A husband's conviction for murdering his wife by striking her head with a stone was upheld. The court rejected the claims of grave and sudden provocation and unsoundness of mind, dismissed the appeal, and confirmed the life sentence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1349 OF 2014
Crl.Appeal Under Section 374 (21 ol Crl.P.C. aggrieved by the Judgment dated 05-11-2014 in S.C.No. 411 of 20'13 on the fite of the Court of the Vlll Additional District and Sessions Judge at Medak
Between:
Chakali Shekar @ Shekaiah, Sio. P6ntaiah, R/o. Kowdipally Village and Mandal, Medak District, (Now in Central Prison at Cherlapalli)
...APPELLANT/ Accused
AND
State of Telangana, rept. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.
...RESPODENT/ Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. M. K. RATNAM
Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI C. PRATAP REDDY LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court delivered the following: Judgment
THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL APPEA No.1349 OF 2OL4
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Dr. lustice Shameem Akther)
This Criminal Appeal, under Section 37aQ) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C'), is filed by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by thejudgment, dated 05.11.2014, passed in S.C.No.411 of 2013 by the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, at Medak, whereby, the Court below convicted the appellant/accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for Iife and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-.
The appellant/accused-Chakali Shekar @ Shekaiah (hereinafter referred as 'accused') and the deceased-Bhagyamma (hereinafter referred as'deceased'), are husband and wife and they we,re blessed with one son by name Ganesh, aged about B years
or.SA,J&JS,J Crl.A.No.1349 of 2014
2
and one daughter by name Nirisha (PW.2), aged about 6 years. The accused used to beat the deceased frequently. Panchayats were held in the presence of elders, wherein the accused was advised not to harass the deceased and lead marital life happily. The accused used to threaten the deceased that he would kill her at any time. On 13.02.2013 at 10:00AM, the accused and deceased along with PW.2 left their house and got down from auto at Velmakanne Village, Kowdipally Mandal and startedproceeding to Pothireddipally Village on foot to attend a function. On the way, at the outskirts oF Thummalapally Thanda, PW.2 complained that she was unable to walk and asked the accused to take her in his arms, for which the accused became angry and slapped PW.2. Then the deceased got angry and slapped the accused and questioned him as to why he beat PW.2. On that, the accused grew wild, beat the deceased with hands, dragged her to road side barren land, threw her on the ground, sat on her chest and beat with hands. Though PW.2 intervened, the accused pushed her away. Then, the accused picked up a boulder and beat the deceased on her head and face, due to which, the deceased received bleeding injuries and died on the spot. When PW.2 made hue and cry, the accused ran away from the crime scene.
t
Dr.SA,J&JS,J Crl.A.No.1349 of 20'14
Or.SA,J&JS,J Crl.A No'1349 of 2O14
4
remand. On completion of investigation, PW.7 laid charge-sheet before the learned luclicial Magistrate of First Class, Medak, against the accused of the offencepunishable under Section 302 of IPC.
Di.SA,J&JS,J Cr.A.No.1349 of 2014
mortem examination Report. PW.S-Kurma Vittal, is thepanch witness for scene of offence and inquest. PW.6-Md. Ghouse, A.S.I of Police, who registered the subject crime and issued Ex.P7-Express FIR. PW.7-Sri K.Rama Krishna, Circle Inspector of Police, Medak Rural Circle, is the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation, arrested the accused and laid charge-sheet before the Court. Ex.P.1 is the report. Ex.P2 is relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.2. Ex.P3 is bunch of four photographs. Ex.P4 is post-mortem examination report. Ex. P5 is scene oF oFFence panchanama and rough sketch. Ex.P.6 is inquest report. Ex.P.7 is Express FIR. Ex.P.B is FSL Report, dated 21.05.2013. MO.1 is the stone. MO.2 is bloodstained earth. MO.3 is controlled earth. MO.4 is the saree, MO.5 is the petticoat and MO.6 is thejacket of the deceased.
6 Dr.SA,J&JS,J Crl.A.No.1349 of 2014
under Section 302 oF IPC and sentenced him as stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred this appeal.
