Telangana High Court
Smt. Chakali Bassamma, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 18 December, 2020
Author: Raghvendra Singh Chauhan
Bench: Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, A.Abhishek Reddy
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1047 and 1151 of 2012
Date : 18.12.2020
Between:
Criminal Appeal No.1047/2012
Smt.Chakali Bassamma (A.3) ...Appellant
And
The State of A.P.,
Rep.by Public Prosecutor .. Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1151/2012
Chakali Veerappa (A.1)
Chakali Devappa (A.2) ...Appellants
And
The State of A.P.,
Rep.by Public Prosecutor .. Respondent
Crl.Appeal No.1047/2012
Counsel for the appellant : Mr.P.Prabhakar Reddy for
Mr.M.Achuta Reddy
Counsel for the respondent : Smt.J.Sridevi, Addl.Public
Prosecutor
Crl.Appeal No.1151/2012
Counsel for the appellants : Mr.P.Prabhakar Reddy
Counsel for the respondent : Smt.J.Sridevi, Addl.Public
Prosecutor
The Court made the following:
HCJ & AARJ
2 Crl.A.Nos.1047&1151 of 2012
COMMON JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice A.Abhishek Reddy) Both these criminal appeals are disposed of by this common Judgment as they arise out of the same Judgment, dated 04.09.2012, in S.C.No.101 of 2011 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act- cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.
2) Criminal Appeal No.1047 of 2012 is filed by Accused No.3 viz., Smt.Chakali Bassamma whereas Criminal Appeal No.1151 of 2012 is filed by Accused Nos.1 and 2 viz., Chakali Veerappa and Chakali Devappa @ Devender, in Sessions Case No.101 of 2011 whereby and whereunder A.1 to A.3 were convicted under Section 235 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short, 'Cr.P.C.') and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment(in short 'R.I.') for six months for the offence under Section 342 of Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC'), and further convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment (in short, 'S.I.') for one month. Further, A.1 and A.2 were sentenced to suffer R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC, whereas A.3 was sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC.
3) Briefly, the facts are that on 31.12.2009 around 2.00 p.m., one Karnam Yashuvardhan, P.W.5, gave a report (Ex.P.2) at Damargidda Police Station, Mahabubnagar District, wherein he has stated that"I, Karunam Sri Yeshovardhna S/o.Sathyanarayan, age: 40 yrs, occ: Munnr Kapur, Occ: Sarpanch, R/o.Kandenapally HCJ & AARJ 3 Crl.A.Nos.1047&1151 of 2012 village. Do hereby inform that today 31-12-09 at the early hours at 3.00 a.m., while I was sleeping in the house our villager One Harijan Mogulappa knocked our doors and woke up me on opening the doors I saw Mogulappa and our villagers Dasari Venkatamma, Dasari Chandrappa and Dasari Narsappa informed me that in the house of Chakali Narandhamma the brother-in-laws of Chakali Narandhamma viz., Chakali veerappa S/o.Chinna Gopalu, age: 40 yrs, and his brother Devappa @ Devender beat Sri Dasappa and Narandhamma beat and kill them, immediately I along with Hari went to the house of Chakali Narandhamma and saw the house was locked. The Kavalkar Ashappa broken the lock of the door and went inside the house and saw Sri Hanmanth Dasu @ Addasu @ Dasappa S/o Balappa, age : 38 yrs, was tied to a pole with plastic rope and beat him on his head with sticks and also on other parts of the body. Chakali Narandhamma was also having injuries on her head and hands and was fell down unconscious near Dasappa. Since 4 years there is illegal contact with Dasappa by Chakali Narandhamma. Last year also on the festival of Moharam (Peerla Panduga) the said Chakali Veerappa and Chakali Devappa @ Devender warned Dasappa to stop the illegal contacts with their sister-in-law and beat him and also injured him if the illegal contacts are not stopped they are going to kill him, and also threatened him. In that series today on 31-12-09 at 2 hours in the early hours the deceased came to the house of Chakali Narandhamma and was along with Narandhamma, the same was observed and beat him and killed Dasappa mean while when Narandhamma intervened she was also beaten and she fell unconscious. The injured HCJ & AARJ 4 Crl.A.Nos.1047&1151 of 2012 Narandhamma was shifted in 108 to Govt Hospital Narayanpet for treatment purpose."
4) On the basis of the said report, the Police registered an FIR viz., FIR No.74 of 2009 (Ex.P.23) for the offence under Sections 342, 307, 302 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The investigation commenced and during the course of the said investigation, the Police Officer (P.W.6) arrested the accused on 07.01.2010, and they were put up for trial. In order to support its case, the Prosecution examined 16 witnesses and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.30 and MOs 1 to 3 were marked. On behalf of the defence, nobody was examined nor any document was marked. The learned trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence, by judgment, dated 04.09.2012, has convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. Hence, the present appeals before this Court.
5) Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellants, has raised the following contentions before this Court:
a) that the entire conviction is based on the circumstantial evidence and there is no direct witness to the incident which would establish that the accused were present at the scene of offence and that the accused have committed the offence;
b) that most of the prosecution witnesses are the relatives of the deceased, and therefore no credence can be given to the testimony of those witnesses;
c) the learned trial Court had failed to appreciate that the scene of offence was the house of P.W.8, and ignoring the same the trial Court has grossly erred in holding that the deceased was HCJ & AARJ 5 Crl.A.Nos.1047&1151 of 2012 found lying in the house of the accused and the same is contrary to the evidence given by PWs 2 to 4 and 7; and
d) that the only eye witness to the incident (P.W.8) did not support the case of the prosecution and as such there is no oral evidence to support the case of the Prosecution and the accused are in no way involved in the commission of the offence.
6) Smt.J.Sridevi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has vehemently contended that the circumstances clinchingly point out to the guilt of the accused and all the links in the chain of events are established beyond reasonable doubt by the Prosecution; the testimony of PWs 2 to 4 and 7 clearly establish that the accused were very much present at the time of commission of the offence and all the witnesses i.e. PWs 2 to 4 and 7 have clearly deposed that the accused were present at the time of commission of offence and as such the learned trial Court was justified in convicting the appellants and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment, which warrants any interference by this Court in the present appeals.
7) Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellants, and Smt.J.Sridevi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Perused the entire material on record, including the impugned judgment.
8) P.W.2-Smt.Dasari Venkatamma, who is the mother of the deceased, has deposed as under:
... On the date of incident was Holiday. On the date of incident during night time he went to center of the village to participate Holi celebrations but he never returns to home. After 1 hour I went in search of my son, HCJ & AARJ 6 Crl.A.Nos.1047&1151 of 2012 that on reaching near the house of Accused I heard the cries of my so and the Accused. Thereafter I went to house of P.W.1. and returned to the house of Accused and found the house was locked. I went to the house of complainant and informed him, he came and got opened the doors of house of Accused with the help of village servant. I found my son was tied to a pole the accused were standing outside the house. I found injuries on legs, on shoulders. The Accused themselves killed my son. Police recorded my statement.
9) P.W.3-Dasari Chandrappa, who is the maternal uncle of the deceased, has deposed as under:
... On the date of incident during midnight L.W.5. came to my house informed that the Accused had tied the deceased in their house and were beating him. Then I alongwith P.W.1., 2, and one Balappa and L.W.5. went to the house of Accused. By the time we went there the house was locked and Accused present there. Thereafter we all went to house of surpanch and he also came there and got opened the doors by the village servant. We found the deceased was tied to a pole and died. We found injuries on leg all the Accused were staying outside the house. The deceased was having illicit intimacy with sister-in-law of A2 and herself came there."
10) P.W.4-Dasari Narsappa, who is the brother of the deceased, has deposed as under ... About 2 years back on Pournami Day went outside of the house, but he did not return to home. His wife and mother searched for him At about 1.00 A.m., when I was returning reaching house my mother came to my house, informed about missing of my brother. And also informed me that some quarrel was going near the house of Accused I went there and by that time my mother was already present there the Accused were already present there. I enquired them about my brother. They informed me that they will open the door on next day morning.
HCJ & AARJ 7 Crl.A.Nos.1047&1151 of 2012 Then I went to house of complainant and informed about incident. The complainant also came there alongwith village servants and opened the doors and found my brother was died. I observed injuries on legs, head. His hands were also fractured. The Accused themselves killed my brother on the ground that he got illegal contacts with sister-in-law of A1 and A2.
11) P.W.7-Smt.Dasari Bhaeemamma, the wife of the deceased, has deposed as under:
... My husband died about 2 years back. My husband had illegal intimacy with L.W.9. On the date of incident, at Moharam day the deceased went to the village centre to see the celebrations, but they did not return. Then I alongwith P.W.2 to 4 went in search of my husband and found my husband was lying dead in the house of L.W.9. I came to know that the Accused beat and killed my husband due to illegal intimacy with L.W.9.
12) All the above witnesses have consistently deposed the fact that the accused were present at the scene of offence, that the deceased had illicit relationship with P.W.8 and that the accused, who happen to be the brothers-in-law of P.W.8, have a grudge against the deceased and therefore have a motive to kill the accused.
