Dismissed

Bhukya Ramu, Warangal Dt., v. State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC12 Nov 2024CRLA/362/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Conviction appeal for strangulation murder of the appellant's mother; all witnesses hostile but medical evidence ruled out hanging. Court upheld reliance on Section 106 Evidence Act burden on inmate of house and dismissed the appeal confirming conviction.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bhukya Ramu, Warangal Dt., Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^341s J

¶2

]N THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF^NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{ANIL KUi'IAR JUKANTI}

¶6

CRIMI NAL APPEAL NO: 362 OF²⁰¹⁶

¶7

Criminal Appeal under Section^{374 (2) of Cr.P.C. against the Orderdated 11-} 03-2016 made in s.c. No. 04 0l^{2014 0n the fib of the court of the vl Additional} Sessions Judge at Mahabubabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Bhukva Ramu, S/o. Bheekya, Aged about^{years, Lambada, BhukyaDaniya} Thanbada, Jama Thanda, Warangal

¶10

...Appellant

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by^{its PP, High Court at Hyderabad}

¶13

...Respondent

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶15

Petition under section 389^{(1) of cr.P.c.praying that in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the High courtmay be} pleased to grant the bail to Petitioner / Appellant^{/ Accused duringthe pendency} of the criminal Appeal^{No. 362 of 2016 in sc No. 4 ot 2014on the file of Hon'ble} VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubad,^Warangal.

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant Sri Mettu Govardhan ReddY

¶17

Counsel for the ResPondent Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor

¶18

The Court delivered the^{following Judgment:}

¶19

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR

¶21

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.362 0F 2016

¶22

JUDGMENT: (per IIon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

¶23

This appeai is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated f 1.03.2016 in S.C.No.O4 of 2Ot4, on the frle of the VI Additional Sessions Judge at Mahabubabad, convicting the appellant for a-n offence under Section 3O2 of IpC for killing his mother by strangulating her to death.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState.

¶25

Briefly, the facts are that the incident happened on O3.04.2O13 in the midnight. According to complaint, p.W. 1 received information that her sister (hereinafter referred as decease{) who is mother of the accused was killed. Thereafter, P.\r. 1 along with others went to the place and found that -the deceased was killed and on seeing p.W. 1 and others, the appellant fled from the scene. Ex.p. 1/ complaint was filed on 04.04.2013 at 9 a.m.

¶26

¶27

On the basis of the complaint, the Police visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchnama. Thereafter, inquest proceedings were also undertaken. l{aving^{concludedthe inquest proceedings,the bodywas} sent for post mortem examination.

¶28

The Police having investigated the case found that the appellant had committed an offence under Section 3O2, 376 and 2Ol of IPC and filed charge sheet accordingly.

¶29

Learned Sessions Judge having framed charges under Sections 3O2 and 376 of IPC, found that the appeilant was not guilty of the offence under Section 376 of IPC, however, found him guilty of the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

¶30

7 . During the course of the trial, P.W.I / de-facto complainalt was declared hostile, however, she stated that they went to the house having received phone ca-ll from the appellant that his mother died. When they went there, they found dead body on the floor with a saree around her neck. She only admitted signature on Ex.P. I and contents in Ex.P.1 were denied. P.W.2, who is also the sister of the deceased stated on similar lines as that of P.W. 1. She was also declared hostile. P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,9, 1O and 11^who

#.-E^t4#tr=-

J-

a-re all circumstantial^{witnesses have also turnedhostile'} P.W.12^{is the inquest panch who statedthat saree which was} hanging^{from the :rafter of the house was seized' He also} stated that^{he has witnessedthe inquestproceedings'} P.w.l3istheconfessionalpanch.Accordingtohim,the appellant^{after confessingto the crime} '^{producedM'Os' 1 and} to strangulate^{the deceased'} 2 which^{were allegedlY used} evidence^{witness who was} P.W. 15^{is the circumstantia'l} present during^{the inquest of the deceasedand also attested} P.W. 16 is^{the witnessfor confession} on the^{inquestrePort'} and seizure Palchnama'

¶37

Though all^{the witnesses have turned hostile'the} presence of^{the appellantin the house was not disputed by} the appellant^{during the course of trial' .In the examination} underSection3ll}ofCr.P.C.tothequestionNo.25,whether he wishes^{to say an5rthing,he stated as follows (translationis} mine):

¶38

"That day^{I rvent to my elder sister Swapna's house'} My mother^{r,'asaddicted to alcohol'not even,cooking} rice. I^{took rny sister'sson to my house'Seeing him'} again she^{drankalcohol'She saw photoof my father} and cried.^{Since I had pain in my stomach'I ate and} my mother^{slept. Midnight at l2'o clock' when I went}

¶39

¶40

to see my mother who^{was sl€eping inside, I found her} hanging from the roof."

¶41

To the^questions put under Section 313^Cr.P.C. examination, insofar^as evidence of P.Ws.l, 2^{and 5are} concerned, who stated that^{the appellalt was presentin the} house at the time of death,^{the sameis not denied' Learned} Sessions Judge^{placed reliance on thefollowing} circumstances:-

¶42

"i That the accused and^{the deceased were alone} residing in their house^{under the same roof at Daniya} Thanda.

