Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 2018 · Hyderabad High Court · 2025

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) . I . This appeal is filed by appellant, aggri,:ved by the judgment, dated 18.09.2017 in S.C.No.236 of 2076, passed by the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under the SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VIII Additional Sessic,ns Judge at Nizamabad, convicting the appellant/accused fo:: the offence under Sections 302 and 3O7 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment.

2. Heard Mrs. Vasundhara Reddy, learned corrnsel for the appellant, and Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar, learne,l Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondt:nt-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that, the accused is the brother-in-law of the deceased No. 1. About six rr:onths back, the accused, along with others, committed the murder of one Beeraiah and committed theft of 47 goats at itlavipet vide Cr.No.64/2015 u/s 3O2 and 379 IPC. In that case, the accused was arrested and lodged in jail. About 4 months back, he was released on bail. Thereafter, the accused visited the house of the deceased No.l and requested him to send 2 accused's wife/ PW8 along with him, but thi deceased No.1 refused to send PW8, and he informed the. same to the caste elders. The accused roamed around the deceased No.1 for two or three times, but the deceased No. 1 did not consider his request. Because of this, the accused developed a grudge against the family of the deceased No.1 and intended to finish the family of deceased No.1. +. That on 14.11.20L5, the accused went to Nizamabad and purchased one butcher knife. Around 14:00 to 14:30 hours, the accused went to Shastrinagar and waited for some time, and in the evening around O8:30 pm to 09:00 pm, he consumed toddy ald went to Sarangapoor Canal Katta on foot and slept. Later, around OO:30 to O1:OO hours, the accused went to his brother-in-law's portion and attacked the deceased No. 1 with a small crowbar ald beat him indiscriminately on his left side of the head. In the meanwhile, his wife/deceased No.2 woke up. Immediately, he took the butcher knife and chopped her forehead, resulting in her falling down and dying. On hearing the noise, the daughter of the deceased, i.e., PW7 woke up and raised hue and cries. On that, he pushed her to the side with his left hand. J

5. Thereafter, the accused went to the old house and found that his wife/PW8, sister-in-law/PW9, and his mother- in-law were sleeping. Immediately, he attacked them with a butcher knife ard chopped them, resulting in his wife/PW8 sustaining a head injury and PW9 also sustaining a head injury. Thereafter, the accused threw the srrrall crowbar beside the door ofthe old house.

6. On hearing the noise, the neighbours/PWs.l and 2 came there and found the butcher knife in the l:rands of the accused. On that, PWl caught hold of the accused and raised hue and cries. In the mea-ntime, PWs.3, 4, 5 and others came there,. and upon seeing them, the accused kicked PWl and ran away from there along with the butcher knife

7. The complaint was filed by PWl. In the cor:rplaint, PW1 narrated about the differences between the deceased No. 1 and the appellant. The appellant is the brother- Ln-law of the deceased No.1. According to the prosecution, the motive is that PWS, who is wife of the appellant, was staying with her brother, deceased No. 1. The deceased No. 1 reftrsed to send PW8 along with the appellant, for which reason, tl e incident occurred. In the complaint, it is further narrated that the appellant initially attacked the deceased Nos. 1 and 2 and 4 J:: thereafter attacked PWs.8 and 9. The Ieft hand Iingers of PW8 were hacked and PW9 was also injured.

8. The complaint was lodged with PW16, who is the Inspector of Police. Immediately, he went. to the scene of offence. The bodies were lying at the scene of offence, where he examined the witnesses, i.e., PWs.2, 3, and another. Blood-stained controlled earth was seized from the scene of offence. Phcitos were a-Iso taken. The inquest proceedings were concluded at the scene, and thereafter, the bodies were sent for post-mortem examination. The post mortem doctor found the following injuries on the deceased Nos.1 and 2: "1. Cut laceration of 4 cm x 1 cm x 5 cm bone deep at frontal region, placed obliquely with lower end placed inner side and upper end at outer side margins are bruised. 2. On scalp reflection linear fracture of (1 cms) vertically placed situated on right fronto parital bone. 3. Diffuse sub arachnoid hemorrhage noted on right fronto parital region. 4. Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm outer aspect of right mid neck." "1. Sutured wound of 10 cms 6 sutures present on left side of fore head oblikquery placed. 2. Laceration 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on outer part of left eyebrow. 3. Abraded contusion 3 x 2 cms on left cheek below left eye noted. 4. On scalp reflection comminuted fracture of frontal bone (left sided) and anterior cranial fossae of base of skull. 5

5. Comminted fracture of orbital bone, zygomatic bone noted. 6. Diffuse subarachmoid ald subdural haemmorrhage of left fronto parital lobe noted."

9. PWs.8 and 9 were also examined by the Doctor at Nizamabad. PW15 found the following injuries on PW9: "1. 1x9 cm. deep stabbing injury over the back of the head (occipital) and exposed the skull bone and fracture and exposed brain matter. 2. Loss. of fingers of left hand (four fingers). 3. 3x1 cms. over the left fore arm which is cut injury. 4. 3x1 cms. laceration over the scalp (1eft snle). The above injuries are caused by sharp obje:ct. Injury No.1 is grievous ald I issued Ex.P10."

10. On the same day, PW15 also examined PW8 and found the following injuries: "7x3 cms. laceration and exposal skull bone and fracture of skull. The said injury is grievous injury caust:d by sharp object. I issued Ex.P11 WC of PW8."

11. PW15 examined the appellant and found the following lnJrlnes. "1. Blunt injury over the back. 2. blunt injury to the both hands. 3. blunt injury to the both knees."

12. The appellant was arrested on 26.11 .2015. At his instance, MO2, which is the knife, was seized, along with the wearing apparel. 6

13. The learned Sessions Judge found favour with the version of the prosecution and, relying upon the eye-witness version of PWs.7, 8, and 9 and corroborating medial evidence, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment for murder of deceased Nos. i ana 2, and also under Sectio n 3O7 of IPC for assaulting pW8 with al intention to commit the murder.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the entire version of the prosecution becomes doubtful mainly for two reasons, i.e., i) no sketch was drawn at the scene, however, the scene of offence palchanama reflects that the incident happened at two difference places; ii) Secondly, injured/PWs.8 and 9 were examined nearly 1% months after the incident, which creates any arnount of doubt regarding the correctness of the version of the eye-witnesses/pWs.B and 9. Learned counsel also argued that the injuries on the accused ought to have been explained by the prosecution. The non-explanation of the injuries on the accused creates aly amount of doubt regaiding the version projected by the prosecution being correct. The said delay in examining the witnesses, as well as the non-explanation of the injuries on the accused would go to show that the actual happening was suppressed by the prosecution and a false version was 7 projected. Learned counsel further argued that there was no light at the scene and the incident happened in the night, around O2.00 to 03.00 A.M. Since the prosecution failed to establish that there was light in the house where the incident took place, the version of the eye-witnesses cannot be believed. Alternatively, the counsel submits that even accepting the version of PW8, the conviction agairrst appellant can only be under Section 3O7 of IPC and not under Section 3O2 of IPC for committing the murder of the de<:eased Nos.1 and 2, since the evidence of PW7 cannot be belier,.ed.

15. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the Iindings of the learrLed Sessions Judge.

16. PW7 is the eye-witness to the Iirst assaul.l which took place in the house, where both the deceased l{os.l and 2 were hacked by the accused. PW7 is a child, aged 8 years, and on the date of incident, according to P!\'7, deceased Nos.1 and 2 were sleeping in the kitchen of their house, while PW9 and her materna-l graldmother were in the other room. Appellant hacked deceased Nos.l and 2, and thereafter, entered the room of PWs.8 and 9 and attacke<l them a1so. PW8 is the wife of the appellant. According to her, she started I 8 staying in the house of her brother, i.e., deceased No.1 since the appellant used to harass her. The deceased No.l/brother of PW8 was involved in a crimina_l case, and thereafter, he was released and he came back home. The deceased No.l questioned the appellalt as to why he was repeatedly harassing PW8 without any reason and asked the appellant to get elders. 77 . On the date of the incident, while PW8 was sleeping along with PW9 and her mother in the bedroom, arld while deceased Nos.l and 2 were sleeping in the kitchen along with PW7 and another younger daughter, at around 01:O0 A.M., the appellant first attacked deceased Nos.l and 2, and thereafter, broke open the door of the room where pWs.8 and 9 were sleeping and attacked them also. PWs.8 and 9 are the sisters of deceased No. 1. After the attack, the villagers tried to apprehend the accused, however, he fled. PW9 a_lso stated in her examination that she was sleeping along with pW8 in the house, when the appellant entered the house, hacked the deceased Nos.1 ald 2, artd thereafter PW8 and herself.

18. A11 the three eye-witnesses have stated specifically that the appellant entered the house and initially attacked deceased Nos.1 and 2 and thereafter PWs.8 and 9. 9

19. Learned counsel argued that there was no light when the incident took place, and the possibility of an unknown person entering the house and attacking deceased Nos.1 and 2 cannot be ruled out. The said argumen I cannot be accepted. The appellant is a close relative of the ejre-witnesses and the deceased. PW7, who is aged around B years, specifically stated that on the date of the incider:Lt, appellarrt entered the kitchen room and hacked her parents, who are deceased Nos.1 and 2, and thereafter, entered the room, where PWs.S and 9, along with their mother, were sleeping. There is no room for doubt regarding the evidenc:e of pWs.7, B, and 9. Their names were mentioned in the complaint, which was iodged at around 02:30 A.M., within one ald a half hours after the incident. It is an admitted fact that pWs.g and 9, who received grievous injuries, were tre.ated at the hospital and their presence is also mention ed in the complaint. Only for the reason that the polic<: examined PWs.8 and 9 with a delay of one month will not, in aly manner, affect the evidence of PWs.8 ald 9 that- they have witnessed the appellant attacking them.

20. The other argument of the learned counsel is that the injuries received by the appellant were not expJained. The injuries on the appellant were a blunt injury or:r the back, \ \ 1 10 blunt injuries to both hands, and blunt injuries to the knees. The probability of the appellant receiving these injuries while attacking the deceased and pWs.S and 9 cannot be mled out. However, the age of the injuries was not stated by the Doctor. Even the appellant did not give any explanation regarding the injuries received by him. In the 313 Cr.p.C. examination, except for denying the allegations against him, nothing was stated. In . fact, during the cross-examination of the eye-witnesses, except for suggesting that the appellant was in no way concerned with the death of deceased or the injuries sustained by PWs.8 and 9, nothing was elicited during their cross-examination to disbelieve the evidence of the eye-witnesses. There are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.

21. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. SAILESHI JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 ]jg Snecial Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under the SCs and STs (PoA) Act cum vlrr Additionar sessions Judge at Nizamabad. (with records, if any)

2. The ll Additional Judicial First Class Ma records, if any) gistrate at Nizamabad. (with ._::

3. The Inspector of Police, Nizamabad Rural Police Station, I'Jizarnabad. (with records, if any)

4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Stakr of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

5. The Superintendent, District Prison, Nizamabad 6. One CC to Mrs. C Vasundhara Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies / ADK/gh YY \ \ I ko3 1HE. S r^r fa e E 10 JUlr zrz5 t Or 3tr i- -- r a't r: -j' HIGH COURT DATED:1810212025 I ) JUDGMENT CRLA.No.195 of 2018 DISMISSING THE CRLA 10 .*@ &-