Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 613 (TS)

Gavoor Pedda Balaiah v. State of Telangana

2024-08-29

N.TUKARAMJI, P.SAM KOSHY

body2024
JUDGMENT : P. SAM KOSHY, J. 1. The instant is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant- accused challenging the judgment of conviction dated 22.01.2016 in Sessions Case No. 286 of 2014 passed by the Judge, VII Additional District and Session Judge, Bodhan. 2. Heard Mrs. M. Bhagyasri, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and upon convicting the appellant, sentenced him to under rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 4. The case of the prosecution, as per the charge sheet, is that on 08.10.2013 at 9 A.M. PW-1 (M. Balram) who is the brother of the Govoori Eshwari (hereinafter, the ‘deceased No. 1’) and Govoori Mounika daughter of deceased No. 1 (hereinafter, the ‘deceased No. 2’) lodged a complaint at Varni Police Station, Nizamabad, contending that they performed marriage of the deceased No. 1 with the appellant about 20 years back and out of wedlock they were blessed with two children. He stated that two years back before the incident had happened, the appellant went to Dubai for his livelihood and later on returned to Kunipur Village and started doing agricultural works. Since his return from Dubai, he started quarreling and assaulting physically by suspecting the fidelity of the deceased No. 1. Further, deceased No. 2 assessing the circumstances supported deceased No. 1 against the appellant’s ill-treatment. This led appellant to develop grudge against deceased Nos. 1 and 2 and started quarreling with them and threatening to kill them eventually. About three months back, deceased No. 1 along with her two children, deceased No. 2 and PW-2 moved to her maternal house temporarily due to such harassment by the appellant. A month later, the appellant visited his in-laws house and thereafter a panchayat meeting was held before caste elders PW-5, PW-6 and LW-8 (who was not examined) where the appellant promised to take care of the deceased No. 1 by avoiding such conflicts and on believing the promise made by the appellant, deceased No. 1 and her children returned to the appellant’s home. However, on 07.10.2013, the appellant again started quarreling with deceased No. 1 and assaulted her physically. PW-2 informed PW-1 about the incident which prompted the PW-1 and caste relative PW-7 to visit Kunipur village to advise the appellant and his sister, after which they left in the evening. 5. Next day that is on 08.10.2013 at about 2:30 A.M. in the morning the appellant returned home and found his wife and daughter sleeping on the cot. Thereafter, the appellant with an intent to kill, took the knife and stabbed the deceased No. 1 in the chest and waist and also stabbed the deceased No. 2 in the neck and ribs. On hearing the cries of deceased Nos. 1 and 2, PW-2 woke up and witnessed his father committing the act against both of them. Subsequently, PW-2 called PW-1 and informed that deceased Nos. 1 and 2 were stabbed to death by the appellant. PW-1 rushed immediately to the deceased’s house where he saw dead bodies of deceased Nos. 1 and 2 lying on the cot. 6. The police authorities registered the complaint as Cr. No. 230 of 2013 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the appellant was apprehended on 11.10.2013 and during interrogation he confessed the crime. Based upon the said confessional statement made by the appellant, the police authorities recovered blood stained knife from the old hut which was used for commission of the offence. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was filed and the matter was put to trail before the VII Additional District and Session Judge, Bodhan where the case was registered as S.C. No. 286 of 2014. 7. In all, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses, marked sixteen exhibits and also marked eight material objects (MOs). However, there was neither any evidence, nor any document was marked on behalf of the defence. The Trial Court after recording the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and upon hearing the learned counsel appearing on either side finally passed the impugned judgment of conviction which is under challenge in the present appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the impugned judgment contended that the evidence of PW-3, who is the brother of the appellant, and a neighbor who did not supported the prosecution case, but testified that the appellant and the deceased No. 1 lived happily together. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the impugned judgment contended that the evidence of PW-3, who is the brother of the appellant, and a neighbor who did not supported the prosecution case, but testified that the appellant and the deceased No. 1 lived happily together. He further attempted to discredited the testimony of PW-2 who was the key eyewitness for the prosecution. That on the day of the incident the appellant and his son PW-2 had gone to Badapahad, which was questionable and is contradicting the prosecution’s narrative, where he suggested that police might have falsely implicated the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant used this testimony to cast doubt on the presence of the appellant at the scene of the crime. 