The High Court · 2025

Counsel forthe Appellant: Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, Legal Aid Counsel for the Respondent: S.ri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUG()PAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.925 OF 2olft JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Si Justice K.SYrender) The appellant, having been aggrieved by the conviction dated 05. lO.2OI7 recorded by the learned 1 Additiona-l Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar in SC No.237 of 12016 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 4!'B-A of IPC, filed the present criminal appeal.

2. Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned lega1 aid counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Doc.1a, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ S tate.

3. The appellant is the husband of the de ceased, vtz Kalduri Indiramma. Their marriage was perforrr ed 11 years prior to the death of the deceased. They were lrlessed with one daughter ald one son. According to the prosecution case, the appellant suspected the character of tlLe deceased, that she was having an a-ffair with someone, arrd harassed her. The appellant used to beat her indiscrimin,rtely for the : j I : l ; I ' said reason. A panchayat was held in the presence of the elders to console the appellant, ald he was asked to take care of the deceased and to live together. However, the appellant continued to harass the deceased.

4. On i9.10.2015, at about 09.00 PM, the deceased returned home, and the appellant picked up a quarrel with her for coming late and also abused her for having relationship with someone else. The appellant beat her with a stick, thereby causing a fracture to her right leg, and when she fell down, the appellant allegedly strangulated her, resulting in her death.

5. A complaint was hled by PWl/brother of the deceased. He narrated that the deceased was being harassed by the appellant, since the appellant suspected the deceased of having relationship with someone else. The appellant used to beat her severely. On 20.10.2015 at about 09.30 AM' he received information that the deceased died. Immediately, he rushed to the house of the appellant and found the deceased dead. According to PWl, he was informed by both the children of the appellant that the appellant had beaten the deceased and strangulated her' On the sdd basis' Ex.P1/report was held bY PW1.

6. PW2 is the paternal aunt of the deceased' PW3 is the younger sister of the d eceased. PW4 is a 'rela tive of the deceased. They all spoke about the differences t'etween the deceased and the appellant' Further, they also spoke about the appellant harassing the deceased and beating lrer severely on several occasions, suspecting her character'

7. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of l'>Ws'S' 6' 7' and B, who are circumstantial witnesses, who spoke about the presence of the appellant in the house and beating the deceased in their 161 Cr.P.C. statement to police ' However' PWs.5 to 8 turned. hostile to the prosecution case' PW9 is the scene of offence panch, who turned hostile' F'W1O is the inquest palch and stated that, during the inqrest, it was informed that the appellant had beaten the deceased with a stick, resulting in her death. The said beat'ng was on account of the suspicion that the appellant enterl ained about the character of the deceased.

8. PWll is an elder person in the locality. PWll also narrated the differences between the deceased and the appellant, and that the appellant was continuously harassing the deceased. PW12 is the confession and seizure panch, and stated about the recovery of MOl /stick at the instance of the appellant. PW13 is the scene of offence panch, and he turned hostile. PWl4/doctor found the following injuries on the body of the deceased : 1) Fracture of the right limb at hip region. 2) Fracture of the Hyoid bone. 3) Finger marks seen around the neck. 4) Abrasion on the left foot with a measurement of 2x1cms. 5) Abrasion on the right cheek with a measurement of 3x1 cms. 6) Abrasion of the left side of the chest with a measurement of lx1 cms. Evidence of PW 14 further shows that, upon internal examination, he found a facture of Hyoid bone on the right side of the neck. According to PW14, the death was on account of multiple injuries on the body ald asphyxial death on account of manual strangulation. w .a

9. PW15 is the Investigating Officer, and he rrpeaks about conducting the investigation right from r:ceiving the complaint to the arrest of the appellant.

10. The conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is only on the basis of circumstantial evidence of PWs.1 to 4 who spoke about the harass:lent of the deceased by the appellant, suspecting her character 11 The learned counsel for the app r:llant would submit that though PWs.l to 4 have stated about the a-lleged harassment, horvever, there are no witnesses to substantiate the alleged incident of the appe llant beating the deceased. Though the children of the appellant were examined during the investigation, they were not examined during the trial- There is no last seen evidencre, and in the absence of any proof that the appellant was in the house on the date of the incident, convicting the r tppellant for causing injuries to the deceased does not arise

12. The learned Public Prosecutor, on thr: other hand, submits that since the appellant is the husband, it is for him to explain under what circumstances l.he deceased Pagc 6 died. In the absence of any such explanation, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the deceased died due to the harassment meted out by appellant/husband, the deceased died.

13. PWs. 1 to 4 and 11 have spoken about the differences between the deceased and the appellalt. They have consistently stated that the appellant treated the deceased cruelly by beating her, suspecting that she was living an adulterous 1ife. However, the prosecution has not produced a single witness to substantiate that the appellant i was in the house when the death took place. 14 . To invoke Section 106 of Evidence Act and shift the burden onto the appellant, the initial burden rests on the prosecution to lay the foundation to draw such a presumption. It is for the prosecution to prove that the appellant was present in the house when the incident took place. In the absence of any such evidence, the question of shifting the burden to the accused with the aid of Section 106 of Evidence Act does not arise.

15. Though the prosecution failed to provr: the offence of murder, however, there is consistent eviden ce regarding the harassment meted out by the appellant to tee deceased. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 302 of IPC is set aside, while maintaining the conviction under Section 498- A of IPC.

16. In the result, the appeal is partly all,rwed setting aside the conviction imposed against the appt llant for the offence punishable under Section 3O2 of IPC, while maintaining the conviction against him for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. sd/.K ?$+HYti&ElR /, ,,TRUE COPY" secrro,rl?rrrcen ro'1. ' rh" 1., Additionar ,""r'.::"?"#,i"T'X'1f,:"^i?#['"(5o:n:l:tt;:]"J': Court for trial .ot- il","n,ouunun,tll:)},ffi",'H,Jriilrf.Tt;IH,,X.:[fl ,'"':i?il#';1"J,, i',,onunu, Reddv, Advocate-cu m-L ;s ar Aid lopuci ; lffi Kan/PSL / HIGH COURT DATED:08104t202i JUDGMENT CRLA.No.925 of 2O1B rHE s r.<

1.. ( i1;r. o U 1 3 jlJi't Z0Z5 ,.1, B /.t ,1 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL