Allowed

Mesram Amruth , Amruth Rao v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Nov 2024CRLA/140/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Telangana allowed a criminal appeal against a conviction for murder and culpable homicide. The court held that inconsistencies, suppressed dying declarations, and improbable witness testimony warranted a benefit of doubt in favor of the accused.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal allowed; judgment of trial court set aside; appellant to be released forthwith if not required in other cases.

Mesram Amruth , Amruth Rao Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^341s ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 140 of 2018

¶8

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment^dated 12-09-2017 in S.C.No.189 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the^lAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Mesram Amruth @ Amruth Rao, S/o Soma, Age: 40^years, R/o. Arli^Village, Tamsi Mandal, Adilabad District, Telangana State.

¶11

...AppellanUAccused

¶12

AND

¶13

State of Telangana, rep. by Public^{Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.}

¶14

...RespondenUCom plainant

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: Smt Ammaji Nettam, Legal Aid

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla,

¶17

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶18

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

¶20

;/n

¶21

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER And

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KIIII4AR JIIKANTI

¶23

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.14O OF 2018

¶24

.IUDGMENT:. (per Hon'ble SriJustice K.Surender)

¶25

The appellant/accused was convicted for the offence under Section 3O2 and 3O7 IPC and sentenced lo undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for a periorl of seven years, respectively vide judgment in S.C.No. Ig9 of 2Ol4 dated 12.09.2017 passed by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Adilabad. Aggrieved by the sarne, present Appeal is filed.

¶26

Heard Smt Ammaji Nettam, learned legal aid counsel for the appellant and sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additionar public Prosecutor for the State.

¶27

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that pW1/ complainant, hled a complaint on 5.9.2013 arounrj g:OO am, stating that she was informed by villagers pWs.4 ard 5 that at around 6:0O am ,her son, Mesram Shivaji (the deceased), was killed and her daughter-in-law (pW13) was seriousll. injured in Shantinagar, Arli (T) Village. Upon receiving the said information, PW1 immediately went to the deceased,s house ald found her son's body on a cot with head injury and pW13 rvas on the

¶28

¶29

ground, who also suffered a head injury. Upon^{inquiry, P.W. I} came to know from PW13 and her^{grandson (PW2) that, on the} night of 4.9.2013 around 9:00 pm, the appellalt,^Mesram Amruth Rao, came to the deceased's house, initiated^{a quarrel,} and then killed the deceased by hitting^{him with an axe and} stick. The appellant also beat PW13^with a^{stick, causing her} bleeding injuries. The motive was attributed^{to previousenmity} The appellant fled the scene after injuring^{the deceased and} P.W. 13. P.W.3, a villager called the^{ambulance(1O8), and with} the assistance of PW12, PW13^{was taken to RIMS Hospital,} Adilabad. PW13's dying declaration^{was recorded, although she} ultimately survived her injuries.

¶30

It is the further case of the^{prosecution that the deceased} and PW13 are husband and^{wife, and the appellant is a relative} of the deceased. The allegation^{is that the appellant used to visit} the deceased's house and developed^{a close relationship with} PW13, which angered the deceased.^{On several occasions, the} deceased warned the appellant^{not to come to his housedue to} rumors being spread by relatives^{and villagers. On 4-9.2013 at} 9:00 pm, the appellant went to^{the deceased's house after} consumlng alcohol. The appellant,^{deceased, and PW13 were}

¶31

¶32

drinking together. In a', intoxicated state, the deceased abused the appellant, threatening to kill him as his brother Manthu killed Shesha Rao over a similar relationship issue. 'rhis a,gered the appellant, who kilted the deceased by striking him on the head with a stick. After the murder, pW13 warned the appellant that she would inform the villagers, prompting the appellant to attempt to kill PW13 by hitting her on the head and hands wittr the stick. The entire incident was witnessed by p,frr13 and her son, PW2. On 7.9.2013, upon receiving reliable inforrnation, pWs 14 and 15 went to Gunjala Village, took the accused into custody at the residence of LW12, Tekam Maruthi.

