The High Court · 2025

State of Telengana, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP., Hyderabad RESPODENT/ Complainant Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. P. PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court delivered the following Judgment: ; I I i I I i I l HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.ST'RENDER .nd HON'BLE SRI JuSTICE ANIL KT'MAR JI'I{ANTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.575 OF 2018 JIIDGMENT: 1. The appellant was convicted for causing grievous head injuries to his wife resulting in her death, and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment vide judgment in S.C.No-377 of 2OL6, dated L2.O2.2OL8, passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that a complaint was filed on 20.06.2015, at 3.35 p.m, by P.w. 1. P.W. 1 is the colleague of the appellant. He stated in the complaint that the appellant was married to the deceased, namely Vijayalakshmi' They had two children. At the time of incident, the daughter was 5 years old and son was 3 years old. On 20.06.2015, P.W. 1, appellant, and others went to Kondapur for Swatch Bharath Programme. Around 10.30 a.m, the appellant informed his friends that his wife was frequently quarrelling with him, ald last night, he had beaten her. P.W. 1, then took phone number of the deceased and called her. The deceased comptained that the appellant was beating her unnecessarily. Again ) around 1.40 p.m, on the same day, tlre appellant called P.W. I and informed that the deceased complained about the appellant to their Commandant. P.w. 1 and others went to the house of appellant and found that the deceased was lying on the bed with bleeding injuries on her body. The' appellant was not found and immediately, information was given to the unit Doctor/P.W.6. She examined her and directed for the deceased to be taken to Apollo Hospital. After they went to Apollo Hospital, deceased was declared as brought dead. On the basis of the complaint given by P.W. 1, crime was registered by P.W.22. The investigation was handed over to P.W.23. P.W.23 then went to the house of the appellant and prepared scene of offence panchanama. The deceased's body was not in the house. Having come to know about the deceased being shifted to Apollo Hospital, P.w.23 went to the hospital and examined P.W. 14/Doctor. P.W. 14 stated that the deceased was brought dead and gave certificate to that effect. Thereafter, the deceased's body was shifted to Osmania Genera-l Hospital mortuarJr. There, the inquest panchanama was conducted. Thereafter, P.W.8 conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased. According to P.W.8, the death was on account of head injury. 3

3. P.W. l/complainant, p.W .2 / daughter of the deceased, p.W.3, is a colleague police constable of the appellant, p.Ws.4 and 5, the wives of police constables working along with the appellant, have all turned hostile to the prosecution case, and stated that they do not know about the reason of the death of the deceased. All of t].em have stated that both the appetlant and the deceased were living happily.

4. P.W.6 is the Doctor, who examined the deceased. on 20.06.2015, at 11'oo a.m, when the deceased went to the hospital. According to P.w.6, the deceased informed that she was beaten up by her husband/appellant. p.W.6 gave injection and also some tablets. P.w.6 further stated that during lunch hour, around 1.00 p'm to 2.oo p'm, one Sub-Inspector of porice called her and informed that tl.e deceased was lying on the bed with bleeding injuries. P.w.6 went to the house of the appellant and courd not feer the pulse of the deceased. p.w.6 advised that the deceased had to be shifted to Apollo Hospital. p.W. 14, who is the Doctor at Apollo Hospital, examined the deceased at 3.OO p.m on 2O.O6.2OLS. According to P.W. 14, she found injuries, which are, lacerated injury I I I I I i 4 over left perieto occipital region bone deep, contusions over left zygomatic, lateral aspect of right upper arm, and lateral aspect left arm, and bluish over left side of neck with mark resembling strangulation mark. According to.p.W.14, t,.e patient was totally unconscious and on examination, she was declared dead. Ex.p2o_ 'brought dead, certilicate was given by p.W. 14. 5' P'w'g is the father of the deceased. He stated that he found a head injury on the deceased, during inquest proceed.ings. According to P.W.9, he came to know that the deceased died on account of falling from steps' p'w' 1o is the mother of the deceased. she stated that she did not observe any injuries on the deceased,s dead body. However, p.W. lO stated that p.W. ll/brother of the deceased, informed that the deceased was beaten up by the appellant. p.W. 11 stated that he found a head injury on the body of the deceased and he came to know that she died on account of falling, while getting down the steps

6. P.Ws.12 and 13, scene of offence panchas, turned hostile to the prosecution case. p.W. 15 is the inquest panch. p.W. 16 is the Sub-Inspector of porice, who colrected brood stains from the bed / /i / ,i 5 room wall. P.W. 17 is the inquest Tahsildar, who conducted inquest, and examined witnesses including p.Ws.9 to 11. p.Ws.1g, 19,20, and,27 are the neighbors of the appellants. All of them have turned hostile to the prosecution case and did not state anything against the appellant.p.w.22 registered the FIR on the basis of the complaint grven by P.W.f . p.W.23 is the Investigating OfEcer.

7. l,earned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant mainly re\ring on the evidence of P-ws.6 and 14, the Doctors who stated about examining the deceased with injuries. p.w.6 stated that it was the deceased who informed her about being beaten by her husband. Ex'P2o is the certif,rcate issued by p.w. 14. In Ex.pl9lMedico Legar Case Register, P.W. 14 has given history of assault by the husband of the deceased. P.W.14 found bruises and wounds on the body of the deceased. According to p.W. 14, the cause of death was head lnJury.

8. According to P.W. 14, the deceased was totally unconscious when she was examined, and one neighbor, namely Rajeshwar, had brought the deceased to the hospital and informecl about the appellant beating the deceased. However, the said neighbor 6 Rajeshwar, who is a Constable, was not examined. The evidence of P.W. 14, that the deceased was beaten by husband/appellant, is hearsay. The history written in Ex.P19 cannot be taken into consideration since information was not given by t.lle deceased, but by a Rajeshwar, Head Constable, who was not examined.

9. The only reliable evidence is that of P.W.6. According to her, on 20.06.2015, at 11.00 a.m, the deceased came to their Unit Hospital and informed her that she was beaten by her husband with a stick. Other than the evidence of P.W.6, there is no corroborating evidence to suggest that it was the appellant who had caused injuries to the deceased. Only the evidence of P.W.6 cannot form basis to infer that the appellant had inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased. According to P.W.6, she did not give any certificate of injuries, nor narrated about any injuries found on the body of the deceased. In the absence of such description of injuries by P.W.6, it cannot be assumed, on the basis of the evidence of P.W.14, and P.W.6, that the injuries were inflicted by the appellant. In view of the above discussion, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant. 7

10. The appellant succeeds in the present appeal and the t,/ conviction recorded by the trial Court against the appellant in S.C.No.377 of 2016 dated, 12.O2.2OL8, is hereby set aside. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.

11. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed. Miscellaneous, applications, if any, pending, shall stand closed. 1 \ //TRUE COPY// SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAO OINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad. (with records) 2 The XVll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad 3 The Station House Officer, Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad 4. The Superintendent, Chanchalguda Prison, Hyderabad. 5- Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT) 6 One CC to SRl. P. PRABHAKAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 7 Two CD Copies kul l'\lw ,. ,., l..i [ -.. \. '/ \ ?t A RP 2 Z\ ,Ji HIGH COURT DATED:2710212025 JUDGMENT CRIMINAL APPEAL No.575 of 2018 ALLOWING THE CRL.APPEAL "*6