already married and he developed suspicion about the character of the deceased No.1. P.W.1 along with her son gave complaint under Ex.P1 and stated that deceased No.1 after the desertion of marriage with her husband came to her house along with the deceased No.2 and stated that she was not in a position to maintain herself and her children and so out of frustration, she committed suicide. When P.W.1 visited the house of deceased No.1 in Bagareddypally and enquired Kamalamma, she came to know that there are disputes between deceased No.1 and accused No.1 and he might have killed deceased Nos.1 and 2, as such P.W.1 gave another complaint under Ex.P.2 to establish the above evidence.

P.W.1 stated that one Bhikku/ P.W.7 informed her about the death of her daughter and granddaughter and immediately she along with her two sons, Bichanna and Ramulu went to the place and found that the bodies of deceased were hanging to a tree with a saree and gave complaint to the police, Chiragpally under Ex.P1 and it bears her thumb impression. Two days after the funeral, her sons went to the house of Kamlamma and enquired about the deceased and A.1 and gave complaint under Ex.P2. M.O.1 is the saree used for hanging of deceased Nos.1 and 2 and also stated that she performed the marriage of deceased No.1 with one Narasimhulu at Mogudampally. In the cross-examination, she stated that while deceased was carrying pregnancy of five months, she separated from her first husband and later she developed illegal intimacy with auto rickshaw driver and a complaint was registered by a Constable. She further stated that her daughter, deceased No.1 lived with her for about 7 years. When deceased No.1 was in Bagareddypally, she visited her house for ten times, but her sons never visited the house of deceased No.1. When P.W.1 visited the house of the deceased No.1 in Bagareddypally, she informed that A.1 had developed suspicion about her character. She also stated that her village is at a distance of 4 or 5 kms from Bagareddypally. It was suggested to her that A.1 is noway concerned with the death of the deceased and deceased committed suicide out of frustration, as she was unable to maintain herself.

P.W.2 is the son of P.W.1. He stated that when he met Kamalamma, he came to know that there were always quarrels between A.1 and deceased No.1 and on the said date of incident, when deceased No.1 went for coolie work, A.1 brought her to the house and took her along with her daughter on his motorcycle, as such, he lodged a complaint under Ex.P2 against A.1. In the cross-examination, he stated that he visited the house of Kamalamma only once. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 stated that they have informed to the police that they came to know about the death of deceased Nos.1 and 2 through Bhikku. P.W.3 is Kamalamma, who is the owner of the house, in which both A.1 and deceased Nos.1 and 2 resided as tenants. She stated that both of them lived in her house for about two years and thereafter disputes arose between them and A.1 used to beat deceased No.1 suspecting her fidelity. When deceased No.1 went out of the house in the morning for doing coolie work under Samual, A.1 came to her and asked about the whereabouts of deceased No.1 and she informed that the deceased No.1 went to coolie work under said Samual. Immediately, A.1 went to the place where deceased No.1 was working and brought her to the house and both of them quarreled with each other. A.1 while beating deceased No.1, threatened to kill her. When deceased No.2 returned from school, accused No.1 took deceased Nos.1 and 2 and went away on his motorcycle. Later, she came to know about the death of deceased Nos.1 and 2. In cross-examination, she stated that there were three portions in her house and she was residing in one portion and the tenants were living in other two portions. In one portion, the deceased Laxmi, was residing along with her husband, daughter and her sister. She also stated that she did not know about the past life of deceased No.1. She further stated that due to disputes between deceased No.1 with the wife of A.1, they were living separately in separate portions.

P.W.4 is the Samual, with whom deceased No.1 was working. He stated that about four months back, accused No.1 stopped doing coolie work and he engaged in driving the auto and about five months back at 10.00 AM, when deceased No.1 came for doing coolie work, accused No.1 came on motorcycle and took deceased No.1 on motorcycle by saying that he had some work with deceased No.1. On the next day, he came to know about the death of deceased Nos.1 and 2. He further stated that he went to the Hospital and saw the dead bodies of deceased Nos.1 and 2. P.W.5 is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama and M.Os.2 to 5 were seized in his presence. Ex.P3 is panchanama of scene of offence and Ex.P4 is the rough sketch. P.W.6 is panch for confession and seizure panchanama. Accused No.1 confessed that he along with another person (accused No.2) killed his deceased wife and daughter suspecting that his deceased No.1 was having illicit relations with others. Motorcycle No. AP 28 AJ 0725 was seized by the police on which, A.1 took them to the scene of offence. M.Os.7 to 9 are seized in his presence. Ex.P6 is the portion of confession cum seizure panchanama. He stated that A.1 informed that the land wherein he took the deceased was belonging to the mother of deceased No.1.

