The High Court · 2025

counsel for the Appellant :sri Duggempuai srinir""]espondonuccmplainant Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: Judgment TI{E IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDEF' THID IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPIIL AND CI]IIMINAL APPEAL No. 1O45 OF 2O18 JUDGMENT: Der Hon'ble Si Justice K.Surender) Th o p r :';ent criminal appeal is fiied ttncler Ser:tion 374(21 ci C- F'.C., by the appellant/accused, allgrir:led by the judgren: ciated 30.01.2Oi8 in SC No.332 rf 2013 on the lile cf i i c learned III Additional District an d S e st;ions Judge ar. 1.s,1 a b ad

2. Heari fi-i Duggempudi Srinivasa Rao, l,:arrLecl :otrnsel for the a op :llant and Sri Arun Kumar l)od a. Lt,arned Assistant, l)r-r rlic Prosecutor for the respondent / S tatt .

3. Thr: .:r :,:)el1ant \rJas conr.icted and senter c:tl to undergo lifc rrrprisonment for the offence pu'rislLabl: under Section 3O,:l rrf IPC. Questioning the said :on,'ict on, the present a1 p-': i is filed.

4. PVrl io14ed a complaint on 23.02.2013 a: 12. IYoon. In the s ai rl < r'mplaint, she narrated that, at aroun, I 10. 15 AM, when she, along with her son, viz.Ramesh (not examined), was working in the helds, their vlllager, viz' Narsakka, rushed there ald informed her that one Panem Ushaiah, the appellant herein, stabbed her husband with a crowbar. When PW1 questioned Narsakka about the incident, she stated that at around 10.00 AM, whiie she was rn the house, she saw that Panem Usharatr/the appellant was beating his spouse. Upon observing the sarne, the deceased intervened and questioned the appellant about his conduct in beating his rvife ' The appellant then grew wild and, enraged by the intervention of the deceased in his affairs, attacked and stabbed him with a crowbar. PW1 then immediately rushed to their house and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood' PW 1 went to the police station and lodged the complaint/Ex.P1.

5. PW10, who worked as a Head Constable in the Dahegaon police station, registered the FIR and sent it to the concerned Magistrate. PWl1, who was the then Sub- Inspector of Police, took over the investigation, went to the :.:Y148*, P a e3 scene, ard co l,lucted the scene of offence panchanarlzr and the inqi eri1. (rver the dead body. During ths i l'1uest proceedirlgr. t he u'earing apparel of the <lect asel was seized. 'ihe lrlood-stained control earth \ ras also sie'zed at the scen:. -1'1 re scene was photographed, ancl the -eafter, the body ri as sent for post-mortem examinaticr-r' T'h': post- mortem ::anrination was conducted by PWT l)\'\r7 .bund tlr,o injulie s, .,1., one abrasion on the right ma-xi1la1 region measurirtg .:ll I I CM and another laceration o r ttrc o :r:ipital region rrettsr- r ing 8X3X3 CM. Upon internaL exarnr nation, PW7 also tbuncl a fracture of occipital bone c'n t-re l:1t side of the pa''ir: iri bone and laceration of the: brain -rnder occipital arr'ir measuring 6X3X3 CM. PW7 opinei Lat all the injuries zr3 antemortem in nature and might ha 'e been caused .r,i,1r e. blunt w'eapon According to the op' nion of PW7, th,: .1e :,t h r,l,as on account of the fractl,re 'rf tl e sku11 rvith lact:r:it: < ,rL to brain.

6. The ap-::ilant \{'as arrested by PWl1 on ! 5 02 2013' He rn'as in[errrgated artd pursuant to his cotlfessior, MO1 I I I t l crowbar was seized at his instance, which was concealed behind the house of the appellant.

