Dismissed

Dasarath Gadava, R.R.Dist. v. P.P., Hyd

Telangana HC2 Sept 2024CRLA/491/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant challenging his conviction for murder. The Court upheld the Trial Court's finding that the prosecution witnesses consistently established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, rejecting the claim of false implication.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Trial Court ordering life imprisonment for the appellant was affirmed.

Dasarath Gadava, R.R.Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^337e ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTET/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO:491 OF 2016

¶7

Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) r/w 383 of Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the Judgment dated 10-02-2016 passed in S.C. No. I of 2O14 on the file of the Court of the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Malakjgiri, Ranga Reddy District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dasarath Gadava, S/o. Kesavnath, Aged about 35 years, Caste Adivasi, Occ. Labour, present Rl/o. Railway Quarters, Cheralapally, R.R. District, N/o. Bommel (V), Korapur District, Odissa State, presently he is at central prison Cheralapally

¶10

...Appellant / Accused

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad

¶13

..Respondent / Complainant

¶14

Sri M K Ratnam Counsel forthe Appellant :

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent

¶16

Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, The Additional Public Prosecutor

¶17

The Court delivered the following Judgment :

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

¶19

AND

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶21

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.491 of 2016

¶22

JUDGMENT: Fer the Honble Sri Justice p. sAr.r xostlg

¶23

The instant is an appeal under Section 374(21 of the cr.p.c filed by the appellant - accused chalrenging the judgment of conviction dated 10.02.2016 in Sessions case No.9 of 2or4 passed by the Judge, XVI Additional District and Session Judge, Malkajgiri.

¶24

Heard Mr. M.K.Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr' syed Yasar Mamoon, rearned Additionar public prosecutor for the respondent - State.

¶25

Vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 186O (for short, .IpC) and upon convicting the appellant, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 1ife.

¶26

The case of the prosecution, as per the charge_sheet, is that on 08.09.2013 at 9:00 hours pW.3 (Harichandra Nayak) who is the brother of the Vijay Kumar Nayak (hereinafter, the .deceasedJ lodged a complaint at Kushaiguda police Station, Cyberabad, stating that the

¶27

Page 2 of 9

¶28

¶29

deceased and the appellant (Dasharath Gadava), who is the father-inlaw of the deceased, both hail from same village i.e. Bommer village, Koraput District of odisha. At about four years ago the appellant allegedly kiiled the father of the deceased in an altercation over sharing wages, for which he was jailed for 7 months before being released on bail from Jaipur police Station. A week days ago, the appellart, deceased and other laborers from Odisha came to cherlapally to work as Railway laborers under pw. 1 (K.Harish) who is a railway contractor. The appellant suspected that the deceased would seek vengeance for his father's murder and accordingly planned to kiil him first. That on 07.O9.2O13 in the evening the appellant engaged in a violent altercation with the deceased at his workplace, striking him with a stone. Although the deceased managed to escape and reached railway quarters and slept on upstairs of the quarters. Thereafter, the appellant assumed that the deceased will kill him if he survives and as such the appellant planned to kill the deceased. Subsequently, the appellant brought spade and brutally attacked the deceased again by striking him on the head until his death. This whole incident was witnessed by PW.4 and 5.

Page 3 of 9

On the sarne day i.e. on 07.09.2013 at about 6:00 p.M. pW.4 (Hari Hayal) made a phone call to PW.3 and informed that the appellant had killed the deceased. Immediately PW.3 made his journey to Cherlapally from Odisha and found his brother in pool of blood on railway quarters. Accordingly the police authorities registered a complairrt as Cr.No.499 of 2013 for the offence under Section 3O2 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the appellant was apprehended on 11.09.2013 at about 10:00 A.M. and during the interrogation he confessed the crime. Based upon the said confessional statement made by the appellant, the police authorities recovered and seized a spade having blood stains as well as wooden handle which were found near the scene of crime. Further, a chargesheet was filed and the matter was put to trial before the XVI Additional District and Session Judge, Malkajgiri, where the case was registered as S.C.No.9 of 2014.

¶34

In all, the prosecution examined eight (08) witnesses, marked thirteen (13) Exhibits and also marked two (02) Material Objects (MOs). There was no evidence on behalf of the defence. The Trial Court after recording the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of cr.P.c and upon hearing the learned counsei appearing on either side

¶35

Page 4 of 9

¶36

finally passed the impugned judgment of conviction which is under challenge in the present appeal.

¶37

The learned counsel for the appellant challenging the impugned judgment contended on two grounds. Firstly, accordingly to the learned. counsel for the appella,t a false case had been filed against the appellant due to previous grudge between the de-facto complainant (PW.3) and the appellant. By emphasizing this alleged pre-existing conflict the learned counsel for the appellant attempted to cast a doubt on the credibility of the prosecution case and suggest a motive for lalsely accusing the appellant. Secondly, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Trial Court failed to notice the significant discrepancies in the prosecution's version. According to complaint, the appellant came to the railway quarters at 6:OO P.M. and hit the deceased with the spade causing fata_l injuries. However, PW.4's testimony contradicts to the above statement. pW.4 contended that the deceased, PW.S and others were sitting on the terrace of the railway quarters at 6:O0 P.M. when the appellant struck the deceased with spade causing immediate death.

¶38

Contrary to the above statement of PW.4, PW.S stated that the deceased, the appellart and PW.4 were sitting on the 3.a floor of the

¶39

Page 5 of 9

¶40

railway quarters at Cherlpally and there was some discussions going on between them. Suddenly, the appellant took spade and fata-lly struck the deceased. These conflicting statements raise serious doubts about the reliability of the prosecution,s case.

¶41

Thus, for all aforesaid reasons, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for setting aside the judgment of conviction and a_lso prayed for acquittal of the appellant from all the charged leveled against him.

¶42

lO. Per contra, the learned Additional public prosecutor heavily relied on the testimony of two key eyewitnesses pWs.4 and 5 who provided a crucial testimony by stating that they were present at the railway qua-rters in Cherlapally on the day of the commission of the offence. Both PWs.4 and 5 saw the appellant assaulting the deceased with a spade on his head resulting in the death of the deceased. According to him, the testimonies were consistent in describing the location, date and the manner of the assault which provides a solid foundation for the prosecution's case.

¶43

learned Additional Public prosecutor also objected the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant where he contended that there is a discrepancy in the testimony of pWs.3, 4 and

¶44

Page 6 of 9

¶45

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor by objecting these contentions, argued that this minor dilference in their testimonies do not substaritiate the contradictions. PW.3 is not an eyewitness instead; he provided information based on what PW.4 shared.

¶46

L2. Thus, the learned Additiona_l Public Prosecutor pressed for dismissal of the instant appeal.

¶47

Having heard the contentions put forth on either side arrd on perusal of the records, it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the facts which are recovered in the course of recording of evidences of PWs.3, 4 and 5.

¶48

According to the testimony of PW.3 (Harishchandra Naik), he stated that PW.4 had made a call on 07.O9.2O13 informing that the appellant had killed the deceased. PW.3 immediately departed from his hometown and arrived at Chertapally railway quarters on 08.09.2013. When PW.3 arrived he discovered the deceased dead body on the frrst floor of the railway quarters with head injury. Although PW.3 is not an eyewitness to the actual crime but his testimony is significant in establishing the sequence of event which is corroborated with other testimonies.

Page 7 of 9

.// . ,,/ |

/./ // /,/

It would be relevaat at this juncture to take note of the testimonies of PW.4 and PW.S which clearly supports the case of the prosecution. PW.4 (Hari Hayal) in his examination-in-chief before the Court stated as under:

¶54

."On^{7.9.2013 at 6.00 p.m. mgself, Ratan Hagat (cited} as Lw.3), Subhash along with deceased were sitting on the terrace of Railutay Quarters, Ctterlapallg. TLLe acansed took a spade and gaue a blout on the head of the deceased. He Immediately died. I mad.e a phone call to Put.3 and informed him. police examined. me in the police station."

¶55

Similarly, PW.S (Ratan Hayal) in his exarnination-in-chief before the Court stated as under:

¶56

"Mgself, PW.4, deceased and accused tuere sittinq on tte 3d Jloor of tte Railway euartes, Cherlapally on 7.9.2013. There was some discus sion. The acansed" took a spade and gaue a blow on the head. of the deceased and he tmmediatelg died.. police examined, me in the police station."

¶57

Pate 8 of 9

¶58

¶59

17 . It would also be relevant at this juncture to take note of deposition of pW.7 (Dr. A.Narender Babu) who conducted the post_ mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased on 08'09'2013 and stated t-rre cause of death of the deceased was due to head injury, which for ready reference is reproduced herein under:

¶60

A deep lacerated wound of 1 x t/z cm x bone deep ouer the lefi periatal region. 2) A deep lacerated. wound. of 1% x ,/, cm x bone d.eep ouer the lefi temporal region. 3) A deep lacerqted uound bone deep ouer th.e lefi side of fore tead", 4) A lacerated. wound ouer the tefi side of fore h.ead. aboue the Injury No.3

¶61

A lacerated. wound. ouer the teft periatal region.

¶62

For all the aforesaid reasons we are of the considered opinion that the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses pws.3 to 5 and PW'7 corroborate each other in their testimony. This court linds that the only slight variation is the testimony of pw.4, where pw.4 mentioned that he informed pW.3 about the incident on phone while PW'5 does not explicitly stated this deta,. These minor variations can be attributed to individual perspectives and ;;"ry, rather than significant contradictions that would undermine their credib,ity. The

¶63

Page 9 of 9

¶64

¶65

appellant's defense of total denial and false implication due to previous ill-feelings lacks substantive evidence to counter the prosecution's well-established case. Further, this Court Iinds that the appellant also failed to provide any compelling alternative explanation for the events or to significantly undermine the credibility of the prosecution's witnesseb.

¶66

Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the given strength and consistency of the prosecution's evidence coupled with the lack of substantive defence, is convinced beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt. Thus affirming the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Tria-l Court, the present appeal thus being devoid of a merit, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.

¶67

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall

¶68

stald closed.

¶69

Sd/. M. MANJULA DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The XVI Additional^{District and Sessions Judge at Malakjgiri' Ranga Reddy} District

¶74

The Superintendent,^{Central Prison, Cherlapally'}

¶75

The Station^{House officer,Kushaiguda, Police Station, Ranga Reddy District}

¶76

4 Two CCs to the Public^{Prosecutor, High court for the State of Telangana'} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶77

One CC to^{Sri M K Ratnam,Advocate[OPUC]}

¶78

6 Two CD CoPles ftlc..

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210912024

JUDGMENT

r. S IAt {
t
I
c
2 i Ntiij 2it14 C
t-b
a
I
t)aSI'rArr)

¶83

CRLA.No.491 of 2016

¶84

?rM(, tq\to l",t

¶85

DISMISSING THE CRLA

Dasarath Gadava, R.R.Dist. v. P.P., Hyd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasarath Gadava, R.R.Dist. v. P.P., Hyd

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

Alapati Vara Prasad @ Mr.Prasad v.Alapati Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. B. Priyanka Vs The State of Telangana

Karam Nanaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Thumma Pochamallu, Chinna Nakkalapet Village., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Rashed Khan Vs Rizwan Khan , Rizwan

The State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp Vs Ambati Srinivas and 3 Others