Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Srinivasa Srikanth, Legal Aid Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following .:,. 't_E++1=?-<tF!7 Lz 1.. ' t' rr.f'- .'' j THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SUREI\IDER AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.442 OF 2018 JUDGMENTi /,ter llort blt Sri Jusrice K.Surendcr) This Criminal Appeal is hled aggri(r\/ed b1' the judgment darod 19.09.2017 in S.C.No.276 of i2013 on the file of III Actditional District and Sessionsi Judge at Asifabad, convicting the appellant/ accused fc,r the offence under Sectron 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1B(;(l (for short, 'lPC') and scr tencing him to undergo Iife irrprisonment and to pay [in,: of Rs. 1,000/- and in default ()f payment of fine. to suffcr- simple imprisonment for one month.

2. Heard NIr. Srinivasa Srikanth, learne d Lcgal Aid Counsel for the appellalt/accused, and Mr. Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutrtr for the respondent- StiLte.

3. The dccr:ased is Kova Prameela. Th<: appellant/ accused belongs to the same caste as of Prameela, and related to hcr. The appellant demanded that he r."'ould marry the dcct:ased and forcibly took the deceased to his 2 KS,J&JAK,J Crl..1 tlo JJ2 201r\ house and confined her for a period of two months. Thereafter, the deceased came back to her parents, house. However, the appellant/ accused did not change his attitude arld continued to harass the deceased. A panchayat was held and in the said panchayat, the appellant was admonished and asked to wait for one more year to perform his marriage with the deceased, since the deceased was aged only 15 years.

4. The incident happened on O8.ll.2OL2. The deceased went to the nearby viliage along with PWs.2 and 3 to attend 'Dandora Devara' prograrnme. While returning from the programme at about B:00 P.M., the appellant followed them and stabbed the deceased in her stomach. The deceased fell down. Out of fear, PWs.2 and 3 went to PW. 1's house. PW. 1 is the mother of the deceased. pWs.2 and 3 informed PW.1 and other viliagers about the incident. Thereafter, all of them went to the scene of offence and found the dead body of Prameela. The next day morning, Mr. Sonerao, father of the deceased, went to the police station and lodged a Telugu written complaint. However, Mr. Sonerao was not examined, during trial. ) KS. J tI J,1K, J Crl t N'o 142 2018

5. In I he compiaint, it was narrated that the appellant/ .rcou sed was following the deceased and took the deceascd to his house. A panchayat w.r.ri held before the elders an d in the said Panchayat, the ;eopellant was asked to u,ait for one yea-r to perform his marriage with the deceased. On the date of incident, the deceased went along u,ith I)Ws.2 and 3 to attend Dandora Devara' programm(' a;ro while returning, the appellart stabbed the deceased in her stomach. The incident took pJace between the hamlets of Punaguda and Burdagudem. After recciving the complaint at 9:00 A.M., on 09 1 l.2Ol2, ttte Investigatir-rq t )fficer - PW. I 1 went to the scene of offence, u,hcre the sceLre of offence panchanama was prepared ald inquest pr()ce,rdings were aiso concluded. The body was sent for Ilosi mortem examination. PW.1O-Doctor, who conducted posrtmortem examination on the d,:ad body of the deceascd, lound the following injuries.

1. A stab injury on the right iliac lbssa at MC burney's point level (right lower abdomen) meirsrrring cm 2x1 depth of peritoneal cavit5r, edges are clean cut, wedge shaped injr:ry. 1 KS, J & JAK,.] Crl 1.No.442 2018 4

2. A stab injury on left groin region measuring 1x0.5x1.5 cm. On internal examination, I found the following internal injuries. 1. A laceration on large intestine measuring 4 cm., length.

2. A laceration present on inferior surface of right lobe of liver measuring 2.5x1x0.5 cm. I found blood of 1 .5 to 2 liters in the peritoneal cavity.

6. PW.lo-Doctor opined that all the internal and externa-l injuries are ante mortem in nature and caused by sharp edged weapon, such as MO.6.

7. Learned Sessions Judge examined PWs.1 to 11 and marked Exs.Pl to P19 on behalf of the prosecution, besides marking MOs.l to 7. The appellant did not examine any witness. However, Exs.Dl to D4, which are part of Sections i61 and 164 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs.1, 2, and 3, were marked during cross examination of the witnesses. 5 A5:,J&JAK,J Crl..1 lr'o.112 2018 B. Learneci Sessions Judge found favour with the version of eyt: witness account of PWs.2 and 3. Further, learned Sess'ons Judge found that the hos;tility of the r,r,itnesses ,.o lhr-- seizure ol MO.6 is of no cc,rrsequence in the backgrounrl of reliable testimony of PW zt, who is an independerr r rvitness and speaks about tht: panchayat regarding tlre issue of appellant ald deceased.

