The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant :Sri P Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: Judgment THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No .967 0F 207a JTIDGMENT: @er The Hon,bte Sri Justice K.SURENDER) This appeal is filed by appellant/Accused, aggrieved by the conrriction recorded by the Judge, Family Court Mahabubnagar, FACP:IV Addl.District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Nagarkurnool, in S.C.No.462 ol' 2014, dated 09.02.201g. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 3O2 of the Indian penal Code, and sentenced to rlndergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a hne of Rs. 1,O00/- for the offence under section 302 of IpC.

2. The allegation against the appellant is that on 20.03.2014, the appellant, his wife, Venkatamma (deceased) and several other relatives performed the marriage of the daughter of appellant in Tabulapur village of Dindi Mandal. After performing the marriage they returned to the Tadoor villag'e - After having dinner, pws.l to 3 ,slept beside the deceased in front of the house of the accused under t.he pandaJ. After some time, they observed the appellant wandering here and there. When questioned, the appellant stated that some of their goats were missing, ald thereafter, the appellant switched off the power and slept. 2 Around 1 1.0O p.m., PW. 1 and others heard some sound, woke up, and found the appeilant running towards the frelds. PW. 1 also ran behind him for some distance, and came back and switched on the light' Then, she noticed that blood was oozing from the mouth ald head of her sister (wife of the appellant). There was a boulder-Mo.1 beside her sister,s head which was used for cooking. A complaint was filed at

06.0OA.M.Inthecomplaint,theappellant'sactofcausingthedeathof the deceased was written'

3. The Police, having received the complaint, went to the scene of offence, took photographs, and concluded the scene of offence panchanama proceedings. Thereafter, the body was taken to the hospital where the inquest panchanama was conducted. The body was then sent for postmortem examination.

4. PW. 1 1 conducted the postmortem on the deceased and found the following injuries.

1. Bleeding from nose, mouth, and ears

2. Right side skull fracture

3. Incisor tooth absent. 3 The postmortem doctor-PW. 1 1 opined that the death of the deceased was on account ofthe cardiorespiratory arrest.

5. The appellant was apprehended on 26.O3.2O14, i.e., 5 days after the incident. His confession was recorded and the btood stained shirt of the accused was recovered from his possession. He was sent to remand. The material objects seized at the scene ol' offence, i.e., the wearing apparel of the deceased and the shirt of the accused, were sent for the FSL examination.

6. The learned Sessions Judge, relying on the eviclence of pWs.l to 4, who are the eye-witnesses to the incident, recorded the conviction. 7 . l,earned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that none of the witnesses have specifically stated thtrt they saw the appellant throwing the stone on the head of the deceased. The only evidence is that appellant was seen running from the scene. His going away from the scene can only be attributed to the appellant trying to frnd his sheep. 4

8. Learned Counsel for the appellart relied on the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mallappa a- Sta,te of Kdrndtakal, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held that: n7O. In our opinion, howeuer, the euidence of PW 5 cannot be accepted in full. There are contradictions in PW 5's deposition as regards PW 5 hauing seen Mallappa at the spot of occurrence She stated in her cross examination, rtthich ute haue refened to earlier, thot bg the time she sa u.t the accused persons, theg u-tere in front of the house of Deuendrappa. That is the euidence of PW 3 as also PW 6. We can ignore the contradictions in lrcr euidence conceming presence of Honappa at the PO on tLLe night of occurrence of the incid.ent as the same not houing ang mateial impoct on the case. But her contradictory statements as regards when and" uhere she saw the appellant and as to whether she saw him committing the act of assoult is of significance' In her exominotion-in-chief, she deposed that uhen she opened her eges on heaing the sound "dhup", she saw A-7 (i.e' the appellant) with a club assaulting on the head of her husband, uthereas A-2 (Veerappa) was standing beside him. But as tue haue already obserued earlier, she stoted in her cross-examination that bg the time she uoke up, injury had been caused' She claimed to haue hod seen the accused. in front of Deuendrappa's house' This part of her deposition in her cross-examinotion is otherutise compatible with rest of her statements made in cross-examination' In this perspectiue, onlg one conclusion is possible and that is she ruas not a rritness to actual act of assault She is the uidout of ttre I (2021) 5 Supreme Court Cases 572 5 deceosed uictim and deserues to be considered u-tith an element of compassion. But as a uitness, she does not inspire confidence."

