Palancha Raghuveer, vs State Of Telangana

This Criminal Appeal is filed against the Judgment dated 14.11.2014 in S.C.No.108 of 2013 passed by the learned VIII – Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak.

The case of the prosecution as per the complaint given by the father of the deceased is that he is having three daughters and a son and the deceased Neelima is the third daughter. He performed the marriage of his daughter/Neelima with one Yadagiri, in the year 2001. His son-in-law was picking up quarrel with his daughter frequently. He along with some elders used to solve the issues. They are blessed with two children. On the date of incident at about 5:00 PM, his son-in-law Yadagiri telephoned him and informed that he was taking her daughter to the hospital. Immediately, he along with other family members went to the hospital and found his daughter with three stab injuries on her chest. He also found blood stains in the kitchen and also in the neighboring rooms. Some of the blood stains were appeared to be washed out. He stated that his son-in-law addicted to bad vices and with an intention to eliminate his daughter/deceased, he along with his nephew Raghuveer killed his daughter in Kitchen while she was intended to give food to her children. At that time, the parents of his son-in-law were also present and thus requested the Police to take action against the concerned persons. The complaint was given on the date of incident i.e., on 15.10.2012 at about 9:00 PM. Basing on the said complaint, police registered a case in Cr.No.75 of 2012, under Section 302, 201 r/w.34 of IPC.

To prove the guilt of the appellant/accused, prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P8 on their behalf and also marked M.Os.1 & 2. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer Simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, accused preferred the present appeal.

Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire evidence on record.

P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. In his evidence, he reiterated the contents of the complaint. He gave complaint under Ex.P1. He suspected his son-in-law, as he was harassing his daughter for additional dowry. He has not informed about the time of death. As per Ex.P1, he did not know anything about illicit relationship of the accused with his daughter. In the Cross-examination he stated that he has not stated to the police as that of in Ex.D1 i.e., relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement.

P.W.2 is the son of the deceased aged about 11 years and studying 5th class at the time of deposition. He stated that accused is his cousin (Bava). His mother died on 15.10.2012. He also stated that accused killed his mother with knife on that day at about 2:30 PM. He stated that when he along with his sister returned to the house from the School, his mother went into kitchen to serve food for them. At that time, accused also went into Kitchen and stabbed his mother with M.O.1-knife. He requested the accused not to stab, but he did not stop. Accused also stabbed himself. His father shifted his mother to the hospital in an Auto and he also accompanied his mother. He further stated that Doctor at Medak, declared the death of his mother and then they came back to their house and police recorded their statement. In the Cross-examination, he stated that his uncle name was Kishore and he was working in the Police Department. 10 days prior to the date of incident his father and Kishore beat accused as he was doing wrong. At the time of incident, his father and his friends about 4 or 5 members were in the front room, his grand-father was sleeping and his grand-mother was preparing eatables outside. He also stated that he was staying with his father and grand-parents. He further stated that a knife same to that of M.O.1 was in his house.

P.W.3 is the neighbour of the accused. He stated that he along with Yadagiri and one Ramesh were talking in waranda. Neelima and her mother-in-law were preparing eatables. The children of Yadagiri came to the house and Neelima took them inside the house. Immediately they heard the noise of closing the door and children were shouting that mother has fallen. He along with Yadagiri and Ramesh pushed the door, but doors were not opened. When they questioned who were inside the room, the mother of Yadagiri told that Raghuveer was inside the house. He also stated that when Raghuveer opened the door and fallen to the ground, they found Neelima lying on the ground in a pool of blood and shifted her to the hospital in an Auto. Yadagiri also accompanied them. After crossing Macharam, they informed that Neelima was declared as dead and returned to the house. In the Cross-examination, he stated that he was working as Junior lineman in Electricity Department. He further stated that he did not know whether accused was beaten by Yadagiri and Kishore 10 days prior to the incident, as there was illicit intimacy between accused and Neelima. It was also suggested to him that he was a planted witness, but he denied it.

P.W.4 is the Panch witness for scene of offence panchanama. M.Os.1 and 2 were seized in his presence. Ex.P3 is the rough sketch and Ex.P6 is the inquest report. He stated that his signature was not found on M.O.1.

P.W.5 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon. He stated that injuries are grievous in nature and issued Ex.P5. He also stated that he examined the accused/Raghuveer and found multiple small lacerations on the left side of chest and abdomen.

P.W.6 is the Inspector of Police, who received Ex.P1-complaint, registered a case in Cr.No.75 of 2012 and issued F.I.R under Ex.P6. He admitted that P.W.1 stated to him as that in Ex.D1. P.W.7 is the Inspector of Police, who conducted scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P2. P.W.8 is the Inspector of Police, who completed investigation and filed charge sheet. On 09.11.2012, accused appeared before him and he recorded his confessional statement before Panch witnesses.