7. On the basis of the evidence coiiected, the charge- sheet was iaid against the appellant - for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

8. The entire case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of PW4, who is the eyewitness to the incident. According to PW4, on the date of the incident, he was working in the house of the deceased artd was making bullock cart, and at around 1O.OO AM, the appeliartt and his wife were quarrelling. They were neighbours to the house of the deceased. The deceased went there and tried to stop the quarrel between the appellant and his wife. The appellant, enraged with the interference of the deceased, attacked the deceased with a cro'tirbar. He hit the deceaseci twice on his head with a crowbar, due to which the deceased fell down. According to PW4, Ramakka/LW7 (not examined), Bapu/LWS (not examined), and Narsakka/ LW9 (not examined), were all present and witnessed the incident. Then, Narsakka u'ent to the fields to inform PW1 about the ,, ./ I l I i I'age 5 incident Str retime thereafter, PWl came there alo r11 with her son I'}.irr,:sh/LW2 (not examined) and Pa:aizh/LW3 (not exalnint: J

9. Th: :rr secution, for the reasons best knov'n t'r them, gave up t h i :r: eyewitnesses who were merltiolled in the charge sh()ert iLlrd did not examine the son of the d,rceased arrd the ird,:o:ndent witness, rtz.Papaiah, 11-[6 's6nr- [6 fhe scene ilnrnr:1,ately after the incident. TL,e pros:,:ution carlnot tai:i: ;'reiter by stating that the r.rritne sse s '.r- to rl'ere given uJ, it'er e interested witnesses. If at all tht: u,i trtesses were in<le':c c yewitnesses, the prosecution oue h t. .c have examined t!-r r:n. Non-examination of the cn,rcial nitrtesses raises arrr' arrrr'rnt of doubt in the mind of th,: Court

10. Orir r,lr,: eyewitness PW4 was examined bell -e the Court. Tiro'. gh the evidence of solitary eye-ritresrs cal be considere<l. l r)\t'ever, the evidence of such an erre witness should be r:cnvincing and should rule out the ptssi o,1ity of the witnes-s 1re ing plalted. PW4 states that he r"as present in the horrs: of. the deceased when the incident ha rllened. Hou'ever. PV/,1 did not inform PW1 about the irLr:ident Even according to him, he was present at the scene when PWl and others arrived. The narne of PW4 not being mentioned in Ex.Pl and his admission that he did not inform PW 1 about the alleged stabbing by the appellant give rise to a doubt regarding his presence at the scene. 1 1 . Further. neither PW 1 nor the other u'itnesses have spoken about PW4 coming to the house of the deceased for the purpose of making a bullock cart. Even in the scene of offence panchanama, no such bullock cart or any part of the bullock cart were found at the scene. The oniy logical conclusion that can be drawn from the circumstances is that PW4 was planted as an eyewitness to the lncident. His conduct of not informing PW 1 about the incident itself would reflect that he was not present at the scene at the time of the incident. Even in the inquest report/Ex.P15, the name of PW4 is not mentioned as an eyer.l'ttness to the incident. In view of the above, the evidence of PW4 cannot be believed.

12. Apart from the evidence of PW4, there is no other evidence to corroborate the version of the prosecution, and 7 it is inrprclri r to pass a conviction on the basis cf such a plante cl rr-iL r:ss. For the said reasons, the r:onr.icti n of the appellan.. is liable to be set aside

13. irL .l'rc rr:su1t, the criminal appeal is alloivec, setting aside t hr: r :r: nviction arrd sentence imposed aga irrst the appellant ,,ii: judgment dated 3O.01.2018 in SC No.3O2 of 2 0 1 3 o n tb : file of the learned III Additiorral )isr rict and Sessions ,l .ir1ge at Asifabad. The bail bo rcls of the appeila:-r.[ /;1,:1 Llsed Stand cancelled. Sd/- K. SITI]NIVASA RAO - .,OINIT REGISTRAR I/TRUE COPY// SECIION OFFICER =7 To, '1. The lll Additiorral District and Sessions Judge, at Adilabad 2. The Judi<;ia Fist Class Magistrate SirpurTown, Asifabad Disttict 3. The Superrirtter rd e nt, Central Prison, Cherlapally, Ranga Redd'; I)istrict 4. Two CCs to the rublic Prosecutor, High Court for the Stat{) of .^-€)langana Hyderabatd (Otl'-) 5- One CC 1o rirL )"rggempudi Srinivasa Rao,Advocale [OPtJCl 6. Two CD rlopies ADK/PSL HIGH COUR'1' DATED:18103,t2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1045i of 2018 .4/i,. .L- (r r) .A ' ,1 '' r'l:. ) I aa' Y" \N 2$15 2(i).\ ALLOWING THE CRLA al-./ 1 i{\ q b I I i I I i I I i I r i i I i I I i ;