Telangana High Court
Battigari Shaker, R.R.Dt., vs State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 16 February, 2024
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: K.Lakshman, P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.766 of 2015
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Smt. Justice P.Sree Sudha) This Criminal Appeal is filed against the Judgment dated 08.07.2015 in S.C.No.109 of 2015 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.
2. The case of the prosecution is that appellant/A-1 and A-2 alleged to have killed one B.Bharathamma (herein after referred to as deceased) and thus A-1 committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 r/w.75 of I.P.C and A-2 committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 IPC. To prove the guilt of accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16 and M.Os.1 to 3 on its behalf. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of defense. The Trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides and also the entire evidence on record, acquitted A-2 under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 379 IPC and convicted A-1 under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.300/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C and also convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C and both the sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said judgment, A-1 preferred the present appeal.
3. The brief facts of the case, as per the report given under Ex.P2 by P.W.4 are that, on 17.11.2014, he came to know through P.W.10 that an unknown female dead body was found lying at Gunnamma Chintal Hanumandlu area at the outskirt of Rudraram village in Sy.No.912 and 913 and the dead body was in a decomposed state. There were yellow colour blouse, blue colour saree and pink colour skirt on the dead body and no ornaments were found on the dead body. A case was registered in Crime No.677 of 2014 under Section 174 Cr.P.C by Police Patancheru P.S and entrusted the case to P.W.11-Sub Inspector of Police for further investigation, who transferred the case to Sangareddy Town Police Station on point of jurisdiction. The S.H.O., Sangareddy Town P.S registered a case in Crime No.235 of 2014 under the head of 'woman missing' and after investigation, section of law was altered to Section 302 & 379 of 3 IPC. On completion of investigation, P.W.13 filed charge sheet against the accused.
4. P.W.1 is husband of the deceased and he stated that when he returned from his work, he did not find his wife at home and when he asked his daughter-in-law about his wife, she informed him that A-2 had taken his wife outside for purchasing vegetables and some utensils. After returning of his sons from work, they all searched for his wife, but they could not find her. He also enquired in the house of A-2 and the parents of A-2 informed him that his wife was not in their house. His wife was wearing Gold gundlu necklace with mangal suthram, silver leg chains and silver anklets at the time of missing. As such, he gave complaint under Ex.P1 on the next day. After five to six days, Sangareddy police asked him to identify the dead body which was kept at Government Hospital, Mortuary and he identified the body as his wife basing on the clothes worn by his wife. A few days later, the police asked him to identify the ornaments worn by his wife and he identified the ornaments as that of his wife and he obtained interim custody of the said ornaments i.e., M.Os.1 to 3 through Court. In the cross-examination, it was suggested to him that there were disputes between him and his wife and he denied it. It was also 4 suggested to him that he had not stated the descriptive particulars of the clothes and the ornaments worn by his wife at the time of missing in his complaint under Ex.P1, but he denied it. He admitted that he has seen M.Os.1 to 3 in the Court after the death of his wife.
5. P.W.2 is daughter-in-law of the deceased and she stated in her evidence that on 13.11.2014, she along with her mother- in-law were in the house. At about 03.30 p.m., A-1 and A-2 came to their house and asked her mother-in-law to come with them for purchasing vegetables and utensils and her mother-in- law accompanied them. When P.W.1, her husband and brother- in-law returned home, she informed them about A-1 and A-2 taking away her mother-in-law with them. They searched for the deceased in the surrounding places and later P.W.1 lodged a complaint about missing of her mother-in-law on the next day. She further stated that her mother-in-law was wearing Gold gundlu necklace with mangal suthram, silver leg chains and silver anklets at the time of her missing and the police recorded her statement. After four days, Sangareddy Police informed them about a dead body kept in Government Hospital mortuary and asked them to identify it and she along with her family members identified the dead body as that of her mother-in-law 5 basing on the clothes worn by her mother-in-law at the time of her missing. In cross-examination, she stated that her mother-in-law was in the habit of drinking toddy at the house only and she doesn't go to the toddy shop. She also stated that there was a compound wall in between their house and the house of one Sudhakar in which accused Nos.1 and 2 are residing as tenants. She further stated that A-1 was outside the house and A-2 came inside her house to take her mother-in- law. She admitted that she has not stated to the police that P.W.1 enquired about her mother-in-law in the house of the accused. She admitted that the body was in a decomposed state and she identified the dead body with the help of the clothes worn by her mother-in-law.
6. P.W.3 is son of the deceased. He stated that he enquired about his mother in the surrounding places and also in the house of the accused, but they could not trace out her. P.W.1 gave a complaint about the missing of his mother on the next day. In the cross-examination, he admitted that his mother was in the habit of drinking toddy, but she does not go to the toddy shop.
7. P.W.4 is V.R.O and he is a panch witness for identification of the body and gave a report under Ex.P2 on 17.11.2014. 6
8. P.W.5 is V.R.A of Rudraram village stated that on 16.11.2014 at about 10.30 p.m., he came to know through villagers of Rudraram that a foul smell was emitting at Gunnamma Chintal Hanumandlu area and as it was night time, he did not visit the said place and on the next day, he found a dead body at the said place and he informed the same to P.W.4.
