Dismissed

Sannapu Bhadraiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Sept 2022CRLA/2666/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against conviction, the High Court upheld the trial court's finding of guilty for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and voluntarily causing hurt. The court found the injured eye witness evidence reliable and corroborated by medical reports, dismissing defenses regarding lack of motive and procedural delays.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed; the accused is directed to surrender to the trial court to undergo the remaining period of sentence.

Sannapu Bhadraiah Vs The State of Telangana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

lN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGAI.IA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2666 OF 2018

¶7

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C against the^judgment and order dated 20.9.2018 in S.C. No. 22 of 2017 of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge Karimnagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sannapu Bhadraiah, Son of Late Veeraswamy, aged 57 years Mala (SC) Occ: Agriculture, Resident of Vangapalli Village, Kamalapur Mandal, Karimnagar district

¶10

...APELLANT/Sole Accused.

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, through the Circle lnspector of Police, Jammikunta Rural, (PS Kamalapur) Rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPODENT/Complainant

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. M RAM MOHAN REDDY

¶15

Counsel forthe Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶17

.--..-.----_

¶18

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶20

CRI Irri 1

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This appeal has been filctl rgainst thc judgmcnt o[ conviction and scnrencc dare,i 2.+.09.2018 in S.C.No.22 of 2017 on the file of the l)rincipal Scssions .f udge , Karirnnagar, whereby the appellant/ accused (rereinafter,'the accused') \ AS convicted for the offences under Sections 304-II ard 323 of Inclian Penal Code, 1860 (for short,'the IPC) and se ntencecl to undcrgr, simple imprisonmcnt for a period of three (3) i,ears and to pa1 fine,ri Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment o[ fine to undergo si;r-r1;lc imprisorrrnent for a period ol two months for the of[encc punishablc undcr Scction 304-II with a direction to pay Its.20,000/- to Snrt. Sannapu lialrLmma, wile of tl-re deceased/PWl towards compens:ruon out oi t-tne amount. Further, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonmenr t,1- thrce months uncler Section 323 of the IPC. Both thc scntcnces rvcrc ordercd to run concurrendy. 2.(r) The case ol thc prosecr:tion in briel is that, on 13.06.2016, Rajamma/PW1 lodgccl the poiicc report stating that herself and her husband lLavi/decr'ascd wcnt t( ) thc nativc village o[ her husband, i.e.,

¶23

NTR,J 2 Crla 2666 2dlE

¶24

Vangapalli whcre her husband is having landed property, ho(vever with certain disputcs with his brother, Sannapu Bhadraiah/accused. 2.(Q On 12.06.2016, herseif along with her husband went to the ln Sarpanch of Vangapalli lor mediation regard to the disputc. Thercupon, her brother-in-larv/accused was summoned to Gram Panchayat Office. During deliberations, her brother-in-law/accused abused hcr and hcr husband/deceased in filthy languagc and lelt that place. Later, at about 1:00 P.M. herself and l.rer husband/dcceased went to their joint land where hcr mother-in-law has bcen residing There her co-sistcr/wife of accuscd abused them and in the mcan time, her brotl-rcr in larv/accused camc from behind and struck her husband on head and also on left leg with an iron pipc and caused injuries. \X/hen she attcmpted to interfcrc, the accused also beat her on left lcg and caused in juries. One Devarajam/PW4 and other neighbours rvere present and prevented the accused. Immediately, her husband/deceascd was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal in 108 ambulance for treatment. However, while undcrgoing treatment, at abott 12:30 AM succumbed to his injuries

¶25

NTR,J Crla 2666 2018

¶26

¶27

3 (D tlasing on thc report, rht then Inspector of Police,/PW14 regstcred the Crirnc No.85 of 2{) I 6 undcr Secdon 302, 323 of IPC and issucd FIR/Flx.P10

¶28

3.(ii)^'l'hereupon. the Im'csriuating OlFrcer/PW15 took up investigation conducted inqucsr lrl the prescnce o[ Muddamalla Ravi/PW7 and Nluddamalla Sarnpath as in the Incluest repor/Ex.P2. Dr.B.Sriramulu/P\'1(r condtrctcci autospy and issued Postmortem Report/Ex.P21. During the posrmortem proccedings, blood stained multi colour^-f Slrirt, pants, untlcrnear and waist thread/MO.4, botde contained blood sample of thr dcceased/N{O.5 were collected.^"Ihe investigating officcr/PW15 visitcd sccne of oflfence i.e., vacant place in front o[ the house o[ accused. conducted scene observation in the presence of Donjl<cla Yugendcr,/l'W9 and Moola Upcnder/PW10 and draftcd Crime Detail lirrm rrrd rough sketch /F:x.P11,. During the scenc observation, lllood stain r'.i I^t arth / MO.2, Con troller Earth/ MO.3 werc collected.

¶29

3.(iii) Irurther on 14.06.201,6, rhe investigating officcr/PWl5 arrested the accused in rhc prcscncr' of l)evaraj Muryalu/PW1 1 and Mula Bixapathai/PW.l 2, thc accusc cl nracle a statemcnr of conflession and

¶30

4 NTR,J Cda 2666 2018

¶31

shown the ton pipe/MO.1 which was used in commission o[ thc of[ence. These proceedings were recorded under coofession and recovcry panchnama/Ex. i) 1 2.

¶32

3.(iv)^'Ihe invcstigating officer/PW15 forwarded thc material objects to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, I(arimnagar for anaiysis under Letter of Advicc/llx.P13 and received the RFSL Report,/ Ex.P14 stating that N'{O.l, N,{O.2 and MO.4 contains human blood group "A". A fte r examrning the witncsses, collecting the medical reports and on conclusion oI the investigation, laid the final report 4. In the due course, the matter was placed before the Scssions Division and after numbering the case; the Principal Sessions Judge had takcn cognizance, framed charges under Sect-ions 302 and 323 of IPC for the oflcnces of murder and voluntarily causing hurt. As thc accused denied the charge and pleaded not guilty, the trial was taken up. During trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 16, marked Exs.P1 to P21 and N{Os.1 to 5.

¶33

After the prosecution evidence, incriminating material was confronted to under Section 313 o[ the Cr.P.C., the accuscd had dcnied the incriminat-ing material. However, no defence cvidencc was v

N IR.J Crla 2666²⁰¹⁸

adduced. AFter hearing tlre le:rrned Public Prosecutor and ihe learned couflsei lor the dclendants, learnc,l Sessions Judge concluded that the accused is liable frrr the offences punishable under Sections 304 Part-II and323 ofIPC ard sentenced as statcd above

¶39

Aggrieved thereby, the learned counsel for the accused/ appellant, ln appeal, contenclt'.i that thc Sessions Court failed to properly apprecirtc the evrdcnce on the rccord and recorded conviction.^'Ihe trial Court should have observed that the prosecution has failed to prove that deceaserl is having land properry in the village and it was given to thc appelllr.r t / accused on lease. The ttial Court should have obseivcd thar rhere is deiay in lodgrng police rcport as well as ln forwarding the [iirst Lrli rrrnation Rcport (FIR) to the Court, which itself is giving rise to qucstronable circumstances. Further, the Court should havc obscrved that tire Village Police beat system has not been informed and the doctor iras not registered a case under medicolegal case about any incident ir.r thc village,^'l'hus, the evidence of PW1 with regard to occurrence o[ ofttncc is shrouded in doubt. Above all, expcct the evidencc of PW1, thc Prosecution case is not supported by 4ny^{other direct} er.idencc. Hcncc, placing reliance on rhe only evidence

¶40

6 NTR,J Ctla 2666 2018

¶41

and concluding the guilt rvrthout anv corroboration is unsaf6. Thus, by extending benefit thc accuscd shall be acquitted.

¶42

On the other hand, the icarned Public Prosecutor pleaded that the prosecution's evidencc is establishing that the appellant/accused has caused injuries with iron pipe, which resulted in the death of the deceased. T'hough other eye witness turned hostilc, the testimony of the PW1 who is injurcd witness, is proving the occurrence and the essential facts beyond reasonable doubt.^'I'hus, the triai Court had carefully appreciated tl.re material on rccord and rightly concluded the guilt and conviction oF the accused. For that reason, the impugned

¶43

judgment of conviction and sentence deserves to be confirmed.

¶44

In this position, the aspect for determination would be:

¶45

l) lVhether lbe pmsecution had proued the incident and the inaoluement of the appellant/ anuvd in cauting injuiet and clnseqnent death oJ the uictin/ dueased bgtond reasonable doubt, as charged?

¶46

1. IY/bether the appellant/ accttrcd could establish an1 tenabk groand or act to establish that the conaiction under Section )04-II and Section 3D ofIPC is anjustifed?

¶47

1. IVbether the euidence of conuiction b1t tbe Sestions Court and tbe impugned jadgment it rustainabk in theJacl of /aw?

\ L

NTR,J Crla 2666 2018

'l'he undisputed facts arc that the deceascd/Ravi and P\i71 are wi[e and husband and the accuscd is the elder brother of the deceased. The PW3 is their rnother and rhe l)W2 is thc cousin of thc accused and the deceased. The wrtnesses in tl'rcir testimonies had spoken about the relauonships.

¶53

The entire prosecution case is resting on the direct evidence. The prosecution witnesscs of Dharmcnder/PW2 said to have accompanied the injured r.c., PW1 and her husband/dcceased to the hospital in 108 ambulance; thc m()ther of deceascd and accused/PW3, Devaraiu Isthari,/PW4 and Matoori Prabhakar/PW5 werc proposed as the direct witncsses to the^()ccurrence. J'he Sarpanch of Vangapalli Village/PS76 to rvhom Ravi/deceased along with his wife approached regarding the land dispute wirh thc accused.^'t'he P\X'9 and PW10 are the mediators during scene obscn.ation. The PW1 1 and PW12 are the mediators in whose presence the accuscd was said to have been arrested and the MO.1 was seized at the accuse d instance. Nevertheless, all the above notcd whatsoever did not support the prosecution's case.

¶54

NTR..l Crla 2666 ?018

¶55

¶56

There[ore, with regard to the incident and the involvement of the accuscd in causing injuries and the consequent dcath, thc only direct evrdencc on record is of thc PW1.

¶57

In chief evidence, the PW1 asserted that after raising the matter before the Sarpanch, herself and her husband /deceased went to their house wherc hcr mother-in-law is residing. There the wife of the accused starting abusing thcm. While she was asking her husband to turn back, the accused came [rom behind and hit on her husband's head with iron pipe on that, her husband [e1l down but, the accused continued to hit him with the sarne iron pipc on the left lower limb o[ her husband. Though she requcsted not to beat her husband, the accused continued the bearing b),uttering that he will not leave both of them alive and beat her on hcr lcft limb with the same pipe and thus incident was witnessed by thc PW4 and PW5. Later, herself and her husband/deceased were shiftcd to MGM Hospital in 108 ambulance by Dharmender/P\Y2. In cross-cxamination on the particulars o[ the core incident, no material aspect has becn elicited by the accuscd

¶58

13.^'Ihe doctor,/PW13 deposed that on 12.06.2016 at about 2:72 PM, the P!71 came to his hospital and complained that shc rvas beaten

NTR,J Ctla 2666 2018

(")

by known person with an iron rc,d and he [ound tenderniss in both right and le[t ki.rees. Furthcr, stated that he relerred to X-Ray Department and received a report from Radiology Depanment and rcvealed that there is no bt,n,: iniury. liurther, Mcdico Legal Case/Ex.P8 was registered with his signature and ofl shorving MO.1, opincd that the recorded in the Medico Legal Case are possiblc with such obiect. In cross examinaoon, it is elicited that in the Medico-legal case/Ex.P8, the village o[ the injtrred v/as recorded as Vangapally and that the injuries may also be caused with blunt obiects cither by stone or anv other hard object.

