HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.660 OF 2007 JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Samudrala Govindarajulu) The accused is the appellant. He was found guilty by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal by judgment dated 25.04.2007 in Sessions Case No.690 of 2006, of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 302 IPC and was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence under Section 201 IPC. The deceased Gurrala Shankaraiah aged 80 years was no other than father of the accused Gurrala Ramesh. Shankaraiah was having four sons and one daughter and all of them were married. All the sons, after their marriages, were residing separately. But, the accused started living with the deceased after his wife and two minor children left his company because of his drinking habit and because he was harassing his wife. Since then, the deceased, his wife-PW.1 and the accused were living together in their house at West Fort, Warangal. On the intervening night of 8/9.04.2006, the deceased died in his house. On that day, PW.1 was not in the house as she went to her native place Jangaon, because of the accused was harassing her and ill-treating her. After hearing news of death of the deceased, PW.1 rushed from Jangaon to Warangal and on information furnished to her, she gave Ex.P.1 report to PW.6, Inspector of Police, Mills Colony Police Station, Warangal, who registered the same as case in Crime No.100 of 2006 and issued Ex.P.3, F.I.R. PW.6 took up investigation and during investigation, he examined witnesses and conducted inquest on the deadbody in the presence of inquest panchayatdars including PW.5 under the cover of Ex.P.2, inquest panchanama. He also prepared Ex.P.6-rough sketch of the scene of the offence and Ex.P.4-scene of the offence panchanama. Thereafter, he sent deadbody of the deceased to K.M.C.Hospital, Warangal, where PW.7, Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine, conducted post- mortem examination on the deadbody and issued Ex.P.7, post- mortem examination report. At the time of scene of the offence panchanama, PW.6 seized M.O.2, blood stains at the scene apart from M.O.1, blood stained dhoti, of the deceased. PW.6 sent M.Os.1 and 2 to Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad who after examination of the material objects gave Ex.P.5, FSL report, to the effect that M.Os.1 and 2 contained human blood. During investigation, PW.6 effected arrest of the accused on 12.04.2006 and sent him to the Magistrate for judicial custody. After investigation, PW.6 filed charge sheet before the Magistrate. During trial in the lower Court, wife of the deceased was examined as PW.1 and eldest son of the deceased was examined as PW.2. PW.3 is a neighbour being resident of a house opposite to that of the deceased separated by road. PW.4 is Ex-Municipal Councilor. The prosecution examined PW.4 to prove the alleged extra-judicial confession said to have been given by the accused to him on 12.04.2006. It is prosecution case that when the accused was consuming liquor heavily, the deceased scolded the accused not to ask for money and not to consume liquor heavily and that the accused threatened the deceased by saying that if the deceased refused to give money to him for consuming alcohol, he would kill him. It is alleged that on the night of 08.04.2006, the accused beat the deceased with hands indiscriminately and strangulated the deceased to the rafter with the help of dhoti and created scene as if the deceased committed suicide by hanging. The lower Court framed two charges against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Plea of the accused is one of total denial. He did not put forward any other specific plea of defence. There is no dispute that the offence took place inside house of the deceased in isolation. Therefore, naturally there are no eye- witnesses to the occurrence. The prosecution relied upon circumstantial evidence only. Witnesses may lie, but circumstances do not. In this case, the investigation started with definite information that it was the accused who committed murder of the deceased. In Ex.P.1 report given by PW.1 herself, it was mentioned that her son Ramesh only killed her husband. PW.1 after receiving phone call about death of the deceased rushed to Warangal from Jangaon. Until PW.1 returned to Warangal on 09.04.2006, except the deceased and the accused, there were no other persons in the family house. The deceased was vending vegetables in streets. The deceased sustained some injuries in a road accident and was bed ridden. Taking that circumstance as advantage, it is suggested to PW.1 by the defence counsel in her cross-examination that the deceased was expressing his desire to die because of injuries he sustained in the road accident and because he was bed ridden and was not able to attend to his normal work. At this stage itself, we propose to rule out the theory of suicide by the deceased by way of hanging. The medical evidence of PW.7 and Ex.P.7, post-mortem examination report are definite to the effect that the deceased died due to strangulation. In Ex.P.7, the following injuries are mentioned to have been found on the deadbody: “1. One ligature mark is measuring 33 x 1 cms. Present over the neck below the thyroid cartilage, it is completely encircles the neck transversely. On dissection the underlying neck structures are braised