't
Dr.SA, J &JS,J Crl.A.No.1349 of2O14
1
Therefore, the appellant/accused is entitled for the benefit of Section 84 of IPC and ultimately prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused and acquit him of the said offence.
11, On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that there is direct evidence of PW.3-eye witness. The evidence of PW.3 is cogent and clear with regard to ar:cused beating the deceased to death. The evidence of PW.2-daughter of the accused and the deceased, is partially reliable. Further, when there is direct evidence with regard to commission of an offence, motive loses its significance. The injuries were inflicted on the deceased with an intention to do away with her life, which resulted in her instantaneous death. There is medical evidence to substantiate the same. There is no inconsistency between the evidence of direct witnesses and medical evidence. There was no suddr:n provocation, as alleged. It is further contended that absolutely there is no evidence on record to substantiate that the accusec was insane at the time of commission of the subject offence or has exhibited any signs oF insanity, to grant benefit under Section 84 of IPC. The accused was leading normal life. After commission oF the offence, the accused ran away from the scene of offence, which reflects that he was capable of understanding the act committed by him.
Dr.SA,J&JS,J Crl.A.No.1349 of 2014
8
Therefore, the accused is not entitled for benefit of Section 84 of IPC. The Court below elaborately dealt with entire evidence on record and rightly arrived at a conclusion that theprosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt of the offence under Section 302 of IPC and ultimatelyprayed to dismiss the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused vide the impugnedjudgment.
t2. In view of the above submissions made by both sides, the
points that arise for determination in this appeal are as follows:
POINTS:
Or.SA,J&JS,J Crl A.No.1349 ol2o14
9
PW.2 complained that she was unable to walk and asked the accused to carry her, upon which, the accused became angry and slapped PW.2. Then the deceased got angry and slapped the accused and questioned, why he beat PW.2. On that, the accused grew wild and beat the deceased with hands, dragged her to road side barren land, threw her on the ground, sat on her chest and beat her with hands. Thereafter, the accused picked up MO.1-stone and beat the deceased on her head and face, as a result of which, the deceased received bleeding injuries and died on the spot, the accused is guilty of committing murder of the deceased.
L4. There is no much dispute with regard to the nature of death of deceased i.e, homicidal. There is evidence oF PW.4-Doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. He deposed that on the requisition given by the Station House Officer, Kulcharam Police Station, on 13.02.2013, he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased-Chakali Bhagyamma and found the following external injuries:
"1) Severe crush injury on the right side of the head.
He further deposed that on internal examination, he found big hematoma in the side of the brain and fracture of entire right skull. He opined that cause of death of the deceased was due to "head
Dr.SA, J & JS, J Crl.A,No.1349 of2014
t0
injury". Ex. P.4-Post-mortem examination report issued by him substantiates the same. PW.4 further deposecl that injuries found over the dead body of the deceased arepossible by hitting with M.O.1-stone. In the cross-examination, PW.4 denied the suggestion that the injuries found over the dead body arepossible by sudden fall on stones. There is also Ex.P.S-scene of offencepanchanama and Ex.P.6-inquest report. All these documents clinchingly establish that the death of the deceased is homicidal and it was caused on 13.02.2013 at the outskirts of Tummalapally Tanda, Hamlet of Pothireddipally village. Thequestion that needs to be answered in this case is as to who caused the death of the deceased.
il
Dr.SA,J&JS,J Crl.A.No 1349 of 2014
prosecution. She was hesitant to speak about her mother's death. She stated that she waspresent there, when her mother died. PW.2 further stated that while the deceased was running, hi: a stone and fallen and died due to fall on the stone. This piece of evidence is inconsistent with the version of Pw.4-Doctor, who deposed in his evidence that a person cannot get such crush injury b1, mere fall on stones.
ll
Dr.SA, J &JS, J Crl.A.No.1349 of 2o'l.t
accused already left the scene. PW.3 had ample opportunity to see the accused. PW.3 is an independent witness. She neither has any grudge or animosity against the accused to depose against him nor any necessity to support the case of prosecution. The evidence of PW.3 is cogent and consistent. There are no omissions and commissions in her evidence. Pw.4-Doctor, who conductedpost- mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.4-Post-mortem examination report, opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to head injury. Thus the evidence of PW.3 can be safely relied upon.
L7. PW.5-K.Vittal, deposed thatpolice examined the scene of offence andprepared Ex.P.5-scene observation report and rough sketch and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P.6-inquest report. He also deposed that police seized M.O.1 and clothes from the dead body and blood stained earth and controlled earth (M.Os.2 to 6). In the cross-exa m ination of PW.5, he denied the suggestion thatpanchanama was not conducted by the police in hispresence and also LW.B-Vajjala Narayana Reddy and that he signed on reports in thepolice station and that he was deposing falsehood at the instance ofpolice.
t3 Dr.SA,J&JS.J Crl.A No.1349 of 2014
from PW.1 on 13.02.2013 at 1:00PM and registering the subject Crime No.10/2013 and issuing Ex.P.7-First Information Report and thereafter, recording the statement of PW.1 and handing over further investigation to PW.7-Circle Inspector of Police, Investigating Officer.
Or.SA,J&JS.J Crl.A.No- 1349 of 20'i4
t+
examination PW.7 stated that except M.O.1-stone, there was no other stone near the scene of offence. He denied the suggestion that the deceased died by falling on stone while running and that accused did not kill the deceased. The evidence of PW.3, PW.4doctor and PW.7 falsifies the statement qiven by PW.2 that the deceased was hit by a stone while running and sustained injuries and died. There is direct evidence of PW.3 that the accused beat the deceased with stone and caused the subject death. Ex.P.BF.S.L. Report also reveals that human blood was detected on the material objects seized i.e, M.O.1-stone, M.O.2-bloodstained earth, M.O.4-saree, M.O.5-petticoat and M.O.6-jacket of the deceased. Thus it can be safely concluded that the accused had beat the deceased on 13.02.2013 at 10:00AM, at the outskirts of Tummalapally Tanda, Hamlet of Pothireddipally village. Therefore, the contentions raised by the accused that there is no evidence to prove that the accused had caused Fatal injuries to the deceased, are unsustainable.
2(J. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused would contend that even if the prosecution case is taken as true, there was grave and suddenprovocation by the deceased and as such, the act of the accused would squarely fall within Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. Here, it is apt to state that for claiming anexception on the
Dr.SA,J&JS,J Crl.A.No.1349 of2014
l.s
ground of "grave and sudden provocation" the facts that are required to be proved are (1)that the accused received provocation; (2) that the provocation was (a) grave, and (b) sudden; (3) that he was deprived of his power of self-control by the provocation; (4)that he caused the death of the person who gave him the provocation. Further, the question whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough amounting to commission of murder is a question of fact, but should not be treated as a question of law and should be decided basing on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, as per the evidence of PW.2, the accused and the deceased quarreled on a petty issue, i.e., with regard to carrying PW.2. PW.2 wanted to carry her as her legs were paining, for which, the accused refused and beat her, whereupon the deceased abused/slapped the accused. It is not a case of grave and sudden provocation. For merely abusing/sla pping the accused, there was no necessity for the accused to beat the deceased, who is his own wife, with a stone like MO-1 on vital part oF her body, i.e., head and cause bleeding injuries, resulting in her instantaneous death. The accused acted in a cruel and unusual manner. There is no evidence on record to arrive at a conclusion that there was grave and sudden provocation by the deceased to the accused, due to which, the accused lost his self-control, incapable of understanding his acts before cooling down, caused the subject death of the
_--
Dr.SA,J&JS,J Crl-A.No.1349 of 2014
l6
deceased. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, it can be safely concluded that the assault on the deceased by the accused is premeditated and not in a fit of anger. It was well within the knowledge of the accused that the injury being caused by him to the deceased will result in her death. Under these circumstances, the contention that the act of the accused would squarely fall within Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, is unacceptable. The trial Court has also elaborately dealt with this aspect and gave reasons for discarding the submission of the accused that the case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. The manner in which, the deceased was hit with a stone on vitalparts i.e, face and head and caused instantaneous death of the deceased, demonstrates that the injuries were caused in order to do away with the life of the deceased. Therefore, the instant case does not fall within the exceptions given under Section 300 of IPC. It is a clear case of murder.