¶33

The appellant was convicted mainly on the basis of the evidence of P.w.2, who is the son of the deceased and p.w. 13, who is the injured wife of the deceased.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that p\l/s L,2, and 13 are blood relatives of the deceased, and there are contradictions in their narration regarding the motive of the appellant as stated in the charge sheet. In the charge sheet, it is stated that the appellant and pw13 were involved in an illicit relationship, leading to disputes between the appellant and tJle

¶35

¶36

deceased, which^{resulted' in themurder' However'the} prosecution,s evidence^{did not substantiatethe allegation of an} illicit relationship^{between PW13 and the appellant.Additiona-Ily,} the axe allegedly^{used in the crime was not seized by the police'} as such, that the^{appellantshould be given the beneht of the} doubt.Theevidenceonrecorddoesnotestablishmotive,aS neither Ex.Pl/complaint)^{nor the Section 161 Cr'P'C statements} ofthemainwitnessesmentionanillicitrelationshipbetweenthe accused and^{PW13 or any resulting disputeswith the deceased.} Shefurtherarguedthatnomateria]objectswereseizedfromthe crime scene. The^{primary argumentis that none of the key} witnesses^{provided testimony confirming the allegedillicit} relationship between^{the accused and PW13' There is delay of} nearly 11 hours^{in lodging compliant'P'W'2 was planted and his} evidence that he^{was sitting in the shelf calnotbe believed.}

¶37

Learned counsel^{relied on the judgments; i)Hon'ble Supreme} Court in the^{case of Mustkeem alias Sirajudeenv' State of} Rajasthanl,^{wherein it was held that the prosecutionhas to} prove its case beyond^{reasonabledoubt and mere recovery would} not automatically^{lead' to conclusion ttrat the offence was}

¶38

'120111^{11 Sup.emecourt cases724}

¶39

¶40

committed by the appellant; ii) sujit Biswas v. state of Assam2, wherein the Hon'ble supreme court held that the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Both the cases of Mustkeem and Sujit Biswas (supra), the Hon,ble Supreme Court was dealing with the cases of cir:cumstantial evidence.

¶41

8' Learned counsel a-lso relied on the judgment of Division Bench of this court in the case of Gogula Ramanaiah v. state of Andhra Pradesh s , and argued that the dying declaration of P.W. 13 was recorded, according to the prosecution. However, the said copy was neither made ava,able to the apperant nor was placed on record by the prosecution, for which reirson, there arises aly amount of doubt regarding the prosecution case being correct. For suppression of materiar documents, beneht of doubt has to be extended to the appellant.

¶42

On the other hand, learned Additiona_l public prosecutor argued that there is no reason why p.Ws.2 and 3 have to be disbelieved. All the witnesses have stated regarding p.W.2 hiding

¶43

'.120131'f2 Supreme Court Cascs 406

¶44

' 2018 (2) ALD (Crt.) 135

¶45

¶46

himself in the shelf.^{Minordiscrepanciescannot,in any manner,} effect the case of the^prosecution-

¶47

P.W. 1, who is the^{mother of thedeceased and tl-e} complainant, testified that^{she learnedabout the death of her son} and injuries to PW13, daughter-in-law,^{from PWs 4 and 5' Upon} arriving at the deceased's^{house, she found her son's body lying} on a cot and PW13 in^{an unconscious state. She furtherstated} that PW13 was taken^{to the hospital in an ambulancedue to her} unconscious condition.^{She further deposedthat PW2, the son of} the deceased and an^{eyewitness,narrated how the appellant} entered tJle house,^{killed the deceased,and assamltedPW13'} PW2, out of fear, had hidden^{in a shelf throughout the night'}

