The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.849 of 2OL7 WDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri lustice K.Surender) I This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.07'2017 in S.C.No.1O2 of 2015, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3O2 of IPC-

2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was married to Tallapally Sunitha (hereinafter referred to as the deceased') in the year 2O01. They had three children and the appellant was not doing any work consistently. He had developed suspicion over the character of the deceased and used to watch her movements. Five years prior to the incident, ttre appellant went to Dubai and after staying for 9 months, he came back to India. After coming back from Dubai, a panchayat was held before the elders, for the reason of suspicion entertained by the appellant against his wife, however, he did not change his attitude. The appellant I I I I I i I i i I t t t I I 2 shifted his residence to Jakranpally. But the deceased refused to join him at Jakralpally. However on 19.05'2014' the appellant went to Degaon Village and brought the deceased to his house. The appellant, deceased, and their two sons went to the mother of the appellant, who was residing in Ashramam. On 20.05.2014, both the appellant and the deceased returned back to their house, by leaving their sons in Ashramam

3. On the next day, the deceased was found dead. The cause of her death was due to strangulation, as opined by Doctor/PW. 12. A written complaint was filed by PW. 1, who is the brother of the deceased. In his complaint, he narrated regarding the suspicious character of the appellant. He also narrated about the appellant going to Dubai and from there, he used to call the deceased regularly, suspecting her character. After returning from Dubai, a panchayat was also held before the elders. However, the appellant did not change his attitude and continued to harass the deceased by suspecting her character. 4. On the basis of the complaint received, PW. 14 - the Inspector of Police, went to the scene of offence and inquest l panchanama was conducted. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination '

5. The Investigating OIIicer/PW. 14 liled charge-sheet against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. According to the investigation, the deceased was strangulated by the appellant with a towel' I

6. Learned Sessions Judge, having considered the evidence on record, found favor with the prosecution version and convicted the appellant accordingly.

7. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is three-fold: (i) The appellant was insarte, and when the same was suggested to the witnesses, PW.6 and other witnesses accepted that the father of the appellant is insane, and so is the appellant. (ii) There is no motive for the murder, as such, the offence falls within the ambit of Section 304 Part I of I.P.C. The absence of pre-meditation or intent to murder the deceased is apparent from the record. I I I 4 (iii) the learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the evidence of PW.6 discloses that the appellant and deceased were in the house at around 11.O0 P.M., and absolutely there was no evidence to establish that the appellant committed murder. There is a possibility of some trespasser entering into the house and committing the murder of the deceased, which was not ruled out by the prosecution.

8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has argued that once the husband and wife were living together in the house, it is for the appellant to explain under what circumstances, the death occurred. Since the Doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination, opined that the death of the deceased was on account ol Asphyxia as a result of manual strangulation, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellant.

9. P.W.6 is a neighbor of the appellant and deceased. P.W.6 is the witness who stated that the deceased and the appellant were watching TV in the house. On the next day morning, the mother of the appellant informed him that the I I ,z 5 appellant killed the deceased. Then, he went to th.e scene of offence and found the dead body of deceased and blood was oozing from her mouth. PW.6 admitted that he came to know that the appellant was suffering with some menta-l illness and his fathLer was also suffering from mental illness.

10. On the basis of last seen evidence, it has to be looked into whether the evidence produced by the prosecution is sufficient to invoke the provision under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, to shift the burden on the appellant I l. If the case of the appellant is that a third person had entered into the house and committed the oflence, the burden is on him to convince the Court that a trespasser could commit the murder. Merely suggesting that the appellant had not committed the murder would not entail any benefit of doubt.

12. PW. 1, who is the brot-her of the deceased, stated in his evidence that the marriage between the appellar-rt and the deceased happened in the year 2001. Thereafter, there rvere constant fights in between the spouses. For the reason, the appellant went to Dubai and while working in Dubai, he used to call the deceased frequently suspecting her character. A panchayat was also held before the elders, however, tJle appellant did not change his attitude.

13. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Na:ndu Singh a. State of Madhga Pradesht. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the case, held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, since the prosecution had not alleged any motive on part of the appellant to commit murder of the deceased, the benelit of doubt was extended to the appellant.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great signilicance. But, at the same time, complete absence of motive assumes a different complexion and such absence definitely weighs in favour of the accused. Once the prosecution fails to establish the motive aspect with cogent evidence, benefit of doubt has to be extended- I Criminal Appeal No.285 of 2022 i I I I I I ! I I I I I I I t ! I i I I I .l I 7

15. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aiai Kumar Chauhan a, The Stolte of Uttar Prad.esftz, wherein it was held on facts that it is diffieult to find that tlee appellant had a premeditated intent to kill the deceased. The possibility of an altercation taking place between the appellant and the deceased for some reason, and the appellant assaulting the deceased in a heat of passion on account of a sudden fight, cannot be ruled out.

16. The evidence of the witnesses is consistent regarding the appellant entertaining a suspicion that the deceased was having an alfair with someone else over a period of time arrd a panchayat u,as also he1d.

17. The abnormal conduct of the appellant over a period of time and also the evidence of the witnesses admitting that at times, the appellant was found to be acting in an insare mar"rner, the said conduct has to looked into, while deciding the case ' lol5 INsc l+ r 8 \

18. Though it is impossible to assess the events that transpire in between the spouses in the house, however, the circumstances can be looked into to arrive at a logical conclusion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Ajai Kumar Chauhan (supra), held: "1O- From tle euidetrce, as placed on record, it ts dilfiatlt to come to a finding that the appellant had come with a premeditated mind to kill the deceased. The posstbttitg of an altercation taking place between the qppellant and the deceased for some reoson and the appellant assauLting the deceased tn the heat of passion on account af q sudden fight, cennot be ruled out.

11. Based on the disanssion aboue, we are of the ueul that the proseattioa h,,s faited to bing the case LuithitL the meaning of Section 300 of the IPC. The possibtlttg of tlle ilcidetlt ocanrring in the spur of tlrc momEnt and the appellatlt assaulting the deceased on account of sudden prouocation, due to a sudden rtght between th.em cannot be ruled out. We firtd tlwt tlrc appeltant uould be entitled to the benefit of Exceptton 4 of Secttort 3O0 of the IPC. As such, tLe conviction of the oppeltant under Part I of Section 304 IPC utouw meet the ends of vtstice . " Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court extended the benefit of doubt to the accused and altered the conviction irom Section 3O2 of I.P.C. to Section 304 Part-I of I.P.C.

19. In the present facts of the case, the relation in between the spouses was strained over a period of time. Both the appellant and the deceased were staying in the house on the date of the incident. It can be logically concluded on the basis of the background of this strained relationship between / ( Il 9 the spouses. that the appellant must have stralgulated the deceased. 20. Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajai Kumar ChauhoLn (supral, this Court deems it appropriate that the conviction of the appellant under Section 3O2 of t.P.C., is altered to Section 304 part-I of I'P'C', and he is sentenced to undergo ten (10) years of imprisonment. 21 . Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed' The tria-l Court is directed to cause appearance of the appellant/accused and send him to the prison for serving the remainder ol the imPrisonment. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed ,TRUE COPY// SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAO OINT REGISTRAR SF.CTI ON OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 a The Sessions Judge at Nizamabad The Judicial I Class tt4agistrate, Armoor' 1 \ The Superintendent. Central Jail, Nizamabad The Station House Officer, Jakranpally Police Station, Armoor Two CCs to tne Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri G. Vasantha Rayudu, Advocate [OPUC] l! I',\ I " Traio CD Copies w HIGH COURT DATED: 0610212025 ltlE SLl 16. ,) ? !l npn zozs t DA'lg o4 TCHirO c {' JUDGMENT CRLA.No.849 of 2017 I { I I I I I I I t t I PARTLY ALL.OWING THE APPEAT- @ g\rt 79