The High Court · 2025

of Telangana, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, ...RESPODENTS Petition under Section 389(1) of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of the sentence passed in S.C No.52 of 2Ol5 on the file of The- ll Addl. Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, dated '19-12- 2017 and release the Petitioner/Accused pending disposal of this Criminal Appeal No.564 o't 2018. Gounsel for the Appellant: Smt. Padmalatha Yadav, Legal Aid Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI WSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.564 0F 2018 JUDGMENTi (per Hon,ble Si Justice K.surender) This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.12.2017 in S.C.No.52 of 2015, on the hle of II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, at Suryapet, convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian penal Code (for short 1pCJ. 2 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Mr Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional public prosecutor for respondent-State

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant killed the deceased, namely T.Ramulamma, by throttling her neck. PW. 1 is the complainant and sister_in_law of the deceased. PW.2 is the son of the deceased. pWs.3, 4, 6, and 8 are neighbours. pWs.S and 7 are also neighbours, however, they turned hostile to the prosecution case. According to PWs.l, 2,3,4, and 6, the appellant and the deceased were living together next to the premises of pW. l. pW.7 is the 2 owner of the house, where the incident happened' According to the witnesses, on the intervening night of 30/31'lO'2O14' at around 1 1 :OO p 'm., the d'eceased returned from hotel and there was a quarrel in between the deceased and the appellant. The next day morning, the owner of the hotel' where the deceased was working, went there and found the deceased dead. PW.2, who is the son of the deceased' informed PW.1 about the previous night's quarrel in between the deceased and the appellant and thereafter' the deceased being found dead. PW. I went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint.

4. The complaint Ex.Pl was given to PW'13' PW'13 went to the scene of offence and photographed the scene' The scene of offence panchanama was a'lso drafted' The dead body was fourrd with ligature marks around the neck' Inquest proceedings were also conducted and thereafter' the body was sent for postmortem examination' PW'l2/Post Mortem Doctor found the following injuries on the body of the deceased: 1 Ligature mark over front of neck about 8 x 1O x 1 cm in size (blackened) below th5rroid cartilage transverslY. 3

2. Neck muscles under the ligature mark are contused and some fibers damaged.

3. Haemorrhogic spots under the skin with ligature mark are present.

4. Fracture of thyroid cartilage and hyoid bone is present.

5. Two abrasions (nail marks) over abdomen upper part present."

5. Above injuries are ante mortem in nature and caused by blunt object, according to pW. 12. He opined that the death of the deceased was on account of asphyxia due to strangulation.

6. The Police hled charge sheet under Section 302 of IpC. Learned Sessions Judge, having framed the charge for the said offence, examined the witnesses. On the basis of evidence of PWs. l, 2, 3, 4, and 6, the learned Sessions Judge found that the appellant uras in the house and quarreled with the deceased and the next day morning, she was found dead. The burden that was shifted onto the appellant was not discharged., Accordingly, the appellant was convicted.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there are no eye witnesses to the incident. None of the witnesses stated that they have seen the appellant l l I 4 strangulating the deceased. Only on the ground that they heard a quarrel in between the appellant and the deceased, would not sufhce to infer that it was the appellant who committed the murder of the deceased It is admitted by the appellant during the tria-l that he 8. was staying along with the deceased. No suggestion was put to any of the witnesses stating that he was not living with the deceased, and it was also not suggested that the deceased committed suicide due to her Iinancial and health problems' g. The appellant was staying along with the deceased in her house. The neighbours heard the deceased and appellant quarrelling at around 1 I :OO p.m., on the night of the incident. PW.2, who is the son of the deceased, was also staying a-tong with the deceased in her house' His evidence is also clear that the appellant went home, quarreled with the deceased ald the next day morning, the deceased was found dead.

10. Thi:- Hon'ble Supreme Court in Trimukh Mq'roti Kirkan o. State of Maharashtral, held as follows: 11zooo1 ro scc oar 5 "Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case woutd undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantia_l evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively Iighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet alrd offering no explalation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation.,, 1 1 . The initial burden that is on the prosecution is discharged by presenting evidence that the appellant was in the house on the night of the incident and that he quarreled with the deceased. The next day morning, the deceased was found dead. It is not the case of the appellant, that after quarrelling with the deceased, the appellant either went away from the house or was not present, when the death occurred. Since, the appellant was residing in the house, the burden shifts onto him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 7g72. The burden can be discharged by way of preponderance of probability. As seen from the defense, his statei.nent is that the deceased committed suicide on account of finalcial 6 ,.1 difficulties. No evidence was found at the scene by the Investigating Officer, during the scene of offence panchanama, to suggest that the death was suicidal. No signs were found at the scene for this Court to infer that the death was suicidal.

72. There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge and the appeal fails.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. SD/. I NAGALAKSHMI DEPUW REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional sessions Judge, Nalgonda at suryapet (with Records'if any) 2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodad' 3. The Superintendent, District Jail, Nalgonda' 4. The Station House Officer, Kodad Town Police Station' Kodad' 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.[OUT]

6. One CC to Smt. Padmalatha Yadav, Legal Aid [OUT] 7. Two CD CoPies VTVPSL YY HIGH COURT DATED: 2510212025 s rA, $ )' 5 l,J 2 6 APa ?025 c * Otr SI,AICHgO i JUDGMENT CRLA.No.564 ot 2018 DISMISSING THE APPEAL \D ccrg("4 ft-. GId+'