Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NO.     2168      OF     2009   

Polamuri Chandra Sekhararao @ Chinna@ Babji ….Appellant

VERSUS

State of A.P.                .…Respondent

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T   

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the conviction and  

sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence  

punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code (for short  

‘IPC’) imposing the sentence of imprisonment for life and a  

1

Page 2

fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default sentence of simple  

imprisonment for a period of three months.   

2. The case of the prosecution as projected in Exhibit  

P-1 was that on 06.04.2004, in the evening at 5.10 p.m. the  

deceased, Ravi Kishore, went to the house of the accused in  

his Hero Honda Motor Bike, when the accused and his two  

daughters Polamrui Divya and Polamrui Jaya Chandrika  

[PWs-1 and 2] were chatting outside the house.  It is alleged  

that when the accused asked the deceased as to why he  

came there, the deceased declared that he wish to marry  

both his daughters and threw a challenge as to whom he  

would give them in marriage.  It is further alleged that the  

accused, enraged by the statement of the deceased, brought  

a long knife from his bed room and inflicted several blows on  

the deceased due to which he fell down breathless on the  

floor.   

3. According to the prosecution, the accused along  

with his two daughters PWs-1 and 2, thereafter, went to the  

Steel Plant Police Station in his two-wheeler and handed over  

2

Page 3

the knife to the Station writer stating that he had killed the  

deceased with that knife.   

4. According to the prosecution, statement of PW-1  

(Exhibit P-1) was registered against the appellant for an  

offence under Section 302, IPC on 06.04.2004.  As many as  

15 witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution.  

Exhibits P-1 to P-29 were exhibited and M.O.-1 to M.O.-14  

were marked.  The appellant was questioned under Section  

313, Cr.P.C. to which the appellant simply denied his  

involvement in the occurrence.

5. Though PWs-1 and 2 were examined as eye-

witnesses, they turned hostile and none was examined on the  

defence side.  

6. Dr. N.V.S.L. Narasimham [PW-13] in the post  

mortem report opined that the deceased appeared to have  

died of hemorrhage and shock due to incised cut injuries on  

the neck and multiple incised cut injuries on the other parts  

of the body.  

3

Page 4

7. The trial Court based on the evidence of doctor (PW-

13), Dasari Yerrayya [PW-9] and Y. Suryanarayana, Deputy  

Superintendent of Police [PW-15] as well as Exhibits P-4 and  

P-8 held that the death of deceased was a homicidal one.   

8. The trial Court held that though PWs-1 and 2  

turned hostile, they deposed that they saw the dead body of  

the deceased in the house of the appellant, that they went to  

the police station along with the appellant and  that Exhibit  

P-1 report was given by PW-1.  The learned Sessions Judge  

rejected the case of the appellant that he along with PWs-1  

and 2 went for shopping on that day and they were not  

present at the place of occurrence, inasmuch as, there was  

no independent witness to support the said version.  The trial  

Judge noted that presence of PWs-1 and 2 in the police  

station was admitted and that the correctness of Exhibit P-1  

cannot be questioned by them. It was also held that when the  

deceased was lying dead in front of the house of the accused,  

it was for the accused to explain as to how the dead body  

was found in that place and what steps he had taken to  

4

Page 5

explain the same.  In that view, the learned Sessions Judge,  

by relying upon the other evidence, namely, FSL Report  

(Exhibit P-29) which made specific reference to Item No. 10-

the knife and Item Nos.4,5,6 and 7 which contained human  

blood, the cloths which were seized from the deceased and  

Exhibit P-5- the Seizure Memo of M.O.-10 prepared by PW-14  

while effecting the seizure in the presence of PW-10, a  

technician in the Steel Plant who had no axe to grind against  

the appellant, to support its conclusion.

9. The circumstances relied upon by the learned  

Sessions Judge are set out in detail in paragraph 49 of the  

judgment.  Having found the appellant guilty of the offence of  

murder of the deceased on 06.04.2004 at about 5.10 p.m.  

with the aid of M.O.-10 within the compound of his house,  

the trial Court imposed the sentence of imprisonment for life  

apart from a fine of Rs. 1000/- with a default sentence of  

three months of simple imprisonment.  The High Court  

declined to interfere with the conviction and sentence of the  

5

Page 6

appellant in the judgment impugned in this appeal against  

which the appellant has come before us.   

10. We heard Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, counsel for  

the appellant and Mr. Amit K. Nain, counsel for the State.  

Learned counsel for the appellant, in his submissions  

contended that when the so-called eye witnesses, namely,  

PWs-1 and 2 turned hostile, Exhibit P-1, alleged to have been  

given by PW-1 cannot be acted upon.  He further submitted  

that if the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses are eschewed  

from consideration, what remains is the evidence of PW  

Nos.3, 4, 6 and 7, who were not eye witnesses but were  

closely related to the deceased and, therefore, their version  

also cannot be relied upon.  Learned counsel would,  

therefore, contend that when there was no incriminating  

circumstance connecting the accused with the death of the  

deceased, the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by  

the Courts below cannot be sustained.  

11. As against the above submissions, learned counsel  

appearing for the State contended that though PW-1  

6

Page 7

supported Exhibit P-1 in her Examination-in-Chief, she had  

to be treated as hostile in the course of her cross  

examination and the conclusion of the trial Court by relying  

upon various other circumstances narrated in the order,  

cannot be faulted.  According to the learned counsel there  

was motive for the appellant to kill the deceased, that the  

absence of proper explanation as to how the body of the  

deceased was found in the courtyard of the accused and  

failure to satisfy the Court about the plea of alibi was  

sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant of the killing of  

the deceased.  Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the  

conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial  

Court and confirmed by the High Court does not call for  

interference.   

12. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and  

having perused the material papers placed on record, the  

judgment of the trial Court as well as the High Court, we are  

also convinced that the conviction and sentence imposed on  

the appellant does not call for interference. PW Nos.1 and 2  

7

Page 8

who are none other than the daughters of the appellant,  

though said to have initially preferred the complaint-Exhibit  

P-1 through PW-1 alleging murder of the deceased by the  

appellant on 06.04.2004, turned hostile.   

13. To reiterate the facts, the deceased is none other  

than the nephew of the appellant i.e. son of his elder sister,  

Karem Veera Veni (PW-3).  Since the appellant was not in  

talking terms with his wife, his daughters, namely, PW Nos.1  

and 2 were living along with their mother in their  

grandparents’ house at a different place.  The above facts are  

not in dispute inasmuch as the appellant admitted the same  

in the 313 questioning.  It has also come in evidence that the  

move of the appellant to secure divorce from his wife was not  

supported by PW-3 and, therefore, he was not in good terms  

with PW-3 also.  His wife is none other than PW-3’s elder  

sister’s daughter.  K. Hema Sekhar (PW-4) is the father of the  

deceased, K. Kiran Kumar (PW-6) is the brother of the  

deceased and K. Swarnalatha (PW-7) is the sister of the  

deceased.  Though according to PW-3, the appellant and PW-

8

Page 9

3 were not in talking terms, the children of both were moving  

friendly with each other.  According to the prosecution, the  

deceased developed a liking for PW-2, daughter of the  

appellant which was also known to the appellant’s elder  

sister as well as K. Swarnalatha (PW-7), sister of the  

deceased.   

14. It is stated that it was in the above stated  

background when PWs-1 and 2 visited the house of the  

deceased to spend their holidays, the appellant having come  

to know about the move of the deceased to develop close  

relationship with PW-2, got enraged by his conduct which  

made him to call him to his house on 06.04.2004 and that  

after the deceased arrived, the appellant questioned his  

conduct towards his daughter PW-2 to which the deceased  

appeared to have retorted saying that he can even marry  

both his daughters, which provoke d the appellant to  

ultimately inflict the cut injuries with the knife (M.O.-10) and  

the deceased succumbed to his injuries on the spot.  The fact  

that the dead body of the deceased was found in the  

9

Page 10

compound of the appellant is not in dispute.  It is also not in  

dispute that the said fact was reported to the Steel Plant  

Police Station by PWs-1 and 2 along with the accused.  The  

knife (M.O.-10) was seized in the presence of PW-10 by PW-

14 under Exhibit P-5. The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL)  

report also confirmed that human blood was found on the  

weapon (M.O.-10) though the origin of the blood group was  

stated to be not traceable.   

15. Inasmuch as PWs.1 and 2 turned hostile, the trial  

Court attempted to examine as to whether there were  

circumstances enough to link the appellant with the death of  

the deceased.  In that attempt the trial Court has culled out  

the following 16 circumstances:

“49. The following circumstances/chain  of events make the Court to draw an inference  that the accused dealt blows on the deceased  with M.O.10 and murdered him:-

a) The accused and his wife on  account of their differences are  living separately and the wife of  the accused is residing with her  parents at Kesanapalli of East  Godavari District along with PWs  1 and 2 and her son;

1

Page 11

b) The deceased was also residing in  the house of the parents of the  wife of the accused and he was  having close intimacy with the  daughters of the accused;  especially PW-2;

c) On account of differences between  him and his wife, the accused is  not having talking terms with his  sister i.e. PW-3;

d) On account of the grudge  developed against the deceased,  having been informed by PWs-1  and 2, the accused gave a  telephonic call to PW-3 and  requested her to send the  deceased to his house;

e) The deceased went to the house of  the accused on 06.04.2004 at 5  p.m. on his motor cycle (PW-2  deposed about the blue coloured  Hero Honda Motor Cycle parking  it in front of her house and having  dents);

f) The dead body of the deceased  was found lying in the premises of  the house of the accused;

g) PWs-1 and 2 i.e. daughters of the  accused going to the police  station along with the accused  and giving Ex.P.1 report to the  police at 17.40 hours i.e. 5.40  p.m. on 06.04.2004;

h) The accused not admitting  himself going to the police station  along with his daughters i.e. PWs- 1 and 2.

1

Page 12

i) The denial of the accused about  the presence of the dead body of  the deceased in the premises of  his house in his examination  under Section 313, Cr.P.C.

j) The seizure of M.O.10 by PW-14  in the presence of PW-10 under  Ex.P.5 (PW-10 is also a technician  in the Steel Plant);

k) The presence of the accused in  the police station on 06.04.2004  (PW-10 deposed about the  presence of the accused in the  police station apart from deposing  about the seizure of MO-10)

l) The accused not attending to his  duty on 06.04.2004;

m) The theory of alibi introduced by  the accused through PWs-1 and 2  who are his daughters that they  had been for shopping along with  him from 3.30 p.m. and returning  to the house at 7.30 p.m. not  being proved;

n) The police informing PW-3 about  the murder of her son by the  accused at 7 p.m. on 06.04.2004;

o) PW-1 informing PW-8 on  06.04.2004 at about 7 p.m. about  the death of the deceased from  the police station;

p) The accused not giving any  explanation for the presence of  the dead body of the deceased in  the premises of his house but he  simply denying the offence and  stating that the police have  foisted the case against him.”

1

Page 13

16. Keeping the above reasoning of the trial Court in  

mind, when we examine the submissions, we also notice that  

there were as many as 17 injuries noted in the post-mortem  

certificate by the doctor (PW-13).  Of the 17 injuries, 13  

injuries were incised cut injuries and the cause of death was  

stated to be due to shock and hemorrhage pursuant to the  

incised cut injuries on the neck and multiple incised cut  

injuries on other parts of the body.  The doctor (PW-13) also  

confirmed that the incised cut injuries could have been  

caused by a weapon like Exhibit M.O.-10.  Exhibit P-29, the  

FSL report disclosed that though the origin of the blood stain  

could not be determined, human blood was detected on MO-

10.  The appellant admitted the following facts:-that the  

deceased was son of PW-3, that he died on 06.04.2004, that  

he was found dead in the garden which is situated in front of  

his house within his compound, that there were number of  

bleeding injuries on the body of the deceased, that he was  

not in talking terms with his wife and that is why she was  

living with her parents, and that the deceased used to stay in  

1

Page 14

the same house in which his wife and PWs-1 and 2 were also  

staying.

17. To a specific question put to the accused as to  

whether he wish to examine any witnesses he said “no  

witness”.

18. Having considered the above factors, we find that  

every circumstance noted by the trial Court goes to show that  

it was the appellant who got enraged by the conduct of the  

deceased in his attempt to develop close relationship with his  

daughter PW-2 which was not to his liking, inasmuch as he  

was not in good terms with PW-3, the mother of the  

deceased.  The appellant was stated to have been aggrieved  

by the non-cooperation of PW-3 in his attempt to dissolve the  

marriage with his wife who is the daughter of the elder sister  

of the appellant as well as PW-3.  Merely because PWs-3,4,6  

and 7 are related to the deceased, there is no reason why  

they should implicate the appellant who is also closely  

related to them.  If according to the appellant, he was not  

present when the murder of the deceased took place in his  

1

Page 15

residence, as rightly pointed out by the trial Court, then it  

was for him to explain as to how the dead body was found in  

his house.  Admitting the presence of the dead body of the  

deceased in the courtyard of the appellant’s house, no step  

was taken by the appellant to explain the situation of the  

presence of the dead body in his house.  The theory of the  

hostile witnesses PWs-1 and 2 that they went for shopping  

along with the appellant was rightly rejected by the trial  

Court in the absence of any other supporting material both  

oral as well as documentary.  The evidence of the doctor (PW-

13) and Exhibit P-8 disclose that the deceased was  

mercilessly wounded with the knife (M.O.-10) which resulted  

in his instantaneous death due to shock and hemorrhage.  

The overall consideration of the evidence available on record  

only substantiate the guilt of the accused-appellant in the  

killing of the deceased and consequently the conclusion  

reached by the trial Court and upheld by the High Court  

does not call for any interference.  The appeal, therefore, fails  

and the same is dismissed.  

1

Page 16

                   …………………………...J.                   [Swatanter Kumar]

 ........……………………………J.                   [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim  

Kalifulla]

New Delhi; July 23, 2012

1