High Court · 2025

: Sri K.PradeeP ReddY : Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court made the following : JUDGMENT ,I'HIJ) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND TIIE II C}NOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VE,N,U'GI:)PAL aRIMINAL APPEAL No.310 of 2O2O JUDGM.EI.I'I: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surencler ) 'l'his (r'irninal Appeal is llled by the appeil:rn /accused, aggrievr.,C lr., rhe judgment dated O4.O2.2O2O ir-r S.C No.449 of 2017, c',t ,l r file of the VI Additional District anc Sessions Judge, Gorl rveLrikhani, whereby the appellillt 7. a t:c -r secl was convicte r1 f r the offences punishable under Secr ionr; 3O2 and 498-4 o. thrr ItLc]ian penal Code (for short,lpC,l.

2. Hertrr lezrrned counsel for the appellantT ar:c rsed and sri Arur Krrr rar Dodla, learned Additional pubric: -,ros:cutor for responcl,rn 1 S tELte. perused the record.

3. The: , rrLplaint in the present case wa i Ir clged on 19.06.2L 17 ry pW. 1, who is the mother oi \ Adila_xmi (hereinaller ':ft:rred to as ,the deceased,). TlLe c el:e,tsed was partiallr,. l-r,rr'.: rc:rpped and married to appellant he r,:ir. prior to the marrias., of the deceased and the appellar_r ., she was divorcecl. 1l ,_ r1pp.11rrrt was working as conducttu_ir TSRTC_ Godavaril.:h.a r i Depot. The marriage was 1>erlbr red on 1 1. 1 1.20 16 ,r th a condition that a sum of Rs.3.OO,0 l0 /_ has to 2 be deposited in the name of the deceased, since it was the second marriage for both of them. On 16.06.2017, pW. 1 received information that the appellant was beating the deceased. Both pWs.1 and 4 went to the house of the appellant. The deceased was seen with injuries all over her body. pW. 1 then requested the appellant to take her to the hospital. The deceased was taken to Srinivas Hospital, IB Colony, Godavarikhani, for treatment. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the house of pWs. I and 4, and on 19.06.2017, she died. On the same day, at around 09.00 p.M., a complaint was lodged with Jammikunta police. In the complaint, pW. 1 narrated about the harassment made by the appellant and also that he had beaten the deceased, and thereafter the deceased was brought to their house.

4. Having registered the complaint, investigation was taken up by PW. I 4 / Investigating Officer. The police went to the and conducted inquest on the dead body of the hospital The dead body was then sent for post_mortem examination. The Doctor, who conducted the post_mortem, found the following external injuries: deceased Contusions ouer left neck and. submentol region which extended left shoulder and, upper back. "r:'f*;.'' 3 H r: a.s I found the following internal injttrie:' F t c,r' ",'.: ,f suruical uertebra and kt :-te hont " ; r'tna in the neck uhich is surrountTtrtg the extend-ing to left shouLtl er a'; d r eci. , tl: tch. is t.,t1;r'r Itack. 5 PW, L'1 r,n the ground of jurisdiction' seFt tlre CD Iile to Godavaril<halr I Town Police Station . After re-regr st rrrti' rn of the Police/PW. 5 s:zrrtt:d the complaint/E:< I'13, InsPector investiga'. rot- PW. 1 5 examined the witnesses eLr cl t lcreafter on 11.08.2017. PW 15i r:onchtcled the .l.c :s under arrested tllt :PPellant charge-sheet for the crfl'e investigatior and flled a Sections .1,.)t: r. and 3O2 of IPC.

6. Th: lt a:L'red Sessions Judge' having fra:nt:d :hrr charges for the sralcl rlfcnces, examined PWs'l to 15 on behrlf of the proseculiot' r'r<1 marked Ex Pl to P13' In deletr< e' I)\V 1 was examinecl. '.r"tl is a neighbor in Prashanth Nagar (Jolo:ry' where the decetist',-l and. the appellant lived' In tb t: :xamination of DW' 1 , it is stal ec' tllar she was 7 . acquainte(l ','ith both the deceased and the irpor:1 ar t and the deceasecl r t'lrer complained about any kind of tr:: ra ;sment at the harLds r f the appeilant. She further state'l t ha I 10 days 4 prior to the death of the deceased, pWs.1 and 4, who parents of the deceased, took the deceased to their house.

