Allowed

Santhosh Mallik, R.R.Dt., v. State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC5 Dec 2022CRLA/836/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal against a murder conviction. Scrutinizing the prosecution evidence, the Court found the eyewitness testimony uncorroborated, the recovery of the weapon doubtful, and the motive weak. Consequently, the Court held the charge was not proved and set aside the trial court's judgment.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of the trial court was set aside. The appellant was acquitted and set at liberty forthwith, and the fine was ordered to be refunded.

Santhosh Mallik, R.R.Dt., Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²⁸⁷ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

IUONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D-NAGARJUN

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 836 OF 2014

¶8

Criminal Appeal Under Section 374 {21 of Cr.[,.C., against the Judgment dated 19-06-2014 in S.C.No.136 of 20'14 on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Santhosh lvlallik, S/o. Babaji [t/allik, aged 24 years, Occ: worker in Sreevasa Spinning lvlill at Addakal, R/o.Barimude Village, Kandrapura District, Odissa State, Convict No.2221, Central Prison, Cherlapalli, RR District- 501301, Telangana State.

¶11

..,ACCUSED/APELLANT

¶12

AND

¶13

State of Telangana, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPODENT

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant : SMT.P.SUHASINI

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

The Court delivered the following Judgement ; -

¶18

THE HON,BLE Smt. JUSTICE P.SREE SUI)AA AND TH I HoN'BLE Dr. JUSTICE D.NAGARJtIN

¶19

lRil\4INAL APPEAL No.836 OF 2O14

¶20

JUD,GMENT

¶21

lPer^{Hon'ble Smt.JusticeP.Sree Sudhal}

¶22

i ts) -rudr n-r--rrl, aated 79.06.2014 passed in Sl'sir>ns Case No" i.16 ,.>{ 2)14, the learned Principal SessiorLs .iudge at Mal-ia utrr.ierg, r', helC rhat the accused is founrl 1;-.ilty fcr the liir:rct -;riclc: :ir.r trcrr 302 II'C and accordingiy l-c r;^r:r.: ri,,rctcc.r aii3 :ei-ri1 !-rca i^!,J ]nccrgo riqorous imprisonmcni f,)r ar- I'ai:od ol ;ifr alc il oa. irr.ie of' Rs.50Ct/-, in default to sr:fle:^j.l. ior crre i:ronIl, ii i{.ar ;,iso furthcr observed by the t;-i:Li^();r.. ri, .hat the pe :"rod ll imtr risonment airelrdy undergone by lirt .rcc,iscd as u.nccr anrrl pr si)r-rr--: from 01.I 1.2013 to that clatr: ir. t: be set of{ unoei St ctio , 428 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the c r:r,iclion and senrence rmtr lscci, the accused is in appeal lrr rCer Section 374t2i Cr^P.C

¶23

2" The cha^-ge framed against the accused read thlrs

¶24

?hat yc r on or about 28.10.2013 at about O€ ll() h,rurs, at Sreenivr sa Spinning Mill in the limits of ,\ddal<ai, did commit nrurCer by intentionaliy causing t f :c death of Baprn I laltix by stabbing him with a knife. rtnd thereby conmit.:ci an offence p.rnishable U/Sec. 3012 t>i l.F.C. and rvithin r ry cclgnizancc;

¶25

¶26

The accused however pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶27

During the trial, the prosecuti.rn examined P.Ws. 1 to 1O and marked in evidence Exs.Pl to P8 and M.Os. 1 to 5. The defence did not adduce any oral or docLrmentary evidence. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence advanced by both the counsel, the Sessions Court convictcd tire accused as aforestated.