¶43

ii. That the accused^{was with the deceasedprior to he} d.eath and he was^{very much present in the house} immediately after^{her death.}

¶44

iii. That the accused^{fumished informationto his} family members ttrat^{the deceased committed suicide} by hanging which^{is foundas untrue.}

¶45

iv. When P.Ws.1^{to 3, P.W.6 and P'W'7 visited the} house of the^{accused during the night of the incident} tire dead body ofthe^{deceasedwas on the floor'}

¶46

v. That the Post Mortem^{examinationrevealed that the} deceased died due to^{Asphyxia as aresult of} strangulation, but^{not on account of hanging'}

¶47

¶48

vi. That MO.1^{nice rope was recovered bythe} investigatilrg^{offrcerat the pointing out of the accused} U /s.27 of^evidenceact.

¶49

vii. That the^{accusedhad absconded from his house} ' after arrival of P.W.5 and others'"

¶50

karned^{counsel appearing for the appellantwould} submit that^{since all the witnesses have turned hostileand} there are no^{eyt:-witnessesto the incident, learnedSessions} Judge has^{comrnittedan error in convictingthe appellant' It} is for the^{prosecutionto prove who committedthe offence'} The learned^{Sessions Judge erred in shifting the burden on} to the appellant^{under Section 106 of the Evidence Act'}

¶51

1 1. lrarned^{f\rblic Prosecutor supported the findings of} the learned^{Ses:;ions Judgewhile convicting the appellant'}

¶52

L2. As alread;r^{discussed,the accused did not disputehis} presence in the^{house when the deceased died' The evidence} of post mortem^{Doctor/P.W. 17 would be relevant'He stated} as under:-

¶53

"I fo-und all^{otherorgans were normaland the} Iungs were congested.^{The Pancreas and spleen were} also congested.^{The age of the death was 18 to 24} hours to rny examination.^{I am of the opinion that}

¶54

¶55

the deceased died of Asph5a<ia due to strangulation resulting in Cardio Respiratory Arrest. Accordingly, I issued P.M.Report and it is Ex.p.2S. Cross Examination by the Defence:-

¶56

The above injuries are not possible by hanging. I found no blood stains around the neck of the deceased. I did not mention the length and breadth (measurement) of the abrasions around the neck.,,

¶57

The Doctor specifica_lly stated that death was on account of strangulation and the deceased died due to Asphlxia resulting in cardio respiratory iurest. He mled out possibility of hanging. Even at the scene, when the appellart had stated that he has found the deceased hanging to the roof, it is not explained by the appellalt as to how she was brought on to the floor and why he did not call anyone to the house when she was found hanging.

¶58

Since the factum of the presence of the appellant is not disputed when ttre deceased died, it is for the appellant to explain as to how the death occurred. The appellant having accepted that he was present in the house, has to explain the reasons or the circumstances of the death of his mother by showing reason, which creates doubt about the involvement of the appellant. The prosecution has laid foundation to shift

¶59

¶60

the burden onto the appellant under Section 1O6 of the Evidence Act. P.Ws.l, 2 and 5 speak about presence of appellant in the house when death occurred and also that appellant called them and informed about the death. Appellant was the person present in the house, first to see the deceased d.ead and also first to inform others about the death.

¶61

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtrar held as under:_

¶62

"Whr:re an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature ald amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. llhe burden would be of. a comparatively lighter cheracter. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding Lurden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates ot the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no dut5r at all on an accused to offer any explanation.,,

1 lzooo; ro scc osr

1 l l ! l I I

The appellant can discharge his burden by preponderance of probabilitlr. Nothing is elicited through any of the witnesses, which even raises aly suspicion or doubt regarding non_involvement in the offence. Merely denying his involvement in murder will not absolve him of his burden that shifted onto him under Section 106 of Evidence Act. In view of the admission of the appellant being present in his house vis_A_vis medical evidence ruling out the possibility of suicide, irresistible conclusion tftat cal be drawn is that it was the appellant who had committed the act of murdering the deceased. p.W.7Z stated that death was homicidal and ruled out the possibility of suicide. Even at the scene of offence, nothing was found to suggest in aly m€utner that the deceased had committed suicide. Accepting the version of the appellant in his exdmination under Section 313 Cr.p.C that the deceased was addicted to alcohol, she drank that day, no reason was shown as to why she would commit suicide. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge inferring homicidal death and said homicide Ueing committ.la by the appellant cannot be found fault with,. There are no

¶67

¶68

grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge.

¶69

TI Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed

¶70

//TRUE COPY//

¶71

Sd/- T. SRINIVAS DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶72

To,

¶73

SECTA N OFFICER

¶74

1 The Vl Addition;rl Sessions Judge at Mahabubabad (with records, if any) 2 The Superintendent, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad 3 Two CCs to the^public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OU'l-]

¶75