Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 666 (TS)

Sambani Ramulu, R. R. Dt. v. State Of Telangana

2024-09-05

J.ANIL KUMAR, K.SURENDER

body2024
JUDGMENT : (K. Surender, J.) 1. This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.07.2015 in S.C.No.344 of 2013, on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/accused and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for appellant-State. 4. Briefly, the case against the appellant is that appellant and his father were eking out their livelihood by grazing cattle in the fields of P.W.7/Linga Reddy. On the day of incident i.e.,22.02.2013, in the evening around 8-30 hours, there was quarrel in between the deceased, who is the father of the appellant and the appellant with regard to an amount of Rs.4,500/- which was taken from P.W.7. In the said altercation, the appellant beat the deceased on his head with a hammer resulting in the deceased receiving the following injuries and died:- “1. Abraded contusion around left eye surrounding area 8x6 cms. With congestion of eye ball. 2. Abraded contusion of left cheek 6x4 cms. 3. Abrasion of lower lip about 2x1 cm. 4. Abraded contusion over back of left forearm 9x6 cms. At lower 1/3rd. 5. Contusion of back of left arm t lower 1/3rd about 6x6 cms. 6. Abraded contusion of front of left knee and 6x4 cms, abrasion of 1x1, 2x1 cms. 7. Abraded contusion of front of right thigh 3x3 cms. 8. Abraded contusion over front of left thighs about 6x1 cms. At lower 1/3rd. 9. Abraded contusion of dorsum of left foot about 2x1 cms. At back end. 10. Abraded contusion of A left leg at middle 1/3rd about 3x2 cms. 11. Multiple contusion over back of chest and abdomen differ is net. 12. Differ contusion of chest wall over back. 13. Differ subdue hammarage over back hemisphere with this layer of left anti fore.” 5. Immediately, according to the prosecution, the appellant called upon P.W.1, who is the younger brother of the appellant and other relatives and informed them regarding the death of their father. In fact, the appellant informed on phone that he had beat his father in a drunken state. 6. Immediately, according to the prosecution, the appellant called upon P.W.1, who is the younger brother of the appellant and other relatives and informed them regarding the death of their father. In fact, the appellant informed on phone that he had beat his father in a drunken state. 6. P.W.1/younger brother, P.W.2/wife of P.W.1, P.W.3/ who is also brother of the appellant and P.W.4/another brother of appellant and P.W.5/another brother have all deposed that the appellant and the deceased were staying together under one roof and when questioned regarding death of the deceased, the appellant informed that in a drunken condition, quarrel ensued in between them and he had beat his father with a hammer resulting in his death. 7. The prosecution also examined P.W.7, who was the landlord under whom both the deceased and the appellant were working. According to him, the day prior to death, he has advanced an amount of Rs.4,500/- to the deceased and in his presence, there was quarrel in between the deceased and the appellant for the said amount, as the appellant wanted the said amount to be handed over to him. P.W.7 admonished him and sent them away. 8. Pursuant to the complaint lodged, the Police have taken up investigation and in the presence of P.W.8, hammer/M.O.1 and stick/M.O.2 were seized consequent to confession of the appellant. Learned Sessions Judge found that the appellant and the deceased were staying together under one roof. Though defense was taken that the brother of the appellant and another person killed the deceased, there is no proof and burden was on the accused/appellant to prove as to how the deceased died. Having considered the evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge found that it was the appellant, who had caused the death of the deceased. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that none of the villagers or the surrounding neighbours of house were examined who stated that the deceased was last seen along with the appellant. In fact, if the neighbours were examined, it would have been made clear whether there was altercation in between the deceased and the appellant. For non-examination of villagers and neighbours, adverse inference had to be drawn. P.W.1 to P.W.5 are related and are interested witnesses. Their evidence cannot be considered. 10. In fact, if the neighbours were examined, it would have been made clear whether there was altercation in between the deceased and the appellant. For non-examination of villagers and neighbours, adverse inference had to be drawn. P.W.1 to P.W.5 are related and are interested witnesses. Their evidence cannot be considered. 10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no reason why own brothers and sister-in-law of the appellant would speak false against the appellant. In fact, the evidence itself, it is clear that the appellant and the deceased were staying under one roof working under P.W.7. In the said circumstances, the findings of the learned Sessions Judge that it was the appellant who had caused death of the deceased is reasonable. 11. Brothers of the appellant PWs.1, 2 and sister-inlaw/P.W.3 stated that the appellant informed death of the deceased and also informed them that he had caused injuries in a drunken condition. Witnesses went to the scene and found the deceased dead and subsequently, complaint/Ex.P.1 was filed by P.W.1 stating that the appellant had killed his father with a hammer. Immediately, the Police have gone to the scene of offence and recovered hammer-M.O.1 and stick-M.O.2 which were used by the accused to injure his father resulting in fatal injuries. 12. The ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence regarding appellant and deceased being found together cannot be accepted. The appellant has not disputed his stay along with the deceased under one roof. It is further not in dispute that P.W.7 had given amount to the deceased and there was quarrel in front of P.W.7 regarding the said amount. The incident happened on the very same night and the said information regarding death was given to P.W.1 and others. 13. The appellant had taken two different defenses during trial. Firstly, according to the appellant, the deceased died on account of being drunk and falling down. On the other hand, he has taken a defense that brother of the deceased namely Maisaiah and son of another brother namely Narsimha beat his father and killed him regarding land dispute. Neither dispute in between the said persons and deceased was proved nor that there was any altercation in between them. On the other hand, he has taken a defense that brother of the deceased namely Maisaiah and son of another brother namely Narsimha beat his father and killed him regarding land dispute. Neither dispute in between the said persons and deceased was proved nor that there was any altercation in between them. Merely, taking a defense that the two persons have caused injuries would not suffice, unless evidence is placed on record by the appellant. The burden would lie on the appellant since it is the specific case that death was caused on account of Maisaiah and Narsimha beating his father on account of land dispute. Though the accused raised other defense that the deceased fall down in a drunken stte and died, neither beating by Maisaih and Narsimha was proved nor other defense that deceased died on account of falling down after consuming alcohol is proved. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 held as under:- “14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the Courts. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. (See Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution 1944 AC 315) quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh (2003) 11 SCC 271 ). The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration (b) appended to this section throws some light on the content and scope of this provision and it reads: (b) A is charged with traveling on a railway without ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him." 15. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation.” 15. As per Section 106 of the Evidence Act (for short ‘the Act’), the burden is on the appellant to prove under what circumstances the death of the deceased was caused, since it is admitted that the appellant and the deceased were staying under one roof. Mere denial and throwing the blame on other persons that they have caused death would not suffice and would not amount to discharging burden that was shifted on to him. Under Section 106 of the Act, the burden that shifts on to the appellant can be discharged by preponderance probability. Mere suggestion that the deceased died on account of falling down or some other persons have caused his death, would not suffice to say that the burden that was shifted on to the appellant was discharged. According to the Doctor, multiple injuries (13 in total) which could have been caused by blunt object is the reason for death. 16. The prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. According to the Doctor, multiple injuries (13 in total) which could have been caused by blunt object is the reason for death. 16. The prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. There are no grounds to interfere with findings of the learned Sessions Judge. 17. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed.