Allowed

Ganta Narender v. the State of A.P. Rep. by P.P.

Telangana HC7 Jul 2022CRLA/1362/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal, the High Court restored liberty to an appellant convicted of murder. Setting aside the conviction for furnishing inadequate evidence in circumstantial cases, the court found the trial court's reasoning scientifically and factually flawed due to conflicts with unwarned witness testimony.

What did the court decide?

The conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC is set aside. The appellant is set at liberty forthwith.

Ganta Narender Vs the State of A.P. Rep. by… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA}

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1362 OF 2OO8

¶7

Crl.Appeal Under Section 374⁽²⁾ of Cr.P.C.^{aggrieved by the Judgment} dated 29-'10-2008 in S.C.No . 347 oI 2007 on the file of the^Court of the^lV Additional Sessions Judge^(FTC) Ranga^{ReddyDistrict.}

¶8

Betwee n:

¶9

Ganta Narender, S/o Chakri Labourer R/o. Korsonda, Gusani Gajapathi^District, Orrissa. ...APPELLANT/ Accused AND

¶10

The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor,^{High Court of A.P.} ...RESPODENT Through PS Ghatkesar.

¶11

CRLAMP. NO: 2108 OF 2008

¶12

Petition under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C.^praying that^{in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be} pleased to enlarge the Petitioner on Bail, pending disposal of the above case

¶13

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. MADHIREDDY^SHANKAR

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

The Court delivered the following: Judgment

¶16

¶17

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1362 OF 2OO8

¶18

JUDGMENT:

¶19

The appellant aggrieved by the conviction under^Section 3O4 Part-Ii of IPC and sentenced to undergo^rigorous imprisonment for a period of five^{years vide judgment in} S.C.No.347 of 2007 dated 29.10.2008^passed by^{the learned} iV Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy^{District(for short} the learned Sessions JudgeJ, the^present appeal is^fi1ed. Altogether three accused were tried for the offence under Section 3O2 IPC, however, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted ,{2 and ,{3 of the offence under Section 302^{of IPC.}

¶20

The case of the prosecution according to final report^is that the appellant herein and his deceased wife loved each other and got married at Yadagirigutta temple, without^the knowledge of P.Ws. 1 and 2, who are the^{parents of the} deceased. Both A1 and the deceased shifted^{to quarters in} Crystal poultry at Ghatkesar. On^{16.10.2006, the deceased} asked A1 to take her to hospital as^{she was not r.r'e1l. However,} this appellant and A.2 and A3 refused to take her to the

¶21

¶22

¶23

hospital. For the said reason, the deceased got frustrated and closed doors of her quartcr from inside. At that time, one

¶24

Nandesh(PW4) and Prasharth(PW5) knocked the doors of the quarter of the deceased and she did not open, as such, both of them opened the doors forcibly ar-rd found the deceased lying in sitting position by thc side ol almirah with a saree tied around her ueck. Accordingly, it was informed to others in the qual'ters and they brought her out and laid her in the verandah. Since the i.nvestigation revea1ed that there is no harassment by the accused, the charge sheet^{was laid for the} offence under Section 306 of IPC.

¶25

The Court, however, after going through the charge^sheet and other materiaL filed under Section 178^{of Cr.P.C, came to} the conclusion that the case is one of^{murderpunishable} under Section 302 of IPC on the basis of i.njuries^{found on the} deceased and accordingly, the learned^{SessionsJudge framed} charge as follows:

¶26

"That you Narender^(Al) along^{withA2 Chakriand 43 Sarasthi,on} 6.10.2006 in the morning hours intentionally killed^{your wife} Manjula, at your quarter in a^poultry farm at^{Ghatkesar by beating} and strangulation with saree and^{thereby you have committedthe}

¶27

¶28

¶29

offence ?nurder' punishable under Section 302 IPC, within my cognizance."

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would

¶31

submit that the hnding of the learned Sessions Judge is based on assumptions and not supported by any evidence brought on record. The learned Judge assumed that A1 did not state any reason for his absence in the poultry when informed to P.W.3, the owner of poultry. Further, when there was blood stained stone found at the scene of offence, the conclusion that A1 beat the deceased in between 7.00 am to 8.30 a.m and by the reason of the said injuries, the deceased gradually lost her conscious arrd died has no basis. At the same breath, learned Sessions Judge found that there is no evidence on record to prove that the accused harassed the deceased and there was ilI motive or intention on the part of the accused to kili the deceased

¶32

Learned counsei for the appellant relied Llpon the judgment in the case of Anwar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradeshl, wherein their Lordships found that in all the cases

¶33

'120201^{10 Supreme} Court Cases 166

¶34

of circumstantial^{evidence,whett the prosecutionfails to prove} the complete chain^{of events, the accused would be entitled to} acquittal. He^{a,1so relied on the judgmentof Deihi High Court} in the case of Shyam^Sunder @^{Pappu v'State[Criminal} Appeal No.31 of^{20051,dated 30.09,2013,and Dehal Singh v'} State of Himachal^Pradesh [Criminal^{AppealNo'1215 of 2005]'} dated 31.08.2010,^{wherein the Hon'bieSupremeCourt held} that section 313^{Cr.P.Cstatementof the accusedis recorded} without administering^{any oath as such it cannot be treated} as evidence within^{the meaning of Section 3 of Evidence Act'}

¶35

On the other^{hand, learnedPublic Prosecutor submits} that the finding^{of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be} interfered with^{for the reason of the learned Sessions Judge'} having found that^{the circumstances in the present case ruled} out any other^{possibility except the accused committing} offence. For the^{said reason,the finding of the Sessions} cannot be interfered^with.

