THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.362 OF 2016 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

1. This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.03.2016 in S.C.No.04 of 2014, on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge at Mahabubabad, convicting the appellant for an offence under Section 302 of IPC for killing his mother by strangulating her to death.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-

State.

3. Briefly, the facts are that the incident happened on 03.04.2013 in the midnight. According to complaint, P.W.1 received information that her sister (hereinafter referred as deceased) who is mother of the accused was killed. Thereafter, P.W.1 along with others went to the place and found that the deceased was killed and on seeing P.W.1 and others, the appellant fled from the scene. Ex.P.1/complaint was filed on 04.04.2013 at 9 a.m.

4. On the basis of the complaint, the Police visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchnama. Thereafter, inquest proceedings were also undertaken. Having concluded the inquest proceedings, the body was sent for post mortem examination.

5. The Police having investigated the case found that the appellant had committed an offence under Section 302, 376 and 201 of IPC and filed charge sheet accordingly.

6. Learned Sessions Judge having framed charges under Sections 302 and 376 of IPC, found that the appellant was not guilty of the offence under Section 376 of IPC, however, found him guilty of the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

7. During the course of the trial, P.W.1/de-facto complainant was declared hostile, however, she stated that they went to the house having received phone call from the appellant that his mother died. When they went there, they found dead body on the floor with a saree around her neck. She only admitted signature on Ex.P.1 and contents in Ex.P.1 were denied. P.W.2, who is also the sister of the deceased stated on similar lines as that of P.W.1. She was also declared hostile. P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 who are all circumstantial witnesses have also turned hostile. P.W.12 is the inquest panch who stated that saree which was hanging from the rafter of the house was seized. He also stated that he has witnessed the inquest proceedings. P.W.13 is the confessional panch. According to him, the appellant after confessing to the crime, produced M.Os.1 and 2 which were allegedly used to strangulate the deceased. P.W.15 is the circumstantial evidence witness who was present during the inquest of the deceased and also attested on the inquest report. P.W.16 is the witness for confession and seizure panchnama.

8. Though all the witnesses have turned hostile, the presence of the appellant in the house was not disputed by the appellant during the course of trial. In the examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. to the question No.25, whether he wishes to say anything, he stated as follows (translation is mine):

“That day I went to my elder sister Swapna’s house. My mother was addicted to alcohol, not even cooking rice. I took my sister’s son to my house. Seeing him, again she drank alcohol. She saw photo of my father and cried. Since I had pain in my stomach, I ate and my mother slept. Midnight at 12’o clock, when I went to see my mother who was sleeping inside, I found her hanging from the roof.”

9. To the questions put under Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination, insofar as evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 are concerned, who stated that the appellant was present in the house at the time of death, the same is not denied. Learned Sessions Judge placed reliance on the following circumstances:-

“i. That the accused and the deceased were alone residing in their house under the same roof at Daniya Thanda.

ii. That the accused was with the deceased prior to he death and he was very much present in the house immediately after her death.

iii. That th