The High Court · 2025

AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad ...Respondent / ComPlainant Counsel for the Appellants Sri M Achuta 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.392 OF 2017 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.surender)

1. This appeal is filed by the appellants, aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.03.2O17 in Spl.S.C.No.64 of 2O14, passed by the Specia-l Sessions Judge-cum-Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar, convicling the appellants/accused for the offence under Sections 45O,324, 3O2 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SCs/STs [pOA) Act, 1989 and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment.

2. Heard Mr. M.Achutha Reddy, learned counsel for appellants and Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent- State.

3. The appellants are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4. During the pendency of appeal, accused Nos.l, 3 and 4 died. L,earned counsel argued on behalf of accused IrIo.2 since accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 died. The case stands abated against accused Nos.l, 3 and 4. The present appeal is not pressed against accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and is heard in so far as accused No.2 is concerned. 2

4. The case of the prosecution is that PW8, who is sister of aciused Nos.l to 3 and daughter of accused No.4, was having illicit intimacy with deceased. The deceased is the husband of PWl. She lodged a complaint/Ex.P1 with the Police that her tleceased husband was having illicit intimacy with PW8. In the midnight on 07. 1 1.2013, deceased went to the house of PW8 ald she came to know that accused Nos.l to 4 beat the deceased with sticks and caused severe injuries. She went to the house of PWS and found her husband dead.

5. On the basis of complaint, which was lodged at 06.00 A.M. on 08.11.2013, the Inspector of Police PW13 took up the investigation. He went to the house of PWS and conducted the scene of offence panchanama. There, one bamboo stick, and blood stained earth, were collected. PW13 also concluded the inquest proceedings. Thereafter:, the body was sent for post mortem examination.

6. On the basis of suspicion expressed by PW1, accused Nos.l to 4 were apprehended on 16.11.2013 i.e., 9 days after the incident. At the instance of accused No. 1, a pestle was also seized, which is MO5. 7 . During the course of trial, PW 1 , wife of deceased, PWs. 2, 3 and 4, who are residents of village, PW5 is the cousin of I I I _1 the deceased, PWs.6 and 7 residents of village and also pWg with whom the deceased had the illicit intimacy have all turned hostile to the prosecution case. pWs.l to 7 stated that the dead body was found near the tank of the village. The 'same is the version of pWg.

8. PW9, rvho is the VRO and acted as independent witness to conduct scene of offence panchanama, spoke about the scene, blood stained cloths of the deceased and their seizure along with controlled earth at the scene. pW10 is the witness to the alleged confession of accused Nos.l to 4 and seizure of MOS pestle.

9. PW I 1 is the post mortem examination doctor who stated that on account of head injury, there was respiratory failure, resulting in death

10. PW12 is the person who registered the crime on the basis of complaint given by pwl. pW13 is the investigating officer who stated about going to scene on receiving Ex.p1 and conducting scene of offence palchanama, inquest proceedings and thereafter, sending the body for post mortem examination. pW13 also stated regarding the arrest of accused and recovery of MOS at their instance. Other than the recovery of MOS, there is absolutely no other evidence on I record. The post mortem doctor has not stated in his opinion whether MO5 could have caused injuries that were found on the dead body. I 1 . There is absolutely no evidence in the case to remotely connect the appellant/accused No.2 with the crime.

12. Accordingly, criminal appeal is allowed in respect of appellant/ accused No.2, and the criminal appeal stands abated against accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Sd/. C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// / CTION OFFICER I I I To, 1 2 .) 4 5 The Soecial Sessrons Judge-cum-Vll Additional Dlstrict and Sessions Judge ,i rr,ririiuurnrgar (with records, if any) The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mahabubnagar The Station House Officer, Koilkonda PS' Mahabubnagar District The Superrntendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally' Ranga Reddy District Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana' Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri M Achuta Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6 7. Two CD CoPies vA rk HIGH COURT DATED:30101t2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.392 of 2017 (- \ .// /-' ^'*,.'' 25 nrn 2U2i t ?, a)(s ( ..\('\ )! -1 ALLOWING THE CRLA AGAINST ACCUSED No.2 & ABATED AGAINST ACCUSED Nos.1, 3 & 4 roe(A \o +{*