Telangana High Court
Gondla Laxman vs State Of Telangana on 26 September, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.242 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. The appellant is questioning the conviction under Section 302 of IPC on the allegation that he murdered his wife on 17.05.2013 by forcibly administering poison.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/accused and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for appellant-State
3. P.W.1 who is the daughter of the appellant filed complaint on 18.05.2013 at 8 a.m. According to the complaint, on 17.05.2013, his brother aged 10 years examined as P.W.2 went to her house and informed her that the appellant/father beat his deceased wife i.e., mother of P.Ws.1 and 2 and poured poison in the mouth of his mother. The deceased died in the house.
4. On the basis of the complaint, the Police investigated the case, scene of offence panchnama was conducted, inquest proceedings, post mortem examination and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet for the offence 2 under Section 302 of IPC. Charge was framed by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that on 17.05.2013, when the appellant called his deceased wife and she did not respond, the appellant got angry and started beating her. Further, he dragged her into the house forcibly, then pushed her on to the ground, sat on her chest and poured pesticide poison in her mouth forcefully with an intention to kill her.
5. During the course of trial, evidence of P.W.1/complainant/daughter of appellant, appellant's son/P.W.2 who was aged around 10 years was made basis to come to the conclusion that appellant forcibly poured poison into the mouth of his wife. Further, the evidence of P.W.2 was corroborated by P.W.3 who is the neighbor. P.W.3 stated that she heard commotion, went to the house and found the deceased died. Accordingly, the conviction was recorded.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the evidence of P.W.2 is doubtful, since his evidence appears to be tutored. Once his evidence is eschewed from consideration, there is no other evidence to even remotely suggest that it was the appellant who 3 administered poison to the deceased. In cases of such forceful administration of poison, there ought to be some injuries that would have been inflicted on the deceased. However, the Doctor did not find any injury either on the hands or any part of face of the deceased. Accordingly, benefit of doubt has to be extended in the said circumstances.
7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no reason as to why P.W.1 who is the daughter of the appellant would lodge a false complaint against her own father. P.W.2 is the son who was present in the house and his version of the appellant forcibly administering poison is stated in Ex.P.1/complaint. In the said circumstances, the findings of the learned trial Judge regarding complicity of the appellant is correct.
8. Having gone through the record, the complaint was in fact filed the next day i.e., on 18.05.2013 at 8 a.m. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR was registered. However, the incident happened around 5 p.m. on 17.05.2013. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, she stated that the complaint was filed on 17.05.2013 at 6 p.m., however her version is 4 contrary to the version of Investigating Officer. Scribe of Ex.P.1 was also not examined. According to P.W.1 she met the scribe of Ex.P.1 near the Police Station.
9. The Investigation Officer contradicts the version of P.W.1 regarding lodging of complaint. If it is considered that the complaint was filed on the next day at 8 a.m., there is a delay of nearly 15 hours. The said delay has to be explained by the prosecution. All the witnesses, P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 do not speak about what transpired in between 5 p.m. on 17.05.2013 till 8 a.m. on 18.05.2013, till the complaint was lodged. The prosecution is duty bound to explain the events that transpired for 15 hours and cannot remain a mystery. It is not the case that the deceased was taken to the hospital and any Doctor has checked on the deceased. There is no such evidence forth coming. The said conduct of the witnesses, un-explained delay caused in lodging the complaint casts any amount of doubt regarding correctness of the complaint that was filed.
10. It is admitted by P.W.1 that the appellant owned Ac.4-00 of land and Ac.1-00 of land was given to P.W.1 and Ac.2-00 were being cultivated on a lease basis by P.W.1. 5 The appellant admittedly, according to P.W.1 purchased Ac.2-00 of land out of Ac.4-00 by selling some other land, which was also being cultivated by her. The defence of the appellant is that since P.W.1 was insisting for remaining land and demanding to transfer Ac.2-00 of land, the deceased committed suicide.
11. The version of the appellant appears to be true when the circumstances in the case are viewed as a whole. As correctly pointed out by the learned counsel, if at all any force was used on the deceased and she was forced onto the ground, appellant sat on the chest of the deceased and administered poison, there would have been bruises or scratches both on the accused hands and also facial parts of the deceased. Accepting that the deceased was beaten up as stated by the witnesses, there would have been some marks of injury which are anti-mortem in nature, however, no such injury during post mortem examination was found except one bruise on hip region. None of the independent witnesses stated that the appellant was harassing his deceased wife. Appellant was having Ac.4-00 of land, out of which Ac.1-00 of land was gifted and Ac.2-00 of land was 6 cultivated by P.W.1. There would be no land left for appellant and his deceased wife to survive on.
12. The version of the son/P.W.2 has to be dealt with. According to him, his father/appellant was addicted to liquor and used to beat his mother. On the date of incident, at about 4 p.m. his father beat his mother on her chest and pushed her to the ground and then he caught hold of her jaws tightly and poured pesticide poison in her mouth. Then, froth came from her mouth and she died in the house. Thereafter, P.W.2 went to P.W.1's house which is at a distance of 1 k.m. and informed her. The detailed narration was made by the child witness/P.W.2 on 27.10.2014 and the incident happened 14 months prior to his deposition. The said version which was given in the Court gives specific details, which are also narrated in the complaint filed on the next date of the incident. As already discussed, the prosecution has failed to explain the delay caused in lodging the complaint. In the background of there being no injuries on the deceased and P.W.2 being taken care of by P.W.1, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that P.W.2 was tutored. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep vs The 7 State of Haryana 1 while dealing with similar cases of child witness, the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned that though the evidence of a child witness can be considered, it has to be considered with caution and rule out every possibility of tutoring.
13. The version of the appellant that the deceased might have committed suicide when viewed with other factors in the case probabilises the version. Benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant in the present circumtances.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Bodhan in S.C.No.75 of 2014 dated 05.02.2015. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J ___________________ J. ANIL KUMAR, J Date: 26.09.2024 1 AIR 2023 SC 3245