Learned Senior Counsel relied on the following judgments. i) Periyasamy v. The State rep. by the Inspector of Policel. ii) Harvinder Singh Bachhu v. The

The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh through Karepalli P.S. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellants Sri C Damodar Reddy, Senior Counsel Rep. Sri C Ruthwik Reddy Counsel for the Respondent Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following Judgment : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRTMINAL AppEAL No.46 OF 2OLZ JUDGMENT: (per Hon,ble Si Justice K.Surend.er) 1. The appellants are questioning their conviction for the offence under section 3o2 of Ipc, for committing murder of the deceased, who is the husband of p.W.2, vide judgment in S.C.No.306 of 2O13 dated 04.01.2017 passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge at Kothagudem.

2. According to p.W.2, who is the sole eye witness in the case, she along with her deceased husband went to their fields in the night' In the midnight around t2.oo, Al to 43 and another juvenile namely Naresh went to the field. p.W.2 and the deceased were sleeping on one cot. 43 caught hold of the legs of the deceased, A2 caught hold of the hands and A1 hacked with an axe on the head of the deceased. Immediately, p.W.2 woke up and verified the persons with torchlight and found that they were A1 to A3 and one Naresh. Immediately, Al to A.3 escaped from the spot. p.W.2 rushed to the house of her son/p.W. 1 and informed about the incident. p.W.2 also woke up p.W.3/another son p.W.4/daughter, who are 2 residents of the very same locality. P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 and one Narsing/P.W.5 rushed to the scene of offence and brought the deceased home. Ambulance was called and the body was shifted to Yellandu Government Hospital and from there, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Khammam. From Khammam Government Hospital, the deceased was shifted to Mamatha Hospital.

3. On the next day i.e.,23.02.2012, P.W. 1 lodged Telugu written complaint at 1.00 p.m. In the complaint, he narrated that P.W.2, his mother is witness to the assault on his father by A1 to A'3 and another juvenile. The reason for assaulting the deceased was that they suspected that the deceased was practicing sorcery. In the said complaint, three persons namely Dharampot Ramulu (examined during investigation and given up during trial), Guguloth Matra and Dharampoth Gopa (not examined during investigation) were shown as witnesses.

4. The deceased died seven days after the incident i.e., on

29.O2.2O12. After the death of the deceased, the police made efforts and arrested the appellants on O6.O3.2OL2. Thereafter, the police 3 concluded investigation and fiIed charge sheet against the appellants 1 to 3 and separate charge sheet was hled against juvenile before the Juvenile Justice Court.

5. The version given by P.W.2, who is an eye witness, was believed by the learned Sessions Judge and accordingly, conviction was recorded. In all, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined and Exs.Pl top24 documents were brought on record. Ex.Dl is FIR which was registered against A1 on 24.O2.2O12 at B.O0 a.m on the complaint given by a Constable of the Karapalli Police Station. The said Ex.D1 document was marked through P.W. 14, who admitted registration of FIR.

6. Sri C.Damodar Reddy, Iearned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that: i) There is a delay of nearly 13 hours in lodging complaint. The incident happened ln the midnight on 22.02.2012 whereas the complaint was filed on the next day at 1.OO p.m and the FIR reached the Court at 4.2O p.rn. 4 ii) P.W.2 is the only eye witness and also an interested witness. Her specific narration of the overt acts was not stated in the complaint. iii) Though the deceased was undergoing treatment for seven days, his statement was neither recorded by the police nor any requisition was given to the Magistrate. The other witnesses who were exarnined before the Court have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. iv) A1 accused was in the police station as evident from the complaint filed under Ex.D1. However, the arrest was shown after 12 days i.e., on 06.03.2012 and further, the complainant in Ex.D1 was also not examined.

7. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the following judgments. i) Periyasamy v. The State rep. by the Inspector of Policel. ii) Harvinder Singh @ Bachhu v. The State of Himachal Pradesh2. iii) Khema @ Khem Chandra ETC. v. State of Uttar Pradesh3. ! 2024 LiveLaw (sc) 244 2 Criminal Appeal No s.266-267 ol2O7S, dated 13.10.2023 5 8' Learned Additional public prosecutor countering the arguments of the learned Senior counsel submits that the solitarSr testimony of p'w'2 would suffice. she is the wife and the probable witness to the incident. Her name was mentioned in the complaint Ex'P1' The statement of the deceased courd not be recorded since he was not in a position to speak, according to the Investigating officer/P'w'r4' p'w.2 has specifically identified the appellants and stated that they have caused death of the deceased by hacking him.

