The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. M. Achutha Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.928 0F 2017 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is hled by the appellant/accused No. 1, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) aggrieved by the judgment dated 18. 1O.2O16, in S.C.No.235 of 2014, passed by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, convicting the appellant/ accused No. 1 for the offence under Sectio n 3O2 of IpC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar, learned Additional public prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent-State.

3. The appellant is accused No.l. He was tried along with accused Nos.2 and 4 for committing murder of the deceased.

4. The incident happened on 13.09.2013, at around O5.30 P.M., when accused No.I went to the fields of pW2, and caught hold of the deceased and hacked her with an axe.

5. PW2 is the eye witness to the incident. According to PW2, she was in the helds along with the deceased, and one Nagamma was doing coolie work. Around 05.00 p.M., 2 accused No.1 came to the fields and on seeing accused No'1' due to fear, the deceased caught hoia of Pw2' Pw2 warned accused No.1 not to cause any harm to the deceased' however, accused No.1 dragged the deceased and hacked her in front of PW2 with a knife and an axe' The deceased died instantaneously. Then, PW2 went and informed PW 1 /father of the deceased. PW I then went to the Police Station and lodged a 6. written complaint at 06.30 P'M', i'e', within one hour after the incident. The same was registered by the Police/PWl1' PW11 then went to the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama. Thereafter, inquest proceedings were also concluded. Wearing apparel of the deceased was seized' Then, deceased's body was sent for post mortem examination' PW 12 conducted post mortem and found the following lnJunes " 1 . Fracture left index finger 2. Laceration 4 size 2xS cms left thumb 3. Laceration of size 1x5 inches on right side of neck 4. Deep laceration of size 2x4 inches on right side ofneck 5. Laceration of size 1x6 cms on the neck 6. Fracture of sPine (C-5 & C-6) 7. Fracture of right side lower jaw )

8. Loss of teeth - 8 in number right side 9. Laceratron of size 2x5 cms between nght index hnger and 3.d finger (middle frnger) 1O. Laceration of size lx2 cms ald 1x5 cms on left thigh 11. Laceration of size 2x8 inches on back of neck causing fracture C-spine

12. Laceration of size lx4 cms on right fore arm.,,

7. Accused was arrested on 26.09.2013, along with 2 others, accused Nos.3 and 4. At the instance of accused No.1, axe/MO1 was seized, pursuant to his,confession.

8. The Police concluded investigation and hled charge sheet against the accused Nos.1, 2, and others. According to the case of the prosecution, the appellant is related to the deceased as cousin. The appellant had forcibly taken the deceased and kept her in his custody for 3 days and thereafter, the deceased returned and informed about the incident. Deceased stated that the appellalt had assaulted her sexually. PWl then approached the elders and held a panchayat, which was conducted by elders of all communities, wherein appellant was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,30,0O0/- as penalty. Accordingly, Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the appellant. Elders also warned the appellant not to harass the deceased and pWl. For the \ 4 said reason of deceased lodging a complaint with the elders and holding a panchayat, the appellant held grudge against the deceased, and hacked her in the fields of PW2 on the said day, i.e., 13.O9.2013. g. trarned Sessions Judge, having considered the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, found favour with the version of prosecution that the appellant had inflicted injuries, resulting in instantaneous death of the deceased in the fields of PW2.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that appellant is falsely implicated on account of disputes. In fact, the appellant was not present when the incident happened' Though it was stated by PW2 that the appellant attacked the deceased with a knife and an axe, however, the knife was not seized, nor were any injuries caused by the knife found on the body of the deceased. Except the statement of PW2, there is no other witness to the alleged incident. Since PW2 is an interested witness, her evidence cannot be considered' 1 1 . On the other hand, Iearned Additional hrblic Prosecutor would submit that, the solitary testimony of PW2 t 5 is sufficient to infer that it was the appellant, who had caused the death of the deceased.

12. PW2 is the solitary eye witness, who had stated about the appellant trespassing into her fields, dragging the deceased, and hacking her with an axe. PW2 was in her fields in the evening, when the deceased was working as a coolie in the said helds. The presence of PW2 cannot be disbelieved. The testimony of PW2 is convincing and needs no corroboration. The incident happened at around 05.00 P.M., ald the complaint was filed at O6.30 P.NI. The said complaint, which was filed within one and half hours of the incident, mentioned the name of PW2 as an eye witness, and also stated that the incident happened in the fieids of PW2. There is absolutely nothing placed on record to disbelieve the presence of PW2 in the fields or to suggest that she did not witness the incident. It is not quantity but quality of the euidence that the Court has to consider. When the evidence of a solitary eye-witness is convincing, the Court need not look for corroboration. In the present case, nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of PW2 to discredit her version. PW2's evidence is truthful and believable. I I 6

13. The axe was seized at the instance of appellant. The injuries received by the deceased would clearly reflect the brutal manner in which the appellant had assaulted the deceased, resulting in her instantaneous death. There are absolutely no grounds to disbelieve the evidence of the eye- witness PW2, and the appeal fails.

14. Accordingly, criminal appeal is dismissed. //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The lX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sd/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER anparthy. (with records, if any) Z. Tne Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagarkurnool' 5 f f," srp"rintendlnt, Centrat prison, Chertapa[y, Ranga Reddy District. +. in" itation House Officer, Tadoor Police Station' Mahabubnagar District s. rwo ccs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. One'CC to Mr. M ACnutha Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies Kam/DL HIGH COURT DATED:1110212025 ) JUDGMENT CRLA.No.928 of 2017 bR iHt s T4 o a o-'2.>2 -| I J61 tU 206 I * - ' iI\.) DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL APPEAL L