Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri P.S. Bhramaramba Devi Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Pubtic Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.12O5 OF 2018 JUDGMENTi (per Hon'ble Srt Justice K.surender) 1. The Appeal is frled by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.06.2017, in S.C.No.73 of 2016, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, at Mahboobnagar District. The appellant was convicted for the offeice of murder punishable under Section 3O2 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprison men t

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional public prosecutor for respondent-State.

3. P.W. 1, who is the father of the deceased, went to the Police Station and informed the police about the death of his son (deceased). The statement was recorded by ASI/p.W. lS, which was registered as FIR for the offence under Sections 302, 201 , and 506 of IPC. In the statement, p.W. 1 stated that the appellant is the daughter of his first wife and the deceased was the son of his 2"a wife. When he went home, he found the dead body of the deceased in front of the house of one Raheem. 4 When P.W.1 questioned the appellant about the death, she allegedly confessed that she killed the deceased.

4. P.W. 15 handed over the investigation to p.W. 14/ Inspector of Police. P.W. 14 went to the scene and found the body of the deceased, namely Sameer, in front of the house of Raheen (not examined). In the presence of p.W.9 and p.W. 10, scene of offence panchnama was conducted. One gunny bag/M.O.1 was also seized. A rough sketch was prepared. The statements of P.Ws.1 to 4 were recorded. Then, the body of the deceased was shifted to the Government hospital. Next day, the inquest proceedings were conducted and thereafter, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination.

5. The appellant was arrested on 01.O9.2O15, when p.W.13 (stranger to . appellant) took her to the police Station and handed her over to P.W. 14. After recording the statement of P.W. 13, before whom the appellant allegedly confessed to have committed the murder of the deceased, p.W. 14 arrested the appellant.

6. Having examined the witnesses and collecting other documents, P.W. 14 filed a charge sheet. Learned Sessions Judged framed charges under Section s 3O2, 2Ol, and 506 of IPC. During the course of trial, p.Ws.l to 15 were examined 5 and Exs.P. 1 to P. 19 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. M.O. 1 was also placed on record by the prosecution.

7. Learned Sessions Judge found that according to the investigation, the offence occurred in the kitchen of the house of P.W. I and the accused was in the house when the incident happened. Though, there is no direct evidence, however, on the basis of circumstantial evidence, learned Sessions Judge found that, it was the appellant who had committed the murder of the deceased.

8. karned counsel appearing for the appellant would sLrbmit that none of the independent witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. Even the complainant/P.W.1 was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. The prosecution relied on the evidence of P.W. 13, before whom the alleged confession was made by the appellant. According to the prosecution, it was P.W.13, who had handed over the appellant to the Police, however, P.W.13 did not identify the appellant. In the absence of any admissible evidence pointing towards the guilt of the appellant, an assumption cannot be made as basis to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 3O2 of IPC. 6

9. On the other hand, the leaned Pubiic Prosecutor submits that since the appellant was in the house along with the child at the time of incident, the burden is on her to prove under what circumstances, the death occurred. In the absence of any explanation by the appellant, the Sessions Court has rightly convicted the appellant.

10. P.W. 1 is the complainant/father of the appellant. He stated that the appellant is his 1"r wife's daughter and the deceased-Sameer was the son of P.W.2, who is his 2nd wife. P.W.2 turned hostile to the prosecution case. P.W. 1 also did not stick to his version which was stated in the complaint. P.W. 1 was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, and even in his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the appeliant was with the deceased and that when P.W. I questioned the appellant about how the deceased died, she admitted to having killed him. The motive attributed to the murder of the deceased is that the appellant was excluded from the share in the property of P.W. 1. P.W. t had given Ac.3-00 of land to 3 of his daughters.

11. P.Ws.3, 4, 5, and 6, who are the independent witnesses, turned hostile to the prosecution case 7 7

72. P.W.7 is the Sarpanch of the village. According to him, there were disputes in the family of p.W. 1 and p.W.6, who is the sister of 1$ wife of P.W. 1, P.W.6 stated that she approached P.W. I and requested that he shall convey property to 3 of his daughters from his first wife, and p.W. 1 agreed to give his property to 3 of his daughters from his first wife. Ex.p.g is the document that was executed and scribed by p.W.7. p.W.7 stated that he does not know about the children of p.W. 1,s 2"a wife and did not make any mention about the appellant.