¶48

P.W.2 is the son^{of the deceasedand an eyewitnessto the} incident. He testified that^{on the day of the incident, he was at} home when the appellant^{arrived. The deceased, his father,} questioned the appellant's^{reason for coming, upon which the} accused struck the^{deceasedwith a stick and then attacked him} with an axe on the^{right side of his head.He further deposed that} when PW13 intervened^{and warned that she would informttre} villagers, then the^{appellant draggedher to the back of the house}

I I l

and beat her with a stick. pW2 added that, fearing 1.he situation, he hid in a shelf to avoid detection. The next morning, when pW1, PW5, and LW7/Amsai arrived at the house, he emerged from hiding a.d recounted the entire incident to pwl in response to her inquiry. He also mentioned that a villager ca_lled an ambulance, ald PW13 was taken to the hospital.

¶53

P.W. 13 is the wife of the deceased and an injured eyewitness to the incident. She recounted the entire seq,ence of events, explaining that she was preparing dinner while her husband lay on the cot. The appellant then entered, armed with an axe and a stick. He struck the deceased on the neck with the axe and on the head with the stick, causing the deceased,s death. When she threatened to .report the incident to the village sarpa,ch, the appella,t beat her with the stick.. She also mentioned that her son, pw2, hid in a shelf out ,f fear. She testified that villagers arrived after hearing her cries, and she told PWs 4 and 5 about the incident. Subsequently, pW1 arrived, followed by PW2, who came out of the shelf. She was later taken to the hospita_l for treatment.

¶54

13' P.w.3 is a circumstantiar witness and the one who carled the ambulance ro take pw13 to the hospital. He a-rso testified that

¶55

¶56

¶57

afterPW2caIneoutoftheshelf,hedisclosedtheentireincident to everyone.^{P.W.4 isanother circumstantialwitness' She} testified ttrat^{on the morning after the incident, while fetching} water, she^{saw the deceased'sbody and informedPW5' who then} informed PW1^{and other villagers'She stated that she did not} know how the^{deceaseddied or who was responsible for the} death. P.W.4^{was treatedhostile to the prosecution case'}

¶58

P.W.5 is a^{circumstantialwitness and testifiedthat the} deceased was^{his brother-in-law, the elder brother of his wife'} LW7/Amsai. He^{deposed that PW4 informedhim about finding} the deceased's^{body, prompting him to rush to the deceased's} house. Upon^{arrival, he found the deceasedlying on a cot with} bleeding injuries.^{He then informedPWI about the situation'} Hearing his^{voice, PW2 came out and revealed the details of the} entire incident.^{He further stated that PW13 was later taken to} the government^{hospital. P.W'7,who isbrother-in-law of the} appellant, turned^{hostile to the prosecutioncase'}

¶59

15.P.w.l0isthedoctorwhoconductedthepost-mortem examination ort^{thedeceased' ExPl 1 is thepost-mortem} exarnination^{(PME) certifrcateof the deceased'He testified that}

¶60

¶61

¶62

the injuries observed could have been caused by either a sharp or blunt object. The cause of death was determined t. be cerebral hemorrhages and psycho-neurogenic shock, resultinlJ frorn severe head injuries.

¶63

P.W. 11 is the medica_l officer who examined pW13. She found four simple injuries and one grievous injury on pW13. She testihed that the grievous injury (injury no. 5) was likely caused by a blunt object, such as a stick. Expr2 is the injury certificate. According to P.W. 1 1, p.W. 13 received the follow.ing injuries:

¶64

Laceration of 7 x 1 x 7 cm ouer the forehead. to roof of the nose.

¶65

Laceration of 5 x O.S x O.S cm ouer the forehead. of l,"-ft sid.e

¶66

Laceration of 12 x O.S x O.5 cm ouer lotaer lid.

¶67

Laceration ouer scalp measurirLg 12 x 1 x 0.5 cm ouer

¶68

paietal bone extending up to temporal bone.

¶69

On obseruing the 4tn injury, I referred. the patient to C,T scan. From the CT scon of the brain, the follotaing injury u_ta:; found.. 5. fracture of lateral u.tatl of let orbit, Iet Zggomatic Arch andZygomatic process of lefi. temporal bone.

