High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSiICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI GRIMI NAL APPEAL NO: 1048 oF 2017 Criminal Appeal filed under Section 37 4(2)-of Cr P C aoainst the Judgment -or the Court of the dated 28.08.2017 passed i;"88 il; i6 "i-'lLt-gt special sessions Judge tot tl'j"oib"C-s-isislFonl act cases at Nalgonda' the {iie Between Goddeti Ramulu, S/o Mallaiah' . Occ Mliiiwa, vtinaal, Nalsonda District Agriculture, Fl/o.Anthampet village' ...AppellanUAccused No'1 AND The State of Telangana, represented by the Public Prosecutor' High Court of Judicature at HYderabad ' ... ComPlainant /ResPondent 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 I .i:! THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J,ANIL KUMAR cRIMINAL APPEAL No.IO480F 2017 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) 1. This appeal is filed by appellant/accused No.1, aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.OB.2OlZ in S.C.No.39 of 2015, passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SCs/ STs (pOA) Act Cases at Nalgonda, convicting the appeilant/ accused No. 1 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment on the allegation of murdering the deceased, namely yadaiah. 2. Heard Mr Prabhakar Redcty, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar, learned Aclditional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent-State. 3. PW1 is the wife of the deceased. She lodged a complaint u.ith the police on 30.10.2013 at 10.30 A.M., stating that accused No. 1 and the deceased were friends. However, accused No.1, suspecting that the deceased was having an illicit intimacy with his wife, namely G.Saidamma (pwg), 15 days prior to the incident, abused the deceased in a hlthy language by taking the name of his caste and threatened hirn 2 with dire consequences, for having an iilicit affair with PW9' Appellalt also threatened the d'eceased not to come within the vicinity of the house and into the locality' On 3O' 10 2O13' when the deceased was in his fields' along with (Sayamma- listed as witness No'3 ald not examined on account of her d.eath), the appellant came there and hacked the deceased withanaxe,causingseverebleedinginjui.ies,resultinginthe instantaneous death of the deceased'

4. Investigating Offrcer/PW20 was appointed to investigate thecase'Afterreceivingthecomplaint,hewenttothescene of offence, and the Scene was photographed. The scene of offence panchanama was conducted' The inquest proceedings were also conducted, and thereafter' the body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem exaJnination' PW16 conducted the post-mortem examination ald found the following injuries: caused "t'"ti "1. Deep Laceration back of neck"4- x 6 x 4 can be *""po"' Dislocated Atlanto Axial joint' 2. Laceratron scaip oipetal region-4 x'/' crr.' zo x 6 cms with sharp 3. Laceration o'[i r"ft'fot" weapon, Antemortem in nature ' "n?'p -i"""ration fir"; 4 x Vz cm. Fracture left meig corpal bone' between left Ring hnger and ieft +. s. M'ii; A;;;"i;;" all over the back of the dead bodv ^'1^ can be caused with blunt object'" little Appellant/ accused No'1 was arrested' on 03'11'2013' 5 On the very same day, the other accused Nos'2 to 4 were also I 1 \ 3 arrested. Confessions of all the accused were recorded. Axe/MO.3 with which the deceased was assaulted was seized from the scene of offence

6. pW2O handed over the investigation to pW21, who concluded the investigation and filed a charge sheet. 7 . Learned Sessions Judge mainly placed reiiarrce on the evidence of pW4, who is the sole eye_witness to the incident. Since the involvement of accused Nos.2 to 4 was not proved during the course of the trial, they were acquittecl. B' Learned counser for the appe ant wourd submit that the entire case rests on the evidence of pW4, who is the sole eye wrtness, however, his name was not mentioned in the complaint given by pwl at the earliest point of time. The name of LW3 was mentioned in the complaint, but not pW4. PW4 is related to pWl as cousin. If at all pW4 was present when the alleged attack on the deceased took place, he would have informed pWl immediately. F,urther, th€ complaint reached the Magistrate at 0s:50 p.M., which is after a derav of neariy 7 hours The delay was not explained by the prosecution. ; \ 4 g. On the other hand, the learned Pub1ic Prosecutor would submit that the solitary testimony of PW4 can be believed since his narne was also reflected as an'eye-witness in the inquest proceedings' The non-mentioning of the name of PW4 as an eye-witness in ttre complaint does not affect the credibility of PW4's testimony as an eye-witness' Sayamma/LW3