¶28

The case of the prosecution, as per the charge-sheet, is that the General Manager of Srinivasa Spinning Mill gave complaint at Police Station, Addakal, on 28.10.2013 at about 7.O5 hours stating that one Santosh Mallik-accused and Bipin Mallik-deceased are working in their spinning mill and residing in the quarters and that one Dinish Kumar Jinha informed to the complainant that Santosh Mallik stabbed Bipin Mallik with a knife on his chest and upon which the complainant instructed him to shift the injured to hospital and then he reached to the company by that time injured was shiftecl to hospital. The complainant would also state that when he enquired the incident with one Mamatha Acharaya, W/o. Pratap Acharya, she stated that on 27.10.2013 at about 1100 hours there was a

¶29

¶30

qua!.icl irt'iu 'r'n Santosh Mrrilik and tsipin It4alli < []iJr,n Mallik beat^i-ianicsl Mallik^..vith a eelapeeta (chekka r:c'ta risecl 1-or cui.tlirg Ie gct rt;ics) on his he.rd and as a resuLl of rr.r clr Santosh Mal1ik s,.:sta nr:ci 5leeding injury and as such ljrL::tos: Maliik att;r.ckccl anc srabbed Bioin Mallik on 28.10.20 i.l at i.30 am whiie h,:: ivas r'iturning frorn canteen to his roon .^;ith a knife, as : ie-"rilt ilrpin Mallik died while he w,a.s sl if:in6, to the hospitai : ad rs such^i,he cornpiainant requestei I r: ar.: thorities l,c.inlii.lii .rcl {)1. ;LlIalnsL S:rIltosir Mallik who t<ilie,i ,:,rp;rr Mallik. l'hc rsaril lcr rr,ialiri^.,l,as r:rccived at 1 130 horrr :; b,"- Folice. Arj.ciakaj. r nd li rie i ii .,r,zrs regi-stcrcd as case itr Cr i rlr: N ,. i 74 of 2G13^,-i:rcl:r' : cr:i1or-'i 302 lPC. Alle r completiot-r of rr',es.rgtrtion. the accuseci vas arrested in the Spinning NIill rn i'is Quarter Nr.-.il ;1i abo rt.^.1.25 PM Afte r the entir<: inv:siigeLtion is completecl, c! argc'-sheet rs^i-rled against thr: ac,:,ts:d for the offence under St:clicn 302 lPC,

¶31

The trit I Court considering the evidence or record and also the argt- ments advanced by both the counst:i, observed that on the :revrous day there was a quur.rrel :,etween the accused anci he deceased and it is the motive for committing the oflence a rcr on the next day the accused € r-tacked the deceased^,,vith a knife and stabbed on his chest an,l ,:onrmitted

¶32

¶33

an act with an intention to cause death and the bodily injuries caused by him is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and in fact the accused knows that the in-iury caused by him is likely to cause death and as such it clearly falls within the ambit of Section 3O2 IPC. The eye witnessesP.Ws.2, 3 and 7 clearly deposed with regard to the injury caused by thc accuscd to the deceased and their evidence amply establishes that the accused is having intention to take revenge against the deceased. The Doctor who conducted post-mortem also stated that the injury caused on the left side of the chest and it r.r,ent up to left atrium of the heart and the said injury is sufficient to cause death of the deceased. The trial Court further observed that when accused sustained injr-rries in the hands of the deceased on 27.10.2013, he rvas treated by a private medical Doctor and was in the hospital for two days, but the said private Doctor was not examined and no medical record was Iiled and thus the plea of alibi is not proved and accordingly convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and it is not a rarest of rare case to impose grave penalty of death and accordingly convicted him with life imprisonment and also a fine of Rs.SOO/ - in default to suffer S.l. for one month. As there are no dependants to the deceased, compensation was not granted

¶34

unCer Sirctic r l57 IPC. Aggrieved by the saicl^j - cgrent,^the appellanr.-ac< useci^preferred this appeai

¶35

L..rri're I coirrscl for f-he appellallt would ccr lcnci iha'. the prose cu.t ron ailed to conneot the accused r.l'ith t : c of fcnce by u.ay rrf ;,r1;a61 ra5ic evidence and it did not ittves,i=ztte the case 1lropcri.,^i-t l-ntci counsei^{rvouidfurthet zrrg,t,-thatthe} Invesjlrg.itins Oificcr-P.W. i0 examined the pers rns ,^'.ho are working: rr: .irc mill :lnd no iniependel rl \1 i ..1 tss3s were €X€tii'trpi-', i il!T 1 ,hal, the Itl.rcstlgating Officer hes ct :xamincd e.je n :ni ;l!"1, iiir il,lctor u'i1o treateC the accusec t i' hezrci injurv anrl h;u,rd⁽ !.t i irl$' rn:r:ry iia-ys accused^r,l,as l;^r:rtierl in^tl-tc hospitarl. Lc: rr-.eci counst:l ri,ouid also assei't^r,f z^1. as per the eviiencc cf I W. , ihe accus,:d^q'as trcated for l\ c^r::a1rr; and as such ih<'re is no possibility tbr the accused to kj L;re <leceased on the date ri the incider-rt. Learned counsel uouid al,;o argue that P Ws.2 3 and 7 are having enmity to c r::ros,: falsely agalnst I he e :cuscd ancl P.V/.8 is lhe Doctor hits n,:rt ruled out the possrbilit r of injury if the deceased falls accir|::.laily on the knrfe havin i sharp edgc: and that there €rre sgrreral contradiction: 'n the eviden<:e of prosecution witn,:sses and the prosecut ron aiied to prove ihe case beyoni rt:as:,r'.a}:Le doubt

¶36

¶37

anC as such requested the Court to set aside the conviction imposed upon the accused.

¶38

Heard the iearned counsel appearing for the appellantaccused and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State.

¶39

P.W. 1 is the complainant who came to know about the quarrel betwccn accused and deceased through Dinesh Kumar Jinha who was alsc s'orking in their Spinning Mill and he instructed him to shift the deceascd to the hospital for treatment and thereupon he rushed to the quarters and when he enquired one Mamatha Acharya she told him that on 27.10.2013 at about 1 1.O0 am there was a quarrel between dcceased and accused in respect of cutting of vegetables and at that time the cleceased Bipin Mallik beat on the head of the accused with eelapeeta (instrument used to cut vegetables) as a result of which the accused sustained injury on his head and hc got bandaged the wound at hospital situated at Addakal and that by keeping the same in mind the accused stabbed the deceased on the way from canteen to his room on 28.1O.2013 at 6.30 am and later he came to know that Bipin Mallik died on the way to hospital. On the same day P.W. 1 gave compiaint under Ex.Pl at 11.30 am. He stated that Dinesh Kumar Jinha

¶40

is not t'r,rkrn < n iheir factort' ii'o rn the past i \/c In(,t Ltit:; and he do not k:rorv rrs ivhcieabouis. P.W.1 also cicr,os,:<l titai Doth the de cease ci an( acc llse d are native s of Orissa StzLt: r'rd that the Cornpanl' prr vracd quarte rs to the labour wh o iLre i'orc outside the Srate ar i that accust d and decease,i iuc^-es ding irr Quarter^{No.6 at the time of incident.PratapAr;iuL:.'a,his wife} Mamatha Ac1 arya Dinesh Kumai Jinha rverr: a.so^,;, orl:ing and resLding rn ihc qLlarters provided by thc fitr:::rr1' Mente 'Thirunare sh s ihc securitv quard of their s1;innrr 1l rnr.l. Whe n it vras surggcs ied ir-', P.W. 1 that accused^-was rn h r;iritzri for two dals. P.lV.li r enicci f-he sainr. lt u'as aisc suggcst: t r' lrrin ihat the Ceceased cn hrs orn'r-r fcll ciori n on eelapce ia .',liilc cuttrng vegetables, an isustarned in;uries and died, brrt he 'lt:nieC it.

¶41

The prt secution examined Pratap Acharya z r; P.\V.2 and his wife Mam ,tha 1\charya was not examined by thr: prosecution and her evidr nce was given r-rp. The prosecution^j1 r;() examined one Dinesh {umar Jinha as P.W.7. P.W.2 in lris r:vidence deposed that Mamatha Acharya is his wife. He de; osecl that he along with hi ',vife are working in the Srinivasa Sp irning Mills, Addakai, anc are residing rn Quarter No.2 pror iried by the company He rnorvs accused and deceased as they zrre^'"t orking in the mill e ni residing in Quarter No.6. On 2'l .IA.2O|3 a

¶42

¶43

quarrel took place bctween the accused and the deceased with regard io cooking food and at that time deceased beat and caused injury on the head of the accused with eelapeeta (cutting instrument). He took the accused to hospital for treatment where a private doctor at Addakal treated the accused and immediately after the treatment they returned to their quarters and kept the accused in his room by providing food and tablets to prevent furlher quarrels between the deceased and the accused and accordingly thc accused slept in their quarters. Next day while P.W.2 r,vas preparing to go to his duty, the deceased v,ras returning from canteen towards his quarters and then the accused picked up a knife from his quarters and stabbed the deceased on the chest with the knife. He along with P.W.7 and others shilted the deceased to the hospital in an auto and on the way Ambulance came in opposite siCe and then they a1l shifted the deceased into Ambulance, but the staff of the Ambulance declared him as dead. Immediately P.W.2 and others shifted ttre injured to Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar. This witness deposed that the incident of stabbing was witnessed by his wife also. It was suggested to him that MO.l knife is available in the market and it was also suggested that accused was admitted for lwo days in the hospital for the head injury, but the witness denied it.

¶44

¶45

1i. P W.7 leposeC that h<, along u'ith P.W 2 arrri itts^n'ife anci P.W,li u,li,i-rcs se ci the incicienr. When deceasecl rii,:r t^. rc rforrned tht: samt^t-o P. W. i and he gave report. He ais<,^,l,tpcs:d '-hai accuseci was brought back irom hospital and k : : tⁿ lir. in the ho,rse of P.\ .2 to prevent fttrther quarrei betweer l:Im :rnd the deceaseci D Lnng the cross-examination, the^iv t-^r. ss^,ieposed that ihere ar : 36 quarters for the workers anci s t^r f cf the Mili and that the room of accuseC anC the deceascd ,/r rs .ilposlie to his roorr, an(^'.hey both are^-,r,orking i n shifts but I r l r:a^.' r'rol sa;r who was ',rvc kln[] rn ciay Lirlc and ii,ho waii i,L r^. is ti-r ritgni tirrie. He als ' cieposed that l-rc aiong ri'ith I).W.ll r rC ..rs ".vife took accuse c ta hospital whcn he was beat(-'n on i rc lreacl by the deceasecl^'l'hc u,itness further deposed that : c c'.rseri was in the hospital or two days. Hc also stated th:rt r-Lc l;ign:rturc in 16 L Cr.P.C. I tatement is nor, his signature. It r.r'a s s, -rgg,e sted to the witness t rat deceased fell down on the instrurr<:nt which is using for cut ing vegetables and sustained injury,rrrd cied, but he denied it.

¶46

P.W.3-l ;ecurity Guarci of the Mill depor;,:rl 1.hat on 28.1O.2OI3 z i 6.30 a.m. he went to canteen to .terve tea and whrle returni rg to main gate he founci some quarr r:i rn fiont of the quarters of the workers and he went ther': anti found

¶47

¶48

accused stabbed the deceased on his chest with a knife, due to which deceased fell down u,ith bleeding injury. Then P.W.2. his wife and P.W.7 shifted the deceased to the hospital and at 8.30 am he came to know that deceased died on the way to the hospital. On enquiry, he came to know about the quarrel between accused and deceased on the previous day. During the cross-examination, the witness stated that on the date of the incident he was not on duty as his shift was not started. He deposed that a room rvas provided to him along with another security guard in the factory premises and hence he was in the Spinrring Mills at the time of the incident. He do not know about the previous day incidcnt as he was on duty in the factory. It was also suggested to him that accused was inpatient in the hospital for two days and he was not in the factory on the date of the incident, but he denied it.

