The High Court · 2025

The State Telangana through Sub Divisional Police Officer, Jagtial (in Cr.No 26 of 2015 of P.S Gollapalli), Rep. by its P P High Court aI Hyderabad. ...Co m pla ina nURes ponde nt Counsel for the Appellant: Sri G. Jaya Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following; JUDGMENT 7 I THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.715 OF 2OLV JUDGMENTi, @er Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) 1. This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated

05.06.2017 in S.C.No.14O of 2016, on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 3O2 and 304-8 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent- State. 3- The case of the prosecution is that the appellant murdered deceased Mamatha/wife of appellalt for additional dowry, which was within 7 years of deceased marriage with appellant. On 29.04.2015 at 12:15 hours, one Gurram Chinna Shankaraiah/P.W. 1 lodged complaint with Gollapalli Police stating that he is a resident of Govindupalli village and had two daughters namely Mamatha and Manjula. In the year, 2O7O, his elder daughter's marriage was solemnized with the appellant and at the time of marriage, he gave 2 Rs.7,50,000/- as dowry. For four years, his daughter lived happity and was also blessed with one son and one daughter' For the last two years, the appellant started harassing his daughter demanding for additional dowry. For the said reason, P.W.l brought his daughter to his house six months prior to her death. He further stated that one month prior to her death, his daughter started visiting Jagitial for the purpose of training in stitching. Due to continuous harassment of appellant for additional dowry, his daughter lodged a complaint with Dharmapuri Police Station on 28.04.2075. Keeping the same in mind, the accused attacked his daughter while she along with his 2nd wife/Gurram Laxmi/P.W.9 were at Govindupalli bus stop' The appellant hacked his daughter at the bus stop using a knife which was witnessed by his 2"a wife (P.W.9), who was at a distalce of 1OO yards, Myaka Bhumaiah (P.W.4), Nallala Sagar (P.W.S) and requested to initiate action.

4. The Inspector of Police/P.W.16 received the complaint Ex,P. 1 at 12:15 p.m. Immediately, the complaint was sent to concerned Magistrate. Ex.P.2O is the FIR. The complaint reached the concerned Magistrate aL 7:3O p.m. on the same day. Scene of offence panchnama was conducted by P'W'16 -l and also concluded inquest proceedings. The body was then shifted to Government Hospital for autopsy. P'V/' 15 conducted autopsy and found the following injuries:- 1 . A laceration on the left cheek measuring about .5cmxlcmxlcm.

2. A laceralion on the left side of neck measuring about Bcmx2cmx4cm.

3. A laceration on the left side of the neck measuring 6cmx3cmx3cm.

4. A laceration on the left side of the neck back portion exposing cervical shine measuring about 8cmx7cmxScm."

5. Learned Sessions Judge mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.9 who is the 2na wife of P.W. 1 and step mother of the deceased. P.W.9 narrated the disputes in between the deceased and the appellant. P.W.9 further stated that on the date of incident, she was waiting at Govindupalli bus stand and the deceased was at a distance of 1OO yards. The appellant went there on a motor cycle and hacked the deceased with butcher knife and fled. When the incident happened P.Ws.4 and 5 were also present at the bus stand. I l 4

6. The complaint was lodged by P.W. 1 at 12:15 p.m- though the incident had taken place at 9:30 a.m. In the complaint, P.W. 1 stated that P.W.9 namely Gurram Laxmi and his deceased daughter were at the bus stand to go for attending stitching tuitions in Jagtial. P.W.9 did not speak about taking stitching tuitions, however stated that she was present at the bus stand 1OO yards from the deceased-

7. Inquest was conducted at the bus stand by P.W. 16. In the inquest, the name of P.W.9 is not mentioned, however, name of P.W.4 is shown as eye witness to the incident. The inquest proceedings started at 2 p.m. and concluded at 4:30 p.m.

8. The complaint reached the Court at 7:3O p.m. From the time of incident till complaint reached the Court, the time gap is about 1O hours. g. The name of P.W.9 was mentioned in the complaint, however, the reason why she was not present during inquest proceedings is not explained by the prosecution. If at all, P.W.9 was present at the bus stand and informed P.W. 1 about the incident, she would have been present during 5 inquest proceedings. However, name of mother of the deceased namely Lachawa was mentioned in the inquest. 1O: P.W.4/eye-witness was declared as hostile to the prosecution case and also P.W.S. Both of them did not support the prosecution version. P.W.s stated that his signatures were taken on some papers by the Police. I 1. The only evidence left, is the evidence of P.W.9. As already discussed, her name was not mentioned in the inquest proceedings which took place around 2 p.m. On the said day, complaint reached the Court at7:3O p.m. It is clear that after the inquest proceedings, the name of P.W.9 was mentioned in the complaint. In the background of delay in lodging the complaint and complaint reaching the Magistrate at 7:30p.m., without any explalation for delay by the Police , , and the presence of P.W.9 whose name was not mentioned in I ! the inquest proceedings, creates doubt about her presence at the scene. No reason is given as to why P.W.9 was at a distance of 100 yards from the deceased, when both of them were going to attend the very same stitching tuitions. None were examined to show that the deceased and P.W.9 were 6 attending tuitions. As already stated, P.W.9 did not state about her attending any tuitions.

12. Once the evidence of P.W.g is eschewed from consideration, there is no other evidence apart from the alleged seizure of M.Os.6 to 1 l. For the reasons best known to the prosecution, neither M.O.6/knife nor M.Os.9 to 14, wearing apparel of the accused were sent to FSL for examination.

13. For the reason of presence of P.W.9 being doubtful and there being no other evidence apart from the evidence of P.W.9, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant.

14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO N REGISTRAR J ION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial (with records' if any)

2. The ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class' Jagtial' 3. The Superintendent, District Jail' Karimnagar' 4.TheStationHouseOfficer,GollapalliPolicestation'Jagtial 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. One CC to Sri G. Jaya Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies I HIGH COURT DATED:09101!2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.715 of 2017 1 HE SI4 ,€r ( () 14 tiB 2M * 1 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL \r) iK,