THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.463 of 2010
ADVANCE ORDER:
In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar in S.C.No.612 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 450 IPC are hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted for the said charges. Appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. The fine amount paid by the appellant, if any, shall be returned to him.
(Detailed Judgment follows) G. CHANDRAIAH, J M.S.K.JAISWAL, J Date:24.10.2014 Note : After dispatching the advance order, please send the bundle to Court Masters’ Section for typing detailed judgment. (B/o.) Rns HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.463 of 2010 Dated: 24.10.2014 Between:
Md.Hasan Shah @ Bujulu S/o.Late Mahabub Ali … Appellant/Accused Vs.
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
… Respondent HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL
Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 2010
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Chandraiah)
This criminal appeal is preferred by the Appellant/Accused aggrieved by the judgment and conviction ordered in S.C.No.612 of 2008, dt.05.01.2010 by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. By virtue of the impugned judgment the accused was found guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 450 IPC. The trial Court imposed the punishment of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC and in default of payment of fine amount to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and further sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- for the offence under Section 450 IPC and in default of payment of fine, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and further ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The case of the Prosecution is that the accused is a resident of Raghupathipet village and the deceased by name Bhanu Bee was also a resident of the same village, and the deceased is having two sons and six daughters. The accused is the brother of the husband of Bhanu Bee. The son of Bhanu Bee by name Mohd. Osman went to Saudi Arabia and worked there fore 15 years and he used to send amounts to the accused for development of agriculture and the accused with the said amount laid a bore well in the land and is cultivating the lands. The deceased Bhanu Bee demanded the accused for giving a share in the crops. But the accused did not pay any amount or share which he was getting from the crops. In this connection, a panchayat was also held in the village. While the things stood thus, on 10.02.2008 at about 04.30 hours, Mohd.Osman, who is residing in Hyderabad received telephonic information that his mother died and immediately he came to his mother’s house at Raghupathipet and found his mother in a pool of blood. There were two stabbing injuries on the head (both sides of temple region) of the deceased. When he enquired with regard to the death of his mother, he came to know that the accused murdered his mother, then he gave report to the police and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.39 of 2008 under Section 302 IPC. The Sub-Inspector of Police examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses, examined the scene of offence, seized the material objects, drew a rough sketch. The Inspector of Police verified the investigation done by the Sub-Inspector of Police, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, got conducted autopsy over the dead body, arrested the accused, and after completion of the investigation filed charge sheet.
3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy took cognizance of the offences under Sections 302 and 450 IPC in PRC.No.40 of 2008, and after following the procedure committed the case to the Court of Sessions, since the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar took the case on file as S.C.No.612 of 2008 and proceeded with for disposal according to law.
4. On appearance of the accused, after hearing both sides and considering the material on record, the trial Court framed the charges for the offences under sections 302 and 450 IPC, read over and explained the same to the accused for which the accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 14, marked Exs.P.1 to P.15 and M.Os.1 to 6. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances that were appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, as contemplated under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. On behalf of the accused, D.W.1 was examined and marked Ex.D.1.
7. Basing on the above said material and after hearing both sides, the trial Court framed the following point for consideration:
“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the charges under Sections 450 and 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?
8. On considering the material available on record, with regard to the point the trial Court answered the same against the accused and convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him as stated supra. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the present appeal is preferred by the accused.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the accused submits that it is a case of no evidence except circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the trial Court ought not have found the accused guilty for the offence under Sections 302 and 450 IPC and sentence him for life imprisonment. He further submits that though the prosecution treated that P.W.4 is an eye-witness, but he is not an eye-witness, he is only a circumstantial witness. He further submitted that in the contents of Ex.P1 made by P.W.1 wherein P.W.4 is accused rather than the appellant and the other accused for the alleged offence. He further submits that even in Ex.P8 also, the name of P.W.4 is mentioned rather than the name of the appellant and further submits that in Ex.P9 panchanama of scene of offence, the name of P.W.4 is there as an accused rather than the appellant herein. P.W.14 the Investigating Officer in the case stated that he seized M.O.6, which is a knife used in the alleged commission of offence. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant-accused submits that there is contradiction in the statements of P.Ws.13 and 14. He also submits that there is a contradiction with regard to the recovery of panchanama as per the statements of P.W.10 and P.W.4. P.W.10, who is a panch witness to the recovery panchanama says that the recovery was effected at about 11.00 a.m. and P.W.4 stated that the panchanama was effected at about 15.00 hours. He also submits that no motive is attributed against the accused. Therefore, it is a false implication and thereby the prosecution failed to prove the charges leveled against the appellant. But without considering the same, the learned trial Court found that the appellant is responsible for committing the alleged incident and thereby imposed the punishment as stated above.
10. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the motive is very much on record as there was land dispute between the deceased and the accused as there is joint property over which the accused as well as the deceased was having a common interest and the deceased demanded the accused for her share as the accused dug a bore well in the land with the money of the son of the deceased. It is not in dispute that the accused alone was enjoying the land belonging to the entire family. Therefore, the motive is attributed. He submits that P.W.4 is an eye-witness to the scene of offence, who was sleeping in the adjacent room of the deceased, who speaks about the commission of offence by the accused. Soon after the offence, P.W.4 reported the same to the local V.R.O., who was examined as P.W.5. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution has substantially proved its case and the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the trial Court on considering the entire evidence on record found the accused guilty of the charges. Therefore, it is not a fit case for interference by this Court and submits that the appeal may be dismissed.
11. We have perused the entire record, including the impugned judgment.
12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the Public Prosecutor, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt so as to sustain the conviction or whether it needs to be set aside, modified or varied.
13. The deceased-Smt Banubee, who is the wife of Mohammed Amjad Ali, was done to death on 09-02-2008 in the midnight at about 11.30 P.M while she was sleeping in her house situated at Raghupathipet Village, Kalwakurthy, Mahaboobnagar District. She was aged about 70 years. Her husband pre-deceased her. He had two other brothers. One is PW.4 Mohd.Hussain Shah and the other is accused Mohd.Hasan Shah @ Bujulu. The family had certain lands in the village, which were being cultivated by the accused. His another brother-PW.4 was living outside. The deceased Banubee had eight(8) children, namely two sons and six daughters. They were all living outside the village. The deceased alone was living in the village. PW.1 who was a professional driver is said to have gone to Saudi Arebia and made some income and sent it to the family at village for developing agricultural lands. Bore well is said to have dug with the help of money sent by PW.1.
14. The dispute in between the deceased-Banubee and the accused, who is the brother of her husband, is alleged to be the refusal of the accused to give the income out of the agricultural lands for which the deceased was insisting. The case of the prosecution is that on 09-02- 2008 PW.4 happened to come to village and since he had no house of his own, he stayed in one of the rooms of the house in which the deceased was living. The accused had his own house behind the house of the deceased. In the night of 09-02-2008 the deceased and P.W.4 had their meals and while PW.1 slept in one room, the deceased went to sleep in another room. In between 11.00 P.M to 12.00 Midnight it is alleged that the accused came to PW.4 and enquired him as to where the deceased is. PW.4 informed the accused that she is sleeping in the adjacent room. The accused alleged to have told PW.4 that he wants to kill the deceased who was insisting for her share in the agricultural income. PW.4 implored the accused not to kill the deceased. The accused did not heed his advise and proceeded towards room where the deceased was sleeping. PW.4 closed himself in the room. The accused is alleged to have entered into the room where the deceased was sleeping and with the knife stabbed her on the right temporal region of the head, near right ear and on the nose, due to which she sustained injuries and died on the spot. PW.4, who was in the adjacent room, has heard the hue and cries of the deceased. Thereafter, PW.4 came out of the room and he has seen the accused going away from the house after threatening PW.4 not to divulge the incident to anybody.
15. When the incident took place in between 11.00 P.M and 12.00 Midnight, at about 4.30 A.M on 10-02-2008 PW.1, who was in Hyderabad, was said to have received telephonic information about the incident and he inturn informed others and himself along with brother PW.2 and sister PW.3 went to the village and when they enquired from PW.4 as to what happened PW.4 told them that it is the accused who killed their mother. At about 10.30 A.M PW.1 went to Police Station and lodged a complaint, on the basis of which crime was registered and investigation was taken up. The accused was apprehended on 17-02-2008 and alleged to have confessed the crime and lead to recovery of knife-M.O.6 with which he alleged to have killed the deceased. After completing the mandatory requirements, charge-sheet was laid.
1 6 . As could be seen from the above discussion, the fate of the accused, who is aged about 70 years, hinges on the testimony of his own brother PW.4. PWs.1 to 3, being sons and daughter of deceased, do not know anything about the incident except for what was told to them by PW.4.
1 7 . The learned counsel appearing for the accused seriously commented about the conduct of PW.4 both before during the course and immediately after the incident and contended that the testimony of PW.4 cannot at all be believed as truthful so as to hold the accused guilty of having caused the death of his sister-in-law. The learned counsel submits that PW.4 was sufficiently aged, he himself being aged about 60 years, whereas the accused was aged about 65 years. We have carefully perused the testimony of PW.4. For the reasons stated hereunder, we find it not safe to rely upon his solitary testimony for holding that it is the accused who has caused the death of the deceased. According to the learned counsel, as a matter of fact, the needle of suspicion points towards PW.4 himself but what is noticed is that no sufficient material is placed on record in that direction.
18. Admittedly, there were some disputes between the family members which consisted of accused, PW.4 and deceased, who was the wife of pre-deceased brother of accused and PW.4. They had lands admeasuring about Ac.2.16 guntas in the village. It was being cultivated by the accused and the deceased was only person living in the village, whereas all the family members including PW.4 were living in other places carrying on their different avocations. According to PW.4, he happened to come to the village only on the date of incident. He accommodated himself in the house of the deceased where there were two rooms. The accused was having his house behind that house. At about 11.00 P.M in the Midnight, according to PW.4, the accused came to the house and killed the deceased. Thereafter, the accused is stated to have threatened PW.4 to kill him. He further deposed that he requested the accused not to kill him when he came to kill after having killed the sister-in- law/deceased. His assertion in Chief-examination is very cryptic. It may usefully be extracted as under:-
“My sister-in-law is no more. The accused killed my mother(sic.) about one year back. On the date of incident, I was sleeping in the house. The accused came there and killed the deceased after that he came to me and threatened to kill me I requested the accused not to kill me when he came to kill me after killing my sister-in-law.”
That is all what PW.4 had to say about the incident proper.
19. From the above statement of PW.4, we find it difficult to conclude that it is the accused, who had killed the deceased or that it is PW.4 who saw the incident. The conduct of PW.4 is highly suspicious. He wants it to be believed that when himself and the deceased was in the house the accused came there and told him that he has killed the deceased and also wanted to kill him. Inspite of that PW.4 did nothing to attract the attention of people living in the neighbourhood. The accused is said to have left the house after causing the death of the deceased. This was before 12.00 in the midnight. Till next day morning i.e., till 10.30 A.M no complaint was filed with the Police even though the Police Station was at a distance of 20 K.M from the village. PW.4 kept quite along with the corpse in the house till PW.1 to 3 came to village from different places. It is not as though the death of the deceased was a natural death. Admittedly, it was a homicide. PW.4 if really was in the village and in the house would not have conducted himself in the manner in which he claims to have. We therefore, see sufficient force in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the accused that PW.4, who had equal share in the properties along with the deceased and accused, has falsely implicated his brother-accused so as to knock away the property.
20. As already stated the uncorroborated testimony PW.4 do not inspire confidence for holding that he has seen the accused committing the crime.
21. Except for the above, there is no other evidence to connect the accused with the crime. According to the prosecution, the accused is alleged to have been apprehended on 17-02-2008 and at his instance knife-M.O.6 was recovered. PW.13 is Sub-Inspector of Police and PW.14 is Circle-Inspector of Police. According to PW.13, M.Os.1 to 6, namely bloodstained clothes etc., along with weapon of offence, namely, MO.6 knife was seized from the scene of offence on 10-02-2008 itself. The claim of PW.14, C.I of police, is that knife-MO.6 was recovered at the instance of accused more than seven(7) days after the incident. This creates any amount of doubt about the claim of the prosecution that the accused on being apprehended, confessed having committed the crime and lead to the recovery of knife-MO.6.
22. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accused is therefore entitled to the benefit thereof. The point is accordingly answered.
23. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar in S.C.No.612 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 450 IPC are hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted for the said charges. Appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. The fine amount paid by the appellant, if any, shall be returned to him. The material objects, if any, shall be destroyed after the appeal time.
G. Chandraiah, J.
M.S.K. Jaiswal,J.
Dt.24.10.2014
Rns
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL
Criminal Appeal No.463 of 2010
(Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Chandraiah) Dated: 24.10.2014 Rns