¶63

14.^'l'he doctor/PWl6 who conducted auropsy over rhe dead body

¶64

oI the deceased/]{avi deposed thar during postmortem examination the following ante-m()rtem injuries arr' lound over thc dcad body:

¶65

1. Satared unund 6 cm present on left temporal region of head.

¶66

4^{S*h contrion 6 cm x 6 cT prcrent0n left tenporalregiono/ head.}

¶67

)) Depressed fraxure of skall 4 nn x 4cm prewnt on left nmporal ,rgroo of bead.

¶68

1. Sab-daral Haematlma 6 cn x 5 cm Prese t on left tempero-occipital region oJ brain.

¶69

1. Nbsfraxared on both idu of ilest.

¶70

1. Cervical uertebrae C) - C4 Jracture ard tbel are dislocated.

¶71

l0 N'I'R,J Crla 2666 2018

¶72

Clovdfracture oJ leJt tibia,fbula in upper / / )il.

¶73

Further, opined that the injuries recordcd in the report/Ex.P8 are possible urith a blunt object like MO.1 and the dcath was caused duc to head injury.

¶74

As per the investigation offrcer/P\X/15, the scenc obser-vation was conducted in lront of the house of the accused.^'I'here he collected blood stained earrh/MO.2 and controlled earth/MO.3 and prepared a Crime Details Form/lix.P11 along rvith rough sketch.^'I-he mediators/PWs.9 and 10 for sccnc obserwation did not support thc prosecution case, but admitted their signature on the report /Ex.P4 and Ex.P5.

¶75

\Vhen this evidence is carefully analysed, the consistent evidence of PW1 that herself and her husband went to the house where their mother-in-law is residing there the incident occurrcd is being coroborated with the evidence recorded in Crime Details Form,/Ex.Pl1 and the appended rough sketch.

¶76

The PW1 asserted that her husband and herself suffered injuries and they were shifted to MGM Hospital from there, remained

¶77

unshaken in the cross-examination and these particulars are being

¶78

¶79

NTR,J Crla 2666 2018

¶80

substantiated by the evidence of the Doctor/P$713 and the entries in MLC/Ex.8.

¶81

18.^'l'l.re rough s1<ctch appenrlcd to the crime detaiis form is shorving that beside the horrse o[ the accused, there is vacant land with marking that it belongs tc, the dccease.l These facts are eliciting that the incident occurred in front of the house of the accused.

¶82

19.^'llhe other aspect contended is that the PW1 had mentioned that hcr husband,/dssgased g()t agricultural lands and the same rvas gven in iease to thc accuscd is n()t proved by the prosecuuon.

¶83

In this context an auth()rity o[ the Hon'ble Apcx Court, is noteworthy. In State of Haryana Vs. Sher Singht it was held that, the prosecution is not bound to prove the motive and even i[ thc motivc is proved the Court h:rs to examine the same and sce that evidence is adequrte. Further, thc law does not contemplate that no criminai ^ct c^n be perused unless the motive is proved. Meaning thereby, the pro, rf of motivc is an additional assurance but not sufFrcicnt to dravu any inter[erc against the accused, particulary in the case oI dire ct evidence.

¶84

t rea t 1z; scc 3oo

¶85

¶86

N fR.J Crla 2666 2018

¶87

Thereforc, in the prescnt case adequacy o[ motive for proo[ of lease is not relevant. That apart, it is well setded proposition that, when the ocular evidence is reliable, trusrworthl, and believable the proof oF mot-ive is irrelevant. However, the parriculars given in the police report/Ex.P1 and thc statement of PW1 arc indicating that the iand was given to accused on lease by her husband/deceascd. Bc that as it may, the mother of dcceased and accused as PW3 deposed that she had grven 1 Acre o[ land each to her s()ns i.e., appellant/accused and thE deccased and that the deceascd is residir.rg in Dharmaram Though the PW3 rvas declared hostile, thc vcrsion given bv her in chief examination remained uncontroverted. Therc[ore, cxistence of ancestral land for the deceased in Vangapally villagc shall bc taken as established.

