Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 154 (TS)

Danakka Shankaraiah v. State of Telangana

2025-03-20

E.V.VENUGOPAL, K.SURENDER

body2025
JUDGMENT : K. SURENDER, J. This appeal is filed by appellant/A1, aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Judge, Family Court, Mahabubnagar, in S.C.No.276 of 2015, dated 29.01.2018. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 2. The appellant, who was arrayed as Accused No.1, was prosecuted along with A2 to A6 for the offences under Sections 147 , 148, and 302 r/w.149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . The learned Sessions Judge found that A2 to A6 were not complicit in the offence committed, and accordingly, acquitted them. The conviction was recorded only against the appellant who is now before this Court. 3. PW.1 lodged a complaint with the Police at 9.30 hours on 06.06.2014, alleging that there were disputes between the appellant and his family. The husband of PW.1, namely Adrushtam (deceased), went to his fields on the previous day, i.e., on 05.06.2014 at about 10.00 P.M., and ploughed their agricultural land. While the deceased was returning in the morning around 5.50 A.M., the appellant-A1 and A2 to A6 (acquitted) attacked the deceased with an intention to kill him. He was caught and his vehicle was stopped. A1 and A2 dragged him. The appellant and others attacked the deceased with sticks and Axes. In the complaint, PW.1 further narrated that PW.3, PW.4, and other relatives were present. On witnessing the incident, the relative, B.Ramulamma (not examined), went and informed PW.1 about the incident. PW.1 further narrated that the appellant and all the other accused threw chilli powder into the eyes of the deceased and hacked him. 4. PW.2 stated that A1 and A2 dragged the deceased from his bike, and A2 hacked the deceased with an axe which was brought from the house of A2. PW.2 did not mention about the presence of any of the other accused. 5. PW.3 is not an eye-witness to the incident and speaks about being informed by his grand-son about the murder of the deceased. 6. PW.4 is another eye-witness. According to her, A1 and A2 stopped the deceased, and A5 threw chilli powder on the face of the deceased, and then the appellant beat the deceased with an axe on his head, and the deceased fell down. 6. PW.4 is another eye-witness. According to her, A1 and A2 stopped the deceased, and A5 threw chilli powder on the face of the deceased, and then the appellant beat the deceased with an axe on his head, and the deceased fell down. A2 also tried to beat PW.4, and A4 abused PW.4 in a filthy language. PW.4 did not speak about the presence of A3, A5, and A6. 7. PW.5 stated that on the date of the incident, while he was going to attend nature’s call, he heard a noise from the house of A2. He saw A1 beating the deceased with an axe on his head, and all the accused who were present left the spot. 8. PW.6 stated that on the date of the incident he woke up around 5.30 A.M., and saw all the accused beating the deceased, and A1 hacking the deceased with an Axe in front of the house of A1 and A2. PW.6 further stated that when the deceased was coming back from his fields, the accused stopped the deceased, and threw chilli powder on his face and attacked him. 9. All the witnesses, PWs.1 to 6, also speak about the disputes between the family of the appellant and the family of the deceased. The dispute was regarding a piece of agricultural land purchased by the deceased and A2. The disputes arose when the deceased insisted that A2 sell the part of the land that was purchased by both of them. 10. The Inspector of Police-PW.14 went to the scene of offence, and the incriminating material was seized from the scene. He took the photographs of the scene, and shifted the body to the Government Hospital for postmortem. 11. PW.12, conducted postmortem examination and found four injuries, which are as follows: “i. laceration above right eye measuring 2 x 1 c.ms. ii. laceration of scalp from left temporal perital region extending till occipital region. iii. Fracture scalp left temporo parital region extending till occipital region with protrusion of brain matter. iv. fracture scalp right temporal region.” According to the opinion of PW.12, the cause of death is “head injury leading to cardio pulmonary arrest”. 12. The main argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that there was a inordinate delay in the FIR reaching the Court. iv. fracture scalp right temporal region.” According to the opinion of PW.12, the cause of death is “head injury leading to cardio pulmonary arrest”. 12. The main argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that there was a inordinate delay in the FIR reaching the Court. Though the incident happned at 5.30 A.M. in the morning, the complaint was filed at 9.30 A.M with a delay of four hours, and thereafter, the complaint reached the Court at 9.45 P.M. The inrodiante delay of 16 hours was not explained by the prosecution. 13. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu , (1972) 3 Supreme Court Cases 393 , wherein the Honourable Supreme Court found favour with the defence version that there was a delay of 20 hours in lodging the complaint with the police station, and held that the circumstances give rise to a significant amount of doubt regarding the delay of 20 hours in lodging the complaint, especially when the police station was at a distance of 2 miles. 