Dismissed

Allapuri Namdev, R.R.Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC7 Nov 2024CRLA/226/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal by a convicted murder prisoner challenging his conviction under Section 302 IPC. The appellant claimed the child witness evidence was tutored and lacked corroboration. The Court rejected these submissions, upheld the conviction based on the child witness testimony, medical evidence, and found no grounds to interfere.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed; conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld; judgment of the trial court remains.

Allapuri Namdev, R.R.Dt., Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^341e ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 226 oF 2016

¶7

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 37 4(2) of Cr.p.C., against the Judgment dated 14-10-2015 passed in sc.No.152 of 2o1s on the file of the court of the Principal Sessions Judge lvledak at Sangareddy.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Allapuri ^Namdey, S1o. Maruthi Rao, Convict prisoner No. 5178, Central Prison, Cherlapally, Rangareddy District.

¶10

...Appellant

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana,, rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and the state of Ap.

¶13

...respondent

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri G V Shobhanadri, Legal Aid Counsel

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶16

The Court delivered the following: Judgment

¶17

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶18

AND

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶20

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.226 0F 2016

¶21

JUDGMENT: (per'the Hon'ble Sri Jiistice K.SURENDER)

¶22

Heard Sri G.V.Shobhanadri, learned Legal Aid for the appellant and Sri Amn Kurnar Dodra, learned Additiona-l pubric prosecutor for the State-

¶23

The appellant/accused was convicted for the offence under section 302 of the Indian penar code for throttling his wife who died as a result of throttling.

¶24

According. to the prosecution case, on 20.O1.2015, around 11.3O p.m. in the night, the appellant throttled his wife by sitting on her chest and pressing her neck with both hands till her death. The main witness in the,case is the child witness_pW.6 who is the younger son of the appellant' pw.6 informed pw.1 who is the maternar uncle of PW'6' PW. 1 went to the police Station and lodged Ex.p1-complaint on the next day at 8.00 a.m, after visiting the house of appellant on the information given by pW.6.

¶25

¶26

In the complaint-Ex-P1,^{PW. 1 narrated that around 4'00 a'm' in} the morning, he^{came to know about the murder of his sister by} strangulation and smothering^{with apillow' The information} according to PW.1^{was given by PW.6 who is the younger son of the} appellant and the^deceased.

¶27

¶28

Having received^{the complaint, Policeconductedscene of offence} panchanama-Ex.P4andthereafterroughsketchwasdrawn,followed by inquest^{proceedings-Ex.P6.After the inquest proceedingswere} concluded., the^{body was sent for postmortem examination'PW'9 is} the doctor who^{conducted postmortem examination on the bodyof the} deceased and according^{to him, he found externalinjury of 'bruise} over anterior aspect^{of neck"and on internal examination' he} observed "intimatear^{over anterioraspect of neck" and "collected} blood in deeper^{layers of neck". Accordingto him, the cause of death} was due to asphyxia^{due to throttling' Ex'P7 is the postmortem} examination report.

¶29

The learned Sessions^{Judge mainly placed relianceon the} evidence of PW.6^{and the d'octor PW'9 to draw conclusion that it was} the appellant who^{committedmurder of his wife'}

I I

I-earned Legal Aid counsel appearing on behalf of appellant would submit that in the entire evidence, only the evidence of pW.6 is incriminating. However, pW.6 is a child witness aged around S years and his evidence cannot be believed, since it is not free from tutoring. It is the bounden dut5r of the prosecution to show under whose custody pW.6 was in from the date of incident to the date of examination before the Court. In the absence of such information being provided' the only logical inference is that the child was tutored and brought to the Court to speak against his father.

¶34

Counsel relied on the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Pradeep v. State of Haryanqt wherein it is held as follows;

¶35

"It is tuell-settled. principte that corroboration of the testimong of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution and. prudence. A child. witness of tend.er age is easilg sttsceptible to ttttoing. Houteuer, that by itself is no ground. to reject the euidence of a child. witness. The Court must make careful scruting of the euid.ence of a child witness. The court must . applg its mind to the question whether ther< t ts a possibilitg of the child witness being tutored. Therefore, scruting of the euidence of a child. u_titness is required. to be made bg the Court uith care and. caution.,

¶36

I 2023 scc onLine Sc 777

¶37

¶38

Further, in the said case, the Honourable Supreme Court declined to place reliance on the testimony of the child witness who was^aged around 12 years, since there were contradictions^{and improvements} that were apparent from the evidence on^record.