P.W.7 is Bhikku, who found the dead bodies of deceased Nos.1 and 2. He stated that when he went to his agricultural land, found the dead bodies of deceased Nos.1 and 2 and he informed to P.W.1, but he did not know the reason of death and did not know the relation between A.1 and deceased No.1. P.W.8 is the photographer, who took photographs under Ex.P7. P.W.9 is panch for inquest panchanama under Exs.P8 and P9. He stated that he observed a black mark over the necks of the deceased persons due to hanging with a saree. P.W.10 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, who conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of deceased Nos.1 and 2. Ex.P.10 is the P.M.E report of deceased No.1 and the cause of death is asphyxia due to manual strangulation and Ex.P.11 is the P.M.E report of deceased No.2 and the cause of death is asphyxia due to smothering. P.W.11 stated that A.1 was apprehended five days after the incident. P.W.12 is Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered a case vide Cr.No.51 of 2013 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and issued FIR under Ex.P.12 and after receiving another complaint, issued a memo under Ex.P.13. He clearly stated that he has not visited the village and he did not know whether the deceased developed illegal intimacy with others.

The Trial Court considering the entire evidence on record convicted A.1 and acquitted A.2. However, A.1 contended that deceased no.1 committed suicide out of frustration due to financial problems. Even P.W.1 in Ex.P1 stated the same reason, but later in Ex.P2 it was stated that A.1 might have killed the deceased Nos.1 and 2.

Now it is for this Court to see whether the death of deceased Nos.1 and 2 is because of suicide or homicide.

The evidence of the doctor clearly shows that it is a case of manual strangulation for deceased No.1 and smothering for deceased No.2. As per the case of prosecution, the dead bodies of the deceased Nos.1 and 2 were hanging to the banyan tree on either side with a saree-M.O.1, but it is practically not possible to commit suicide to either side of saree. Basing on the oral evidence of Kamalamma, there were disputes between accused No.1 and deceased No.1 and also the scene of offence is the land belongs to the mother of deceased No.1. It shows that it is clearly a homicide but not suicide. P.W.3-Kamalamma stated that on the date of incident, A.1 took away the deceased Nos.1 and 2 on his motorcycle and later she came to know that deceased Nos.1 and 2 committed suicide. She is the only person, who saw the accused No.1 lastly, but she can only say to the extent of accused No.1 proceeding on his motorcycle along with deceased Nos.1 and 2. No doubt, deceased No.1 deserted her husband and developed illegal intimacy with accused No.1 and started staying with him for about several years and was working with P.W.4-Samual. As accused No.1 developed suspicion towards her character, he killed deceased Nos.1 and 2 by hanging them in the land of the mother of deceased No.1. Though, it is the case of homicide, there are ill feelings between the accused No.1 and deceased No.1 and they were living separately and it was also brought in evidence that accused No.1 was suspecting her character, but itself is not sufficient to commit the offence. Fingerprints on the dead bodies of the deceased Nos.1 and 2 were collected and sent to the FSL to match the fingerprints of accused No.1, but it was not established by examining fingerprint expert.

The Trial Court convicted A.1 on 19.10.2015 and from then, he is in jail for 8 years. It is the case of prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and A.2 was acquitted for the same offence and parity should be maintained between both the accused. Except the recovery of M.O.6 from scene of offence, there is no other evidence to connect the accused with the offence. Suspicion however strong will not take the place of proof. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sujit Biswas Vs State of Assam 2013 Cri.LJ 3140 (SC), it was held as follows:

Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that `may be’ proved, and something that `will be proved’. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between `may be’ and `must be’ is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between `may be’ true and `must be’ true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between `may be’ true and `must be’ true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense.

Considering the investigation, as the prosecution failed to prove the nexus between the offence and the accused, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to set aside the Judgment passed by the Trial Court.

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 19.10.2015 in S.C.No.446 of 2013 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak, Sangareddy and acquitting the appellant/A.1 under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C and he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any case. M.Os.1 to 5 and 7 to 9 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time. M.O.6 can be handed over to the appellant/A.1, after the expiry of appeal time.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.