14. In Rajeevan and another v. State of Kerala , 2003(3) SCC 355 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate, it would have an adverse effect on the prosecution case. In the said case, there was a 12 hours delay in sending the FIR to the concerned Magistrate. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mehraj Singh v. State of U.P. , 1994(5) SCC 188 observed that the delay in lodging the FIR would result in embellishment, making the complaint an afterthought. The delay in the FIR not only deprives it of the advantage of spontaneity but also creates a danger of introducing a coloured or exaggerated version. 16. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that when the disputes are admitted, the likelihood of the appellant causing death is more probable. 17. In the complaint filed at 9.30 a.m by P.W.1, he has implicated six accused, and stated that all the accused have inflicted injuries on the deceased with sticks and axes. The complaint was based on the information provided by Ramulamma, who was not examined, however, the names of P.Ws.3,4, and others are mentioned. 18. P.W.2 is an eye-witness to the incident. The complaint was based on the information provided by Ramulamma, who was not examined, however, the names of P.Ws.3,4, and others are mentioned. 18. P.W.2 is an eye-witness to the incident. According to him, A1 and A2 dragged the deceased from his motor cycle, and A2 inflicted injuries on the deceased with an axe, which was brought from his house. 19. P.W.14/Investigating Officer admitted that none of the eye- witnesses have spoken about the presence of P.W.2 when the incident happened. Further, P.W.4 admitted that P.W.2 did not state about the assault by A4 to A6, and that P.W.4/Ananthamma requested the appellants not to kill the deceased. 20. The version in the complaint is that all the appellants had beaten the deceased with axes and sticks, after sprinkling chilli powder in the eyes of the deceased. During the postmortem examination, only four injuries were found, and the Doctor did not find any chilli powder on the body or in the eyes of the deceased. The scene of offence panchanama also does not reflect that any chilli powder was found at the scene. 21. In the back ground of the pending disputes regarding the land, the case has to be examined considering the ongoing quarrel, the role attributed to the six appellants, and the delay in the FIR reaching the Court, all of which must be collectively analysed. 22. All the witnesses admit that the deceased and A2 were fighting over the agricultural land they had purchased together. This quarrel resulted in enmity between the family of the appellant and the family of the deceased. The complaint was not given by any of the eye- witnesses, allegedly present at the scene. The complaint was filed nearly four hours after the incident, naming P.Ws.3 and 4 as eye- witnesses. However, the name of P.W.2 was not mentioned as an eye- witness. Two other witnesses, P.Ws.5 and 6, were independent witnesses who were examined three days after the incident, and their names were not mentioned in the FIR. 23. The Investigating Officer/PW.13 admits that the complaint was immediately dispatched to the Magistrate, however, the complaint reached the Magistrate after 12 hours and 15 minutes. Admittedly, the Court was at a distance of 20 kms. The maximum time the constable would take to reach the Court would not exceed 1 ½ hours to cover a distance of 20 kms. 24. The Investigating Officer/PW.13 admits that the complaint was immediately dispatched to the Magistrate, however, the complaint reached the Magistrate after 12 hours and 15 minutes. Admittedly, the Court was at a distance of 20 kms. The maximum time the constable would take to reach the Court would not exceed 1 ½ hours to cover a distance of 20 kms. 24. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mehraj Singh’s case (supra), the delay in the FIR reaching the Court must be justified to the satisfaction of the Court. On account of the delay, there is a danger of the complaint being lodged with an exaggerated or a false version, or a version created after the due deliberation. In such situations, the actual happenings may be suppressed, and witnesses may come up with a version according to their desire to falsely implicate persons against whom they have enmity. Admittedly, there were inimical terms on account of property disputes between the family of the deceased and the accused. 25. Though, the witnesses narrated that all the accused attacked the deceased, however, they have selectively attributed the overt act of hacking with an axe against A1 in the Court. That, in itself, speaks volumes about the incorrect version given by the witnesses. This narration, coupled with the delay in the FIR reaching the Court, leads us to the opinion that the actual happenings were suppressed and a false version was projected by the prosecution. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellants. 26. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the conviction recorded by the Judge, Family Court, Mahabubnagar, in S.C.No.276 of 2015, dated 29.01.2018, is set aside, and the appellant/A1 is acquitted. Since the appellant is in jail, he shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.