SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(AP) 387

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Challa Kodanda Ram, T.Sunil Chowdary, JJ.
T. Laxmi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.599 of 2013
Decided On : 25-08-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. V.L.N. Prasad

Headnote:

Criminal Law – Criminal Trial – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Criminal Produce Code, 1973 – Section 374(2) – Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 25 to 27 – Offence of Murder – Appeal against conviction – Prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 18.09.2011 Tekam Marakka P.W.1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P.1) before the Station House Officer, Neelwai Police Station, basing on which, the Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.29 of 2011 under Section 302 IPC and issued FIR - Ex.P.11 – During course of investigation, it is revealed that the accused-Tekam Laxmi is the wife of the deceased-Tekam Anjaiah and they are residents of Rajaram village. About 6 years back they both fell in love and eloped from the village. They lived together happily at Mancherial for some period. When the accused conceived pregnancy, the deceased started suspecting her fidelity and dropped her at her parents house. After six months, the accused gave birth to a female child – Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., beyond reasonable doubt – Whether the death of the accused is homicide or not – Held, Once the Court comes to a conclusion that Ex.P.7 is a confessional statement of the accused made before the Police Officer, the same is not admissible under law. Suffice it to say, while marking a document, the trial Court has to keep in mind the relevant portion of such document. Had the trial Court marked the relevant portion in Ex.P.7, legality of the same would be otherwise. The trial Court, without properly considering the scope of Sections 25 to 27 of the Evidence Act, placed reliance on Ex.P7, which is not admissible under law. Moreover, the possibility of planting M.O.1 cannot be ruled out completely. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in Amitsingh Bhikamsingh Thakur (10th cited supra), we are of the considered view that the prosecution miserably failed to prove recovery of M.O.Nos.1 to 3 in pursuance of the information given by the accused - trial Court, without properly appreciating the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, erroneously arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. If the judgment of the trial Court is allowed to stand, it would certainly amount to miscarriage of justice. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C – Accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and accordingly, she is acquitted of the said offence – Appeal is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

T.Sunil Chowdary, J.

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., challenging the judgment dated 28.02.2013 passed in S.C.No.54 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) Asifabad, wherein and whereby the appellant herein was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default, to suffer imprisonment for one month.

2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 18.09.2011 Tekam Marakka P.W.1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P.1) before the Station House Officer, Neelwai Police Station, basing on which, the Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.29 of 2011 under Section 302 IPC and issued FIR - Ex.P.11.

3. During the course of investigation, it is revealed that the accused-Tekam Laxmi is the wife of the deceased-Tekam Anjaiah and they are residents of Rajaram village. About 6 years back they both fell in love and eloped from the village. They lived together happily at Mancherial for some period. When the accused conceived pregnancy, the deceased started suspecting her fidelity and dropped her at her parents house. After six months, the accused gave birth to a female child. Thereafter, at the intervention of elders, the deceased took the accused to the village and they lived happily for some time. Again the deceased started harassing the accused physically and mentally saying that she is his concubine but not wife. The accused, vexed with the unbearable harassment meted out by the deceased, was waiting for an opportunity to liquidate the deceased.

4. While the things stood thus, on 17.09.2011 morning, the deceased and the accused together went to the nearby forest to fetch firewood. By afternoon they brought two bundles of firewood to the house and at about 3.00 PM the deceased alone went to the forest to fetch the remaining firewood but did not turn-up. Then the mother of the deceased P.W.1 along with her second son-P.W.2 and some other villagers went into the forest and found the dead body of the deceased with axe inflicted injuries on his body.

5. The Investigating Officer P.W.10 visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch Ex.P.12, seized MO3 chappals from the scene of offence and got the scene of offence photographed vide Exs.P.2 to P.5. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared inquest panchanama Ex.P.13 in the presence of P.W.9 and other mediators. Thereafter, P.W.10 sent the dead body to Government Hospital, Chennur, where Dr.K.Venu P.W.8 conducted Postmortem over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.9 Postmortem report. On 21.09.2011 P.W.5 handed over the accused to P.W.10 stating that she admitted the commission of offence before him. The accused narrated the entire incident to P.W.10. The accused told him that she will show the axe and saree. Ex.P.7 is the confessional statement of the accused, in pursuance of which, PW.10 recovered M.O.1axe and M.O.2 saree under the cover of panchanama Ex.P.8. P.W.10 arrested the accused and sent her to judicial custody. After completion of the investigation, P.W.10 laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chennur.

6. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chennur numbered the charge sheet as PRC No.51 of 2011. After appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate supplied copies of all documents to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.P.C., and committed the case to the District & Sessions Division, Adilabad as contemplated under Section 209 Cr.P.C as the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by a Court of Session.

7. The learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Adilabad took cognizance of the offence under Section 302 of IPC, numbered it as S.C.No.54 of 2012 and made it over to the Court of the III Addition






























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top