Hyderabad High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1377 OF 2018 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri .lustice K.Sm'eruler)

1. This appeal is filed aggrieved by the ju<lgment dated

16.03.2018 in S.C.No.S of 2012, passed by the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, conr,icting the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 3O2 of IPC and sentencing him to unclergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a hne of Rs.1,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months for committing the murder of the sister of P.W.1.

2. Heard Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent.

3. The prosecution's case is that on 24.O3.2O 1 1 , the appellant/ aci:used married one Ramadevi (hereinafter referred to as deceased). After the marriage, their stay r.r.as temporarily arranged in the Asmangadh area. The hrst night for the newly wedded couple was arranged on 25.03.2011 in Flat No.207, Hill Top Apartments, Asmangadh, Malakpet, Hyderabad. On 26.O3.2O 1 1, the appellant/accused coliected the gold ornaments from the deceased and left for his house 2 situated at Ahval, and informed that the ornaments had been kept in the bank locker. The appellant/ accused again came back on 26.03.2011, rvhich u'as the second night of the marriage. Both the appellant and the deccased rvere sleeping in their house. Since the bolt of the main door of their house was not properly functioning, as such, it was locked from the outside by P.W.2. In the early morning ot 27.O3.2O11, the appellant/ accused called P.W.2 from the phone of the deceased and requested her to open the main door. After opening the door, the appellant/ accused lelt the flat. When P.W.2 entered the bedroom, she found the deceased in an unconscious condition, and they infqrmed to ever.yone. With the help of their neighbors, they shifted the deceased to Osmania General Hospital, u'here the doctors declared her as brought dead.

4. P.W. 1, r,r,ho was the brother of the deceased, lodged a written complaint in English narrating the incident. The said complaint was lrled on 27 .O3.2Oll at I 1.00A.M. The complaint r,r,as then registered for the offence under Section 3O2 ol IPC. Investigation was taken up by P.W. 1 1, who rvent to the hospital rvhere the inquest was conducted. Thereafter, the body was sent for autopsy. P.W.9 conducted the autopsy and found the following injuries: -l '' l. A contusion of I x 0.5 cm on the gum on the right sidc of lowet jarv on thc outer as l)er belwcen right central and lateral incisors.

2. A contrrsion of 0.5 x 0.5 cm on the uPper margln of gum above the right ccntral incisol of u ppcr j:rw.

3. .\r.r abrasion of 0.5 x 0.5 cm over tl're righl upper lip in the midline. 4. [mprint abrasion of the teeth of 4 x 0.5 crn ;rlaccd trzrnsvorsoly along the mucosal i-c., iuner surlace o[ the lowt:r lip from left angle to right irnglc of thc mouth.

5. A conttrsed abrasion of O.2 parallet lines cach ol .l s 0.25 cm with tr gap of 0.5 cm of the lowt'r I /3 of right arm on thc lateral aspect. fi. A contusion of 4 x 3 cm on the middle 1/3rd ol' lcft arm mcdialty."

5. Acr:ordir-rg to P.W.9, the death occurred on account of smothering. The police also recovergd the pillou, with rvhich the appellant caused the death of the deceased.

6. The appellant/ accused r"vas arrested and after interrogation, he \\,as produced before the concerned Magistrate. Flaving received the FSL Report and after collectirlg the evidence, the Investigating Officer/ P.W. 1 1 filecl a charge sheet.

7. The learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, found that the appellant / accused \ /as in the house, rvhich was locked from the outside, and immediatelt after the appeliant left, the deceased $ras found dead. In the saicl circumstances, it $ras for the appellant to // t 4 explain the death of the deceased. Since the death was homicidal, and it was the appellant who was present in the house when the incident took place, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of murder. B. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ accused would submit that the prosecution witnesses have come up with a false version that the door rvas locked from the outside, while the scene of offence and the panchanama reflect that there u,as a bolt on the main door which could be locked from the inside. When the appeliant/accused had locked the door from the inside, the version given by the prosecution, that P.W.2 had bolted it from the outside, cannot be believed. Once the version of P.W.2 is disbelieved, there is no evidence to show that the appellant had committed the murder of the deceased. 9 . Alternatively, the learned counsel for the appeilant submits that the incident may have happened on account of a quarrel or fight betq,een the spouses, and as such, the offence may fall under Section 3O4 of IPC.