13) P.W.17, who is the Doctor through whom the Post-
Mortem Examination report (Ex.P.31) was marked, has deposed the fact that the cause of death was due to multiple injuries, Vaso Vagal shock and in the Post Mortem Examination Report he has stated that he found the following injuries on the body of the deceased:
1) Right forearm fractured just below 1/3 of elbow joint
2) Laceration of 2x3 cm present over left Parietal scalp
3) Contusion over right shoulder and right arm HCJ & AARJ 8 Crl.A.Nos.1047&1151 of 2012
4) Abrasion present over right super clavicular region
5) Abrasion of 4x2 cm present over left supra clavicular region
6) Contusion present over left shoulder
7) Ligature mark of 3x2x1 cm present over left arm just above the elbow
8) Ligature mark of 3x2x1 cm present around the abdomen
9) Contusion of 10x5 cm present over the left thigh region
10) Abrasion of 1x2 cm present over left knee joint
11) Abrasion of 1x2 cm present over shin left leg
12) Laceration of 7x1 cm present over left leg shin
13) Abrasion of 1x2 cm present over right inferior angle of scapula
14) Minor abrasion over the right scapular region
15) Left testis small contusion present.
14) Even though in the case on hand, there are no direct witnesses to the commission of the offence, the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. It is needless to state that in every criminal case, the prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt by producing cogent and convincing evidence and even in cases where the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence, the Prosecution is required to establish its case through preponderance of evidence by linking all the circumstances, which complete the chain of events and point out the guilt of the accused.
15) In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P.,1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
(1) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) The circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other 1 AIR 1990 Supreme Court 79 HCJ & AARJ 9 Crl.A.Nos.1047&1151 of 2012 hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
16) In the present case, all the witnesses (PWs 1 to 4 and 7) have deposed the fact that the deceased had an illegal intimacy with P.W.8, who is the sister-in-law of the accused Nos.1 and 2, and that prior to the date of incident, they warned the deceased to stay away from P.W.8, but as the deceased did not mend his ways, on the date of incident, the accused have tied the deceased and beat him indiscriminately, as a result of which, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. The Post-Mortem Examination report clearly reveals the fact that nearly 14 external injuries are found on the body of the deceased and in his evidence, P.W.17, the Doctor who has conducted the post-mortem examination, has deposed that the deceased died due to these injuries. The above evidence clearly, cogently and firmly link the appellants-accused with the offence committed, within the parameters set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padala Veera Reddy (supra). All the circumstances point towards the guilt of the accused and the prosecution has succeeded in interlinking all the circumstances so as to form a complete chain to conclude that the appellants have committed the offence. Moreover, in this case, the accused have not explained their presence at the scene of offence during their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
17) In State of Rajasthan vs. Takur Singh2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at para 22, held as under:
2 (2014) 3 SCC 211) HCJ & AARJ 10 Crl.A.Nos.1047&1151 of 2012 The law, therefore, is quite well settled that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused is on the prosecution, but there may be certain facts pertaining to a crime that can be known only to the accused, or are virtually impossible for the prosecution to prove. These facts need to be explained by the accused and if he does not do so, then it is a strong circumstance pointing to his guilt based on those facts.
18) In Bhagwat Vs. State of Maharashtra3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at para 8, held as under:
......The conduct of the appellant in absconding for approximately three months from the date of the occurrence, till he was taken into custody, was contrary to normal human behaviour and belies his claim to innocence. It is not possible to accept the plea of any burn injuries on his hands three months later. The deceased died a homicidal death inside the matrimonial home. In the circumstances noticed hereinbefore, undoubtedly the appellant owed an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 with regard to how the deceased had met a homicidal death inside the house. He failed to discharge the onus completely. The aforesaid, in our opinion, are sufficient to uphold the conviction of the appellant.
19) In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the learned Sessions Judge was right in accepting the evidence of the prosecution and coming to the conclusion that it is the accused, who have committed the offence. This Court does not see any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment to entertain the present appeal. Hence, the criminal appeal has to fail.
20) In the result, both the Criminal Appeals are dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants in the Judgment, dated 04.09.2012, in Sessions Case No.101 of 2011, on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs 3 (2019) 14 SCC 444 HCJ & AARJ 11 Crl.A.Nos.1047&1151 of 2012 and STs (POA) Act-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, are hereby confirmed.
As the appellants (accused) are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The appellants (accused), namely A.1-Chakali Veerappa S/o.Chakali Chinna Gopal, A.2-Chakali Devappa @ Devender S/o.Chinna Gopal, and A.3-Smt.Chakali Bassamma W/o.Veerappa, are directed to surrender immediately before the Superintendent of Central Prison, Chanchalguda, to undergo the remaining period of sentence.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________________________ RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, HCJ ________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date :18.12.2020 smr/sur