The High Court · 2025

State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor, Of High Court at Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT lA NO: 2 OF 2020 Petition under Section 389(1) of crpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to take into consideration the humanitarian grounds stated herein whire considering I A1l201B in CrlA 551/2018. Counsel for the Appeilants: Mrs. C. VASUNDHARA REODY Counsel forthe Respondent: Mr. DODLAARUN KUMAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT '::::,:1: I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANTL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.551 OF 2018 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) - 1. This appeal is frled by the appellants/accused, aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.12.2077, in S.C.No.242 of 2015, passed by the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Adiiabad, convicting the appellants/accused for the offence under Sections 3O2, 3O7, 353, and 341 r /w 34 of IPC.

2. Heard Mrs. Vasundhara Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent-State.

3. Appellant Nos.l to 7 were convicted for the offence under Sectiot 3O2 of IPC and sentenced to serve life imprisonment. They were also convicted under Sections 353, 324, alrd 341 ofIPC.

4. PW 1 , who worked as a Constable at Koutala Police Station of Komuram Bheem Asifabad District, was asked by the Sub-Inspector of Police to accompany PW2 and the deceased to the house of the appellants. Appellants are the in-laws of the deceased. The husband of the deceased, who is 2 the son of accused No. 1, died on account of committing suicide. All the family members blamed the deceased as the reason for the son of accused No.1 committing suicide. PW2 and the deceased went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint with the Sub Inspector of Police, seeking his help in recovering the articles that were given at the time of marriage. Sub-Inspector asked PW1 to go along with PW2 and the deceased to the house of the accused to get the articles. ,} They also took a Max Van along with them to get the articles. In the afternoon, PW I informed the accused that he had come to their village on the instructions of SI of Police. However, all the appellants refused to hand over the articles. Then, the son of accused No.2 asked them to enter the house. Once PWs. I and 2, along with the deceased, entered the house, the doors were closed from behind, and al1 the appellants poured kerosene on them. They tried to light a matchstick; however, PWs.l, 2, and the deceased fled from the room when PWI forcibly opened the doors. Once they were out of the house, all the appellants beat them with sticks. The deceased tried to escape from the scene, but accused No.2 threw a boulder on the head of the deceased, resulting in her instantaneous death. Accused No.5 poured kerosene on the deceased and tried to set her on fire; J however, PWl stopped him. pW1 then called the SI of police and informed him about the incident. Immediately, pW1 went to the Echoda Police Station and lodged a Telugu written complaint, Ex.P1.

5. Both PWs.1 ald 2 were treated by pW2l, who is the doctor. PW21 found following injuries on pWs.1 and 2: PW1: "1. Abrasion over left fore arm simple in nature. 2. Pa:,n over back region simple in nature. 3. Pain over left hald simple in nature. I issued injury certificate of PW1 marked under Ex.pl9.,, PW2: " 1 . Complaint of pain over lower back region simple in nature 2. Patn over right hand simple in nature."

6. The doctor also performed autopsy on the body of the deceased and found the following injuries: "1. Right eye black eye swollen. 2. Skull fracture left side. 3. Skull fracture right temple region. 4. Injuries over back region. 5. Smell of kerosene from clothes ald all over body.,, 7 . PW2 1 opined that the cause of death was due to intra- cerebral bleeding resulting from the head injury, leading to death. 4

8. Upon receiving the complaint from PW1, PW22 registered the FIR, and investigation was taken up by PW23. PW23 went to the scene of offence, where the body of the deceased was found with injuries. He conducted the scene of offence pancharama, inquest proceedings, and sent the body for post-mortem examination. PW23 then handed over the investigation to PW24. PW24 arrested the accused, affected seizures, and having concluded the investigation, filed a charge sheet.

9. The learned Sessions Judge, relying on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, who are both eye-witnesses and injured witnesses, convicted the appellalts.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the version given by PWs.l and 2 is an exaggerated one, and the overt acts attributed to the seven accused are not in consonance with the injuries received by PWs.1 and 2, nor with the injuries found on the dead body. In fact, the allegation of pouring kerosene cannot be believed, as the FSL report does not mention the presence of kerosene on the body of the deceased. Learned counsel further submits that the presence of PW2 at the scene cannot be believed. In fact, there are no external injuries on PW2. PW1 is a Police Ofhcer, who lodged the complaint and is a stranger to the accused. 5 The narration given in the complaint is contraqr to what was stated before the trial Court. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh and another v. State of I{aryana r, wherein it was held as follows: -ti "The fact that Santra Devi was assaulted on the date of occurrence and sustained serious injuries resulting in her death cannot be doubted. However, the question is one of fixing the responsibility for the injuries caused to her. Looking at the number arrd nature of injuries ald the prosecution version, it appears to be highly improbable that the number of accused armed with sharp-edged deadly weapons like farsa and ballams was three ald alt oi therrr had assaulted Saltra Devi. The prosecution case appears to be highly exaggerated and embellished. prosecution has tried to implicate three persons _ the father and their two sons, while onlv one or two of them might have assaulted the injuret Satra Devr ald positive role is assigned to the three accused persons, which is not corroborated by medical evidence, the Court is left guessing aboui the exact number of assailants arrd the manner in which they may have assaulted the injured. The present one ii the case where a little grain has been mixed up with so much of chaff that it is almost not possible to separate the grain. Though a court of facts is obliged to make an effort at finding out the truth by separating it from the falsehood, but, on finding il not possible to do so, it is not permissible for the court to spin out altogether a new case, different from the one a.lleged by the prosecution, and to convict the accused."

11. On the other hand, the learned. public prosecutor submits that PW 1 is a responsible police Officer, who accompanied the deceased and pW2. There is no reason to suspect the version of PW1 arld pW2. It is not disputed that there were differences between the family of pW2 and the I 1zot5y tz scc ao+ 6 appellants, on accollnt of the appellants suspecting that the deceased was the reason for the suicide committed by the son of accused No.l, i.e., the husband of the deceased. On the date of the incident, with the assistance of the Police, PW2, the deceased, and PWl went to the house of the accused to collect the marriage articles. There, a quarrel ensued between PWs.l to 3 and the appellants. All three of them were forced into tle house, and the appellants poured kerosene on them. However, they did not light the fire, as PWl, PW2, and the deceased forced themselves out of the house breaking open the door. A11 the appellalts allegedly attacked the deceased, as well as PWs.1 ald 2. PW1 stated in his examination before the Court that it was accused No.2 who had thrown a boulder on the head of the deceased, resulting in her instantaneous death.

12. The conviction is under Section 302 of IPC simplicitor. The other accused were not convicted with the aid of Sections 34 or 149 of IPC. The overt acts attributed to accused No.2 is that he had thrown a boulder, resulting in the fatal injury.

13. Though the presence of accused Nos.1 to 7 was stated by the witnesses, the quarrel ensued at the moment when PWs.l, 2, and the deceased went to the house. It cannot be said that there was any kind of premeditation or intent to 7 cause injures to either PWs.1 ald 2 or lhe deceased. The quarrel was in the background of the death of accused No.l's son, while accused No.l and his family members believed that the deceased was responsible.

14. The Investigating Of{icer /PW24, during the course of his cross-examination, admitted that PWs.l and 2 did not state about any overt acts of the accused. Further, several inconsistencies were elicited in the cross-examination of PW24. PW24 further admitted that his investigation does not reveal as to who were the persons in the house ald who were the persons who bolted the house from outside. The names altd descriptive particulars of accused Nos.4 to 7 were not even mentioned in the complaint. No Test Identification Parade was conducted.

15. The presence of accused Nos.4 to 7 was included at a subsequent date, and their names were not mentioned in the I , , , complaint. No specific overt acts are attributed to accused Nos.4 to 7. Accordingly, benefit of doubt has to be extended to accused Nos.4 to 7. Accordingly, they are acquitted.

16. Insofar as accused No.2 is concerned, the version of PWs.l and 2 that accused No.2 had thrown a boulder at the deceased can be believed. The inconsistencies or 8 contradictions that crept into the erridence would only go to show that, insofar as the other accused are concerned, the overt acts cannot be believed to the extent of causing any injuries that were fatal in nature. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed against accused No.2 under Section 302 of IPC is hereby set aside, and he is convicted under Section 3O4 - II of IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years of imprisonment. Conviction under Sections 324 and 347 r /w Section 34 of IPC are sustained.

17. Insofar as accused Nos.1 and 3 are concerned, they are acquitted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, and the conviction and sentence of imprisonment under Sections 324 ard 341 r/w Section 34 of IPC are sustained.

18. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed //TRUE COPY// SD/-K.SRINIVAS JOINT REGI AO RAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J 4 The Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act cum V Additional District and Sessions Judge of Adilabad District at Adilabad. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, State of Telartgana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad[OUT] One CC to Mrs. C. Vasundhara Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies ry- HIGH COURT DATED:2510212025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.551 of 2018 1nf, STAI € { l J -rf) t 2i a a 3 ? g Aiil 2025 .t t i:; rr: cv( PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL. 5,lr{