¶88

The other contention o[ the accused is that though there is village police beat at relevant time, the occurrence was not reported by them to police. That apart, the doctor also failed to communicate the information to the police, through the out post o[ the hospital. These aspects are indicating that occurrence itself is doubtful.^{'fhis disscnt} cannot be accepted for the simple reason that no law contEmplates

¶89

NTR,J Crla 2666 2018

¶90

¶91

that, the failure or the part of the police beat to inform the loncerned and the doctor to inlorm the police as MLC for passing information would be Liable fol negarive intercnce

¶92

The other contention raised by the accused is that there is delay in rcporting First information Statcment and in sending the FIR. to the concerned Magistr:ate. The delav in lodging FIR or sending the FIR to the Magistrate by itself is not fatal ro the prosecution case, unless it is made out that the delay is delibcrate and this circumstance is indicating lalse implication. I I therc is dclay in filing frrst information stateme nt bcfore thc police then conflabu]ation or deliberatiofl cannot be ruled oLl t Howcver, this ground itself- does not vitiate the vaiue ol Ftst inlormation staternent but keeps the Court on guard to search and consider that whrther a rcasonrble explanation has been offered lor such delay.

¶93

The I{on'ble Apex Cor-rrt in Chunnilal Vs. State of Urtar Pradesh2 held th at to decide rvhcther the delay was realiy such as to causc doubt abotrt the prosccutiorr case, additional inflormants, nature of injuries, proofl c[ victims, efforts made to provide medical aid to rhe

'^zoto 1z1scc⁴⁹⁶

N TII.-J Crla 2666 2018

¶98

iniured, deceased to the hospital and the police station and other relevant factots and circumstances have to be taken into account.

¶99

In the present case, as per thc PW1, the occurrence was in the midday of 12.06.2076 and the evidence of the doctor/PW.13 is establishing that the PW1 was examined at about 2:12P.M.^-I'he dcath of P!71's husband was at 10:30 AM on 13.06.2016. The police report was lodged at 10:30 AM on 13.06.2016. These facts itsell arc explaining that P)71 and the deceased were under treatment and in the hospital. Howsoever, except pleading delay, the accuscd failcd to make out any circumstance from the record that PWI had a reasc)n to implicate the accused by exoneraring the actual culprit or any aspect to suspect manipulation of the record during the initial stagc oI investigation. At any sretch, the delay in lodgrng FIR and scnding the FIR to the Magisrate by itself does not gr nt Lny advantage to the accused. Hence, this objection is also not making out any tenable point to discard positive evidence placed by the prosecution.

¶100

Further, the accused/appellant has not denied his presence in the cross-examination of any witness much less placed any^{evidence to} prove otherwise. Basing on the evidence of PW1 and other ?aJ€rials,

¶101

N. fRiJ Crla 2666 2018

¶102

¶103

\ \

¶104

by the above rcaclilrg cvidence, tlrc prcsence of PW1, the deceased and the accused can b( concluded.^'l'hough the witness urned hostile, as the evidencc oI inr,cstrgating offi ccr/PW1 5 had conducted proceedings and being dircct wrtness the rccovery of iron pipe/MO.1 at the instance of thc acr:used is lound acceptable. Principaily, the medical and doctor's opir.rion in their evidence that the injuries are possible with a rveapon tikc N'tO.1, is corr:oborating the occular evidence of the PW1. Hence, the rLccuscd commitung offence as narrated by the PW1 can be taken as estrrblished by thc plosecution.

¶105

Thus, thc comprchcnsive re:rding of the materials on rccord, especiallv the tesunronv of the iniured eye witness/PWl it shall be held that the occurrcnce on 12.06.20 l6 and the involvement of the accused/appcllanr l.ras becn est:rblishcd by the prosecution beyond reasonablc doubt, howcver as th(' manner of occurrence and the placed circumstances are not makrng out the intention to cause death, it shall be held that thc trial Court has ilghtiy concluded guiJt of the accused as one under culpabl,: homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304, Part-II of thc IPC and for voluflrarily causing hurr, \

¶106

¶107

N.llr.l
Crla 2666 2018

¶108

under Section 324 of IPC. Accordingly, the conviction oFihc accused

¶109

is found sustainable.

¶110