10. Pw1 admitted in her cross-examination that informed. her about the assault on her further admitted that by the time PW 1 's husband. She mother-in-law ald others went to the scene of offence' PW4 \^,as present at the scene' In fact' in Ex'P 1' PW 1 stated that LW3 was an eye witness ald did not mention the name of Pw4. 1 1 . PW4 stated that he saw accused No' t hacking the deceased with an axe' According to PW4' there were differences between the appellant and the deceased' since the appeliant suspected that the deceased was having an affair with PWg, i'e., the wife of the appellant' in his cross- examination, PW4 admitted that he did not try to apprehend accused No.l or call anyone after witnessing the incident' According to him, after a group of villagers gathered' PWs' 1 and2arrivedatthescene,however,hedidnotinformPWs'1 7 i I i i 5 and 2 about the incident. The said admission of pW4 gains importance because pW20/Investigating Oflicer admitted in his cross-examination that pW4 did not inform him that he had witnessed the appeliant hacking the deceased. As admitted by pW4, if his statement had been recorded at OB:00 A.M. on the date of the incident, his name would have been reflected in the complaint. The version of pW4 that he was examined at OB:00 A.M. is falsified by the fact that the Investigating Officer/pW20 issued proceedings at 09:30 A.M., and only thereafter proceeded to the scene where he examined the witnesses. In the chief_examination ol_pW1, she stated that both Sayamm a/LW3 and pW4 informed about the assault on her husband. The investigating Olficer admitted that PW1 did not state about pW4 informing her about her husband,s death before she rushed to the scene. In fact, pW4 himself admitted in the cross_examination that he did not inform PWs.l and 2 about the incident even after they arrived at the scene upon rearning about the death of the deceased. 12. The Hon,ble Supreme Court in Ram l{umqr pand.eg u. State of Madhga prq.deshl, held that omission to mention ' 1rszsl : scc ers I 6 the important facts in the FIR gives rise to suspicion and affects the probabilities of the case'

13. In Su.ltt Bisutas u, Stdte of Assam2 ' the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on facts, held that not mentioning the name of the eye-witness who is closely related to the victim affects the prosecution case. 1,4. In Meharai Singh tt' State of tlttar Pradeshs' the Hon"trle Supreme Court, while dealing with a situation where there was a delay in lodging thc FiR, held that not only does it iose the advantage of spontaneity' but the danger of introducin.g a colored. version and an exaggerated story also creeps in. The unexplained delay would be fatal to the case of the prosecution, and information given at the earliest point of time would lose its value'

15. In Jang Singh and others a' State oJ Raiasthana, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when there is no explanation for the delay in sending the F iR to the Magistrate, the information initially given becomes doubtful' '? (2013) 12 scc 406 3 (1994) s scc 188 4 (zoo1) 9 scc 704 I I I i I I I \ \ 7

16. In Joseph a. Storte of Keralas, the Hon,ble Supreme Court held that not mentioning the name of the eye_witness in the FIR and the witness not disclosing the facts initially raises a signihcant doubt regarding his presence at the scene and witnessing the incident.

17. The entire case rests on the evidence of pW4. Except for the axe used in the assault, which was found at the scene, no other incriminating material was seized at the instance of appellant. According to the acimission of pW20/Investigating Ofhcer, PW4 did not state that he has witnessed the incident. PW4, who is closely related to pW1, did not inform pWs.1 and 2 about the incident. His conduct of not informing the incident becomes doubtful. More so, the incident happened at OB:O0 A.M. and the complaint was lodged at lO:30 A.M.; however, the name of pW4 is not reflected in the FIR, which strengthens the claim of defence that pW4 was planted by the prosecution at a iater date. Once the evidence of pW4 is eschewed from the consideration, there is no other evidence to implicate the appellant. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is to be extended to the appellant. ' (2003) 11 scc 223 : i i I I I I I I 8

18. Accordingly, this Crimina-1 Appeal is allowed and the sentence and conviction imposed against the appellant/ accused No.1 in the judgment dated 28.Oa.2OI7 in S.C.No.39 of 2015 is hereby set aside. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR sEcr#.ft oFFtcER To,

1. The Special Sessions Judge for trial of SCS/STS (pOA) act cases at - Nalgonda(With records, if iny) 2. The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Devarakonda, Nalgonda Diskict 3 Two ccs to the pubtic prosecutor, High court for"the state ot rerangana at 4. One CC to SRI p PRABHAKAR REDDY, Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad (OUT) ADK HIGH COURT DATED:1810212025 i i I i I r' JUDGMENT GRLA.No.1048 of 2017 Y\E STA .'E 1 i Jurl ?t?5 6)). * SPATC\ * ALLOWING THE CRLA 4 /A Z/ /.( Z