Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI ARUN KUMAR DODLA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : SRI B. BALAJI The Court delivered the following Judgment: --t1;" THE H()NOIURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDETI, AND THE HOIIIOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPIU, C:RIMINAL APPEAL No.89O of 2078 JUDGMENTi (f\'r Hon'bte Sri Justice K.surender) This (lr m r ral Appeal is filed by the appellant. f de.facto complainan t, a.qerieved by the acquittal of accused I.Ios 1 and 2, uide Judgrneri dated 05.O1.2018 in S.C.No.773 of 2016, on the file cf the l(V Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga il,:ddy District, KrLk.ltl ri:.Ily, Miyapur, for the offences prrnisrhable under Secti,rns li()2, 2Ol, and 120-B of IpC.

2. Heard eiarrred counsel for the appellant/ dt,- 1'acto complainan r iLn:tl Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learnr:d Addi,_irnal Public Prosr:c rtol lor respondent No. 1 - State. peruse C the record.

3. The cz,sr: of the prosecution is that accused hlo. _ was married to Shrrrl< ivlusthaq Hussain (hereinafter referred tl as the deceasr:cl ) . F'rior to her marriage with th-e c ece,l ;ed, accused No 1 rn a rried one Srinivas Reddy on 26.r)G . . lt99 , and thereafr.er d u e to several differences, they were iving separately. \Vhilr accused No.1 was working as a .1ur:jo in the hospital, she Siot acquainted with the deceased zmd both I t 2 of them eloped and got married as per the Hindu Rites and Customs at Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupati. After their marriage, the deceased used to call accused No. 1 as Padmavathi, and two girls were born out of the wedlock. Thereafter, the deceased started suspecting the character of accused No.1. Accused No. 1 then came into contact with accused No.2, who was working as a driver in one of the vehicles owned by the deceased, and they started having physical intimacy, which was objected to by the deceased. Though the deceased admonished both accused Nos.1 and 2, however, they continued their illicit intimacy. According to the prosecution, on O2.O7.2O14, the deceased picked up a quarrel with accused No.2 on a money issue and further threatened that he could not move with accused No.1, and on O4.O7.2O 14, both accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted the deceased on his head and also kicked on his testicles, which resulted in death of the deceased. Thereafter., the family members of the deceased were informed about the death, and the body of the deceased was buried as per the Muslim rites. Both accused Nos.l and 2 started living as husband and wife. )

4. The fa rL: 1.r members of the deceased susPecl e 1 the d eath of the deceased to be homicidal and lo< l5,ed a complaint /Ex. r I on 24.09.2014, i.e., nearly 2 Yz tnonths after the cleirtl of the deceased. On 1L.I0.2074, the rrrrdy of the deceased i,. as exhumed and post-morter.l e:<arr ination was condrrcl e,l bv PW.7.

5. Acccrdin 3 to PW.7, he found the following n-ju ries on the dead trorlr, o I the deceased: - I ,\nte mortem Contusion of Scms r .Jcm^';. Pre:;ent, tn Left side ktwer anteior surfoce of .;cortent. Ct7 :u.t;{.ction reddi.slt blue discoloration present nnC utcr:;h it'-!t under u-tater it A not passed off. CctnttL:;ion o_r 1 x J cms present ot th"e root of penis reddLsl't ltlue c.tlor ct cut section. On washtng uith uater it is tl()t passer'. Ltff . Testes decomposed. :'. l nte mortem diffused hemoruhages pr?sen; on aIL t.'e, tlrc brain. It is sub-dural and sub orachnoid. Erabi. :issue under the hemonhages k soft grey in ctLc,u.r. ]lrain size is shrunken and reduced in size "

6. On tl.e trasis of the evidence of the posi-:n ortem examinaticr'. the death of the deceased was homicirl:'.l Both accused lr'or;. L :rnd 2 were arrested and incarcerate<1. l)uring the incarceral-ion, they confessed to the crime. Thr:ree.f1.er, on the basis o1 ttre evidence collected, a charge sheet was filed 4 against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, and 120-B ofIpC.