9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that PWs. 1 to 4 are closely related to the appellant and there is no reason why they would speak false against the appellalt.

10. The facts of the case dealt by the Honourable S rpreme Court in Mallappa's case differ from the present facts. Discrepancies were found in the evidence of the hostile eye-witness- PW.5 in the said case regarding him witnessing the incident. In the said circumstances, the Honourable Supreme Court extended the benefit of doubt. I 1 . In the present case, the appellant is the husband of the deceased. He admitted that he was present at the sr:ene and he left only to find his sheep. His further defence is that the stone-M.O.l accidentally fell on the head of the deceased. The facts in the aforesaid Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

12. In the cross-examination of the witnesses, the witnesses gave contradictory versions. Though in the chief examination they stated that the appellant was running from the scene, however, in the cross- examination, they developed their version and stated that they saw the 6 appellant throwing a stone on the head of the deceased. DW. 1 is the daughter of the appellant and she stated that the incident did not take place as projected by the prosecution. Further, two of the other witnesses, PWs.6 and 7, who are the daughters of the appellant and deceased, did not support the case ofthe prosecution.

13. PWs.l and 2 are the sisters of the deceased, and PW.3 is the sister-in-law of the deceased. PW.4 is the paternal aunt of the deceased. They stated in unison that they saw the appellant running from the scene after causing the injury to the deceased with a boulder- MO.1.

14. The defence of the appellant is that a pandal was erected in front of the house of the appellant, and one of the stones from the pandal must have accidently fa-llen on the deceased, resulting in injuries to the deceased.

15. It is admitted that the appellant was present at the scene. The normal conduct of a husband would be to attend to his injured wife, however, the appellant fled from the scene.

16. Under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, the conduct of a party to any fact in issue is relevant. The relevant fact in the present 7 case is that the appellant ran away from the scene anrl such conduct is not in consonance with the act of the appeilant thr,cwing stone on the deceased as alleged by the witnesses. Admittedly., the deceased and a-ll other relatives had gone to the marriage, returned tired, and were taking rest. The incident happened around t 1.00 p.M. in the night. The appellant, having caused the injuries as stated by the witnesses, fled from the scene. The argument of the L:arned counsel for the petitioner that the appelrant went from the sce,e only to rook after his sheep cannot be considered. No husband woul<l go looking for the sheep after finding his wife with bleeding injuries. 17 . The postmortem doctor opined that the death was on account of the cardiorespiratory arrest. The doctor did not speak about the injuries being a direct cause of death. It was for the prosecution to elicit during the course of examination of the doctor whether any of the three injuries found were either vital or whether the cardiorespiratory arrest was a direct result of the injuries caused. In the absence of the expert speaking on whether the injuries directly resultecl in death, the prosecuLion cannot rery on inference to estabrish that injuries were the direct cause of death. \ \ 8

18. The appellant injured his wife with a boulder, resulting in a partial skull fracture on the right side of the head, causing bleeding from the mouth and head of the deceased.

19. Since the doctor failed to attribute the injuries directly to the cause of death, we deem it appropriate to convict the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for causing grievous injuries which intended to cause her death.

20. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part and the appellant is convicted under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years. Since the appellant/accused is on bail, the Court below is directed to cause appearance of the accused and send him to prison to serve out the remaining part of the sentence. //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. SRINIVAS_[FFO- JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judge Family Court, Mahabubnagar FAC, lV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Nagarkurnool(With records, if any)

2. The Superintendent, District Jail, Mahabubnagar 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Cou( for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

4. One CC to SRI P PRABHAKAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies M.^Dwsh HIGH COURT D ATED:27 10312025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.967 of 2018 -. l. !,-r: \ . arrl \\ i' D o g JUN 1 ?ffi t '-sr,..,,- a) -t \l $ .\\ PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLA (,