Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Telangana High Court has overturned the acquittal order of the trial court in the 'family murder case,' ruling that the testimony of a pardanashin lady, despite her limited public interactions, is credible and sufficient to result in a conviction.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice Juvvadi Sridevi, issued the ruling in response to a criminal appeal filed by the State, challenging the initial acquittal of the accused. The court ruled that “the trial Court erred in acquitting the accused by observing that there is defect in conducting investigation,” while observing that the accused cannot use a faulty investigation as a defence, and it is not grounds for acquittal. The court further emphasised that the accused's attempts to discredit the witness based on her status as a pardanashin lady and her recent marriage to one of the deceased were unfounded.

The court held that the deposition of a 'pardanashin' lady could not be discredited merely because of her being a ‘pardanashin’.

The case involved the brutal murder of five members of a family. The High Court's decision was significantly influenced by the testimony of a key witness, a 'pardanashin' lady, whose deposition had been discredited by the Trial Court on the grounds of her status and alleged improvements in her testimony. The background of the case dates back to 2008, when the daughter of the victim family married into the family of the accused. After only two months, disputes arose, leading to the daughter returning to her paternal home and initiating a maintenance suit. The situation escalated when the mother of the accused died in an accident while attending court proceedings, an incident for which the accused's family blamed the victim's family. This blame culminated in the tragic murder of the victim family.

During the trial, it was noted that out of six alleged eyewitnesses, five had turned hostile. The only witness who remained steadfast was the de-facto complainant, who was also the wife of one of the deceased. The complainant identified four out of the nine accused during the trial, despite initially naming only two in the FIR. Furthermore, no test identification parade was conducted.

The Trial Court had dismissed the complainant's testimony, citing discrepancies and lack of corroborative evidence such as the absence of a grill gate in the crime scene sketch, which the complainant had mentioned as part of her survival narrative. However, the High Court found that the investigating officer had admitted to the existence of the grill gate during cross-examination.

The court deemed the evidence of the pardanashin lady trustworthy, despite minor contradictions, ruling that she cannot be said to be interested or biased merely due to her relationship with the victims. The court stated that “It is settled principle that FIR is not an encyclopedia. It is only information given to the police for the first time”, underscoring  minor discrepancies do not discredit the testimony of the witness.

The court addressed several key contentions raised by the defence regarding the delay in lodging the complaint, the absence of a dying declaration, and the lack of a test identification parade.

The defence argued that there was a delay in lodging the complaint, but the court found no unreasonable delay given the traumatic nature of the incident, which involved five murders, including the pardanashin’s husband, and the immediate need for medical assistance. The formal complaint was filed at around 10:00 A.M. on the same day, shortly after the police had been informed and arrived at the scene.

Regarding the absence of a dying declaration from deceased No.5, the court noted that her critical condition prevented her from providing a coherent statement, thus complying with legal requirements and practical realities.

As for the test identification parade, the court deemed it unnecessary since the pardanashin lady had prior familiarity with the accused, having seen them multiple times during discussions about matrimonial disputes. Her identification of the accused was also corroborated by other witnesses. Therefore, the court concluded that the defence's arguments were without merit, finding the evidence and testimonies credible and sufficient to proceed with the case against the accused.

The court noted “it is a case of family murder. Five (05) persons of her family including her husband were murdered at about 6.15 A.M. She gave complaint (Ex.P1) to the police at 10.00 A.M. by sitting in a house opposite her house. In a situation like this, it cannot be expected from her to narrate the names in detail.

Conclusively, the court held “Therefore, it cannot be said that her evidence is not trust-worthy and basing on her evidence, conviction cannot be recorded.”

The court concluded that there was substantial, legally acceptable evidence against accused Nos. 1 to 4, corroborated by other witnesses, panch witnesses, and medical evidence, including the FSL report (Ex.P62). The trial court had acquitted them without adequately considering this evidence. Therefore, the judgment was deemed flawed and liable to be set aside.

 

Cause Title: THE STATE OF A.P. vs SYED JAHANGIR AND 8 OTHERS [CrlA 57 of 2014]