7. Learned Sessions Judge examined pWs. 1 to 12 and marked Exs.P1 to P15. In defence, Dr. p.Ranjith was examined as DW. 1. According to DW. 1, the deceased was suffering from hypertension, diabetes, and ailments of the kidney, liver, and gallbladder. He died of natural causes, and the death was not homicidal.

8. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Nos.1 and 2, havirrg found that no case is made out against them on the foliowing ground, that though pW.7 narrated about injuries being found, however, no injuries were found on the body of the deceased prior to the burial.

9. In the background of the evidence of DW. l, that the deceased was suffering from various ailments, it cannot be believed that the prosecution has proved that the death of the deceased was homicidal. The body of the deceased was exhumed three months after the death and the injuries noted by PW.7 appear doubtful. I i ; 5

10. PW.7, -rr his cross-examination, stated zrs fc'1lov''s "-h<: "lt ts iru.e the potice requested for a team o-f dot tor to c)noLict P.M.E- The requisition tuas giuen to 'hct hccLtl c f clepartment and our head of dep'rtm:nt mar rcc, \he requisttion to me to conduct P M'E stLid rt'rc tnent is not Jlled in the court' I did rct JLrul a;ty lte t1 injury on the scaLp. The decompo:;itior o-l' It tn ctrL l''odg depends on the atmosphere con<7itior" in thi,:h. \l'e bodg i-s buied. The decompositiott of the bod,1 .;trts immediateLg aJter death after aboLtt l2.ttohars. The demmposition or puifbatio t of the btd'1 stc..rts immediatetg after 12 hours and it k nct pcs;tb)e to saa the exact ti-me by uhich the eritire bcclq ae:ornpose in a situation uhere the de<td b':d'J i:. bur e'C It is not tnrc to suggest that utitl or;t histctrtrt\ologg report on examination of brain it is not possib e to sag about tlrc brain hemothage l haue sen.t th2 brain to histopathologg deparhnent to suppott mg findings. It i-s not tnte to suggest that ng r?p,)n:, ts not correct and I haue no report lron L is o|ltrhologA to support my findings lt is not tr"e 10 su(lge.:tl that it is not possible to see the contusiot on t\e d.ead bodg exhumed after three month's It A not t,ut., ta :;uggest that it is not possible to idenriJieci tle coku.r cn cut section mentioned in the antt moltem rontusic,n d.etails recorded in injury No'1' Itls not tt-LLe tc s;:lqqest that testi,s decomposes the scrtttem tlet ornpcses. It is true in the dead body after 48htu's qas ,ft'r'ns in the cells bodg decomposes and first <fect': L;n breast and scrotem on pennies are grcatly distend zcl. It i,s not true to suggest that the dectd bodg af Shaik Mustaq Hussain utos died and rnu mni'ied. It A possible that brain hernorrita<7e 6 L.uould occur due to high blood pressure in the brain but subdural hemorrhoge is not possible' It is not hue to suggest tlnt the dead bodg of Shaik Mustaq Hussain u.tas aduanced puificatbn lt is true the puification of the bod"g toould be more earlg on the ploces where the injuies are sustained' It is not true to suggest that the findings are recorded subsequentlg after getttng the F S L report' I haue send the report initiallg on O4 1O 2O14 and due to the u.trong mention of the dates I secured back the report Jrom the police and I cone-cted the dates and send bock without touching tlle report' lt is not true to suggest that I haue sent the report tuithout proper dbpatch date- I did not enquire about tLrc health condition of the deceased lt is true after deoth first the brain u,ould d-ecompose /t is not true to suggest that mA report is turong and biased "

11. The case is one of circumstantial evidence' In cases of Circumstantialevidence,theprosecutionhasthedutyto prove each and every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt. Though it is alleged by the prosecution that accused Nos.1 and 2 inad an illicit relationship, however' at no point of time prior to the death of the deceased was any complaint lodged or a panchayat held, which raises any arnount of doubt regarding the correctness of the prosecution version about the alleged illegal intimacy between accused Nos' 1 and 2. Further, it is accepted that DW' 1 was treating the 7 I deceased frrr sr:veral ailments, including problems w.th 1iver, gallbladder, ,:t,::

12. In case i of acquittal, the Hon'ble Suprente ()r>urt in Raui Sharm.t u. State (Gouernment of NCT oJ Del.hi) and. dnother, helcl that while dealing with an appezrl itgainst acquittal t he appellate court has to consider rvher-lLer the trial Cour:'..; view can be termed as a possit Lt one, particularLl' u hen evidence on record has beerr arLaly.;t:d. The reason is tt a.t an order of acquittal adds up to the presump:icn rr1 innocence in favour of the accusetl. Thrs. the appellate c our., has to be relatively slow in reverr.;i eg the order of the rrizil court rendering acquittal.