10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the appellant indulged in smothering his wife just two days after the marriage, which reflects the ) barbaric nature of the appellant. The death of the deceased was on account of the act committed by the appellant and appears to have been intentional. For the said reason, the learned Aclditional Public Prosecutor Prays thaL the conviction should not be inferred with.

11. Unfortunateiy, the death of the deceased took place two days after the marriage of the appellant and the deceased. P.W. 1, who is the brother of the deceased, lodgcd a complaint u,ith the police. In the complaint, it was narrated that the deceased and the appellant were married. P.W.1 further narrated that on the second night after the marriage, both the deceasecl and appellant were in the flat, and the flat door was locked from the outside. The appellant called on the phone and requestcd that the lock be removed from the outside. P.W.2 went there, opened the lock, and immediately thereafter, the appellant left the place. When PW.2 went inside, the deceasecl rvas found unconscious and was taken to the hospital, r.t,here the doctor declared her as brought dead.

12. Under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, the burden shifts to tl-re appellant to explain the circumstances under which the deceased died. The postmortem doctor stated that the death \vas an asphyxial death caused due to smothering. 6 Since the appellant was the only person present in the flat on the night of the death of the deceased, the burden is on him to explain the circumstances. Except for denying the occurrence of the incident, no other explanation u,as given by the appellant, even during the course of his Section 313 Cr.P.C examination. Therefore, the defence of the appellant is rejected.

13. Mere denial, in the present circumstanccs, n'ill not come to the rescue of the appellant. Though, it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, however, when the prosecution has laid the foundation' to draw a presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is for the appellant to explain the reason for the death of the deceased. As already discussed, the prosecution has proved that the appellant was in the flat when the death of the deceased I I I occurred. )4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in uMohd.RaJiq Alia,s Kallu as. State of Madhga Pradesh"r, held as under:- "The question of uhether in a giuen case, a homicide is murder, punishable under Section 302 of IPC or culpable homicide of i (2021)10 SCC 706 __- 1 either desciptior4 punishable under Section 301 o.[ IPC, has engaged the attention ol courls ir India for ouer one- and a-half cenhrry, slnce the enactment of the IPC. A u.,elter of case law, on the oforesaid. espect exisls, including perhaps seueral ltutdred rulings by the Supreme Cour1. The use of the term "lilcelg" it sete,ral places in respect of culpable homicicle, hlghlight s the element of unceftainta that tlrc act of the accused tnaA or maA not haue killed the person. Sectiotr 3O0 IPC tt,hich deJines "murder", horueuer refrain s from the use of the tenn likelg, tuhich reueals absence of ambiguity teft on belnlf <5f the accused. The accased is for sure that his act tuill definitelg carrse rleatli. It is often dfficrtlt to distinguish betLueen culpable honicide and murder as both inuolue death. Yet, there is a subtle distinction of intention and knouledge inuolued in both tlrc cimes. Such di.fference lies in the degree of the act. 'lhere is a uery uide uaiance of degree of intention and knouledqe- among botlt the cimes."

15. Having perused the material available on record, it appears that the accused and the deceased r,vere a newly wedded couple. For reasons not knoll,n, an altercation 8 ensued between the spouses. The altercation led the appellant/ accused to overpower and smother the deceased, resulting in her death. The said circumstances are relevant to the observations made by the Hon'b1e Supreme Court in Mohd.RaJiq Alias Kallu us. Sta:te of Madhga Pradesh. Keeping in view the background of the case, we deem it appropriate to convert the conviction to one under Section 304-ll of IPC. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 302 of IPC is set aside. The appellant is sentenced to undergo 1O years of imprisonment under Section 3o4-ll of IPC.

16. The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA JOINT REGISTRAR SECT hB FFICER To,

1. The ll Additional l\iletropolitan Sessrons Judge, Hyderabad. 2. The Vll Additional Chief lvletropolitan [Vlagistrate, Hyderabad. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad. 4. The SHO, tMalakpet Police Station, Hyderabad. 5. One CC to Sri P Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 7 . fwo CD Copies Svsigh Ye I il.c: S1l. ,l! i-l 2 s JUL 2025 fi \ J \. HIGH COURT DATED:1510412025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1377 of 2018 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLA \o co{'l \cv-,^ = -44.Y-- \C\'