9. Leanrc'd Legal Aid Counsel appearing or. behalf of the appellant /:rccu sed u'ould submit that there is a delay in lodging tl-rc cc'm plaint. Though the incident l-Lappened on Oa.lI.2072 lir the t:ver-ring, the complaint was lodged on the next drrv morning at 8:00 A.M., which goes to show that after dr.re deliberations, the complaint was filed against thc appr:llant only for the reason of his proposal to marry lhe dt:ceased. The proposal of appellant was refused, and l:cpt on hold, for a period of one year, since the deceased rvas aged 15 years at the timrr of incident. Exs.D 1 to [).1, r,r.hich are contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1, 2, and 3, rvould go to show that PWs.l2 and 3 were not the l'itncsses to the incident. Ex.D 1 is the contradictior-i marked during the evidence of PW. 1, 6 KS,J&J,1K,] ( rl.A.No.142 2018 wherein PW. 1 stated about the deceased was struggling for her life by the time they went to the scene, and on the other hand, PW. 1 during evidence stated that the deceased was found dead, when they reached the scene. The statement is contradictory with the statement of Ex.D 1. Exs.D2 and D3 are the statements made by PW.2 before the Magistrate. In the statement made to the police, it is mentioned that the deceased was stabbed between Chikkiliguda and Rajaguda. However, under Ex.D3, statement made before the Magistrate, PW.2 stated that it was near Chikkiliguda. Ex.D4 is the part of statement made before the Magistrate by PW.3. According to Ex.D4, PW.3 stated that the appellant stabbed Prameela and thereafter, both PWs.2 and 3 went back to Prameela, after informing PW.1.

10. Learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant/accused relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinobhai a. State oJ Keralal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the issue of omissions that were admitted by the eye witnesses therein, who are PWs.4 and 5. Since I 2025 Lawsuit (SC) 149 ; KS, J <* JAK, J Crt.4.No.112 2018 1 the omissiolls \\iere material omissions, arnounting to colltrad iction s, benefit of doubt was exterrcled to the accused tht:rein. The Hon'ble Supreme Ccurt further observed that thc case was not proved beyond all reasonable doubt by the prosecution and accordingly' allowed the aPpeal. 1 1 . On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor ''r'or rld submit that the names of I)"Vs'2 and 3 \\'ere menliolre 'l in the complaint, which was at the earliest point of time . The it-rcident happened near the hamlets' PWs.2 ancl 3. l-ravir-rg u'itnessed the stabbing' *'ent to the house of PW.1 and again came back to the scene' Since it lvas iate' ir-r the night and no transportation was available, the complaint r"'as lodged on the next day'

12. Learut:cl Legal Aid Counsel mainly stre'ssed on the delay in loclgirrg the complaint-Ex'P1' In the complaint' it is mentioned that the village/scene of offence is at a distance of 20 kms., from Thiryani police stzrf ion' There was no con\ eyance in the night to go to the police station' The said explanation given at the earlier point of time appears to be probable. Admittedly, the incider'Lt happened 8 KS, J & JAK. ,/ Crl.A.No.|12 2018 in the Forest area in between two hamlets and in the night. The incident was informed to the relations of deceased and villagers by pWs.2 and 3 and thereafter, the villagers went to the scene. Immediately, on the next day morning, father of the deceased went to the police station and lodged Ex.p1 - complaint. The delay in lodging the complaint cannot be treated as fata.l in the background of the present facts and circumstances of the case. The delay is of no consequence) since it was explained convincingly by the prosecution.

13. According to pWs.2 and 3, eye witnesses, they along with the deceased went to attend .Dandora Devara, programme in Punagudem Village. After sometime, while they were returning and reached Chikkiliguda, the appellairt/accused went there and stabbed the deceased in her stomach. Similar is the evidence of pW.4. During the course of cross examination, certain discrepancies, as to the timing of the 'Dandora Devara, prograrnme and the exact location where the stabbing happed, crept in. The discrepancies are of no consequence, since the incident happened in the night time and having seen the appellant 9 K.\ J tl .t.1K. J Crl.1.n'o 112 2018 stabbing tl-rc deceased, both PWs.2 and 3 u,ent to their Village and irlformed PW.I and others abour- the incident. The con tradir:tions, which were elicrted as IDxs.D 1 to D4, also do n o1 have any impact on the vt:t sion of the prosecution. Minor discrepancies in such cas.es are 1ikely to happen. Unless the discrepancies or contl adictions go to the root lf the case, to disbelieve the evidence of witnesse s, su,:h discrepancies, which are mirrrlr in nature, cannot forrn basis to reject the case of the prosecution. Hence, therc are no grounds to interfere with the findings recordecl b1 tfLe lcarned Sessions Judge.

14. Accorclir g11,, the Criminal Appeal is disnrissed. Miscellar-ieous Pctitions, if any, pen,l ng in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR l,f'-- - i becrro N OFFICER To, 1 2 4 E 6

7. DL/gh The lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Asifabad Adilabad The Judicral First Class tvlagistrate, Asifabad, Adilabad' The Station House Officer, Thiryani Police Station, 4sif3[rad' The Superintendent, District Jail, Adilabad' Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Slate of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT) One CC to [Vlr Srinivasa Srikanth, Legal Aid [OUT] Two CD Copies o \_s I HIGH COURT DATED:18102t2025 ,a- , JUDGMENT CRLA.No.442 of 2018 \r .. S a4?- J t.) I I APB ztrfi * DtS:o.1IcH 6_O t ( a ^ I I I i ; I I t I I I I I DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL "K