Allowed

Mangali Hari Krishna, v. State of A.P.

Telangana HC16 Oct 2012CRLA/38/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction for murder. The High Court acquitted the appellant because the sole evidence was an uncorroborated extrajudicial confession made under interrogation, which was unreliable and retracted. The conviction was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted and set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Mangali Hari Krishna, Vs State of A.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶2

Crl.A.No.38 of 2008

¶3

ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad)

¶4

This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.155 of 2006 by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Vikarabad on 31.12.2007.

¶5

The appellant herein is the sole accused and he was prosecuted for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

¶6

According to the prosecution the deceased Mangali Mallamma is having 5 daughters and 2 sons. P.W.1 is the first son of the deceased and accused is her 2^nd son. P.W.1 is residing with his family at Chanda Nagar, Hyderabad by eking out his livelihood by running barber shop. As he indebted loans for starting his barber shop, Ac.3.00 of land out of Ac.6.00 land of his parents was sold and he got Rs.30,000/-, with which P.W.1 has cleared of the loans and also performed the marriages of his sisters. The accused was residing at Madgul Chittempally village along with his parents and he used to wonder without doing any work having addicted to consume liquor and used to abuse his parents. About 2 years back the marriage of accused was performed with one Ananthamma and having 5 months daughter. The husband of the deceased was expired 2 months back. Since the death of his father, the accused asking the deceased to get the landed property transferred equally in his name and in the name of his elder brother, but the deceased got the land measuring Ac.3.00 transferred in her name only. P.W.1 has indebted loan of Rs.25,000/- towards the marriage of his brother and in connection with the death of his father, he along with his mother have took a loan of Rs.25,000/- by keeping the Pass Book of the land in the bank and cleared the loans. Keeping this in their minds, the accused and his wife

¶7

used to pick up quarrels with his mother, since she has not gave any amount to them. Whenever quarrels took place, the wife of accused used to go to her parents’ house and the accused used to go to his parents-inlaw’s house and asked to send his wife to his house, his mother-in-law and her sons used to insult him and beat him saying that as he has no landed property, how he will look after his wife and refused to send back his wife with him. Having disgusted with the attitude of his mother, on the evening of 03.04.2006 he made his mother to consume toddy and after the lunch, they both slept in front of their house and at about 11.00 p.m. while his mother was in deep sleep, covered her face with his own towel, sat on her chest and tightened it around her face, pressed her neck forcibly causing her instantaneous death. Later, he made hue and cries pretending that two persons have killed his mother and he is suspecting that his brother-in-law Lingaiah, resident of Kerelly and Shankaramma, his paternal aunt. On the complaint given by the accused, P.W.10 has registered a case in Crime No.86 of 2006 under Section 302 IPC and took up the investigation. She visited the scene of offence, conducted the scene of offence panchanama, seized the towel found at the scene of offence, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.9 and another and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 6 and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. P.W.8, doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased died due to asphyxia due to strangulation. Thereafter, the investigation was taken up by P.W.11 and he re-examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and P.Ws.5 and 6 have revealed that on the night of 03.04.2006, the suspect Mangali Lingaiah along with his brother Mangali Chandraiah have cooked the raw turmeric in the dish of P.W.6 and slept there only, therefore, the involvement of the said Lingaiah could not be established. On 10.04.2006 P.W.7 and another Balije Sangem approached him at his office along with the accused stating that the accused has made extra judicial confession before them that he killed his mother and falsely implicated the name of his brother-in-

¶8

law Lingaiah, then he examined them, recorded their statements, interrogated the accused and arrested the accused and sent him to judicial custody. After completion of the investigation P.W.11 has filed the charge sheet against the accused.

¶9

The learned Sessions Judge has framed the charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused and he pleaded not guilty for the said charge.

¶10

In order to establish the said charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

¶11

The learned Sessions Judge by taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months.

¶12

Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, accused has filed the present appeal.

¶13

Now, the point that arises for consideration is:

¶14

Whether the prosecution could establish the charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt? P O I N T:

¶15

The appellant’s counsel has pleaded that there is no evidence on record to establish that the accused has caused the death of the deceased. He further pleaded that the motive for the commission of offence by the accused was not established by the prosecution and the trial Court based on the alleged extra judicial confession made by the accused in the presence of P.W.7 convicted the accused. Since the extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and as it is retracted by the accused, the same cannot be relied upon to convict the accused.

¶16

Hence, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

¶17

The Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand has pleaded that P.W.1 is the son of the deceased and brother of the accused has categorically stated about the accused confessing about the commission of offence in the presence of village elders and P.W.7 has stated about the confession made by him and immediately they hand over him to the police and in the confession he has categorically stated about the manner, in which he has committed the offence and also the motive for the commission of offence, as such the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that the deceased, who is the mother of the accused, after the death of his father got the property transferred in her name and earlier to that she sold half of the land and cleared the debts of P.W.1 and no amount was paid to the accused and as he has no landed property, his wife also deserted him and his parents-in-laws insulted him in that regard and refused to send his wife and he felt that his mother is responsible for all these things and committed the murder the deceased on 03.04.2006 by making her to consume toddy and while she was in deep sleep covered her face with his own towel, sat on her chest and tightened it around her face, pressed her neck forcibly causing her instantaneous death.

¶19

P.W.1, who is the brother of the accused and son of the deceased, has only stated that he came to know about the death of his mother and came to the village from Hyderabad and found the dead body of his mother in front of his house and he also found ligature marks of strangulation on the neck of his mother.

¶20

P.W.2, sister of the accused and daughter of the deceased, who is resident of Kamereddyguda village, came to the village after receiving the information about the death of her mother and found the dead body

¶21

lying in front of their house and found the ligature marks of strangulation on her neck.

¶22

P.W.3, locality person, who is also the resident of the same village, has stated that he heard the cries from the house of the deceased and went there along with others. The accused stated that some persons killed his mother and went away. He found some strangulation with thread of black colour on the neck of the deceased.

¶23

P.W.4, who is another person residing in the same locality, turned hostile to the prosecution, but he also stated that on the date of incident at 10.00 p.m. while he was in his house, he saw many persons were gathered in front of the house of deceased, so he went there and saw the dead body of the deceased. Therefore, P.Ws.1 to 4 have seen the dead body of the deceased in front of the house of the deceased and found strangulation mark on her neck.

¶24

P.W.9, mediator for the inquest, has also stated about the observation of the strangulation marks around the neck of the deceased, but he did not state anything about the police conducting inquest panchanama in his presence.

¶25

P.W.8, doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, has found strangulation marks presented around the neck extending from left to right below left ear to right ear about ½ cm and he opined that the deceased might have died due to asphyxia due to strangulation.

¶26

Therefore, from the above said evidence it is evident that the death of the deceased is homicidal death.

¶27

Now, it has to be examined whether the accused is responsible for the death of the deceased?

¶28

Immediately after the incident, the accused himself lodged the

¶29

complaint with P.W.10, S.I of police, at 1.30 p.m. and she registered a case in Crime No.86 of 2006 under Section 302 IPC and Ex.P.4 is the complaint received by her.

¶30

In Ex.P.4, the accused suspected one Lingaiah and another are the persons responsible for the murder of his mother, who was sleeping outside her house.

¶31

The investigating officer, during the course of investigation basing on the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6, found the said Lingaiah is not responsible for the death of the deceased. The trial Court by relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 7 and the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused, convicted the accused.

¶32

P.W.1, who is the brother of the accused, has only stated that on the next day of funerals, the village elders called the accused and enquired him. He came to know that when the village elders has stated to him about the consequences of police arrest, the accused confessed that he himself committed the murder of his mother and after that police came and apprehended the accused and on the same day police enquired him. He further stated that he did not state before the police about the confession of the accused before the village elders. Therefore, P.W.1 only came to know about the extra judicial confession made by the accused before the village elders, but he did not disclose the same his 161 Cr.P.C. statement.

¶33

The other person, before whom the alleged extra judicial confession made by the accused, is examined as P.W.7. According to him, the mother of the accused and P.Ws.1 and 2 by name Mallamma was died about 1 ½ years back. On the next day morning of the death of the deceased, at about 08.30 a.m. while he was at his house, P.W.1 came and informed about the death of his mother. On his enquiry, he revealed that his mother consumed toddy and died on the previous night. Immediately, he along with other villagers went to the house of deceased

¶34

and saw the dead body of the deceased and observed one Noola thadu on the neck of the deceased, which shows that she was strangulated with the said thread. He telephoned to the Vikarabad police station and informed about the incident. On the next day, after funeral of deceased the relatives of the accused and other village elders called the accused to Hanuman Temple and enquired him. On that the accused revealed that he himself killed his mother. On their further enquiry, he has stated that he got consumed toddy to his mother and strangulated her with thread. On further enquiry, he has stated that his mother sold three acres of land and the sale proceeds of the said land was given to his brother, P.W.1 and she has not given the sale proceeds to him, due to that he killed her by strangulating her. According to him at the time of accused making extra judicial confession at Hanuman temple Momula Malla Reddy, Mangali Ananthaiah, Balije Sangam and others were present along with him. Immediately after making the confession at Hanuman temple, he informed the police and the police came and took the accused along with them. In the cross-examination he admitted that he did not state before the police that on the next day of death of deceased, in the morning, at about 08.30 a.m. P.W.1 coming to his house and informing about the death of his mother and his going to the house of the deceased. He further admitted that he do not remember whether the black colour thread, which was found around the neck of deceased, was seized by the police in his presence or not. He further admitted that he talked with Malla Reddy, Veerasham, Mallesham, Sangappa and other villagers and enquired with the accused, for three days after the death of his mother. He further admitted that he did not state before the police about his talking with the accused for three days as they did not ask him. He further admitted that he did not state before the police when he called the accused to Hanuman temple and when the accused voluntarily confessed about the commission of offence. After the extra judicial confession made at the temple, the S.I of police sent one constable, who took the accused along with him to the police station. The police

¶35

examined him at the house of the accused on the date of death of deceased and after that the police never examined him. Therefore, according to P.W.7, himself and other villagers called the accused to Hanuman Temple and for 3 days they enquired him, then he confessed about the commission of offence. The way, in which the accused made confession is, appears to be not voluntarily and on questioning the accused by the said persons for three days, he appears to have made the said confession.

¶36

With regard to the date of making confession, P.W.1 has stated that on the next day of the funerals of his deceased mother, village elders called the accused and he made confession before them.

¶37

P.W.7 also stated on the next day of the funerals of the deceased, the relatives and village elders called the accused to Hanuman temple, where he confessed about the commission of offence.

¶38

Admittedly, the death of the deceased was occurred on the night of 03.04.2006. According to the doctor, P.W.8, he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 04.04.2006 at 05.30 p.m. Therefore, the funerals might have taken place on 05.04.2006 and on the next day of the funerals i.e. on 06.04.2006 the accused said have made extra judicial confession. As per the evidence of P.W.7 for 3 days they have questioned the accused, that itself shows that from the date of death till 06.04.2006 they have questioned the accused and finally the accused confessed about the commission of offence on 06.04.2006. According to P.W.7, immediately after making the confession at Hanuman temple, he informed the police and the police came and took the accused along with them. According to P.W.11, investigating officer, on 10.04.2006, P.W.7 and Balije Sangam along with the accused came to their office, and stated before him that in their presence the accused made extra judicial confession. Therefore, according to the investigating officer, the accused was produced before him on 10.04.2006. Thus, police going to the

¶39

Hanuman temple on the information furnished by P.W.7 and taking the accused into custody is not established. Therefore, the date of making extra judicial confession by the accused is also creates a doubt.

¶40

When the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused was retracted by the accused during the course of trial, the prosecution has to establish by adducing cogent evidence about the extra judicial confession made by him. As discussed above from the evidence of P.W.7 the accused has not voluntarily gone to him and made extra judicial confession, but on their interrogation he appears to have made the confession. Apart from P.W.7 even though number of persons were present at the time of accused making extra judicial confession, they were not examined before the Court to establish the confession made by the accused. Moreover, according to P.W.7, a black thread was found around the neck of the deceased when he saw the dead body, but P.W.10, who has conducted the scene of offence panchanama and inquest over the dead body of the deceased, did not seize the said thread. Thus, apart from the extra judicial confession made before P.W.7, there is no other evidence, either oral or circumstantial, to connect the accused with the commission of offence. Since the extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and in the circumstances stated above it is not safe to convict the accused basing on the extra judicial confession without corroboration.

¶41

The trial Court committed error in convicting the accused solely basing upon the said extra judicial confession made before P.W.7. Therefore, the said conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

¶42

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant-accused, by judgment dated 31.12.2007 passed in S.C.No.155 of 2006 by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Vikarabad, for the offence punishable

¶43

under Section 302 IPC, is hereby set aside. The appellant-accused is acquitted for the said charge and he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

¶44

_______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

¶45

_____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶46

Date:16-10-2012 Ksp

Mangali Hari Krishna, v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangali Hari Krishna, v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of a.P., Vs Nama Ramakrishna

Kiran Shankar Vadla, Vs Superintendent of Police, Mahaboobnagar District at

Smt. Mekala Kusuma, Vs The State of A.P.

Banoth Shankar, Vs The State of A.P.

Madhineni Muralidhar Vs The Government of A.P.

K. Rajesh. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh