The High Court · 2025

Sri D Arun Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following Judgment : THE HONOURABLE SRI JI,STICE K'SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JI,STICE ANIL KUMAR JIUKANTI CRIMTN AL APPEAL No.982 oF 2017 JUDGMENT: (per The :Ion'ble Sri Justice K'SURENDER) The appeliant/accused aggrieved by the convictiotr under Section 3O2 ofthe Indian Penal Code' is before this Court' 2. The prosecution version against the appellant is r'hat he was a tenant in the premises of the deceased' The deceased' h':r mr'rther and others were staving in the same building which was ground plus two floors. The grouncl floor had five mulgies which were giverr on rent' First a]1d second floors' portions were also given on 'rent' The deceased and her :riother who was the comPlainant examined as The deceased l(arurrasri was PW.l were residing in one Portlon' coilecting rents from the tenants in the said buildinll' Stre lent an amount of Rs.2 lakhs as hand loarr to the appellant in the month of April, 2013 arrd the amounts were repaid partially' The entir:e amount was promised to be repaid on 15'05'2013' The premises was vacated in the month of April, 2013 itself' On 15'05'2013' the appellant went to the portion u,here PW. 1 and deceased stayed, at 4.00 p.m. and requested to lease out the very sarle shop which was vacated by him' 2 PW. I and the deceased inforrned that the shop was leased out to someone else, as such, the appellant left the house. However, he went back at 9.00 p.m. on the same day ald asked PW. 1 to provide some food. When PW. I went inside, the appellant attacked the deceased with a knife and stabbed her indiscriminately. PW. I came back arld found the appellant attacking the deceased. The grand-son by name Sheshanth who was aged about 5 years ran upstairs and catled PW.3 and PW.S, however, the appellant ran away along with the knife. The deceased died instantaneously at the spot. PW.l went to the Police Station and gave complaint at 00.3O hours on 16.05.2013 which is Ex.Pl. On the basis of the complaint Iiled, PW. 11 registered the complaint and went to the scene of offence from where he shifted the dead body of the deceased to the Government Hospital, Karimnagar. Inquest proceedings were concluded and thereafter, the body was sent for postmortem examination. The postmortem doctor found the following injuries on the body of the deceased: "Multiple elliptical/leanier shaped sharp edge wearing depth stab injuries are seen over the body of the deceased Karunasree at various sites.

1. 5 c.m. x 10 c.m. anterior to left clavicle extending in to left lung upper lobe.

2. 4 x 6 c.m. posterior left ciavicle towards anterio.: neck.

3. 2 c.rn. x i c.m. over right breast.

4. 4 c.ro. x 2 c.m. below right eye.

5. 4 c.m. x 10 c.m. left lateral lower chest downwards in to abdomen inj uring spleen.

6. 1 x 1 c.m. on the base of right index

7. 3 x Y" c.ms on the base of left ring fingers

8.5 x 5 c.ms. over thoracic spine upper

9. 2 x 2 c.m. ()ver thoracic spine lower one

10. 4 x 1 c.m. above left hip. 1 1. 5 x 5 c.m. below left scapula I mentioned in column No.6 in respect of ctLest. Left Hemthorax i.e blood collection around the lungs. Lungs - Ieft lung puncture wound over it upper lobe. Abdomen bleeding upto 200 ml. in peritonea,l cavat. Spleen - Functural .*,ound over Posterior part."

3. The doctor opined that all the injuries are alte-nlortem in nature and might have been caused by stabbing wit.r a knife. The approximate time of death was less thal 24 hours. 4

4. The appellant was arrested by PW. 11 on 18.05.2013. His confession was recorded and M.O. 1-knife was seized at the instance of the appellant.

5. The blood stained knife-M.O.l and the wearing apparel of deceased, M.O.2 and M.O.3 were sent for FSL examination. Blood group on the knife could not be determined. However, according to Ex.P1 1-FSL report, blood found on M.O.1 was of human.

6. The learned Sessions Judge examined PWs.l to 11 and Exs,Pl to Pll were a-lso marked on behalf of prosecution. Material objects, M.O.l-knife, wearing apparel petticoat and nighty of the deceased- M.Os.2 and 3 were also marked.