¶36

In the case of^{SharadBirdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of} Maharashtra [1984^{AIR 1622], the HonlcleSupreme Court}

¶37

¶38

¶39

framed the following golden principles in the case of

¶40

circumstantial evidence, which are as follor,r,s:

¶41

"(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

¶42

(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say. they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,

¶43

(3) the circumstances shoutd be of a conclusive nature arrd tendency.

¶44

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

¶45

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

¶46

These hve golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the palchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.,,

¶47

It is pertinent to note that during the course of

¶48

investigation, the police found that the deceased was last seen by L.W.4-Smt.Guggi1la Parvathi, however, she was given up and not examined during the course of trial. Further, from the statement of P.Ws.4 and 5 during investigation it was stated that they forcibly opened the door and found the deceased in the quarter with a saree tied around her neck, as such, from the evidence available and the circumstances, the Investigating Officer found that beating by A1 to A3 was frivolous and fabricated, For the said ressons. murder of the

¶49

¶50

deceasedwasruledoutand.chargesheetwas{iledunder Section^{306 of IPC'}

¶51

g.Ex.PlisthecomplaintlnwhichP.W.l/fatherofthe deceased^{stated that his daughter married Al a-fter they eloped} three months^{prior to the incident' On receivingphone call} from the^{managerof poultry farm that the deceasedcommitted} suicide,^{P.W.l and others went to the quarter and foundher} d.ead.^{However, injuries were found on the foreheadand} bangles^{were broken, as such' P'W'1 suspected that A1 to A3} committed^{murder of his daughter'As stated above' the police} after investigation^{found that the door was iocked from inside} and the^{sarne was forciblyopened' for which reason' murder} was ruied^out.

¶52

During^{the course of examination'P'W' 1 and 2 parents of} deceased^{narratedthe facts as stated' in the complaint'}

¶53

The^{evidenceof P'Ws'4arrd 5 is crucial to the case'} P.W.4 stated^{that they had seen the deceasedwas alive at 7'00} a.m while^{she was washing her clothes'Both P'Ws'4 and 5} further stated^{that they dirl not know any quarrel that took}

¶54

¶55

¶56

place between^{Aland the deceasedand so also the other} family^{membersof A1' Further' PW'Sspecihcallystated that} about^{10.00 &.o, while they were playing outside' the} deceased^{closedthe doors and at that time' no other person} except^{deceased was present inthe house'The said} statement^{of P.Ws'4and 5 made on oath beforeCourt was not} d.isputed^{bY the} Prosecution'

¶57

The^{approachof the learnedSessions Judge in} concluding^{that the charge uader Section302 IPC had to be} framed though^{the police had ruled out that the deceased was} murdered,^{appears to be misconceivedand contrary to the} record and^{evidencecollected during investigation'}

¶58

The^{learned SessionsJudge was of the opinion that on} the basis^{of the circumstances that (i) A1 had gone to the} poultry work^{and informed P'W'3' the ownerof the poultry} that deceased^{would not come' (ii) the admissionby the} accused^{in his Section313 Cr'P'C examinationthat there was} a stone drained^{in blood at the scene of offence' were sufficient}

¶59

¶60

linking circumstances to prove that the deceased was murdered.

¶61

I+. Assumptions, preslrmptions and fanciful thinking cannot be made basis to arrive at conclusions in a criminal case. Prosecution witnesses P.Ws.4 and 5 have stated that when they were playing in front of the house of the deceased, the deceased was washing cloths and subsequently by 10.00 a.m, went inside and closed doors. Irurther, there was no one in the house except the deceased. It is not in dispute that door was forced open to get the deceased out and she was laid in the verandah.

¶62

The facts of the case and eye witnesses account would rule out that when the appellant went to work, the deceased was either injured or any altercation took place. The evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 is not disputed by the prosecution and the sarne cannot be brushed aside by the trial Court without giving reasons. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge that the accused might have injr-rred the deceased in between

¶63

¶64

¶65

7.0O a.m to 8.30 a.m that she was slowiy died at 10.00 a.m is totaily erroneous, without basis and result of fanciful thinking

¶66

Any injuries found on the deceased have to be explained by the prosecution and in absence of such explanation, the accused cannot be suspected or asked to explain in the background of the evidence of PW4 and 5. For the said reasons, benefit of doubt has to be extended to the appellant and accordingly, the conviction ol accused under Section 304 Part-ll IPC is set aside.

¶67

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 29.10.2008 in S.C.No.347 ol2OOZ is set aside. Since the appellant is in jait, he shal1 be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

¶68

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shail stands closed.

¶69

¶70

SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISJRAR //TRUE COPY// <sup>.1 SECTION'OFFICER

¶71

ONE FAIR COPY TO THE^{HON'BLESRIJUSTICE K. SURENDER} (FOR HIS LORDSHIPS KIND PERUSAL)

¶72

To,

¶73

The lV Additional Sessions^{Judge, Ranga ReddyDistrict.( WITH RECORDS)} 2. The lll Additional Metropolitan^Magistrate '^{Cyberabad at L'B Nagar, Ranga} Reddy District.

¶74

¶75