¶70

Injurtes Nos.l to 4 are simple in nature and. injury Nct.S aucLg qrieyo-u2 nature and might haue caused bg a blunl object like q stick."

¶71

L7. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly arglred on the

¶72

ground that the evidence of p.w.2 that he was hiding in the shelf for the entire night and watching the incident after c;oming out

¶73

¶74

cannot be believed. Further, the seizure of stick is^{contrar5r to the} medica-l evidence. According to the postmortem Doctor, he stated that the injuries would be caused b1, a sharp/blunt object. Holever, the stick that was seized MO6 is not sharp.

¶75

Learned counsel when asked to explain about the injuries that were received by P.W.13, who is the wife, did not answer, however, stated that it is the burden on the prosecution to^prove the case against the appellant and the appellant^need not^explain the injuries of a witness.

¶76

It is the specihc case of P.W. 13 and P.W.2 that on the^date of the incident, when the deceased, who was the^husbandof P.W. 13 and,his son P.W.2 were^present in the^{house, the} appellant went there with an axe and stick and started^attacking the deceased on the neck and also beat on his head^{with stick,} for which reason, he died on the spot.^P.W. 13^{stated that the} appellant also beat her on the head resulting in^{the injuries as} narrated by P.W. 11. Out of fear, P.W.2^{was hiding in the shelf.} P.W.13 then informed others in the early^morning.

¶77

The incident according^{to PW. 13 happenedin between8.OO} p.m. and 10.00 p.m. However, Fhe did not go out of the^house \

I I

and inform any of the villagers though she specif,rcalJy stated that the accused fled from the house a-fter attack. One more glaring inconsistency is that though PW. 13 was conscious, she did not try to search for her son and PW.2 was sitting in the shelf for nearly 10 hours till other witnesses arrived.

¶82

Admittedly, there is a delay of nearly 10 hours in lodging the complaint. PW.2 stated that the appellant dragged^pW. 13 to the back of the house and beat her with a stick. The said version is not stated by PW. 13. Further, PW.2 stated that the appellant searched for him by lighting a match stick and since he could not hnd him, appellant went away from the house. The said version of PW.2 and PW. 13 are contradicting one another and improbable. There is no reason as to why pW. 13 would stay in the house without complaining to anyone for nearly 10 hours having received injuries. PW.2 has seen the appellanr going away from the house and sitting in ttre shelf until morning is also improbable arrd not normal conduct in such circumstances.

¶83

I I

¶84

The other aspect is suppression of the statement of pW. 13 which was recorded as Dying Declaration. According to p.W. 15Investigating Officer, he gave requisition to the concerned Magistrate for recording Dying Declaration of pW. 13 and

¶85

¶86

accordingly Dyrng Declaration was recorded and he obtained certihed copy of the Dying Declaration. The said copy of the Dyrng Declaration was suppressed by the prosecution. The said suppression of the statement made, adds to the inconsistencies in the prosecution case.

¶87

In the result of anomalies and discrepant evidence, we have no hesitation to extend beneht of doubt to the appellant.

¶88

Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment of trial Court in S.C.No.189 of 2Ol4 dated l2.Og.2OI7 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad. Since the appellant is in jail, he shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

¶89

Sd/- M. VIJAYA^BHASKER JOINT REGIS^RAR

¶90

//TRUE^COPY//

¶91

SECTION OFFICER

¶92

To, 1' The l Additional^{Districtand Sessions Judge, Adilabad.(with records, if} any)

¶93

Z. iniJ^{SpeciatJudicial Magistrateof First Class Mobile (PCR)' Adilabad'} s. fh" Si.,p"tintendent,^{Ceitral Prison,Adilabad' (By Speed Post)} +. fn" St"tion^{House Officer,Tamsi Police Station, Adilabad District'}

¶94