Veddepally Krishna vs State Of Telangana

Heard Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant and Sri Muthyala Muralidhar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Challenging the judgment dated 05.09.2014 in S.C.No.13 of 2012 passed by VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Bodhan, the appellant herein/sole accused preferred the present appeal.

Vide aforesaid judgment, the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. He is in jail from 28.08.2010 to 19.01.2011 and from 21.12.2011 to 03.03.2012.

The deceased is the first wife of the appellant and resident of Jadi Village, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District. Appellant and his second wife are residents of Boyepally Village, Guntur District. According to the prosecution, there is some land in Jadi Village in the name of the appellant/accused. He intended to sell the said land for which the deceased/wife objected. So he bore grudge on her and killed her. Thus, according to the prosecution, the motive for commission of offence is the land dispute. The Investigating Officer did not collect the evidence from the revenue authorities. None of the witnesses specifically spoke about the said aspects. However, P.W.5, brother of P.W.1 in his chief - examination deposed that there were disputes with regard to the land. During cross-examination, he has admitted that the accused was having land in his name and he does not know the extent of the land. He further admitted that he do not know the land disputes between the P.W.2, his sister and the accused. Even during the cross-examination, P.W.17-Investigating Officer categorically admitted that he has not collected the documents to show that the deceased was having land. Thus, according to us, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the motive. Even then, in the impugned judgment, the trial Court held that there were land disputes between the appellant and the deceased and the prosecution has proved the same. The said finding of the trial Court is contrary to the record and without basis.

Coming to the injuries inflicted to the deceased, there are serious contradictions in the depositions of P.W.1, P.W.5 and P.W.15. P.W.1-neibhbour of the deceased, in his chief-examination deposed that he saw the deceased with injuries on back side of neck and on the face. Whereas, P.W.2, son of the deceased, in his chief – examination stated that the appellant beat the deceased with axe on her head and she died on the spot.

P.W.15 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He has issued Ex.P.16-post mortem report. According to him, the following injuries were found on the body of the deceased.

i. Laceration below the tongue on right side cutting mandibular bone including alleviator dentition, upto the level of thyroid cartilage measuring 6 x 4 x 5 inches, cutting tracheas, oesophagus, neck muscles and major blood vessels of eh neck, margins irregular.

ii. Laceration right side check above the mandible 4 x 2 x 2 inches margins irregular.

iii. Laceration left cheek on the mandible, cutting left mandible and tongue 4 x 3 x 3 inches margins irregular.

However, he has opined that all the above injuries are ante-mortem injuries and can be caused with blunt object like axe. The injury No.1 could cause death of a person in ordinary course of nature. The cause of death is due to cut injury of the throat above the chin up to the level of thyroid cartilage (cutting the neck muscles, trachea oesophages and major blood vessels). During cross-examination, he has admitted that he do not find the injury over the mouth of the deceased. P.W.2, son of the deceased, also deposed that he saw dead body of his mother in Government Hospital, Bodhan with injury on the back side of the neck. There are serious contradictions with regard to the injuries inflicted to the deceased in the depositions of P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 15.

The trial Court in the impugned judgment gave a finding that the medical evidence is corroborating with the deposition of the other witnesses which is factually incorrect and contrary to the record.

P.Ws. 1 to 6, except P.W.5, all other witnesses including P.Ws.12 and 13-panch witnesses for the confession of the accused turned hostile. P.W.5 is the friend of son of the deceased. In his depositions, he stated that at the time of incident, he was present at his brother (P.W.1) house and heard cries from the house of the deceased. Immediately, he went near the house of the deceased and at that time, the accused and deceased were quarrelling. Then, the accused beat the deceased with axe on her head and she died on the spot.

In fact, the Investigating Officer, did not record his statement. For the first time, police have not recorded the statement. First time, he deposed in the Court. However, during the cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that he went near the compound wall after hearing cries from the house of deceased and he did not enter into the house of deceased. There are houses of Anthoni, Jojappa, Gangavva and Vishwanath around the house of the deceased. Gangavva was examined as P.W.6 and she turned hostile and she did not support the prosecution case. As discussed supra, his evidence is not useful to prove the motive. Therefore, according to us, he is an interested witness. This deposition cannot be trustworthy.

P.W.17-the Investigating Officer. He deposed that on 27.08.2010, he along with P.W.16 visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of P.W.8 and P.W.14, conducted scene of offence panchanama and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence-Ex.P.17. They have seized the blood stained towel, blood stained earth and controlled earth. He recorded the statement of P.Ws.2 to 6. He conducted inquest panchanama-Ex.P.14. FSL report is marked as Ex.P.20. Ex.P.19 is seizure panchanama. In Ex.P.19, there is reference to seizing of the axe. In Ex.P.20 FSL report, item No.7 is the axe with wooden handle, head measuring 14 x 6½ cms with dark brown blood stains. The same was sent to FSL and the same was not exhibited during the trial.

P.W.17-Investigating Officer in his chief-examination categorically deposed that in pursuance of his confession, accused produced one blood stain axe, blood stained shirt, bloodstained dhoti and they were seized under confession Ex.P.19-seizure panchanama. The seized material was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for analysis and report but they were not received by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan till today. But he has taken steps on the same. Being Investigating Officer, it is his duty to take appropriate steps, which he failed to do so.

As discussed supra, P.W.5 is interested witness. His statement is not supported by any other witnesses. Even then, without considering the said aspects, the Court below recorded the conviction against the appellant herein solely relying on the evidence of P.W.5.

It is relevant to note that the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Kishanpal (2008) 16 SCC 73, State of Haryana v. Ram Singh (2002) 2 SCC 426, Mahavir Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 10 SCC 220 and Sudhakar @ Sudharasan v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station, Trichy, Tamil Nadu (2018) 5 SCC 435 categorically held that trial Court cannot convict an accused solely relying on interested witness. The Apex Court also relying on State of Rajasthan Vs.Smt. Kalki (1981) 2 SCC 752 in Kishanpal (supra) categorically held that "Related" is not equivalent to "interested". A witness may be called "interested" only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eyewitness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be "interested"." In the present case, the Investigating Officer failed to record the statement of L.W.5-friend of son of the deceased during the course of investigation. P.W.5 gave his deposition for the first time in the Court. Therefore, solely on his deposition, trial Court cannot record conviction against the appellant/accused. The Apex Court in Mahavir Singh (supra) held that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved.

It is settled law that in criminal jurisprudence, benefit of doubt shall always be given to the accused. In the present case, the accused is 66 years. He is in jail from 28.08.2010 to 19.01.2011 and from 21.12.2011 to 03.03.2012. According to him, he underwent bypass surgery and his health condition is very poor.

As discussed supra, the Investigating Officer did not conduct investigation with regard to land disputes which is the motive for committing the offence. It is the settled law that in criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by producing cogent evidence.

In the light of the above legal principles and evidence on record, in our considered view, in the present case, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the impugned judgment dated 05.09.2014 in S.C.No.13 of 2012 passed by VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Bodhan, is not based on the consideration of the evidence on record and the same is liable to be set aside.

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment, dated 05.09.2014 passed in S.C.No.13 of 2012 by VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Bodhan, is hereby is set aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapalli, is directed to release the appellant/accused from jail forthwith, if he is not required in any other criminal cases.

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