¶49

P.W.4 is the Driver w,rrked in the Spinning Mill. He deposed that when he came to know about the quarrel between accused and deceased, he went to the Government Hospital and at the instance of Police he acted as a panch witness and Ex.P2 inquest panchanama conducted at the time of inquest. He further deposed that he cannot read and write Telugu and he

¶50

¶51

signed ,.)n t re u.ritten panchanama and ht: do^- ,,t i:;roq, the

¶52

'\4. F'.W.5 .-. another Set:urit-v Guard. H,: clt,po,,eci that c1i 3i"1O.2013 irolice calleci him and one Uppala -ioi'ardhana Chary;rnd t Ley lbund the accused in the custc,cly rrf tl'e oolice. The^polrre s rarched the room of the accus(:d a r, fo,,., nd knife havrng irlooc ,-.tains. M.O. 1 knife was seizetl iir ', ir. rr Drrse ncc under ::-nfe sron-cum-seizu re panchanama ilac !r, i girc,:: Jn Ex.P3. fire a 1i-i:rssibie portion in thc panchanarna l. rrr:tli(. d 3s Ex.F4. in tl ri cross-cxamrn ation he statcd iha- i )aI, {rira.nam;i was^.,1,r-ii ten n^l-he room of the accused, Whr'n^,i 1 '. = ; -:gqt st.--C that rt u,,Ls '*'^-it.ten in the Police Station, hc d<,nir;c

¶53

P.W.6 was rllnning canteen in the Spinn:n1; Nlills. On 28.1O.2AI3 t re Police called him and Chenglaya l,i <.nir.ara,yana to the worke: s quarters and they acted as a panc't ,r,itn,:sses for crime detail lbrm and rolrgh sketch under Ex P 5 zLnd also M.Os.2 and I u,ere seized under Ex.PS panchanarnzL. Dlrnng the cross-examir rtion, he deposed that onll' 1-rt: ;,iffixed one signature.

¶54

P.W.8 is the Doctor who conducteci pcsi-rnoltem ori 28.1O.2Ai3 rom 4.O0 to 5.00 pm. He founcl i Der.e r.rarrng

¶55

',.2

¶56

wound present on the left side ol the chesL in the V-lnter costal space in between lcft sidc nipple and sternurn, i:neasuring 1 x 7z cms x thoracic deep. Wound is penetrating inter costal muscles of the left side and entered up to left atrium ol the heart. Thoracic cavity is filled with blood stains and fluid and opined that the cause of death is hypovolemic shock due to penetrating wound in the heart. The time of death is 8 to 10 hours prior to post-mortem. He deposed that thc injury is possible u,ith M.O.1 knife which is shown to him and Ex. P6 is the post-mortem examination report issued by him. During the crossexamination, he deposed that M.O.1 is having one side sharp and also stated that the injury is possibie if a person accidentally falls on a knife or sharp object.

¶57

P.W.9 is the Assistant Sub-lnspector of Police, who received complaint from P.W.1 at I 1.30 a.m. and registered a case in Crime No.174 of 2013 and issued FIR under trx.P7.