I
Dr-SA,J&JS,J Cr 1.A.No.1349 of 2014
l1
Thereafter, they wanted to cover the rest of the distance by foot. On the way, at the outskirts of Thummalapally Thanda, Hamlet of Pothireddipally village, dispute arose in between the accused and the deceased with regard to carrying of PW.2 and in that process, the subject death oF the deceased had taken place. The circumstances establish that the accused was quite normal and he was not suffering from any mental ailment at that point of time. It is also appropriate to extract the provision under Section 84 IPC, which reads as follows:
DTSA,J&JS,J Crl.A.No.1349 of2o1a
1u
Section 84 of IPC would not come to his rescue. in case it is Found that the accused knew that what he was doing was wrong or that it was contrary to law. In order to ascertain the same, it is imperative to take into consideration the circumstances and the behavior preceding, attending and following the crime. In a recent judgment in Mohd. Anwar vs. The State (N.C.T. of Dethi)1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
" 16. The plea of mental disorder too remains unsubsta ntiated. No deposition was made by any witness, nor did the appellant himself claim any such impairment during his Section 313 CrPC statement. On the contrary, his conduct of running away from the spot of the crime on 17.05.2001 as well as the attempt to escape from the bus on 20.05-2001 evidence an elevated level of mental intellect. The answers recorded in response to the questions put forth by the Additional Sessions ludge at the Sec 373 CrPC stage are also not mechanical or laconic. For example, the appellant explains his refusal to participate in the TIP proceedings by alleging that his face had already been shown by the police to the complainant.
Irt)ror:(ci9l
{i
7
Di.SA,J&JS,J Crl.A.No.1349 of20'14
I9
In the instant case, there is no evidence to show that the accused was of unsound mind at anypoint of time. It is relevant to state that subsequent conduct of the accused in the course of trial has no relevance to arrive at a conclusion that the accused suffered from mental unsoundness and was incapable of understanding the act committed by him. Further, the accused taking treatment prior to the commission of the offence or subsequent to the commission of the offence has no relevance to hold that the subject death was caused in a state of unsound mind. Furthermore, the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 demonstrate that the accused beat the deceased with MO.1 stick on her head and ran away from the scene. When PW.1 reached the scene of offence, the accused was not there. There is clear evidence of PW.3 that the accused beat the lady with a stone on head andpushed the girl and ran away. On this issue, the Court below held that had the accused was in unsound state of mind and not capable of knowing what he was doing, he would not have ran away from that place on arrival of PW.3 and another person and that the material fact that the accused ran away soon after killing his wife (deceased) reflects that the accused was capable of understanding his act and the consequences that. flow from such act. So he ran away from the scene of offence in order to save himself and avoid punishment. It demonstrates that the accused was i E fit state of mind and capable of understanding his acts.
\l/
Dr.SA,J&JS,J Crl.A.No.1349 of 2014
20
We concur with the findings recorded by the Court below. Further, when the prosecution has established its case, it is incumbent upon the accused, under Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act, to establish the case of his private defence, though not beyond all reasonable doubt, but on thepreponderance of probabilities. The accused failed to discharge his onus by producing any evidence, much less cogent and convincing evidence. In view of the same, we are of the considered opinion that the alternativeplea that the accused was insane at the time of commission of the subject offence and therefore, the accused is entitled for benefit of Section 84 of IPC, is unsustainable. No self-defence is available to the accused.
r. L_:::-.,-:-=-+_.-.=-
Dr.SA,J&JS,J Crl.A.No-1349 of 2014
ll
Miscellaneouspetitions, if any,pending in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY// \
SECTIOfu OFFICER
To
{
HIGH COURT
DATED:0910612022
'/,
12 [[T 2[22
t
JUDGMENT
CRL.A,No.1349 of 2014
DISMISSING TtlE( ltt .APPtiAl-
/,6
?
3 issues framed by the court
Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused murdered his wife?
Did the fatal assault fall within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC?
Was the accused entitled to the defence of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 IPC?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohd. Anwar vs. The State (N.C.T. of Dethi)Relied on¶104
Mohd. Anwar vs. The State (N.C.T. of Dethi)1
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Chakali Shekar @ Shekaiah
State of Telangana
Shameem Akther
Juwadi Sridevi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