9. P.W.6 is a panch witness for scene of offence and inquest panchanama under Exs.P3 and P5 respectively. Ex.P4 is the rough sketch, Ex.P6 is photographs. He stated that his signatures were obtained on written papers and he knew the contents of the panchanamas recorded by the police.
10. P.W.7 is a panch witness for confession of accused Nos.1 and 2. M.Os.1 to 3 were seized in presence of P.W.7.
11. P.W.8 is a Civil Assistant Surgeon, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He stated that the cause of death is due to strangulations as there is fracture of Hyoid bone. As the skin is decomposed, no opinion can be possibly given regarding any other external injury. Ex.P9 is P.M.E report issued by P.W.8. In the cross-examination, it was suggested to him whether the fracture of bone is possible if the dead body being attacked by stray dogs, but he denied it. 7
12. P.W.9 is another panch witness for panchanama conducted on 18.11.2014.
13. P.W.10 is the person who came to know through cattle grazers about the dead body of a woman lying at Gunnamma Chintal Hanumandlu area and he informed to P.W.4.
14. P.W.11 is the Sub-Inspector of Police. In the cross- examination, he stated that he has not given any publicity for identification of the dead body. The scene of offence is at a distance of 400 yards from Toshiba Company. He also stated that dead body was not in a position to identify except by the clothes on the dead body. He gave information to Sangareddy Town Police basing on the lookout notice issued byte hem about the missing of a woman.
15. P.W.12 is the Sub-Inspector of police, who recorded the statement of P.W.1 at the police station and recorded the statements of P.Ws.2 and 3 at their house. He was handed over the case registered under the head "woman missing" on 14.11.2014. Later the section of law was altered from 'woman missing' to Section 302 and 379 IPC. In the cross-examination, he stated that P.Ws.1 to 3 have not stated the particulars of ornaments and clothes worn by the deceased at the time of her 8 missing and he has not recorded the statements of the neighbours.
16. P.W.13 is the C.I of Police who conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against A-1 for the offences under Sections 302, 379 r/w 75 IPC as A-1 was previous convict. Ex.P13 is Section alteration memo. He stated that he has not seized cell phone or SIM card of A-2 and he did not get conducted identification parade to identify M.Os.1 to 3 by the complainant.
17. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife and they got acquaintance with the deceased and A-2 used to visit the house of the deceased. As the accused were in need of money, they hatched a plan to collect the ornaments from the deceased and as such, they took away the deceased along with them for consuming liquor and A-1 pressed her neck and A-2 assisted him and later they took her ornaments and left the place. Admittedly, it is the case of circumstantial evidence. P.W.2 is the only person who has last seen the deceased and she stated that her mother-in-law went along with accused Nos.1 and 2 and later her family members did not find her and searched for her. But, after four days, they were informed by the police about a dead body, which was found in Gunnamma Chintal 9 Hanumandlu area at the outskirt of Rudraram village in Sy.No.912 and 913, and later it was shifted to mortuary. She and her family members identified the body basing on the clothes worn by the deceased and the body was in a decomposed state. M.Os.1 to 3 were seized in the presence of P.W.7. As per P.W.8-Doctor, the cause of death is due to strangulation. Accused Nos.1 and 2 stated that they had stolen the gold ornaments from the deceased and when they reached lingampally, they tried to sell the ornaments, but no one purchased the ornaments and later they went to Isojipet and there the police arrested them. The accused took the deceased along with them on 13.11.2014, the confession of the accused was recorded on 22.11.2014 i.e., 9 days after the death of the deceased, Bharatamma.
18. The accused No.1 was found guilty for the charges leveled against him under Sections 302 and 379 IPC and he was convicted. Accused No.2 was acquitted for all the charges leveled against her. As per the case of the prosecution, accused Nos.1 and 2 committed theft of gold ornaments from the deceased and killed her.
10
19. Section 382 of IPC reads as follows:
Theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint in order to the committing of the theft:-
Whoever commits theft, having made preparation for causing death, or hurt, or restraint, or fear of death, or of hurt, or of restraint, to any person, in order to the committing of such theft, or in order to the effecting of his escape after the committing of such theft, or in order to the retaining of property taken by such theft, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
20. The above case falls under Section 382 of IPC, an aggravated from of theft. But, the trial Court wrongly framed the charge under Section 379 IPC and also 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced A-1 to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. A-1 was also convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. The accused No.1 was in jail from 08.07.2015 i.e., for the past 8 ½ years. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to confirm the conviction recorded against the appellant/accused No.1 and to modify the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. 11
21. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The conviction recorded against the appellant/accused No.1 in S.C.No.109 of 2015, dated 08.07.2015 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy and the sentence of life imprisonment is modified to the period already undergone by him. The appellant/accused No.1 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. M.Os.1 to 3 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN _________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE: 16.02.2024 CHS 12 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 766 of 2015 (per Hon'ble Smt. Justice P.Sree Sudha) DATE: 16.02.2024 CHS