The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Smt. M. Bhagyasri Counsel for the Respondent: Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1899 of 2018 JUDGMENT: (per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER) This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the con,/iction recorded by the IX Additional District and sessions Judge, Wanaparthy,inSC..\o.ll7of2016dated26'10'20lT,convictingthe accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 379 of IPC ald sentencing him to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50o/- for the offi:nce under section 3o2 of the Indian penal Code and to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a hne of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 379 of IPC'

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistart Pubtic Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

3.PW.lfoundthedeadbodyofafemaleinhisland.Hewenttothe police Station and lodged a complaint/Ex.P1. Having received the complaint, the Police went to the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence panchanama. At the scene, the dead body was identifred by PWs.3 alld 4 as that of one chettemma. on observation 2 of the dead body, her saree was tied around her neck, and the Police opined that some persons might have kilted her nearly six days prior \ to the dead bodY being found'

4. The Investigating Officer summoned the clues team, and the clues team picked up incriminating material from the scene of offence. Inquest was conducted, and the body was sent for post-mortem examination. Dr.Vijay Kumar, examined as LW. 19, conducted autopsy on the dead bodY.

5. PW.9 is the witness whom the prosecution examined as the person who had last seen the deceased in the company of the appellant. According to PW.9, he saw the deceased getting down from the bus near bus stand, and the appellant had picked her up from the bus stand on 03. 10.2015.

6. The appellant was interrogated, and the Police seized M.O.l- motorcycle as well as M.O.2-gold chain under seizure panchanamas, Exs.Pl I atdPl2.

7. According to the prosecution case, the appellant took loan from the Bank by pledging the gold chain. PW. 11, who worked as the Branch Manager in Manipuram Finance Limited, was examined. On the basis of the circumstantial evidence, the appellant was conrricted. 8- The circumstances relied on by the prosecution are: h*. J i.BoththedeceasedzrrrdtheappellantwerelastseerrbyPW.gatthe bus stand on 03-10'2015' ii. The appellant was arrested on27 '10'2015' and at his instance' gold chain-M.O.2 was seized from the Manipuram finance' iii. The gold chain was identihed as that of the deceased' g. As seen from the investigation done' the Police relied on the call data records, and according to the call data records' both the appellant and the cleceased were communicating with each other on phone. However, the police have not taken any certificate under Section 65-8 of tht-' tlvidence Act' In the absence of a 65-8 certifrcate' the Court cannot look into the contents of the call data'

10. Though the body was sent for post-mortem examination' neither the post-mortem report was filed nor was the doctor who conducted ; the post-mortem examined' In the absence of the post-mortem examination report or arry exPert giving an opinion that the death was homicidal, the qut:stion of convicting the appellant. under Section 302 I of IPC does not arlse'

11. PW.9 is the witness who had last seen the deceased along with the appellant at the bus stand on O3' 10'2015' However' the case of the prosecution is that the death happened nearl)' 5 to 6 days prior to 03.10.2015. In such an event, the question of PW.9 Seeing the appellant and tht: deceased together at the bus stand does not arise' 4

12. Insofar as the appellant being found with the chain of the \ deceased and having pledged the said chain with Manipuram Finance is cencerned, as stated by pW. 11, the conviction of the appellalt cal only be under Section 4l I of IpC. \

13. In yiew of the aforesaid reasons, there are no grounds to convict the appellant under Sections 302 and 329 of IpC. However, the appellant is guilty of the offence under Sectio n 4Ll of IPC ald is sentenced to two years of Rigorous Imprisonment.

14. Accordingly, Crimina_l Appeal ls partly allowed. Since the appellant has been in jail srnce October 2O1Z and the sentence of 2 years of Rigorous Imprisonment has been completed by the appeflartt, he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVAS RAO JOINT REGI TRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy. (with records, if any)

2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison/Jail, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District. 4. The Station House Officer, Wanaparthy Town Police Station, Wanaparthy. 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. One CC Smt. M. Bhagyasri, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:1010412025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1899 of 2018 ,(\{e Sl rrC O,5 t$ ( q f o r) \ '.] 11 fiPfl ?[m '. l< r. -^.- ,'- l\' ''- r-.'_.;;: -- - -' .:/ PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL t0