Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 424 (TS)

Mokurala Anjaneyulu v. State Of Telangana

2024-07-01

P.SAM KOSHY, SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Sambasiva Rao Naidu, J.) 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the accused in S.C.No.406 of 2013 on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., questioning the correctness of the Judgment, dated 03.06.2014 whereunder the trial Court found him guilty for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), imposed rigorous imprisonment for life and also directed him to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in case he failed to pay the fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for six (6) months. 2. As per the averments made in the charge sheet, it seems one Bhagyamma (hereinafter be referred as deceased) who was younger sister of PW1 and also PW3 was given in marriage with the appellant herein about 16 years prior to the date of alleged offence. Soon after the marriage, she joined the appellant and during their wedlock, she gave birth to two daughters and a son. The appellant having addicted to alcohol and other bad habits, started committing petty thefts and started quarrelling with his wife without any reason. When once the appellant herein was involved in a cattle theft a criminal case was booked against him and in view of the behavior of the appellant, the deceased left his company, preceded to the house of her parents and stayed with them for about one year. However, about three (3) months prior to the date of offence, she returned to Guttalapally which is her in-laws place, and started eking livelihood by cultivating her agricultural land. The appellant who was then staying at Hyderabad having come to know that his wife came to Guttalapally, returned to his native village, approached his wife, informed her that he was completely changed and he assured his wife that he will look after the family properly. 3. The prosecution further alleged that in spite of the said promise, on 15.07.2012 at about 06:00 p.m., he went to the house in a drunken condition and demanded his wife to give money to have some more liquor, for which she refused. Thereby, there was a quarrel between the couple. The appellant went out of the house, again returned at 09:00 p.m., and after the children were sleeping in the front room, he has killed his wife by cutting her throat with a knife and escaped from the place. 4. Thereby, there was a quarrel between the couple. The appellant went out of the house, again returned at 09:00 p.m., and after the children were sleeping in the front room, he has killed his wife by cutting her throat with a knife and escaped from the place. 4. The younger brother of the deceased having received information about the death of his sister presented Ex.P1 report to police and a case was registered against the appellant herein. The material witnesses were examined during the course of investigation. The prosecution further alleged that PW10-Chief Investigating Officer could apprehend the appellant herein at Thadoor petrol bunk and interrogated him in the presence of PW6 and one more mediator. Based on the confession made by the appellant, the gold articles removed from the person of deceased were seized from the possession of the appellant. In pursuance of his confession, he has produced knife which he used for commission of offence and the said knife was also seized under Ex.P6. After completing the investigation, PW10 filed charge sheet against the appellant herein. 5. The learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge having received the entire record from the District Court proceeded with the trial after framing a charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellant. The appellant has denied the accusation and during the trial the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and marked Ex.P1 to P8 MOs 1 to 3. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and he has denied the evidence of the material witness that was placed before him and the trial Judge after hearing both parties, held that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the appellant herein for the offence under Section 302 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted him and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life along with find. 6. Learned defence counsel has submitted that there is no eye witness to the alleged office or to prove that the appellant herein was responsible for the death of his wife. The alleged recovery of MOs 1 to 3 from the possession of the appellant cannot be accepted because he is none other than the husband of the deceased and possession of gold ornaments of his wife with the appellant cannot be basis for suspecting him for the offence of murder. The alleged recovery of MOs 1 to 3 from the possession of the appellant cannot be accepted because he is none other than the husband of the deceased and possession of gold ornaments of his wife with the appellant cannot be basis for suspecting him for the offence of murder. He has also argued that in the absence of an important link to connect the accused with a murder of his wife, the chain of circumstances cannot be held to be completed, thereby he is entitled to benefit of doubt. 7. Learned counsel has submitted that the trial Court without appreciating the evidence in a proper way, came to an incorrect conclusion and convicted the appellant for a grave offence like 302 IPC with life imprisonment, thereby, sought for setting aside the said conviction. 8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor having relied on the evidence of PWs 1,3,9 and 10 has submitted that the homicidal death of wife of the deceased has been proved through the evidence of material witness. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 clearly shows that the appellant herein was very much present at the time of the said suicidal death of his wife. Therefore, he was last seen with the company of the deceased. Subsequently, when he was arrested by PW10, he has produced the gold ornaments of his wife apart from producing MO1. Therefore, all these circumstances clearly show that the appellant himself killed his wife and escaped from the house after removing the ornaments of his wife. Thereby, the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC, thereby prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 9. As could be seen from the material evidence of all the witnesses, it is quite clear that the appellant herein is no other than the husband of the deceased who was killed by way of slitting her throat. As per the evidence of PWs 1 and 3, it is quite clear that the appellant having been addicted to alcohol and other bad habits, started committing petty offences and because of the said bad behavior, the deceased was forced to leave his company. However, in order to eatout her livelihood again she went to Guttalapally. There is no dispute about the death of the deceased due to cut injury to her throat and such homicidal death was proved through the evidence of PW7. However, in order to eatout her livelihood again she went to Guttalapally. There is no dispute about the death of the deceased due to cut injury to her throat and such homicidal death was proved through the evidence of PW7. Even though the learned defence counsel denied the recovery of ornaments from the possession of the appellant, the evidence of PW6 is very clear that at the instance of police, he and one Niranjan enquired the appellant herein and the appellant made a confession about the murder of his wife and the recovery of MO1 knife, MOs 2 and 3 ornaments of his wife in pursuance of the confession proved the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the above said offence. 10. In order to prove the last seen theory, the prosecution could examine PW2 and Pw4. According to the evidence of PW2 the house of the appellant herein and her house are located in the same lane. About 4 days prior to the death of the deceased there was a quarrel between the appellant and his wife. She has also deposed before the trial Court that in the midnight again she noticed quarrel between the deceased and her husband i.e., the appellant herein. But, on the next day morning when she went to the house of appellant she could found the dead body of the deceased and the appellant was missing from the house. It is true as per the cross examination PW2 admitted that the house of appellant is on the other side of the road and it was not possible to know what was happening at the house of deceased during the night. However, the evidence PW2 clearly indicates the presence of appellant along with the deceased during that particular night and also about his absence when the witness found the dead body of the deceased. 11. However, the evidence PW2 clearly indicates the presence of appellant along with the deceased during that particular night and also about his absence when the witness found the dead body of the deceased. 11. Similarly, PW4 another eye witness to the offence deposed before the Court that one day prior to the death of the deceased, she noticed the appellant herein quarrelling with his wife and on hearing the quarrels, he along with PW2 and one Chakali Venkatamma went to the house of appellant and enquired as to why he was quarreling with his wife and on the next day PW2 went to the house of the accused to call the deceased for attending coolie work, but she could notice the dead body of the deceased with an injury and appellant was not found at house. 12. During the cross examination PW4 added that his house is on the northern side of the house of appellant. Therefore, it is quite clear from the evidence of these two material witnesses that prior to the death of the deceased the appellant was with her and when she was found dead with an injury to her throat he was absconding from the house. Later he was arrested while he was in possession of the gold ornaments of his wife. Therefore, the prosecution is able to prove that the appellant, who was addicted to drinking and other bad habits, killed his wife for the sake of MOs 2 and 3. Thereby, trial Court rightly convicted him for the offence under Section 302 IPC, as such there are no merits in the present appeal. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment of the trial Court vide S.C.No.406 of 2013 on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy is confirmed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.