Accused in his 313 Cr.P.C statement admitted his illicit relationship with the deceased. He further stated that when it was known to the husband of the deceased, he beat him and also the deceased on 30.09.2012 and warned him. Deceased called the accused on 07.10.2012 and stated that both of them can elope to some other place. He requested her to wait for three months. She called him again on 15.10.2012, as such he came to Medak Bus Stand. In the meanwhile, husband of the deceased took away his vehicle and beat him and also stabbed him with a knife. He fell down and later he was in the Gandhi hospital and surgery was also done. He was in the hospital for 15 days. He was falsely implicated in this case and children were also not present in the house at that time as they went to the school.

The case of the prosecution is that deceased developed illegal intimacy with the accused. When it was known to her husband he along with others planned to do away the life of the accused, as such stabbed the deceased and also the accused, but implicated the accused falsely by saying that he stabbed the deceased and also caused self inflicted injuries. Accused was arrested, as P.W.2-son of the deceased was shown as eye witness to the incident, though the children were not there in the house at the time of incident. P.W.2 stated that he along with his sister came to the house in the evening and seen the accused stabbing his mother, but he stated that he went to the hospital at Medak and doctor declared his mother as dead. Whereas, P.W.3 stated that after crossing Macharam, he was informed that Neelima was declared as dead and returned to the house of Yadagiri. In fact, while recording the statement of P.W.2, the trial Court has to put certain preliminary questions to ascertain the competence of the witness as he was child witness aged about 11 years. The trial Court without ensuring the competence of the witness by way of putting preliminary questions, simply observed that Court is satisfied that the witness is understanding the questions and answering properly and recorded his statement. Prosecution has not examined his school records to show whether the boy was in the school or in the house as on the date of incident. Admittedly, boy is residing with the father and paternal grandparents and thus it is a tutored version. It cannot be solely relied upon for basing conviction.

P.W.1 is the father of the deceased, but he did not know about the illegal intimacy of his daughter with the accused. He gave Ex.P1-complaint. He stated that there were disputes between his daughter and son-in-law, as such his son-in-law called his nephew and killed his wife. P.W.3 neighbour stated that when he along with Yadagiri and Ramesh were talking in waranda, children shouted that their mother fell down. Immediately, they pushed the door, but they could not open the same. When they questioned who were inside the room, mother of the yadagiri told that Raghuveer was inside the house. When he opened the door and fell down, they found Neelima lying on the floor with injuries. Yadagiri and Ramesh were not examined by the police for the reasons best known to them. When accused caused injuries to the deceased, how he sustained injuries were not explained anywhere. Yadagiri and Kishore called the accused, beat him and warned him prior to the incident as per the version of P.W.2, but P.W.3 did not know about the said incident. This evidence creates a doubt coupled with the explanation given by the accused. 313 Cr.P.C examination of the accused clearly gives a doubt whether Raghuveer, nephew of the deceased or Yadagiri-husband of the deceased is an accused in this case, but there was no investigation on this aspect. In a criminal jurisprudence, it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt, the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused. As per the evidence of P.W.3, both deceased and accused sustained injuries. In the house, mother of Yadagiri was also present. In fact, she informed that Raghuveer/accused was inside the house and he himself opened the door and fell down, but the mother of Yadagiri was not examined. She is the proper person to say what exactly happened inside the Kitchen, who caused injuries to Neelima and to Raghuveer/accused to investigation officer. P.W.1 also stated regarding the strained relationship between deceased and her husband, but there was no investigation towards the said angle. There are several lacunas and lapses in the investigation. There is no investigation regarding the illicit relationship of the deceased with accused and it is not known to the father of the deceased i.e., P.W.1. Accused stated that he did not know about the death of the deceased and children were not there in the house. At that time, they went to school and returned only in the evening and they were tutored to allege against him.

The learned Counsel for the accused relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lakshmi singh and others Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1976 SC 2263, in which it was held that when prosecution failed to explain the injuries on the present accused, it can be presumed as follows:

i) that the accused had inflicted the injuries on the members of the prosecution party in exercise of the right of self defence.

ii) It makes the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

iii) It does not affect the prosecution case at all.

He further argued that in this case, the injuries on the accused were not explained, as such the benefit of doubt is to be extended to him.

The trial Court relied upon the evidence of the child witness, convicted the accused. The Hon’ble Apex Court time and again stated that it is a settled principle that when two views are possible, one which is in favour of the accused is to be taken. In this case, accused was convicted and is in jail from 14.11.2014 and he was released on 02.01.2023 and thus he was in jail for a period of more than 9 years. As the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused and he should be acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned VIII - Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak, against appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, by judgment dated 14.11.2014 in S.C.No.108 of 2013, is hereby set aside and he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C for offence under Section 302 of IPC and he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case and his bail bonds stands cancelled. M.Os.1 & 2 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.