¶58

P.W.IO is the Inspector of Police who examined the witnesses, conducted scene of offence panchanama, prepared crime detail form and rough sketch and also examined the Photographer, seized M.Os.4 and 5 under Ex.P2 and also gave requisition for post-mortem examination. He sent MOs to the FSL on 31.1O.2O13 at 5.0O pm and arrested the accused in his

¶59

¶60

c.uaraei rlnd rccorded his r;onfcssionai pancharri r il ind aiso re<:overcC M .f . i .rt his insiance uncier Ex.Pz^-1,. cei,-1cd iislrel)ort iinder tix.P5 and fi1erl charge sheet. lt rr.a s s,t.tgltcsted to hirn ti-iai acc lsei was in the hospital for two day; <: e ct ased^f ell iio.,vr-, orr th .; knife while cutting vegetables 1:( sristained rnj uries. tha accused was in hospital for ihre,: ; r,'.s and as sucl he was arrested on 31 1O.2013 and that hc : l rnr:cl Mtl. i and intriltior aliy r-lot examined the indepenciena^', t:tesses, Dut nr cc:ri...i arl r:e ;Llggcsti()ns.

¶61

Admitt rCiy, it is for the prosecution to esta t lr:;h -l.re^gurlt oi the ar:cus, d bcyond reasonable doubt in a ql::/i oil'ence of murder tn t. ris case P.W.1 rs the complainant an<l no,, an eye witness to th ) occurrence. Prosecution examined ['.Ws.-]. 3 and 7 as an eye ritnc'sses. P.W.2 has not stated anyv r.rre that he witnessed th : incident, but at the end of the c r:1>osition he deposed that incident of stabbing was witnesseri try nis wife also. He stat, d that while he was preparing to go t{) the duty, deceased was returning from the canteen torvards his^(luarters and at that time accused stabbed him, He har; not stated regarding his presence at the scene of offence, 11161r,_q1-r the oiher witnesses sta ed about his presence. P.W.3 deposr',i thrrt while he was retur ring from the canteen he found so-r⁽⁾ quzlrrei in

¶62

¶63

front of the quarters of the rvorkers and hc went thcre and found accused stabbed the deceased and due to whicir the deceased fell down with bleeding injury and as such this witness has not seen the accused stabbing the deceased with the knife and he do not know about the previous day quarrel between accused and deceased. Though he rvas in the premises on the date of offence, he is not an eye witness to the incident. It at all he is an eye witness to the incident, being Securitv Guard of factory premises why he has not produced accused before thc Police Station immediately aftcr the incidcnt is not explained anywhere. P.W.1 stated that rvile of P.W.2 informed him about the quarrel and it seems that she is an eye witness, but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, her evidence was given up and she was not examined before the Court. P.W.7 informed about the incident to P.W. 1 immediatelv after the incident over phone, he shifted the deceased to the hospital along with P.W.2 and his wife, but in the cross-examination he denied his signature on the 16l Cr.P.C. statement.

¶64

Now it is for this Court to scrutinize the evidence adduced by the witnesses for arriving to the conclusion^whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct or not.

¶65

¶66

Thougi r P"W.7 stated that he witnessed tirt incident,^he der-ried the sr lnature on 161 Cr.P.C. statemetrt. He also deposed thzrt he alo: rg wrth P.W.2, L.W.3 and P.W.3 v'it.nesrsed the rncident, but in the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 there is no specific mentron tha they witnessed the actual incicler L aiong with P.W.7 and a; per the evidence of P.W.l, P.W.2 nlbrrned him about the ir cident in detail when he went lc^{'-he quarters} rmmedia iely Lfter the incident, but she was not exi :r-,incd b1' the ilrosecution ibr the reasons best. known to tirr'm. As the evidence oi I.W.7 is not corroborated by the evrl-irce of other u,itnesses wt c are crted as eye witnesses, it is ib:^l.iiis 3ourt to see rvhether to rely upon the sole testimony :,i P.W.7 lor conrrrction. LW.7 in the chief-examination deposcd rhat the accuseci was rrought back and kept in the room of )).W.2, in the cross-examin rtron stated that he was in the iros 1:rtal for two days The de ence of accused is that he was in ti"r: :ospital for two days and as such he did not kill the deceased t,:-l 28.102Oi3 and thus the material contradiction in his evidence goes to the root of the c rse, and thus it is not safe to rely t l ron his soie testimony to trase conviction. P.W.S is the Doctor rvho deposed about the car se of death under Ex.P6, but he has rLot r,rled out the possibilitl of causing injury due to the accidertrl fall.

