Telangana High Court
M.Srinu vs The State Of Telangana on 17 April, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2869 of 2018
JUDGMENT:(per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER) This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Principal Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, in S.C.No.110 of 2017 dated 29.01.2018, convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC; and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased, late Bokka Kondaiah (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), was the father of PWs.1 and 2, and after the death of his wife, he was residing in a house at Nawabpet. The deceased was occasionally taken care of by 2 PW.3, the daughter of PW.1, who was studying in Nawabpet. Since the deceased was selling arrack illegally and was keeping some male consumers with him in his house during night times, PW.3 preferred to sleep in the house of her relatives in Nawabpet.
4. The appellant, along with PWs.5 to 7, was a regular customer of the deceased, and three months prior to the death of the deceased on 01.02.2015, the appellant committed theft of Rs.4,000/- from the deceased, and the deceased asked the appellant not to come to his house thereafter. However, on 01.02.2015 at about 7.00 p.m., when PWs.5 to 7 came to the house of the deceased to consume arrack, the appellant too came with a request to the deceased to allow him to consume arrack, but the deceased chided him for having committed theft of cash from his house. The deceased refused to give arrack to the appellant at that time. PWs.5 to 7 consumed arrack and left for their houses. At about 9.00 P.M., the appellant again approached the deceased and requested him in several ways to give arrack, and the appellant also preferred to sleep in the house of the deceased. The deceased asked PW.3 to arrange beds for him and the appellant, and asked her to leave to sleep at the relatives' house.
3
5. The appellant, having found the deceased in possession of cash of Rs.850/-, tried to snatch away the same from the deceased and, when the deceased resisted, the appellant squeezed his testicles and also trampled his scrotum with his legs. As a result, the deceased died of haemorrhage and blunt injury to the testicles. The appellant decamped with the cash of Rs.850/- belonging to the deceased. At about 5.30 A.M., the appellant again visited the house of the deceased to find out whether the deceased was alive or not, and on finding the deceased lying dead, the appellant, suspecting some blood stains on his clothes, immediately went to a nearby public tap opposite the house and washed his hands and clothes. PW.4, the immediate neighbour to the house of the deceased, found the appellant coming out of the house of the deceased and washing his clothes and hands. Soon thereafter, PW.3 went to the house of the deceased as usual and, to her surprise, she found the deceased lying dead. PW.3 immediately informed PWs.1 and 2 ,who are the daughters of the deceased, and PW.11, who is the husband of PW.2. After few hours, all of them reached the house of the deceased and found the dead body of the deceased.
6. PW.1, having come to know about the facts through PWs.3 and 4, lodged Ex.P1-report with PW.14, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Nawabpet P.S., at about 12.30 p.m., on 02.02.2015, and 4 based on the same, PW.14 registered Ex.P15-FIR against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. PW.13, the then Inspector of Police, Mahabubnagar Rural Circle, took up the investigation and, upon visiting the scene of offence, observed the scene of offence under Ex.P12-crime details form-cum-rough sketch prepared in the presence of PWs.8 and 9. He also conducted an inquest over the dead body from 1.30 P.M. to 3.00 P.M. in the presence of the same panch witnesses under Ex.P14-inquest report. The dead body of the deceased was shifted to the District Hospital, Mahabubnagar, where PW.10 conducted an autopsy over the dead body in the mortuary of the said hospital and collected the viscera and hyoid bone to be sent to the FSL, Hyderabad, for further investigations. As per Ex.P8-report, received from the FSL, Hyderabad, no poisonous substance was found in the viscera, and as per Ex.P10, no fracture of hyoid bone was found. PW.10 issued Ex.P9-final opinion, thereby holding that the death of the deceased was due to haemorrhage and blunt injury to the testicles. On 09.02.2015, based on reliable information, PW.13 apprehended the accused at his house in Nawabpet and requested PW.12-the VRO., and LW.12-G.Gopal, another V.R.O., to question the appellant. Accordingly, they questioned the appellant. The appellant confessed to his guilt and produced MO.1-cash of Rs.450/-, which he 5 confessed to have retained out of the cash of Rs.850/- stolen from the deceased after committing the murder of the deceased, stating that he had spent an amount of Rs.400/- for his needs. MO.1 was seized by PW.13 from the possession of the appellant under the cover of Ex.P11-confession-cum-seizure panchanama, drafted at about 9.30 a.m. The appellant was brought to the police station and thereafter produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile, Mahabubnagar, for judicial custody. Subsequently, the appellant was enlarged on bail granted by the Sessions Court. On transfer of PW.13, PW.15, who was his immediate successor, took up the further investigation and produced MOs.2 to 4-clothes of the deceased, which were seized by PW.10 at the time of conducting the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, before the Court. Upon completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet, thereby alleging that the appellant committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 of IPC.