7. On behalf of defence, Ex.Dl was marked which is a portion of the statement made under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by PW. 1, that was confronted to the witness during trial.

8. The learned sessions Judge mainly relied on the eye witness account of PW. l, the complaint ald the seizure of M.O.l at the instarce of the appellant. Learned Judge found favour with the prosecution case and accordingly convicted the appellant. 5 9' Learned counsel appearing on beha_lf of the appe_ la,t submitted that fa'lse case was hled against the appellant. The sce re ol. offence is doubtful since pw''i claims that the alreged attack orL the deceased had taken place in the front room of their portion, houever. the dead body was found on the terrace in the second floor. The scene of offence parrchanama reflects that the scene is on the terrac€, which is contradictory to the solitary testimony of the eye_vritness pW. 1. Further' ' the other witnesses only stated about information being given regarding the a,eged assault by the appellant and nont: saw the alleged incident. The 66un5gl further argued that ttLe m otive as projected by the prosecution for committing murder raas thr,: alleged outstanding anourt due by the appellant and payable by the deceased. However, no proof of any such lending was placed before the Court to substantiate the motive.

10. The learned purblic prosecutor argr-red that the co:aplaint was filed by pw' 1 within 3 hours of the incident and there is ,o reason as to why the appellant would be falsely implicated. In th: complaint also PW. 1 narrated that the appellant had stabbed the clecea.sed on hands, face ald other parts of the body which is corroborated by the injuries found during postmortem examination. 6

11. The alleged incident happed at 9.00 p.m. The complaint-Ex.pl was hled at 00.30 hours i.e., nearly 3 % hours after the alleged assault. In the complaint it was stated that PW. 1 saw the appeilant stabbing her daughter and hearing her shout for help, Sanga Sravan- PW.8, Chada Ramana Reddy-PW.3, went there immediately.

12. PW.2 who is the brother of the deceased stated that on 15.05.20 13 at 9.10 P.M., PW.4 informed him on phone that the appellant stabbed the deceased ald ran away and then he went to the premises. PW.2 further narrated that the appellant took an amount of Rs.2 lakhs and there were disputes in between the appellant and the deceased. A panchayat was also held before the DSP and the matter was settled for Rs.1,50,000/-. Rs.75,O0O/- was paid on 30.O4.2O13 and the remaining amount was due and to be paid on 15.05.2013 i.e., the date of the incident.

13. PW.3 stated that on 15.05.2013, he saw the deceased ard the appellant talking on the second floor terrace in between 12.30 and

2.00 p.m. and thereafter he went off to his duty- He came back around 4.00 p.m. and found that PW. 1 arrd the appellant were on the second floor. Thereafter, he went away and when he returned to the house again in between 8.30 and 9.30 p.m., PW.8 ',r.as on the second 7 floor where the clead body was lying. He went to t,ee sr:cond floor terrace ald it was rnformed by the son of the deceasecl ancl PW.8 that the appellant stabbed the deceased with a knife and ran a',r'ay.

14. PW.4 who is another tenant stated that on the said day he heard someone shout from the house of PW. i and he immediately went to the house of PW. 1 on the second floor and found that the dead body was in the chair in a sitting position and PW. 1 was weeping. Blood was coming out from the body of the rleceased. When questioned PW. 1 informed that the appellant stabbeC th,:: deceased due to the money transactions and ran away.

15. PW.2 stated tirat PW.B informed him about the incident. PW.S who was named in the complaint stated that on the d ate of the incident he heard someone shout from the second floor ald when he rushed to the second floor he sau, the deceased with stab injuries and in a sitting position in the chair. PW.8 u,as declared hostile and cross- examined by the prosecutor. The Public Prosecrrtor had only suggested to PW.S that whatever he stated in his 1(r 1 Cr.P.C. statement was correct, which was denied.

16. According to PW. 1 while she u,as in the house, the appellant attacked the deceased rvith a knife and the son of th,: de<:eased ran '\- 8 upstairs to call PW.3 and PW.8. PW.3 did not state anything about seeing the appellalt. However, he stated that the dead body "r'as on the terrace on the second floor. According to PW. 1, the incident happened in their house. PW.4 contradicted PW.3 stating that the dead body was lying in the chair in a sitting position. Similar is the evidence of PW.B. According to the scene of offence palchanama- Ex.P4, the dead body was on the second floor terrace which was 11 feet in length with 3 feet high wall with stairs leading to terrace' Nothing incriminating was found on the terrace since it was a cement slab as mentioned in Ex.P4. Ex.P4-scene of offence panchanama was contrary to what was stated by PW. 1, PW.2-brother of the deceased, PW.3-tenalt, PW.4 another tenant, who have stated that the dead body was on the chair in a sitting position in the house' PW 11- Investigating ofhcer went to the scene and he got the body shifted to the Government Hospital. According to the Investigating Officer, the dead body was not in the chair as stated by the witnesses, but lying on the terrace of the building. 17 . The said contradictory evidence in the versions of the Investigating Officer when he went to the scene, frnding the dead body on the terrace and PWs. l,2, 3 and 4, the witnesses stating that the 9 deadbodywasinthechairinthehouseofPW'l,createsdoubt regarding the prosecution truthfully stating about the incident'

18. The FIR was lodged after 3 'Z hours and the IrlR reached the concerned Magistrate at 10.3O a.m. on 16.05.2013. The investigating officer has not stated the reascns for the delay of nearly lt) hours for the complaint reaching court. when there is contrarlictory evidence regarding the place where the dead body was found, tht: version of sole eye-witness PW.1 that she sau' the appellar t stia'bbing the deceased in the house is falsifred by the Investigatinll offrcer hnding the dead body on the terrace of the building. As already discussed, three of the witnesses have also not stated that the de'ad body was on the terrace of the building but in a sitting position in the ,::hair in the house of PW. 1. Ttre said discrepancy goes to the r()ot of the case' Prosecution has failed to establish where exactly the incident happened and where the dead body was found. l)W. l's evidence \ ca..tot b.e believed. PW.2-brother of deceased and PW.4-tenant stated that the dead bodl was in the house on the chair in eL sitting position and they were not declared hostile to prosecution czlse. PW.3 and the Investigating Officer stated that body was on the terl'ace of the building. The son of the deceased who a1legedly witnessed the 10 incident was not examined. The unexplained delay of nearly 10 hours forthecomplainttoreachtheCourtfurtherdiscreditstheeye-witness account. It can be safely inferred that there was no eye-witness to the assamlt on the deceased and a suspicion formed the basis to name the appellant as the assailant. As alread'y discussed' PW' 1 was not an eye-witness to the murderous assault on the deceased'

19. In the said circumstances, beneht of doubt is extended to the appellalt.

20. Accordingly, appeal is allo"r'ed ald the appellant is acquitted' The conviction recorded by the V Additional Sessions Judge' vide Judgment dated 31.05'2Afi in S'C'No'3 of 2Ol4 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code, is set aside. Since the appellalt is on bail' his bail bonds shall stand discharged' //TRUE COPY// A.V.S.S.C,S.M. JOINT REG SARMA ISTRAR S CTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice- K' Surender ii[i Hit LordshiP's Kind Perusal] One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justic^e Anil Kumar Jukanti --'ifot His Lordship's Kind Perusatl The V Additional Sessions Judge' Karimnagar (with records' if any) The Judicial Magistrate of First Class' Karimnagar 11 LR CoPies The Under Secretary' Union of lndia Ministry of Law' Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi High Court for the State of Ili,in%"1'"',"ft f u","ft 'ffi fi 'ff :':lilH?:1h To, 1

2. ., 4 5

6. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Warangal 7. The Superintendent, District Jail, Karimnagar. 8. The Station House Officer, Karimnagar I Town PS, Karimnztgar [)istrict 9. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Te angana, Hyderabad [OUT]

10. One CC to Sri P Giri Krishna, Advocate [OPUC] 11. Two CD Copies VA/gh (t- HIGH COURT DATED:2310112025 \ \ JUDGMENT CRLA.No.982 of 2017 l:if4 cB o O 0 / !i:; iiX$ (' .t) D1 '-Srrr.-r,'P -:fi ALLOWING THE CRLA 2L @ ?,*