The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO:9 15 0F 20't7 Appeal filed under Section 378(3) & (1) of Cr.p.C., against the Judgment dated 02.01.2017 passed in s.c.No. 304 of 2o1s on the file of the court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal. Between: The state of relangana rep. by the pubric prosecutor, High court at Hyderabad. AND AppellanUComplainant Kunlala Praveen Kumar, S/o, Late Ashok, Rr/o. Hanamkonda presenfly residing at Mallareddypally Street, parkal Village dnd Mandal. '- ...RespondenUAccused Cou.nsel for the Appe ant : Additional public prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent : Sri A prabhakar Rao The Court delivered the following: -) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.91 5 0F 2017 JUDGMENT i @er Hon'ble Sri Jusrice K.surender) 1. The Sta.te is aggrieved by the judgment dated O2.OL.2OLZ in S.C.No.30.1 of 2015, on the fiie of principal Sessions Judge, l Warangal, acquitting the respondent /accusecl for the offence under Sections 498-A and 302 of IpC.

2. Heard learned Additional public prosecutor for State alrd the learned counsel for the respondent/ accused.

3. Accordirrg to the prosecution case, the accused was married to one Pushpa in the year 1997. In theyear, 1999, the accused left her on the ground that she was obese and was jobless. The accused then went to Kerala for livelihood and returned to V/arangal in the -1-ear, 2007. On ,24.Og2O0g, parents of Kuntala Majula performed her marriage with the accused by presenting cash of Rs.30,000 l_ and thereafter, they lived happily for lYz years. There r.ve re displttes in between them, accused suspecting Manj tr Ia/ deceased No.l (D.1) that she was havir:Lg affairs rvith othcrs and used to harass her. In the year, 2009 accused left the deceased and went to Kerala again. The deceased lodged a com plaint again st the ,accused 2 and his family members. The police apprehended the accused in Kerala and the issue was compromised between them in the yeat,2OI4. Thereafter, they started residing together. D.1 gave birth to a son namely Sai Charan/deceased No.2 (D.2). There were disputes between the spouses since accused was suspecting deceased No.l/Manjula of having illicit intimacy with others. .

4. On 09.03.2015, D.1 and the appellant quarreled regarding shifting of their residence to Hanmakonda. Enraged by D.l questioning the accused, the accused allegedly killed her with an axe and thereaJter, he washed his blood stained shirt and axe. Thereafter, he committed murder of his son by pasting adhesive tape around nose and mouth, due to which the boy died with suflocation.

5. The death r,,,as informed to the in-Iaws of the accused and the accused fled. P.W.1 was the mother of the deceased, who lodged a complaint u,ith the Police suspecting that it was the accused who had committed murder of both deceased Nos. 1 and 2 (D. I and D.2). Scene of Offence panchnama was conducted and thereafter, bodies were sent to post mortem examination. According to post mortem report, D.l died due to head injury and D.2 died due to Asph5rxia on account of J smothering. On 12.03.2015, P.W.B took tht: accused to the Police Station and surrendered him. On the basis of his confession, axe was seized. Having concluded the investigation, charge sheet. was filed.

6. l,earned Sessions Judge examined P.Ws.l to 17 and marked Exs.P. I to P. 12 and also M.Os. 1 to 10.

7. Learned Sessions Judge having considered the evidence on record acquitted the accused on the follorning grounds:-

1. P.W.8 to whom alleged extra judicial confession was made, his evidence is doubtfui. The reason is, when the Court questioned P.W.8 he stated that he was in the Police Station and Police the said went ard brought M.O.1. circum.stances, evidence of P.W.B cannot be believed. In

21. P.Ws.s and 6 who are the neighbours ol- the accused stated that they saw accused leaving the house in a hurried manner at 9 p.m. 3t. Further P.Ws.7 and 9 are also the couple who are neighbours, were not present orr the date of incident. They returned on 10.03.20 15 and sau' the dead bodies. Though P.W.9 stated ar:cused took plaster from P.W.5, however, P.W.5 dicl not reveal anything about accused taking plaster fr,;rp 6i-. 4

4. Investigating Officer/p.W. 17 stated at the earliest point of time, p.W.5 did not state to him that he had seen accused leaving the house in a hurried martner. Further, Investigating Officer admitted that the time of the incident was not mentioned in the charge sheet.

5. The photographer stated that deceased Nos. I and 2 were not found together and the photographs were taken after shifting tJle dead bodies into the front portion of the house which creates doubt regarding version projected by the prosecution. 6. P.W. 1 7/ Inspector and also photographer did not disclose that there was plaster on D.2, therefore, the question of smothering by tying tape around and mouth of deceased No.2 cannot be believed.

7. P.W.7 r.r,ho is the neighbor of the accused stated that three days prior to the incident, accused left and returned onlv after the death of deceased Nos. 1 and 2.

8. None of the u'itnesses, either the neighbours or the mother of the deceased No.l have spoken anything specilic about the harassment made by the accused.

9. No evidence is collected by the Investigating Offrcer to show that the complaint was filed by the i I I I I I 5 deceased No.l against the accused for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC' In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme' Court in Rarrd 8. Shanna tt. State (@ventment o! NCT of Delhi) and anotheJ ,heldthatwhiledealingwithanappealagainst acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court,s view can be termed as a possible one, particularly r,r,hen evidence on record has been analysed' The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of inno'-'ence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slou' in reversing the order of the trial court rr:ndering acquittal. g. ln Ghureg I'o;t tt. State of Uttar Pradesi-' the Hon'ble Supreme Cottrt after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the pou''ers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, hetd at para 70 ' ars follows: "70. In the light of the aboue, the High C'turt ancl other appellate Cutrts sloutd foltotu the uell settled prir''cipLes bg number of Judgments if it is goinq to ouenuLe or "ry"toltir"d otherrutse dbturb the trial court's acquittol:

1. Tle oppellate court mog only ouerntle or otheruise disturb ttrc triit court's acquittal if it has "uery sttbsr anttial and comptelling reasons' for doing so. '(2022) B Supreme Court Cases 536 '?(2008) 10 suprerne Court Cases 450 6 of lau; palpablg urong: mi.s canioge of just ice " : A number of instanrces orise in uhich the appeltate aurt tuould ho.ue "uery substantial and compelling ,"o"oln"" to discard thE triol @urt's decision. ,,Very substarltial and mmpelling reasons' exist u.then: i) TLrc tnal court,s mnclusion uith regard. to tLte facts is ii) Tlrc trial court's d.ecision tuas based_ on an enoneous ui.etu iii) The fial court's ittdgment is likelA to result in "gra ue . - iu) The entire approach. of the trial court in dealing u.tith the u) The . triat court's judgment tuas manifestlg unjust and ui) The trinl court has ignored_ the euidence or misrea_d. the mateial euid.ence or ha.s ignored mateial documen* tike d.gtng decloration s/ report of the bZttstic exp"rt, etc. uii)Thi,s li-st is intended_ to be i ;stratiue, not exhaustiue. 2. Tlrc appellate court must alu..ngs giue proper tl)eight and an-sid.eration o the findings oy th. tnrt iri. 3. If tuo reosonable uierus can be reached._ one that Lead.s to aquittaL, the other to conuction . the Highiourts/ appeltate courts'must rule in fauour of the acclused.,, euidence uas patentlg tegat; unreasonable;

10. As discussed by the learned Sessions Judge, the reasons given are based on record and probable. p.Ws.S, 7 and 9 who are the neighbours, their evidence is inconsistent and self contradicting. In fact, p.W.7 stated rhat accused left the house 3 days prior arrd returned onlv after the death of D.l and D.2. P.W.5 stating that the deceased leaving the house in a hurried manner on the day of the incident is a complete omission, which is rightly disbelieved by. the learned Sessions Judge. Though the case of the prosecution is that the accused had taken tape from P.W.S and smothered D.2, the said tape was not found on the body of D.2. l I 1. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court'

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed' ( i l i /ffRUE COPY// Sd/. T. KRISHNA KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR SE ION OFFICER The Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal. (With records, if any) The lnspecbr of Police, Parkal. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, HEh Court for the State of Telangana Hyderabad. (OUT) One CC to Sri A Prabhakar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies To, 1 2 3

4. 5 DL/gh v; I HIGH COURT DATED:02lO1l2O2S t I JUDGMENT CRLA.No.915 of 2012 /'lrre s <t' )'( -Ar A. d zz iEIr M z o .b * 9i --.-.: rl rr. '. rl.Yi =--r DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL )2\o2)t' W