The High Court · 2025

State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh., Hyderabad ...RES'.DENT/..M,LA.NANT Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. C.H. SIDDAIAH Counsel for the Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT I I{ON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.728 OF 2O1I- JUDGMENT:

1. The appellalt was convicted for the offence under Section 3O4- II IPC and sente'nced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years vide judgment in S.C.No.360 of 2010 dated 28.06.20 1 i passed by the Sessions Judge at Nizamabad. Agqrieved by the sarne, present appeal is hled.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that, the appellant is the wife of P.W.1. The deceased is the mother of P.W.1 and mother-in- lal.r of the appellant. On 06.08.2010, it is alleged that in the evening around 5.OO p m, the deceased namely Ramavva asked the appellant to arrange onions in a bag. Then the appellant quarreled with the deceased, pushed her down to the ground and tied petty coat thread/rope around her neck, throttling her in an attempt to kill the deceased. The deceased Ramawa shouted for help. Immediately, neighbor P.W.2 went to the house and she saw the appellant sitting on the deceased and pressing her neck with a petty I i I I 7 2 I coat thread /rope. P.W.2, then intervened and separated the deceased and the appellant.

3. P.W. 1, who is the son of the deceased. Receiving information from P.W.2, P.W. 1 went home and took his mother/deceased to Bharath Pawar hospital at Nizamabad. There, the hospital authorities refused to admit her in the hospital. The deceased went to the poiice station along with P.W. 1 ald filed complaint at 6.15 p.m. In the complaint, she narrated that she was pushed on to the ground, and the appellant tried to strangulate her by squeezing her neck with a petty coat rope/thread. The police examined the deceased and Ex.P7 /complaint \VAS drafted, and the deceased a,ffixed her thumb impression. The police referred the deceased to the Government Hospital, Nizarnabad. The deceased was treated for three days in the Government Hospital and as advised by the Doctors, the deceased was taken to Hyderabad for better treatment in Gandhi Hospital, but even before admitting her in the Gandhi hospital, the deceased died. From Gandhi Hospital, the dead body was taken to Nizamabad Government Hospital where the 7 postmortem exarnination was conducted by P.W.6. P.W.6 found the 3 following injuries "External injuries:

1. Abrasions over neck. 2. Legature mark above the hyoid bone around the neck horizontal.

3. Tips of the upper limb fingers nail bed bluish discoloration Internal injuries:

1. Multiple peticheal hemorrhages present in the brain, blood clot present over right temporal region, right parietal region. 4 Police conducted inquest proceedings before body was sent for postmortem examination. Thereafter, charge sheet was hied, for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The opinion of ttre postmortem Doctor was that the death was due to asphyxia due to strangulation.

5. Learned Sessions Judge mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.2 and the complaint Ex.P7, which was given by the deceased herself in the police stal.ion to come to the conclusion that the act of the appellant in trying to strangulate her, resulted in the death of the deceased after hve days of the incident i.e., 11.08.2010. I I 4

6. Sri N.Abhishek, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ch.Siddaiah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the deceased was, in fact, treated in three different hospita.ls. According to P'W'1 and P'W'3 deceased was brought tlack to the house, three days after the incident' If at all she was brought back from the hospital, that would' be aJter the deceased being treated. None of the Doctors treating the deceased were examined. No reasons are given as to why the deceased' though taken to Gandhi Hospital in Hyderabad' was again taken back to the Nizamabad" for the purpose of postmortem examination' A false case is filed against the appellant'

7. Sri M.vir.,ekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that, though the death cannot be d'irectly related to the alleged incident on 06'08'2010, however' the appellant has attacked her mother-in-1aw, i'e', the deceased and tried to strangulate her with petty coat rope/thread' which act is punishable.

8. The postmortem report, Ex'P6 gives the cause of death as "asphyxia due to strangulation"' Admittedly' the alleged attempt to -,1 5 strangulate was on 06.08.2010. AsphSn<ia is a condition whereby body does not receive oxygen, resulting in death. The alleged incident of strangulation has taken place on 06.08.2010 a,d it is highly improbable that the death occurred six days thereafter. It is totatly absurd to say that the aneged attempt to strangulate was on 06.08.2010 and hve days thereafter, the deceased died for asph5acia_ due to strangulation. -

9. The prosecution not only tailed to examine an1, of the Doctors, who treated the deceased, but also tailed to provide any medical evidence to suggest that there is possibilit5r of person dying with asphyxia, six detys after any pressuri: that was put on the neck of the deceased person. In the absence of any medical evidence by al expert to clearl1, state about the death of ttre deceased, being a direct consequence of the stralgulation a_lleged Iive days prior, the question of death being caused on account of such strangulation, does not arise. If the supply of oxygen stopped, when the deceased was strangulated, she would not have survived for six days. I 6

10. In the result, the judgment in S.C.No.360 of 2010 dated 2a.O6.2O11 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted. Since the appeilant is on bail, her bail bonds sha_ll stand discharged. 1 1. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed. Sd/- C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' s ECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Sessions Judge, Nizamabad i. rn" if nooitionat Jioiciat Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad 3 i'ri; bir;6 inip"cloiot potic6, NizamaPg{.Blt'l Police station' Nizamabad q. One CC to SriCh.Siddiah . Advocate (OPUC) d. i;; CCi tJiufric Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 6 Trlvo CD Copies Ks/gh V{- Hvderabad.(OUT) HIGH COURT DATED:24102t2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.728 of 2011 1flE SL1 r4,' ( ? 4 IrtAB 2025 ( ! 7: ,-) \r a (),: ALLOWING THE CRL.A. I q .t3"lt Y\- ;6ts