Anthati Arjunaiah, Nagarkurnool Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

[^341e ]

'qrrir

\

NOTE:- The Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 28:X1.2022 in lA. No. 1 ot 2022 in Crl.A. No: 1010 of 2017.

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶6

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

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

¶9

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 10'10 OF 2017

¶10

Appeal filed under Section 372(2) ot Cr P.C against the^{judgment dated} {'^'f 18-8-2017 in SGNo. 513 of^{2014on the file of the lV Additional Districtand} Sessions Court, Nagarkurnool.

¶11

Between:

¶12

Anthati Arjunaiah S/o. Kashanna, Age: 35^years, Occ: Agriculture,^R/o Allapur Village, Tadoor Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

¶13

..APPELLANT/ACCUSED No. 1

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Telangana, Rep, by the Public Prosecutor, High Court^at Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶17

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M. Achuta Reddy

¶18

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

¶19

The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT:

¶20

--q =w "'{

¶21

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

¶22

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1O1O OF 201.7

¶23

JUDGMENTi^'1ter llon'blc Sri.lustice K Surentler)

¶24

The Appr'al is filed by the appellant/A-1 aggrieved b1, the judgment datel 18.08.2017, in S.C.No.513 of 2r)14, on the file of IV Addition al District and Sessions Court, Nagarkurnool. The appellant was tried along with A-2 for the offence under Section 3O2 r I N. 3.1 ol IPC.

¶25

Heard the le:rrned counsel for the appellant/ A- 1 and Sri Arun Kuma;' I)odla, Iearned Additional Public l)rosecutor for respondent- St. te.

¶26

The alle;3ation against the appellant vras that both appellant/A- 1 and A 2 administered poison to Lhe deceased. The deceased i,; the husband of A-2. P.W. 1 is the rlaughter of A- 2 and the deceased. She lodged a complaint on 28.08.20 13, at 9 a.m., with^'l'adoor Police of Mahbubnagar District. In the telugu written complaint, P.W.1 narrated thar A-2 is her mother. A 2 u-as having relation with A-1. Her <krceased father admonished A- 2 regarding relation in between A- 1 and A-2. On 27 .O8.2013, A- 1 '"r,ent to the house of deceased and took him to his house. Th,:ps, it is alleged that appellant mixed insecticidc

¶27

2

¶28

.]-

¶29

poison in whisky bottle. Prior to consuming whisky, they have consumed toddy. The villagers informed P.W.l about dead body of the deceased lying in the open place of one Anthati Kashanna (not examined). On the basis of the complaint, the Investigating Officer registered the complaint and went to the scene of offence. Ex.P.7/scene of offence panchnama was conducted and inquest proceedings were concluded. The dead body was then shifted to hospital for autopsy. P.W.7, who conducted autopsy, opined that death was due to organo phosphate poison.

¶30

The appellant and A-2 were arrested on 03.O9.20 13 and having recorded their confession statement, they were produced before the concerned Magistrate Court and sent for judicial remand. P.W.8 after concluding the investigation, filed charge sheet for the offence under Section 302 r lw. 34 of IPC.

¶31

Learned Sessions Judge having framed charge under Section 3O2 r lw. 34 of IPC found that, no evidence was placed by the prosecution to show that A-2 was present in the house of A- 1 / appellant, when appellant took the deceased from the house. Further, nothing is placed by the prosecution to suggest that A-2, in collusion with A-1, had pre-planned and then

3

w *,/. .

n-

committed mlrrder of the deceased by administering^poison. For the said reason, learned Sessions Judge acquitted^A-2.

¶36

Learned :ounsel appearing for the appellarLt^would submit that entire evi,,lence on record against the appellant^{and A-2 is} the same. Orce the trial Court had found A-2^{not guilty,the} question of isolating the appellant herein ald fir:Lcling him guilty is incorrect. Further, post mortem report does not corroborate with the versicn of the prosecution that the decea.sed consumed toddy initialll , then poison was mixed witlL whisky. No witnesses wele examined by the prosecution to show that insecticide rvar; purchased by A- 1.

¶37

Learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute the fact that there are no e\re witnesses to the incident. However, he argued that the circumstances cleariy indicate that the appellant had motrve to conr mit murder of the deceased, fo: the reason of appellant havrng illicit rntimacy with A-2.

¶38

The pror;ecution relied on two witnesses, P.Ws.3 and 5, who inere exarnined before the Court below. Hc,wever, both the witnesses turrred hostile to the prosecution cas,e. Another eye witness, Antlrati Tirupataiah, though shown in the list of witnesses as L.W.2, the witness was given up by the prosecution.

¶39

4

¶40

Other tharl P.Ws.3, 5, and L.W.2, there are no eye witnesses, who had seen the deceased either entering into the house of the appellant, or anl.where near the premises. According to P.W. 1, the deceased was taken by the appellant around 7 p.mqprerrious day. The dead body was found in front ,l of the housJof Anthati Tirupataiah (L.W.2), in the land of Anthati Kashanna. The said Anthati Kashanna, was also not examined by the prosecution.

¶41

In the post mortem examination, there are no signs of any forcible af,ministering of poison. Assuming that the deceased had consumed toddy and whisky, the same would be reflected in FSL exarnination. It is not the case of the prosecution that any alcohol was found in the blood ol the deceased. Neither any smell of alcohol was detected at the time of post mortem examination, nor the post mortem Doctor/P.W.8 stated arything about the presence of alcohol.

¶42

The case is one of circumstantial evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtral, laid principles as to the acceptance of circumstantial evidence and the basis to record conviction, which read as under:-

I (1984) 4 scc 116

w v

I /

)

" 1 . the circumstances from whi,;h the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be circunrstances ful1y established. The concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established;

¶48

the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they shc,uld not be r'xplained on any other hypothesisi except thar rhc accusrd is guilry;

¶49

the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;

¶50

they should exclude every possible h1'pr-thesis except the one to be proved; aed

¶51

tLcrc must be a chain of evidence so <:omplete as rot lo leave any reasonable ground for the con<:lusion consistent with the innocence of the ai:cr-r sed and must show that in all human probability, thc act must have been done by the accused."

¶52

The only r:ircumstance relied on by the prosecution is the

¶53

evidence of P.W. 1 that the appellant accompanied the deceased. The dead body uvas found near the house of appellant, however, in front of the house of L.W.2, who was given^,-rp. The dead body was found on the lald of Anthati Kashanna, who was also not examined. Other than the evidence of the appellant taking the deceased al 7 p.rn., it is not clear as to wherr: the appellant and the deceas;ed went, or where they have consumed either toddy or alcohol. The evidence of only P.W. 1, that the appellart had taken the cleceased lrom his house, will not rn any manner

¶54

\

¶55

6

¶56

suggest that it was the appellant who had caused death of the deceased, when viewed in other circumstances, as discussed above. The prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances, which form a tink, for the Court to infer that it was the appellant, who had administered poison to the deceased and caused his death.

¶57