The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri G. Jaya Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANTL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.622 OF 2OL7 JUDGMENT:, (pe r Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) This appeal is filed by appellant aggrieved by the judgment. dated 24.08.2016, passed in S.C.No.432 of 2Ol3 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Siddipet, <:onvicting the appellalt for the offence punishable under Section 3O2 of Indian Pe nal Code (for '.,. short 'lPC').

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellanl. and learned Additional Prblic Prosecutor for respondent-St ate.

3. Briefly the case of the prosecution is tha-t deceased is the wife of the appellant and PWI is the l^ather of the deceased. PW 1 stated that he performed the marriage of deceased rvilh the appellant 2 years prior to the incident, by presenting 5 lakhs including gold, cash ar::d household articles to the appellant. The deceased and appellant have a child of 8 months. One Yellaiah, informed PWl through phone that the appellant killed deceased by hacking her. Then PWl/f.ather of the deceased and pWll/brother of :.-r.-_-. z KS,J&JAIqJ Crl.A.No.622 of20l7 deceased went to the scene and found the deceased dead. PWl went to the police station at a-round 8:00 a.m., and lodged a Telugu written complaint. The said complaint was drafted and PWl put his thumb impression on the complaint. The police went to the scene and conducted scene of offence panchanamma and MOs. 1 to 7 were se2ed. MOs.4 to 6 are clothes of the deceased.

4. The police apprehended the appellant on the next day i.e., OL.O4.2013 and his confession was recorded. Thereaftdr, the appellant was sent for remand.

5. Having concluded the investigation, the police frled charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. l,earned Sessions Judge examined PWs.l to 13, marked Exs.P1 to P1,7 and also MOs.1 to 7 were brought on record.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the scribe of the complaint was not examined by the prosecution. PWs. I and 2 are circumstantial witnesses ald according to prosecution PWs.3 to 5 who were eyewitnesses to the incident turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Other than the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, ., KS,J&JAKJ CrlA.No.622 of20l7 who have not witnessed anything, there is no other evidence in the case to convict the appellant.

7. On the other hald, leatned Public prosecutor would submit that the appellant is the husband Of the deceased. The appellant was staying along with the deceased as such the burden is on the appellant to explain abcut the death of the deceased.

8. Havingl gone through the record, pW 1t2 who is the mother of .he appellant stated that deceased and the appellant nr,.re ir-r the house on the date of the incident. On the next date, when PW12 woke up in the morning at 7:00 a.m., there was a crowd in . the compound and the appellant lvzrs not found and absconded. Thr-, presence of appellant in the house on the date of incidenr_ was spoken to by PW12/ mother of the appellant who was staying in the very sarne hc,use. however, in a separate portion.

9. In the examination under Section 313 Cr.p.C., the said aspect c,f the appellant being present in the house on the date of the incident was not put to th e appellant. Though no specific question was put to the appellant during 313 C:r.P.C. examination about his presence in the house, that itself would not cause any prejudice to the 4 KS,J&JAK,' Crl.A No.622 of20l7 appellant. It is neither argued nor shown that not asking about the evidence of PW12 in 313 Cr.P.C. examination, had caused any prejudice to the appellant. The omission by the learned Sessions Judge would be of no consequence. Since PW12 had specifically stated that the appellant was present in the house, the burden would shift to the appellant to explain as to how the deceased died. In fact the appellant absconded on the date of the incident and he was arrested on the next day i.e., 01.04.2013.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Trimukh Maroti l/f;irkan o. State oJ Maharashtral held as follotus: "15. When an offence like rnurder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish tlle case would undoubtedly be upon t1.e prosecution, but tl.e nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantia-l evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 1O6 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was comrnitted. The inmates of the house cannot get away by sirnply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon t]re prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation'. .

11. The appellalt has not offered any explanation about the deceased being found dead in his house. Appellant was present in the house when the incident occurred according I 1zoos1 ro scc oar '?n::*'Y .:!rr 5 KS,J&JAK,I Crl A.No.622 ot20l7 to the mother of the appellant/PW12. The other circumstar<:e of his abscondence from the dzrte of incident till he was ,rrrested also lends credibility to the version of the prosectrtion that it was the appellant weo committed murder of the deceased in the present facts of the case. Non examination of Yellaiah, who informed PW1 about the death of the deceased is of no consequence sirce homicidal death is not in dispute.

12. There are no grounds to interfere with :he reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge whilt: hnding the appellant g;ilty.

13. Accordinglv, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- B. SATYAVATHI D PUTY REGISTRAR 0 SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge at Siddipet. (with records, if any) The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Gajwel. The Superrntendent, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District. The station H.use officer, Gajwer porice station, Mecrak District. Two CCs to the public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OtJT] One CC to Sri G. Jaya Reddy, Advocate tOpUCl 2 a !) 4

5. 6 7 Kam/sh Two CD Copies.w HIGH COURT DATED:0210112025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.622 of 2017 o {-, .g t * a L .S ,6l.{ 1twaI[. ((t a fA c+€ D DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL APPEAL 0l ,6 I I '