9. Additionally, the learned counsel for the appellant emphasized the inadmissibility of the appellant’s confession, as it was made while in police custody. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for setting aside the judgment of conviction and alsoprayed for acquittal of the appellant from all the charged leveled against him. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor heavily relied on the testimony of PW-2 who is the key eyewitness to the incident where he saw the appellant stabbing the deceased Nos. 1 and 2 in the night. The evidence of PW-2 was further corroborated by PW-1 and PW-4 to whom PW-2 informed the incident on the same night. The appellant’s contention that he and PW-2 were not at home but had gone to Badpahad to sleep. It was argued that if the appellant was indeed innocent and had a genuine alibi, he should have been able to provide a more convincing and well-supported explanation for his whereabouts at the time of incident. 11. Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the medical evidence corroborates the prosecution’s claim by reinforcing the likelihood of the appellant’s guilt. Thus, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for all the aforesaid reasons prayed for dismissal of the impugned judgment. 12. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of the records, it would be relevant at this juncture, to take note of the facts which were recovered in the course of recording of evidences of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-13. 13. 12. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of the records, it would be relevant at this juncture, to take note of the facts which were recovered in the course of recording of evidences of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-13. 13. PW-1 (M. Balram), the complainant, in his examination-in-chief before the Court stated as under: “Thereafter, my nephew Sai Kiran called me on the phone in the mid night at about 2 or 3 A.M. and informed me that the accused killed his mother and sister with knife. Immediately, I went and saw two dead bodies lying in the house of the accused. I saw cut injury on the neck of my sister and stab injury in the stomach of my niece.” 14. PW-2, son of appellant and deceased No. 1, who is the eye-witness to the offence had corroborated the evidence adduced by PW-1. In his examination-in-chief before the Court held as under: “On 07.10.2013 again accused quarreled with my mother, then my uncle PW-1 came and convinced my father and went away. On the intervening night of 08/09.10.2013 at about 2:30 A.M. my father killed my mother and sister with knife and I saw the same. Immediately, I went to my paternal uncles house-Govuri-Chinna Balaiah-LW-3 and informed him about the incident. I also informed to PW-1 about the incident.” 15. At the same time, PW-2 in his cross-examination had stated as under: “It is true to suggest that myself and my father went to Badapahad on the date of incident. It is not true to suggest that I am deposing false at the instance of PW-1. it is not true to suggest that myself and the accused were in Badapahad on the night of the incident and my paternal uncle Govur Chinna Balaiah-LW-3 informed us about the death of the both the decease, on that we came to Kunipoor village.” 16. PW-4 (Vinayak) who is the brother of deceased No. 1 also corroborated the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2. In his statement he stated as under: “On the same night PW-2 called us on the phone in the mid night at about 3 A.M. and informed me that the accused killed his mother and sister with knife.” 17. According to PW-13 (Dr. 1 and 2. In his statement he stated as under: “On the same night PW-2 called us on the phone in the mid night at about 3 A.M. and informed me that the accused killed his mother and sister with knife.” 17. According to PW-13 (Dr. D. Prashanth) who conducted the postmortem examination provided crucial testimony corroborating the prosecution's case by confirming the nature and extent of injuries on both the deceased Nos. 1 and 2. PW-13 in his report gave detailed multiple stab wounds on vital parts of the bodies which aligned perfectly with the prosecution's narrative of a violent attack. In his report, PW-13 explained that the injuries found on the deceased Nos. 1 and 2 were consistent with the use of a sharp weapon; likely a knife, where deep wounds are located on critical areas of the body, such as the chest, abdomen, neck and lungs indicating the appellant’s intent to cause fatal harm. Further, PW-13 stated that the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injury to major vessels of neck, lung and heart. 18. For all the aforesaid reasons we are of the considered opinion that the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses submits that the appellant after returning from the Dubai started quarrelling with the deceased No. 1 suspecting her fidelity and the same was objected by the deceased No. 2 due to which the appellant developed grudge on both. This shows the clear intention and motive of the appellant for commission of an offence to kill the deceased Nos. 1 and 2 by stabbing with the knife multiple times on different parts of body. Thus, affirming the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Trail Court, the present appeal thus being devoid of a merit, deserve to be and is accordingly dismissed. 19. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.