fracture of hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage. 2. Contused both testis.” Finally PW.7 opined that the deceased died due to ligature strangulation. Injury No.1 reveals that ligature mark was present over the neck below thyroid cartilage and it is completely encircling the neck transversely. Further, it is noted that there was fracture of hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage. These two circumstances namely ligature mark being present encircling the neck entirely and fracture of hyoid bone, rule out possibility of suicide by hanging. Unless there is strangulation by a human agency, there is no possibility of ligature mark encircling the entire neck and also fracture of hyoid bond. PW.7 rightly found that it is a case of strangulation. Therefore, we have no hesitation to conclude that it is a case of homicide and not suicide. As pointed out earlier, at the time of offence, there was no third party inside the house where the offence occurred except the deceased and the accused. This fact is reinforced by the evidence of PW.3 also. PW.3 is an independent witness residing opposite to house of the deceased. She says that on the date of the incident, the deceased and the accused were alone there in their house. She further says that at about 4.45 a.m., she noticed the accused coming outside his house and raising cries stating that his father died; when PW.3 and other neighbours went inside the house, they found that the deceased was lying on cot. PW.2 deposed that one boy came to his house at about 5.30 or 6.00 a.m. and informed him about death of his father and that he rushed to his parents’ house and saw deadbody of the deceased on the cot. It is evidence of PW.1 that at about 5.00 a.m., her eldest son PW.2 telephoned to her and informed about the accused killing her husband. Thereupon she came to Warangal from Jangaon and gave Ex.P.1 report to the police. In cross-examination of PW.1, it was elicited that PW.4 and one caste elder asked her to put her thumb mark on Ex.P.1 report at her house. Therefore, it is contended by the appellant’s counsel that she didn’t know the contents of Ex.P.1. In fact, PW.1 was not personally aware as to who committed murder of her husband. It is only on information PW.1 gave Ex.P.1 report to the police. Even in her examination-in- chief, PW.1 being an illiterate lady identified Ex.P.1 as her report only when the Additional Public Prosecutor read over contents of the same to her. Thus, the deceased and the accused alone were in the house when the offence took place on that night. It is a strong circumstance which weighs in favour of the prosecution. Apart from that, there is evidence of PW.3 who reiterated the said circumstance and who further corroborated by saying that the accused came out of their house at about 4.45 a.m. and disclosed about death of his father inside the house. Thus, apart from the accused being lone inmate of the house apart from the deceased, it was the accused who made the others know about the offence which took place inside the house. These two circumstances and evidence of PW.3 are, in our considered opinion, sufficient to find the accused guilty of the offence of murder. Though the prosecution tried to introduce the alleged extra judicial confession of the accused through PW.4, who is Ex- Municipal Councilor, this Court does not find any reason to place reliance on the said piece of evidence. According to PW.4, the accused came to his house on 12.04.2006 and made the alleged oral confessional statement. The alleged statement of the accused was not put in writing much less PW.4 obtained signature or thumb impression of the accused on it. PW.1 in cross-examination categorically stated that by the time she reached Warangal from Jangaon after receiving information about death of the deceased, there were all her three sons apart from the accused and her daughter. PW.2 in cross-examination stated that on the date of cremation of deadbody of the deceased, the accused was present in police custody. Therefore, the theory put forward by PW.4 about extra-judicial confession on 12.04.2006 and the alleged surrender of the accused before the police on 12.04.2006, cannot be believed. Even in spite of placing no reliance on evidence of PW.4, this Court finds that there is sufficient prosecution evidence as indicated above to show that it was the accused who committed murder of the deceased due to family bickerings. It is evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that the accused was pressing his father for partition of properties and the house and was pressing his father for performing another marriage to him by spending money, for which the deceased did not agree. Thus, there is motive for the offence and the circumstances undoubtedly point out that it was the accused and none other who committed the offence of murder of the deceased inside the house. The accused tried to simulate the circumstances in order to show to the public that it was a case of suicide by hanging deadbody of the deceased to the rafter after the accused strangulating his father to death. Thus, we have no hesitation to agree with finding of guilt of the accused recorded by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal on two charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. V.ESWARAIAH,J SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Date:28.10.2010 usd