7. The learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of circumstantial evidence, found that it was the appellant who had caused the death of the deceased. Reliance was placed on the evidence of PWs.2 and 4, and further, the recovery of the amount from the appellant. 6
8. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the 'last seen' theory is not sufficient to conclude that it was the appellant who had committed the murder. Unless the 'last seen' circumstance is corroborated with other evidence, it cannot be inferred that the appellant committed the murder. Even according to PW.4, she only saw the appellant coming out of the house of the deceased and washing his hands at 5.30 A.M. However, PW.3 states that she found the dead body of the deceased at 5.00 A.M. Even according to the prosecution, the deceased was selling illicitly brewed liquor to the villagers, and several customers used to sleep in the said house. It cannot be said that the appellant was the person who committed the murder, as it could have been any of the customers.
9. Alternatively, the learned counsel submits that the injury was caused to the testicles and the cause of death was Cardio Respiratory Failure as a result of blunt injury to the testicles.
10. The Honourable Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Shivalingaiah alias Handigidda 1, held that squeezing of the testicles by the accused would fall within the offence under section 325 of IPC and not under Section 302 of IPC.
1 1988 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 533 7
11. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that, based on the Judgment of Shivalingaiah's case (supra 1) the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Mohamed Nazeer alisas Babu 2 held ,based on the facts of the case, that the injury caused to the deceased by kicking on their private parts would be an offence under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code.
12. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would submit that the act of the appellant in kicking the deceased on his testicles would reflect his knowledge, and the learned Sessions Judge had rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC.
13. The appellant was seen coming out of the house of the deceased by PW.4. PW.3, who is the grand-daughter of the deceased, went to his house early in the morning. At that time, she found the deceased dead. In the complaint filed by PW.1, who is the daughter of the deceased, she clearly stated that PW.3 was staying along with the deceased in his house, and also mentioned the information given by PW.4 about the appellant coming out of the house of the deceased in the morning just before the deceased was found dead.
2 (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 444 8
14. The appellant claims that he has been falsely implicated. However, the circumstances which were narrated by the prosecution witnesses at the earliest point of time are convincing and as follows
i) the appellant being seen coming out of the house of the deceased;
ii) the names of PWs.3 and 4 being mentioned in the complaint; and
iii) the deceased was found dead with injuries to his testicles, when PW.3 went inside after the appellant came out of the home.
15. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem found that the death was on account of a blunt injury to the testicles resulting in Cardio Respiratory Failure.
16. Basing reliance on the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mohamed Nazeer's case (supra 2), the injuries that were caused by the appellant would fall under Section 304 part II of IPC. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant is converted to Section 304 Part II of IPC.
17. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was in jail for 5 ½ years before being released on bail.
18. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are no other questionable antecedents and the appellant is not involved in any other criminal cases.
9
19. Keeping in view that the appellant has dependents to look after, and there being no other cases against him, we deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to 5 ½ years, i.e., the period already undergone by him.
20. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is partly allowed, reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J _____________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Date: 17.04.2025 tk 10 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2869 of 2018 Dt. 17.04.2025 tk