The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh ...RespondenUComplainant lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner herein on bail by suspending the sentence imposed in in S.C.No. 182 of 2018 dl. 511012017 on the file of the principal Sessions Judge at Khammam, pending disposal of the Crl.A.No. 182 of 2018, and to pass Counsel for the Appellant : Smt. M Bhagyasri, Legal Aid Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following :JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JI,STICE K.SURENDER HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KT'IVIAR JI'KAIVTI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.182 OF 2018 JUDGMENT: (per Htn'ble Si Justice K. Surender)

1. The appellani was convicted for the offence un(ler Section 3O2 of IPC rfv' 109 IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment vide judgment in S.C.No.441 of 2()15, dated 05.lO.2Ol7, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge at Khammam. Aggrir:ved by the sarne, present appeal. is filed

2. PW.1 rn ho is the father of the deceaseci , namely, Krishnaveni, wer'1 to the Police station and lodgecl a Telugu written complaint-Ex.P1 on 30.08.2015 at 5.00 PM. In the complaint, he rLirrrated that the deceased got rnarried to Al/appellant, six -vears prior to the incident. The deceased gave birth to two children. 42, who is the younger brotht:r of PW. 1, went to Al's villaee ald a-lleged before A1 that his viliagers were talking about the Ceceased having illicit relation with his son-in- law, namely, Sri Ramuhr. A1 then suspected her zrld started beating her. On 26.08.2015, around 3.0O P.M., Al beat the deceased with stol1e on her head. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to the hospital at Khammam. From Khammarl hospita-I, I 2 the deceased was shifted to Warangal MGM hospital where the deceased died on O2.O9.2015, while undergoing treatment.

3. P.W. 13 received Ex.P1 complaint and registered the case under Section 324 rlw 34 IPC. Later, after the death of the deceased, section of law was altered to Section 3O2 r/w 34 IpC. After receiving information from M.G.M.Hospital, Warangal, where the deceased died, investigation was handed over to P.W. 14. P.W. 14 visited the mortuary of M.G.M Hospital and r ''i' examined P.Ws.1 to 4, and the dead body of the deceased was photographed. Postmortem examination was conducted by P.W. 1 1. P.W. 11 found the following injuries: '1) A sutured utound of 3 cm ouer occipital area o;f the scalp of the skull. 2) Diffuse contusion of scalp ouer the occipital ared of the slcttll 3) Diffuse subdural hemonhage ond diffuse sub arachnaid hemorrhage of brain.

4. The appellant was arrested on 01.10.2015, at Chirumarri village and he was remanded to judicial custody.

5. Learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4, 6, and 8 who witnessed the incident, recorded conviction.

6. The incident took place on 26.08.2015. Howevt:r, for four days, no complaint was hled. In the complaint that was hled after four days, the names of P.Ws.3, 4, 6, or 8 are not mentioned. The investigating officer admitted that eye witnesses were examined only afler the death of the deceased.

7. The defenc< of the appellant is that while he and the deceased were going on motor cycle, and while comirrg from the fields, they met u.ith an accident and both of them suffered injuries. The pare nts of the appellant admitted that both of them were in the hospit,al. He regained his consciousness after three days and came trt know that the deceased was admitted in the M.G.M. Hospital, 'Warangal. He went and met the cleceased in Warangal Hospital and she died one week after the incident.

8. Having taken specific defence that he and the de,:eased met with an accident and that both of them were hospir.alized, the appellant, hower.er', has not provided any documentary proof or examine any witness to substantiate the fact that he ruas treated in the hospital fcrt' the accident. Once the appellant has taken alibi, the burden shifts on to him to prove the alibi. Even during the cross-examination of the investigating officers or any of the 3, 4 witnesses, no such defence was taken by the appellant that he was involved in the accident with the deceased. For the first time during the course of Section 313 Cr.P.C examination, the said defence was taken. I It is not necessary that the defence of the appellant has to be taken at the earliest point of time. The defence can also be stated at the time of Section 313 Cr.P.C examination. However, the defence taken by the appellant has to be corroborated with the other evidence. In cases of alibi being taken, the burden shifts on to the accused to prove the alibi. If at all the appellant ) was hospitalized as an inpatient over a period of time, there ' would be medical record to prove his hospitalizatjon. No steps were taken by the appellant to call for any record from the hospital, where he was treated. In fact, he has not even mentioned the name of the hospital where he was treated, during his Section 313 Cr.P.C examination.

10. The deceased died seven days after the assault by the appellant. The details of her treatment either in Khammam Hospital, or in M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal where she died, are not filed by the prosecution. The treating Doctor was not 5 examined. The case sheet of the deceased is also no:. hled. The medica-l evid,ence gains signihcance in the back ground of the deceased being treated over a period of seven days' The prosecution, to strcceed in a case of homicidal death amounting to murder, has to prove that the death of the decezised was a direct consequencre of the injuries inflicted by the appellant. There is no evidence to suggest that the death wzrs a direct conseqrrence of the injuries received by the deceased on

26.O8.20t5.

11. In the complaint, though the names of the eyt: witnesses P.Ws.3, 4, 6, and B were not mentioned, howet'er, it was \ mentioned that the neighbors of deceased have taken her to the= hospital. It is not in dispute that P.Ws.3,4,6, anc:' 8 are the neighbors of the trouse where the deceased was atta<;ked by the appellant. Further, the appellant, to explain his abscrlndence till the date of his arrest on 01.09.20 15, had come up with the version of his hosp italizafion. As already discussed, there is no evidence of his hospitalizatton, and falsity of his deferlce and his abscondence can be considered as relevant circr-rnrstances to trelieve the versiorL of the eye witnesses, that it was the appellant, who caused injuries to the deceased. I 6 L2. Since the prosecution failed to prove that the death was a direct result of the injuries caused by the appellant, the conviction under Section 302 IPC is hereby set aside. However, the appellant is convicted under Section 307 IpC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight yea_rs.

13. Since the appellant ls on bail, the concerned Court is directed to cause appearance of the appellant and send him to prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence. The remand period, if any, shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C

14. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO " OiNT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Sessions Judge at Khammam (With records) 2. The ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class' Khammam' 3. The Station House Officer, Khammam (R), Khammam' a. fh" Srp"rintendent, Central Prison' Warangal (By Speed Post) S. two Cbs to public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT) One CC to Smt. M Bhagyasri, Legal Aid [OUT] Two CD Copies To,

6. 7. DL/gh w &- HIGH COURT DATED:2O1O212025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.182 of 2018 .rr t ll3 :i 14 r€ (/ ?l nrn 20[ f. i) L f, ..) ),. \1.. .,: \i\ .i PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL 9-l c{tod 10 vt- ..61F &f-