Telangana High Court
Anthati Arjunaiah, Nagarkurnool Dt., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 18 February, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1010 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. The Appeal is filed by the appellant/A-1 aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.08.2017, in S.C.No.513 of 2014, on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Nagarkurnool. The appellant was tried along with A-2 for the offence under Section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/A-1 and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
3. The allegation against the appellant was that both appellant/A-1 and A-2 administered poison to the deceased. The deceased is the husband of A-2. P.W.1 is the daughter of A- 2 and the deceased. She lodged a complaint on 28.08.2013, at 9 a.m., with Tadoor Police of Mahbubnagar District. In the telugu written complaint, P.W.1 narrated that A-2 is her mother. A-2 was having relation with A-1. Her deceased father admonished A-2 regarding relation in between A-1 and A-2. On 27.08.2013, A-1 went to the house of deceased and took him to his house. There, it is alleged that appellant mixed insecticide 2 poison in whisky bottle. Prior to consuming whisky, they have consumed toddy. The villagers informed P.W.1 about dead body of the deceased lying in the open place of one Anthati Kashanna (not examined). On the basis of the complaint, the Investigating Officer registered the complaint and went to the scene of offence. Ex.P.7/scene of offence panchnama was conducted and inquest proceedings were concluded. The dead body was then shifted to hospital for autopsy. P.W.7, who conducted autopsy, opined that death was due to organo phosphate poison.
4. The appellant and A-2 were arrested on 03.09.2013 and having recorded their confession statement, they were produced before the concerned Magistrate Court and sent for judicial remand. P.W.8 after concluding the investigation, filed charge sheet for the offence under Section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC.
5. Learned Sessions Judge having framed charge under Section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC found that, no evidence was placed by the prosecution to show that A-2 was present in the house of A-1/appellant, when appellant took the deceased from the house. Further, nothing is placed by the prosecution to suggest that A-2, in collusion with A-1, had pre-planned and then 3 committed murder of the deceased by administering poison. For the said reason, learned Sessions Judge acquitted A-2.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that entire evidence on record against the appellant and A-2 is the same. Once the trial Court had found A-2 not guilty, the question of isolating the appellant herein and finding him guilty is incorrect. Further, post mortem report does not corroborate with the version of the prosecution that the deceased consumed toddy initially, then poison was mixed with whisky. No witnesses were examined by the prosecution to show that insecticide was purchased by A-1.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute the fact that there are no eye witnesses to the incident. However, he argued that the circumstances clearly indicate that the appellant had motive to commit murder of the deceased, for the reason of appellant having illicit intimacy with A-2.
8. The prosecution relied on two witnesses, P.Ws.3 and 5, who were examined before the Court below. However, both the witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution case. Another eye witness, Anthati Tirupataiah, though shown in the list of witnesses as L.W.2, the witness was given up by the prosecution.
4
9. Other than P.Ws.3, 5, and L.W.2, there are no eye witnesses, who had seen the deceased either entering into the house of the appellant, or anywhere near the premises. According to P.W.1, the deceased was taken by the appellant around 7 p.m, previous day. The dead body was found in front of the house of Anthati Tirupataiah (L.W.2), in the land of Anthati Kashanna. The said Anthati Kashanna, was also not examined by the prosecution.
10. In the post mortem examination, there are no signs of any forcible administering of poison. Assuming that the deceased had consumed toddy and whisky, the same would be reflected in FSL examination. It is not the case of the prosecution that any alcohol was found in the blood of the deceased. Neither any smell of alcohol was detected at the time of post mortem examination, nor the post mortem Doctor/P.W.8 stated anything about the presence of alcohol.
11. The case is one of circumstantial evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1, laid principles as to the acceptance of circumstantial evidence and the basis to record conviction, which read as under:-
1
(1984) 4 SCC 116 5 "1. the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established;
2. the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explained on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
4. they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused."
12. The only circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the evidence of P.W.1 that the appellant accompanied the deceased. The dead body was found near the house of appellant, however, in front of the house of L.W.2, who was given up. The dead body was found on the land of Anthati Kashanna, who was also not examined. Other than the evidence of the appellant taking the deceased at 7 p.m., it is not clear as to where the appellant and the deceased went, or where they have consumed either toddy or alcohol. The evidence of only P.W.1, that the appellant had taken the deceased from his house, will not in any manner 6 suggest that it was the appellant who had caused death of the deceased, when viewed in other circumstances, as discussed above. The prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances, which form a link, for the Court to infer that it was the appellant, who had administered poison to the deceased and caused his death.
13. The appellant succeeds. The conviction of the appellant is hereby set aside.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Since the appellant is on bail, the bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J ___________________ J. ANIL KUMAR, J Date: 18.02.2025 dv 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1010 OF 2017 Dt. 18.02.2025 dv