9. Evidence of p.W.2 in her chief examination is as under: 'on that dag at about 12.0o mid.night A1 to 43 and. one Naresh (juuenile) came to our fi.eld.. While mgself and mg husband. Goremiga uere sreeping on the cot in the fierd. A3 and. Naresh caught hold the legs of mg Lrusband-. A2 Surya cauglat hold the hands of mg husband, then A1 Bhausingh hacked. uith an axe on his head. Immediatelg I taoke and. ueified. tte persons with torchlight A1 to A3 and. one Naresh. Immediatelg, A1 to 43 and, Naresh escaped from the spot. I rushed. to house and, u.toke up P.W 1. and informed the incident.,, 10' P'W'2 stated in her evidence that A2 caught hold of the hands ofthe deceased, 43 caught hold ofthe deceased, then A1 hacked on ; Criminal Appeal No S.L2OO-1202 of 2022 6 the head of deceased with an axe. Thereafter, she woke up and verified the persons with torchlight as Al to A3 and one Naresh. The said version given by p.w.2 casts any amount of doubt regarding its correctness since the version that she verified and saw the appellants with torchlight was not stated earlier in the complaint. Secondly, though p.W.2 was on the same cot sleeping beside the deceased, she was neither assaulted nor she received any injuries in the incident. There is no reason as to why the onry eye witness/P.W.2 was not attacked by the appellants. 11' The deceased was treated over a period of seven days in three different hospitals. The police did not even make an attempt to record the statement of the deceased. p.w. 14 stated that the deceased was not in a position to speak. However, none of the Doctors, who treated the deceased in three hospitars were examined to ascertain whether the deceased was unconscious over a period of seven days while he was undergoing treatment. L2. No reason is given as to why the Doctors, who treated the deceased in three different hospitals were not examined. Their evidence would have thrown tight on the situation of the deceased 7 and his ability or inabitity to speak during his treatment. In the absence of examination of any Doctor to show that the deceased was not in a position to speak, it casts doubt on the correctness of the prosecution version as spoken to by p.W. l4/investigating officer.

13. The motive as stated by P.W. 1 and in the complaint is that the deceased was suspected of practicing sorcery. None of the independent witnesses have spoken anSrthing about any altercation or earlier panchayats being held regarding the deceased practicing sorcery. L4. P.W.1 stated that after receiving information from his rnother/P.W.2, he informed one Naresh (not examined) and Narsing/P-w.5. Narsing, who is an independent witness stated that P.w.2 informed him that some persons beat the deceased at Mirchi kallam and went away. Then, they went to Mirchi kallam and found the deceased bleeding. The witness p.w.5 was treated hostile to the prosecution case. None of the independent witnesses supported. the prosecution case including the witnesses to confession and seLure. 8

15. The other infirmit5r in the case of the prosecution is the complaint Ex.D1, which was filed on 24.02.2012. Complainant, who was constable in the police station 1odged compraint against A1 stating that he was attacked by A1 while they were returning from hospital. The case under section 353 and 307 Ipc was registered. However, the fact that A1 was arrested immediately was suppressed. Arrest was shown nearly 12 days after the complaint was hled. L6. Though the solitar5r testimony of a witness can be relied upon, however, such evidence should be wholly reliable. Admittedly, the complaint was filed with a deray of 13 hours. It is admitted that the police station was at a distance of 35 kms. The deceased was taken to the hospital at Yellandu where he was admitted even before complaint was filed. whether the case of deceased was treated as a medico legal case or not is arso not stated by the Investigating ofhcer. t7. In cases such as these, any Government or private Hospital will not entertain any person receiving injuries in an assault without there being a case registered or informed to porice and such 9 cases will be treated as medico legal cases. As already discussed, none of the members, who treated the deceased in three hospitals were examined. The medical record of the three hospitals was also not filed. The history given by the persons, who have taken the deceased, about the injuries received by deceased would give the earliest version. The entire medical record is suppressed.

18. The prosecution relies on the evidence of p.W.2, who is the wife of the deceased as eye witness. Her evidence regarding identity of the appellants wherein she stated that she has brought a torchlight. and verified the identity of the appellalts is doubtful. Further, the delay in lodging the complaint, suppression of medical record of deceased, non examination of treating doctors, not recording statement of deceased for seven days while undergoing treatment, the arrest being shown alter tz days, collectively creates any arnount of doubt in the prosecution version. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellants.

19. In the result, the judgment of trial Court in S.C.No.3O6 of 2OI3 dated 04.01.2017 is set aside and the appellants are acquitted. Since the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall 10 stand discharged.

20. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed. ,TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SE.CTION OFFICER To,

1. The V Additional sessions Judge at Kothagudem, Khammam District (with records, if anY)

2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class' Yellandu, Khammam District 3. The Superintendent, District Jail, Warangal 4. The Station House Officer, Karepalli PS, Khammam District 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana' Hyderabad [OUT]

6. One CC to Sri C Ruthwik Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. fwo CD CoPies VA/ghfr HIGH COURT DATED:0210112025 YIE1 5 rA r€ JII Nl ?16 7 q f, () o :./4 ORDER CRLA.No.46 of 2017 ALLOWING THE CRLA \o*{4 Y\',*-" '-\$t*