The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 389(1 ) Riw 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the judgment dated 0510112018 passed in SC.No. 275 of 2015 on the file of the Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge at Siddipet, pending disposal of the criminal appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri P VishnuVardhana Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: Judgment THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K,SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J,ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.395 0F 2018 JUDGMEN!: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.surender) 1. This appeal is frled by appellant,/ accused No.1, aggrieved b5, the judgment, dated 05.01.2O1g in S.C.No.275 of 2O15, passed by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Siddipet, convicting the appellant/accused No.1 for the offence under Section 3O2 of IpCt and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The appellant u,as tried along with his family members .A2 to A4, who were acquitte,C by the trial court.

2. Hearcl Mr. P.Vishnuvardhala Reddy, learned counsel for the apF,ellant Arun llumar, learned and Mr. Dodla Additional Public respondent- Sitate. Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

3. PW1 is the brother of deceased. According to him, the deceased was married to accused No.1 and pW2 is their sbn. According to PWl, he received information on 17.OS.2t015, at 09.30 A.M., from Chandlapur Viilage, that deceased w,as lying on the floor in the house. Again one of the villagers cajled him and informecl that his sister, i.e., the deceased died. Then, 2 PWl and his brother went to the house of deceased, where they found the deceased lying dead in the room. PWl then went to the Police Station and lodged Ex.P1 complaint. In the complaint, PW 1 narrated about marriage between the appellant and the deceased, and thereafter, appellant harassing the deceased for dowry. He further narrated that on 17.O5.2O15, at 09.30 A.M., he received information from the villagers about the deceased being found dead in the house. Further, the villagers informed PW1 that the deceased questioned the appellant about his absence on the previous night and a quarrel ensued. During the said quarrel, appellant strangu.lated the deceased with a belt. 4 . PW 1 5 registered the complaint and issued FIR. Immediately, investigation was handed over to PW16. PW16 went to the scene of offence on 17.O5.2015, i.e., on the same day and examined the witnesses, i.e., PWs.2 to 7 and 11. The scene of offence panchanama was conducted and body was shifted for the purpose of autopsy, after conclusion of the inquest proceedings. On 19.05.2015, appellant was apprehended and pursuant to his confession, MO1/belt was seized. The other acquitted accused were also arrested during the course of investigation by the Investigating Officer. i.* 3

5. The er:.tire case rests on the evidence of pW2, who is the son of the dt-.ceased arrd appellant. His evidence was recorded on 06.02.2017, atd at that time, pW2 was a5Jed 8 years. The incident hap,pened on 17.O5.2015, and the statement. of pW2 was record.ed on 06.02.20|T, i.e., nearly 1 year 9 months after the in,:ident. PW2 was about 6 years o1d, when the incident had happened.

6. PW2 sr-ated that he belongs to Chandlapur Village ald that his father killed his mother, and he saw it. According to PW2, his fal.her took his school belt, placed it around his mother's ne<:k and pulled it, resulting in her deatl-r. Even though PW2 requested the deceased not to l<ill his mother, the appellant strangulated the deceased.

7. During the course of cross-examination of pW2, he could not gir.e his date of birth and when his birthcLay was celebrated. He was accompanied by pWl to the Court and he has also stated that he does not know what the place is. Further, he stated that he did not have friends in Chardlapur Village. PW12 admitted that villagers informed that hi.s father killed his mo:her. PWs.3, 4, and l1 were all eye witnesses to the incident, but all of them turned hostil,: during their 4 a evidence before the Court and denied any knowledge about the appellant's involvement in the death of the deceased' B. karned counsel for the appellant would submit that oirce the eye witnesses/ PWs.3, 4, and 11 have turned hostile, and there is no other evidence, apart from the evidence of chiid witness, who was not even mentioned in the FIR, the probability of PW2 being tutored cannot be ruled out, especially since he was brought to Court by PWl' Further, learned counsei argued that injuries that were found and recorded in the inquest panchanama were not found in the post mortem examination. The said difference in the injuries also goes to show that the inquest report was subsequently fabricated. g. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no reason why the son of appellant would speak false against his own father'

10. PW2's evidence is extracted: "Chief Dramlnation: I belong to Chaldulapur village. My mother's narne ls Vinodha, My fatller's name is Srinivas' My mother was a beedi roiter. My mother is not there. My daddy killed my mother. I saw ii. My father took my school belt and put it to the neck of my mother and pulled the belt and krlled my mother. My mother died. i told'no no'. But still my father killed my mother. al cam;, I can identifv tt'e belt Mol is -r- l i i I I I I I l ) 1' the belt (Witness is shown the belt seized in this case a;rd witness ldentified it). police examined me ald recorde<l my statement. Cross hamination by counsel for accused: i celebrate my birth day. l. When do 1.ou celebrate birth day? Ans: Witness, c:ould not give the date. Today I ca-rne to court w-ith Brahmam uncle (pWI). I do not know rvhat is this place. I do not haver inend..; in Chanclulerpur village. I did not study at Siddipet. No body told me to give evidence in the court. I krow it. police did not examme me after my mother died. I do not know wtLo is sitting thore (witness was shown the presiding officer). Villagers told me that my father killed my mother. It is not true to suggest that I am deposing false at thr: instance of PW1 tl-ra,t I sau, the incident.,,

11. The prr:sence of pW2, when the incident occurred, has to be gathereC from the evidence produced by the prosecution and also his statement in Court. In the complaint/ Ex.pl, PW1 narratecl that it was the villagers, who had informed him about killing rf the deceased by the appellant. ,A,1I the villagers have turned liostile to the prosecution case. In the complaint, PWl did not state about the presence of pw2 in the house u.hen the in,:ident had taken place, or when he,went and saw the dead bod.y of the deceased. As already stated, cornplaint is silent u.ith regard to the presence of pW2 at the scene. PW15, who is the Investigating Officer, stated that pW1 did not mention the presence of pW2 in the complaint. I 6

12. Even in his chief-examination before the Court, pW 1 did not speak about the presence of pW2, when the incident had taken place, and also when he had visited the house, where the dead body was lying. pW I is totally silent about PW2. PW2 was aged around 6 years when the incident has taken place. None of the witnesses stated about pW2 staying aiong with deceased. On the date of evidence, pW1 had taken PW2 to the Court. During the course of cross-examination, PW2 stated that he does not have friends in the village and does not remember his date of birth and also stated that villagers have informed about the murder. The said admission in the cross-examination, corroborates with the version of PW2 that villagers informed pW 1 about the death of the deceased.

13. The Hon'trle Supreme Court in Zafar u. State of U.p.t, held that the testimony of a child witness has to be accepted with caution and in the circumstances of a particular case. In Pradeep a. State of Haryanaz, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a child witness is easily susceptible to tutoring and it is unsafe to record conviction, solely on the basis of evidence of a child witness. ! AIR 2oo3 sc 931 2 2023 SCC Online SC 777 / I t 7

14. The <;LLild u,itness's evidence has to lte treated and accepted with caution. The boy was aged around 6 years, when the in.cident had taken place, and as already discussed, now,here thr: prosecution has come with any evidence to show that PW2 was living with his mother or was present when the incident had taken place. The possibility of tutoring cannot be ruled e,-1r_, when the chief-examination and the cross_ examinatiorL rf PW2 are looked into. At the age of 8 years, the child may no: be intelligent to face the cross-examination and have knowl:clge as to what has to be stated in the C)ourt of law. The ans, ers given by PW2 in his cross-examinal.ion are not convino.ng to accept his solitary testimony, to convict the appellant. 'T.irere is absolutely no corroboration to the evidence of PW2. There is no clear narration by pW2|, as to nhere he was present, at what time the incident happened, and the details of persons who were present or came there when the incident happened. A11 the circumstances collectively gi.re rise to doubt regarding the presence of pW2, coupled wrttr PW1 not mentioning about the presence of pW2, in the com claint or in his statement to the police. Accordingly, ,rnce the evidence of pW2 is kept aside from consideration there is no other evidence to conn€)ct appel.lant r,vittL crime. r I I I I I l l 8

15. In view of the above discussion, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the sentence and conyiction imposed against the appellant in the judgment, dated 05.01.2018 in S.C.No.275 of 2015 is hereby set aside. Since the appellant is in jail, he shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. Sd/- C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER I One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Surender (For His LordshiPs kind Perusal) AND One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti (For His LordshiPs kind Perusal) To,

1. The Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge at Siddipet. (with records, if any)

2. The Additional Judicial First Class /agistrate, siddipet 3- The Station House Officer, Chinnakodur Police Station,Siddipet 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District (by Special Messenger)

6. 11 LR Copies 7. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad. B. The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of g. One CC to Sri P Vishnuvardhana Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] '10.Two CD Copies ADK/gh w / v 1: [] J. * ------'\-: rt, s tAr( 1t (.r.o 3 05'iiAir zu5 n- -:\ * ^.-

1.i HIGH COURT DATED:2510212025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.395 of 2018 ALLOWING THE CRLA ,de X€