¶39

Drawing parallels with the said Judgment,^{the learnedcounsel} submits that the child^(PW.6) is aged^{5 years and the questions put to} him to satisfu himself is the^judge regarding^{competency of the} witness to depose are not enough. The^{questions are simple,such as} name and whether he is studying.^{The 4tt' question put by the Judge} is about the premises where he was in.^{The child answeredthat it was} a Court. That in itself would^go to show that the^{child was tutored,} since he would not know the Court^premises and^{it is not expected} from a child of 5 years to know what a Court is^{unless, tutored and} informed. The counsel further argued that there^{was another brother} who was aged 9^{years present} at the^{timeof incidentin the house and} though cited as a witness, he was^given up.^That in^{itself creates any} amount of doubt regarding the^{prosecutionversion.}

¶40

On the other hand, learned Public^{Prosecutorwould submit that} there is no reason as to why the evidence^{of PW.6cannotbe believed.}

¶41

¶42

PW.6 is the son of the appellant and there is no reason as to why a child would speak against his own father.

¶43

1 l. In the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in prad.eep,s case (cited s'rtpra) cited by the learned counsel, the Honourable supreme court while dealing with the evidence found that the manner in which the incident had taken prace and the overt acts attributed were contradicted by the chd witness during trial. In the said circumstances the Honourable Supreme Court found that reliance cannot be placed on such evidence. child witness therein had improved the version in the cross-examination stating that the accused therein had lit a match stick, which was not stated earlier. The said improvements made during the examination of the child witness made the Honourable Supreme Court to reject his evidence hnding that the evidence was on the basis of tutoring.

¶44

PW. 1 is the maternal uncle of pW.6 who had lodged complajnt Ex.Pl on 2l.Ol .2OlS at g.30 hours, immediately after receiving the information regarding his sister,s death. He has specilically mentioned in the complaint that pw.6 had seen the acts of the appellant and^p.W.6 raised hue and cry.

¶45

¶46

Though it was argued by learned counser that corroboration is required for the evidence of pW.6, such corroboration would be necessary if the evidence of solitary witness cannot be believed for reasons to be recorded. It is not as though solitary testimony of a witness cannot be relied on without corroboration. If the court iinds that the evidence of a solitary witness is of sterling quality, such evidence can be relied on to base conviction. The version given by PW.6 in the court was the very same information that was reflected in Ex.Pl. PW. 1 lodged Ex.Pl complaint, after being informed by pW.6. The arg,ment of the learned counsel that there is no explaaation regarding as to where PW.6 resided from the date of incident till the date of deposition before the Court, will have no consequence or cannot form basis to suspect the version given by pW.6.

¶47

In the cross-examination of pW.6, except suggesting that he was speaking false, nothing was elicited to remotely suggest that pW.6 was tutored before being taken to the Court. There is no reason why PW.6 who is the son of appellant would speak false against his father and make an allegation of throttling and killing his mother. The evidence of PW.6 would corroborate the testimony of pW. 1 and scientific evidence of PW.9. The defence of the appellant as suggested

¶48

¶49

)

¶50

to P.W. 1 is that the death of deceased was natural. The postmortem examination Doctor found injuries on the neck and opined that death was due to asphlxia due to throttling. Nothing is elicited from the Doctor to create any doubt regarding the cause of death. There remains no room for doubt. There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial Court.

¶51

Accordinglv Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

¶52

//TRUE COPY//

¶53

Sd/- I. NAGA LAKSHMI DEPIJ REGISTRAR /'\

c ON OFFICER

To,

The Principal Sessions Judge Medak at Sangareddy

¶58

The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narayankhed, Medak District

¶59

The Station House Officer, Narayankhed Police Station, Medak District

¶60

The Superintendent, Central Prison Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District

¶61

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶62

One CC to Sri G V Sobhanadri, Advocate [OPUC]

¶63

Two CD Copies

ADI(gh

HIGH GOURI-

DATED:0711112024

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.226 of 2016

fHE srA IC
Y
()t 11r[B 2m a
!
t *
PA I ctl EO

¶73

DISMISSING THE GRLA

¶74

@
W

Allapuri Namdev, R.R.Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Allapuri Namdev, R.R.Dt., v. the 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Marri Sudhakar Reddy and 3 Others Vs the State of Telangana

Shaik Moin, Nizamabad Dist. Vs Sho, Bichkunda P.S., Nizamabad Dist.

Smt Latha , Devi , Baby Vs the State of Telangana

Tallari Bhasker, R.R.Dt., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Puli Obuleshu Vs the State of Telangana

Kandikanti Manikata Goud, Saroornagar and 2 Otrs., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.