8. The learned Sessions Judge found favour with the version of the prosecution that the deceased received injuries at the hands of the appellant, resuiting in her death subsequently. For the reason of the injuries being a direct result of the death of the deceased, conviction was recorded for murder under Section 302 of IPC

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the entire version projected by pWs.1 and 4 is a fabricated version. According to DW. 1, the deceased and the appellant were living in harmony and there were never any disputes between them. Further DW.1 also stated that 10 days prior to the death of the deceased, pWs.1 and 4 had taken the deceased to their house. pW. 1, in fact, admitted that the appellant visited their house twice to enquire about the health of the deceased which in itself reflects the falsity of the version of the prosecution that the appellant beat the deceased. Learned counsel further submits that the death was on account of Cardio Vascular attack, which cannot be denied. There are no eye-witnesses to state that the appellant had beaten the t? 5 deceasecl ,r ihc deceased was examined prior to h:r death' Tl-rere is zt d:r.r.r of 10 days in lodging the complalnt

10. OrL tl:: other hand, the learned Adcli"ionrLl Public Prosecul rtt- rl tuld submit that the injuries wete rt:ceir ed in the house c 1 r r, eLppellant. The burden is on the i4ryeliant to explain .:.s t how the deceased received the irrjtLrLes, and since the deattr v :r ; a direct consequence of the injurrt:s, :Lc --ording to the Doctor 'r \\/ 13, the conviction imposed unde- Se:l-ion 302 of IPC is F,r-',l,cr. 1 1 . It is r rr t in dispute that the marriage of th': a lp'-'11ant and the de<r,:as, t uras performed on 1 1.1 1.2O 16, arn'1 fu rther, the decease:l r. :r; living in the house of the appellant T.rough the complairtl ,r'rs hled after the death of the decr:asr-'d however, the fact -('r r rrTrs that the injuries were received llr' '.ht deceased when strt' , rrs in the house of the appellein--. 11. s for the appellant ', explain under what circumstan,:e s, his wife receivec in t ries when she was in the house. ,\ lltaterrent made b-v D\.1'.I t .i r LO days prior to the incident, the dec':ased was taken tr.y " \ :;. 1 and 4, or the admission of I'V/.I that the appellant r:: ited their house to enquire about tl:rt: Ce,;eased, by 6 itself would not indicate that it was not the appellant who had inflicted the injuries on the deceased.

12. As seen from the evidence of pW. 1, there were external injuries, which are contusions on the left neck and submental region extending to the left shoulder and upper back, according to the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination. It is apparent that the said injuries, as mentioned in the post_ mortem examination, are the result of physical assault.

13. The Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination did not speak about the death being a direct consequence of injuries that were seen on the neck of the deceased. The death happened nearly 3 days after the deceased was taken to the house of PWs.l and 4. pWs.l and 4 went to the house of the appellant after they received a phone call from the deceased. In fact, the deceased was taken to the hospital by the appellant. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the house of pWs.1 and 4

74. In the said background, when it was not conclusively stated that ihe contusion on the neck was the cause of the death, the question of convicting the appellant under Section 3O2 of IPC does not arise. For causing injuries on the neck, 7 which at rr l1r ('voLts in nature, the appeliant i:; I at'le to be convictec u:-i er Section 325 of IPC. Further lht: irrjuries that were cattserl lrr the appellant are not with arl int'rntion of causing th e l,.::Lth of the deceased. However. the a1.1e of the injuries zir{) Il )t rnentioned, and how and when th.e szrirl injuries were causie( i; also not known. Under these circtLr:l:;tances, the convictiorr r-rr orded under Section 302 of IPC is set a;ide The appellar-r is t -.nvicted under Section 325 of IPC anrl sentenced to under:o ; it orous imprisonment of five (5) yerrrs;

15. Acr:orrlr rg1y, the Criminal Appeal is partly rllo''vt:d. It is rnformed tl:r: the appellant is in jail and since 'he appellant has alreadv L Lrrlergone the sentenced imprisonrrt:r-t lf five (5) years, hr: slr ll i.re set at liberty forthwith, if he : s rtol required in any otlr cirses. The fine amount paid, ii z r:v, sha11 be returned. Mirce Lrnoous Petitions pending, if any, ';1-r,ill stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- l. N/\GA LAKSHMI . JOINT REGISTRAR I 'vsE:cTloN oFFlcER To, N- Records. f ar-r' )

1. The Vl Arlditjo ral District and Sessions Judge at Godav;rriktrari (With z in"trp.,ri*trident, Central Jail' CherlapallY.SR'Distri':t ; ;;; ci Lr [:ir K Pradeep Reddy' Advocate tglu-C-f 4. Two CCs to I'l r: Public dr-otltuior-' High court for the st'rt? cf lelangana' 5. Two CD OoP'rr s Hyderab rd [1:) ']Tl SVS/gh HIGH COURI' DATED:10t0G12025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.31ll of 2020 t' c irir: o q E ltl',l M a + .a) ,.-iJ \ii:: PARTLY ALI. OWING THE CRLA 01: \7 r-\