¶67

¶68

The defence of the accused is that he was rn the hospitai for two days due to the injuries sustained by him on the previous day in the hands of the deceased and as such there is no occasion for him to quarrel and stab the <ieceased. The said suggestion was given to all the material rx,itnesses, but all of them denied his presence for two days in the hospital except P.W.7. The prosecution has not examined the Doctor who treated the accused on 27.1O.2013. The motive for the offence is that on 27.1O.2O13 therc was a quarrcl betwecrr accused and deceased at the time of cutting of vegetables and the deceased stabbed the accused with eelapera and as a result of r.r,hich he sustained head injury and treated in the hospital, due to the above quarrel in mind, the accused on the next day stabbed the deceased to death. Even the trial Court observed that there is an intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased and thus the prosecution proved the motive for the offence.

¶69

No doubt, accused caused injury with knife on the chest of the deceased and as per the evidence of P.W.B it entered up to left atrium of the heart. P.W.2 also stated that after the treatment they kept the accused in his room during the entire night time and on the next day he picked up knife from his quarters and stabbed the deceased while he was returning from

¶70

¶71

cantee. tow€ rds his quarters. The prosecution exarnined P.W.5another Secr- riiy Cuard for recovery of knife. He^,1,-'posed that it was recover( d from the room of the accused. 'lhe accused concealei th knife in his room and brought out^r i)e same and producec be ore them under Ex.P4. Admittedly, r rcidr:nt took place on 2 L 10.2O13 and the accused was a-rrested on 3i.10.2013 i e. alter three days in his room and he knife was also reco'zert d irom his room with blood stains; In such a sliuatlori the oatural human conduct of the culpr:t s e lther he m.rgh'L hai,e fl :o aw-ay from th.e scene of offence or I r: might have th;:cwn awa. the weapon used in committing t he oifcnce sornervherc r ise insteaci of keeping it in lhe rrr-,m. It was suggested by the accused that MO.1 knife is plrnted by the poiice and th, knife like MO.1 are easily available irr the market" Though P.W 5 cieposed that the blood stainer I knife was recovereci an{ 1t was sent to PSL, the FSL report i; not liled by the prosecuti rn. P.W.5 also cleposed that the reporr lvas written in the room o the accused.

¶72

Lea.rne< counsei for the appellant woukl strenuously contend that the prosecution miserably failed to cxamine the independent^' ,,itnesses, as the incident had occurrr:^j wir-hin the factory premi^,e s that too in the quarters, it canirot be said that

¶73

¶74

ncrr-examination of the independent rvitness is fatal to ;-hc case of the prosecution

¶75

Admittedly, accused and deccased are co-workers working in the Spinning Mill and the5r both hails from Orissa State and are residing in the same quarters opposite to the quarter of P.W.2. There was no previous enmity between them and unfortunately a small quarrel took place between them with regard to cutting of vegetables while cooking food on 27.1O.2013. The motive attributed by the prosecultion for krlling of the deceased by the accused on the next day is not so grave and moreover, among the eye witnesses examined by the prosecution, except P.W.7, the other eye u,itnesses have not stated before the Court that they witnessed the actual incident. The evidence of P.W.7 is not corroborated on material particulars u/ith the evidence of other eye witnesses. The seizure of MO.l in the room of accused three days after the incident strengthens the argument of the defence that it is available in the market easily and there is chance of planting it by the police. P.W.3-Security Guard has not taken custody of accused when he came to know about the death of the deceased by 8.30 am. Even P.W.8 stated that the injuries sustained by the deceased can be caused by accidental fall on a sharp edged

¶76

¶77

\r,-aprf:r rinC as such it is ic,r tl're prosecution tO^,;s'-ai>tish ihat t-hr ai:c,-::ed Llonc causcd the dcath of the deaeas': I rrnc there is ilo pai'so n. i rc- prosecution iras not examine(i the : i Lvir a doctor tc ru.ie ,rut t Le defence ol'tL,e accused. The oros.r,;-Ltiorr rnainly corlt€ncrd ti r,. the accused was in hospital 1br t,v, 1a1s, but it was suqqest, d to the lnspector that the accusl,I wai in the hospita, ior t rrc:e day and as such he arrestt:d i1(:( rjsed only on 3 : .la.2L\1 -".^iurther, the aliegation of the prosr c rrt ror is that ihr a.ir',r:.-d ri,ri zrn intention to kill the de<:easr,r. :Ln:- causcci sirch b.),iril,' rrr_r ur.,z.^-whrcit in the ordinary cr)L r : c cri naiui-e s:,:ificie:r:^i,o a.lse cieath. Bi:t P.W.2 depose<i th.Lt '^-rr i..ccusr:d tra-q ;-i-:.kr'': a <r'rifr: ii-om rirei: house and staobcc the c cceased ivhrie hc r,vas pro<eeding from canteen to his quaut,trs. I - cannot oc saic^{,hai '.irr:re} was prenreditated plan tc, kLll -hre ceceased ancL ihcr-r: w rs no previous criminai history tc^.-ire acclrsed earlier zurci r :arct. the injury was inflicted on^t-L e r- eccased at 6.3O arri :rnd^-*'hile shifting him to the hospit-al, lrt:,:tieci on the wa5. at 8.3O a n Complaint was given at 11.30 a.nr. In tlle same day, out the. ccused was arrested on 31.1O.20i3 i.i'. after three ciays iro n-r his q'trarters in the spinning mill.

¶78

26 P.Ws.2 rnd 3 are not eye witnesses, P.W.7 eviCence is not reha-brc, ieco\ cry cf u,eapon rs doubtful, arrest afit'i three days

¶79

from the room of accused is not believable, and thus this Cour! finds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, it is just and reasonable to set aside the^judgmer-rt of the trial Court.

¶80

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment in S.C. No. 136 of 2Ol4 dated 19.06.2014 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar, is set aside. The appeliant-accused is acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C. for an offence under Section 302 IPC. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not.i-equired in any other case. Fine amount paid by him shall also be refunded.

¶81

//TRUE COPY//

¶82

t':8,'-f H'EA'!+'-'^'J

.L..

SECTION OFFICER

The Principal Sessions^{Judgeat [t/ahabubnagar. (with records)'}

¶87

The Judici;l^{Magistrateof FirstClass, Mahabubnaga.r'.}

¶88

Th" Station Houle^{Officer, Addakal Police Station,Mahabubnagar'} - i. fn" Srp"rintendent,^{Central Prision,Cherlapalli,MalkajgiriMedchal District'} (By Special Messenger).

¶89

s. two CC to Public Proieiutor,^{High Court for the State of Telangana at} Hvderabad.^(OUT)

¶90

Ohe CC to SMT.P.SUHASINI,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶91

Two CD Copies

¶92

B. One spare^coPY

S.A

,;'

HIGH COUIIT

PSS,J & DIlR,J

DATED:051 1212022

JUDGMENl

CRL.A.No.B:i6 0f 2014

¶100

:i
4,1
.: :1.
?)' ,l
$$ -- '1 rl
irl
1io $t
.: ,i
s
///
l-a ,,

¶101

ALLICWING THE CRIMIhIAL APPEAI-.

¶102

=
(
's

Santhosh Mallik, R.R.Dt., v. State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh Mallik, R.R.Dt., v. State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

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

Gaddela Subba Rao, Khammam Dt., Vs State of Ap., Rep. Pp. Hyd.

Pandari Rajasekhar , Raja , Ramu Vs the State of A.P.

Golepalli Ramulu Vs the State of A.P.