The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri D' Bhaskar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMI NAL APPEA LNo .7o4 0F 2018 JUDGMENT : (per Hon,ble Si Justice K. Surender) This Criminal Appeal is filed questioning the judgment 1n S.C.No.221 of 2Ot6 d,ated29.\2.2OIZ passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 2 . Brief facts of the case are that the accused/ appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence of murdering his wife (cleceased) at Kachiguda railway station. The incident happened on 07.06.2014 . According to the prosecution case, the husband of the deceased used to harass her and frequently quarrel with her. On the date of the incident, the appellant, who served as a police constable, was removed from service because of his involvement in several criminal cases. He started suspecting the character of the deceased and quarreled with her. Due to the frequent quarrels, both the appellant and deceased started staying separately. The deceased was staying in Anjani Women,s Hostel and was attending her duties as a bus cond.uctor at Kachiguda RTCBusDepot.On0l.06.2014,itisallegedthattheappellant called the d,eceased' on phone' and asked her to continue living with him as his wife' Since the deceased refused' the appellant 2 carried a knife and waited in front of Anjani Women's Hostel where the deceased was staying. At about 1:O0 PM, while the deceased came out of the hostel and was proceeding towards Kachiguda RTC terminal on foot, the accused followed her. When she reached the Government Junior College, Kachiguda, the accused beat the deceased with his hands. People on the road tried to pacify him; however, the appellant did not heed their advice. When the deceased reached the Commuter Amenity Center at 1:15 P.M., he took a knife and stabbed her indiscriminately on her throat, chest, hands, and other parts of her body. The deceased fell on the road, and she was shifted to CC Shroff hospital for treatment. She died in the hospital. PW- 1/complainant, who is an eye-witness to the incident, lodged a complaint with the police. The said complaint was registered as FIR No. 187 of 2014. The Investigating Officer went to the hospital, and conducted the inquest. Thereafter, the postmortem was done by Pw-l7/the doctor, who found 29 injuries on the deceased's body. The cause of death is due to multiple stab wounds and cut injuries to chest and upper limbs.

3. During the course of trial, PW-1, the complainant, turned hostile to the prosecution case. He stated that he came to know about the death of the deceased around 1:30 PM, and when he went there, he saw the deceased lying on the road with injuries' 3 Further, he did not find the asylum. PWs-2, 3, and 4 are the drivers, and all three of them also turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW-5 is the traffic inspector in the Kachiguda RTC depot. According to him, he came to know about the death of the deceased. PW- 1 informed him that the deceased was stabbed by her husband. The evidence of PW-S is of no help to the prosecution since the information about the appellant causing injuries to the deceased was stated to him by PW- 1. However, Pw- 1 did not support the case of the prosecution Evidence of PW 5 is hearsay. PW-6 is the panch for the scene of offence who turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW-7 is the panch witness for the inquest panchanama conducted by the police in the mortuary at Osmania General Hospital. PW-8 is the independent witness who was asked by the police to act as a panch for the seizure of the knife and blood-stained clothes of the appellant. PW-8, who is the witness for the confession, turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW-9 is the security guard at Kachiguda bus stand, and he denied witnessing the incident.

4. PW-10 is the Scientific Officer in the Clues team, Hyderabad. Having received instructions from PW- 18-Investing Officer, PW- 10 went to the scene of offence and collected the bloodstains, normal saline, and bloodstained broken bangle pieces from the scene.

5. PW-ll is the relative of the deceased who turned hostile to 4 the prosecution case.

6. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PW- 12 According to PW-12, while he was ironing clothes, the appellant and the deceased quarreled on the road, and he saw the appellant beating her. PW-12 tried to intervene, but the appellant asked him to stay away, stating that it was their personal matter Thereafter, the appellant took the deceased to the Kachiguda railway station. One hour later, PW-12 came to know about the murder of the deceased.

7. PW-I2, during his course of examination, admitted that he was a stranger to the appellant and the deceased. He further admitted that he had seen the appellant for the first time on the day of the incident. PW-12 also admitted that he did not state before the poiice that he saw the deceased and the appellant beating one another. Further, the police did not take any steps to conduct a test identification parade since PW-L2 was a stranger to the appellant. His identihcation nearly 3Yz years after the incident cannot be accepted. It is not as though PW12 witnessed the stabbing incident to remember the person who stabbed the deceased. According to the witness, he saw the appellant beating the deceased. However, the said version was an improvement made during the course of trial. No reliance can be placed on the 5 evidence of PW-12.

8. PW-13 worked as a Manager at Kachiguda bus depot. He is the witness who stated that the deceased had informed him that the appellant was beating her, suspecting that she was having an affair. However, the evidence of PW- 13 is of no help to the prosecution. Though the deceased had earlier informed PW- 13 about the harassment, however, in the present facts, where all the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, his version cannot be treated as corroboration to the allegation of murder committed by the appellant.

9. PW-15 is the witness to the seizure of the blood-stained T- shirt and pants at the instance of the appellant. Though the material objects were found at the scene and sent to the FSL, along with the wearing apparei and the knife, the prosecution failed to file any FSL report. No reasons are given as to why the Investigating Oflicer failed to submit the FSL report despite sending the material objects for testing. An adverse inference has been drawn against the prosecution for not placing on record any scientific evidence, i.e., an FSL report, to support the case.

10. Learned trial Judge placed reliance on the evidence of PW- 12 arrd PW- 13 to record the conviction. However, as already 6 discussed, the evidence of PW- 12 to establish the presence of the appellant on the date of the incident or to claim that he quarreled with the deceased cannot be believed. Further, almost all witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported even the actua-l occurrence as narrated in the case. Their statements have not been substantiated by material evidence. Even if some piece of evidence is carved out from the hostile witnesses' versions, the case still lacks corroboration. Therefore, in the absence of substantive and reliable evidence, no order of conviction can be passed.

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal IS allowed, and the conviction and sentence irlposed against the appellant 1n S.C.No.221 of 2016 dated 29.12.2017, passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad are hereby set aside, and the appeilant/accused is acquitted for the offences for which he was convicted

72. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad 2. The lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chanchalguda' Hyderabad. 4. The Station House Officer, Kachiguda Police Station, Hyderabad' 5. Two CCs to the Publii Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

6. One CC to Sri D. Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies VTYDLw HIGH COURT DATED: 1310312025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.704 of 2018 i-i-l -/r ". 30 APS ?[5 l',' ,.J t) \ -1.-. \-), i.. ^,' '\*1 ats --\= a) .r i ALLOWING THE APPEAL \p *({"b &"