13. \n (lhure11 Lal u. State of Uttar Prad.eshl, th.e Flontrle Supreme 3o:rt, after referring to several Ju<lp;ments regarding t h,: settled principles of law and the pc,v'ers of appellate Clour: in reversing the order of acquilal, lLeld at para 70 as .ollows: ' 7C. In the light of the aboue, the HiglL C ourt ond otl,.er appellate Courts should follout the uett- :;etllec. principles crystallized bg nuntber of (2022) 8 Suprenr: Ci urt Cases 536 (2008) l0.SuJrene ( orrrt Cases 450 8 Judgments if it is, going to ouerntle or otheruti-se disturb the trial court's acquittal: 1- The appellate court maA onlg ouerntle or otheruise dkturb the trial court's acquittal if it has 'uery substontial and compelling reasons" for doing SO A number of instances arbe in tuhich the appettate court uou ld. haue "uery substantial and compelling recLsons" to di-scard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist uhen: i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts i,s palpably turong: ii) The trial court's deci.sion tuas bo-secl on ctn errorleous uieu.t of lau.t; iii) The trial court's judgment is likelg to result in "graue miscarriage of justbe"; iu) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the euidence uas patentlg illegal; u) The triol court's judgment was manifestlg unjust and unre as o nable ; ui) The tial court has ignored the euidence or misread the material euidence or has ignored mateial documents tike dging declaratinns/ repoft of the balli.stic expert, etc. uii) TLLis li,st is intended to be illustratiue, not exhoustiue - 2- The appeLlate court must alwags giue proper u-teight and cotlsideration o the findings of the trial court.

3. If tu.to reasonabLe uieLus can be reached- one that leads to acquittal, the other fn conuiction High Courts/ appellate courts must ntle in -the fouour of the accused." 9

14. Thr, le;r-ned counsel for the appellat't f cie facto complain arrt ras failed to make out a ny c,o rr pelling circumst lr: crl s or reasons for this Court to interfer': with the judgmen: ,:rf a :quittal. Uniess such compelling rear'rc'ns are shown, t.-re O,lrrt, while deciding an appeal against ac,luittal, cannot rrllt o't the fact that circumstances may 5;ive r se to a second 'zit u,. that there is a possibility of the accused committin5; I r: crime. Even in cases where two vrews are possible, :ht view adopted by the trial Judgr , when reasonaLle, cannot be interfered with in an apueal lgainst acquittai nLer:ly because a second view is also possiL,lt:.

15. Ac<:ordi:.r131y, this appeal fails and stands dis;m.is,sed Mis;cr:lla r-,eous Petitions pending, if anv, sha Il sLartd closed. //TRUE COPY// j 1 ST}/. N. SRIHARI UTY REGISTRAR D EP r$EC1 lON OFFICER To, l. The XV Ald tio,ral sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District' (ukzrtpally' tt, Ivliyapur.

2. The lX lVletropoltan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally Ran ler Reddy District.

3. The Statirtn Ho L:;e Officer , Miyapur Police Station, Ranga Red'1rr District 4. Two CCs to Ad Jitional Public Prosecutor, High Court ror ttre Slale of Telangan : at l-lY,Jerabad. (OUT)

5. One CC tr Stt HARINADH NIDAIMANURI' Advocate [Ot']UC 6. Two CD Oopier, M/ kul/gh HIGH COURT DATED:15/04/20 25 JUDGMENT CRL.APPEAL No.39( r>f 2018 -E== {l \ir I t. q t( C) O 'f r:) 1q l\2025 ? t:;) :7: DISMISSING'TT{T. ( RI .APPEAL. )1 ?b 1?