13. P.W.8 is the post-mortem examination Doctor. p.Ws.9, 10, 11, and 12 are the independent witnesses who turned hostile to the prosecution case. ),4. The case is one of circumstantial evidence. The Hon,ble Supreme Court, in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtral, laid down principles regarding the acceptance of circumstantial evidence and the basis for recording a conviction, which read as under:- " I . the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not ,may be, established; 11198<1 + scc ito 8

2. the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explained on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; the circumsLances should be of a

3. conclusive nature and tendency; 4. hypothesis except the one to be proved; and they should exclude every possible

5. there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused aird must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused."

15. The prosecution heavily relied on the evidence of P.W.7 to show that the property of P.W. 1 was partitioned between 3 of his daughters from his l"t wife, who are unmarried, and his elder daughter/the appellant, who was married was not given any property. Since the appellant was not given any property, aggrieved by the said discrimination, the appellant allegedly committed the murder of her step brother, who is the son of P.W.2l2"a wffe. The other circumstance relied on by the prosecutioil is the alleged confession of the appellant to P.W. 13.

76. P.W.7 did not speak about anything or any kind of objection raised by the appellant when trx.P.S was executed. In fact, he had not even identified the appellant and pleaded ignorance of the appellant being the daughter of P.W. 1. P.W.13 9 is the witness who, according to the prosecution, had taken the appellant to the Police Station and handed her over to the Police.

17. P.W.13 stated that, on O2.O9.2OI5 at about 7:3O a.m., while he was waiting at Kodangal chowrastha to go to Chitlapally village, a muslim woman wearing a burka and covering her face approached him and informed him that she had killed her brother by throttling him and she wanted to surrender before the police. Immediately, p.W. 13 took the appellant to the police Station And handed her over. to the Police. However, p.W. 13 did not identify the appellant in the Court.

18. The version of p.W. 13 is doubtful and improtrable. There is no reason as to why the appellant would approach a stranger, who was waiting at the bus stand, and confess to him about the alteged murder and ask him to take her to the police station. F or an extrajudicial confession to be admissibre under Section 24 of tlne Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution has to prove the circumstance under which the accused confessed to a person. Consequently, the circumstances would be that a person who has committed an offence, out of fear or due to a particular relationship with someone, may confess to that I l0 person about the offence committed. There are absoiutely no reasons shown by the prosecution which compelled the appellant to confess about her crime to a stranger. The satd evidence of P.W. 13 cannot be taken into consideration to accept his claim that appellant confessed to him and to consequently convict the appellant.

19. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution should form a complete chain to rule or.rt any possibility of the innocence of an accused. The circumstance relied up on by the prosecution in the present case are not convincing and do not form a chain to rule out the possibility of the innocence of the appellant. In fact, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, at most, create a suspicion against the appellant. However, a suspicion cannot form the basis to convict the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant is acquitted.

20. In the resuit, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Since the appellant is on bail, her bail bonds shall stand cancelled. \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice K'Surender - -'ifot His Lordship kind Perusal) One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice E'V'Venugopal ---ifo, His LordshiP kind Perusal) to'',. ,nu Principal Sessions Judge' mahabubnagar District (With records) 2 The Judicial First ctasi Maiisirate, Kodangal, Mahabubnagar District . 3, The Station uor." oii""rl"i"Jr"grr Polic6 Station' Mahabubnagar District 4. The Superintendent, p|.iton fot Wi'en' Chandhalguda' Hyderabad' ,7

5. 11 LR Copies 6. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia tvlinistry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

7. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buitdings at Hyderabad. B. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, (OUT)

9. One CC to Sri P S. Bhramaramba Devi, Advocate topUCl 10. Two CD Copies DL/PSL d l I ) Il \ I I I i(' q s,l 29 ffift mffi IJ 'i I D6'S,ATCH C) :l I HIGH COURT OATED:.1110312025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1205 of 2018 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL r