High Court of Telangana · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To fix and early date of hearing of the CrlA No 1 181i201 9 and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of sentence passed in sc No 39 of 2016 daled 2611112019 on the file of the Honble Additional Metropolitan Session Judge, Cyberabad a LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, for offence U/s 302 of IPC and to release the petitioner/accused on bail pending disposal of CRLA NO 1181 of 2019 and pass Counsel for the Appellant : Smt. Y.RATNA PRABHA Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1181 of 2019 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Si Justice K.Surender) This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the judgment dated 26. 1l.2OI9 in S.C.No.39 of 2076, on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, whereby the appellant/ accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IpCJ.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additiona_l public prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the record.

3. PW. 1 lodged a complaint with the potice on24.03.2015 at

07.15 P.M., alleging that he received information from his neighbors that his wife was burnt, and at that time, the appellant was present besides the dead body. The colony people caught him. The deceased and the appellant were teachers working in Rushi High School. They were quarreling with one another. . On the date of the incident, the neighbors noticed 2 smoke emanating from the house of the deceased, and as such, PWs.7, 10, and others went near the house, broke open the door where they found the appellant. The appellant was immediately apprehended by the colony people and handed over to the police. PW. 12 /Investigating OIIicer received the complaint, registered a crime, and took up the case for investigation. Thereafter, he went to the scene of offence and the scene of offence was observed' PW.l 1/Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination, opined that the death was on account of the burns and the percentage of burns received by the deceased is 99o/o. According to PW. 12, til-e appellalt was apprehended while he was in the custody of the local people. After completion of the investigation, the police hled the charge sheet against the accused.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that admittedly, PWs.7 and 1O are strangers to the deceased and no test identification parade was conducted during the course of the investigation to believe the identification of the appellant by PWs.7 and 10. The incident happened on 24.03.2015 and PWs.7 and 1O were examined in -/. 3 the year 2019, which is nearly 4 years after the incident, and the same cannot be believed.

5. The learned counsel further argued that the vehicle on which the appellant allegedly went to the house of the deceased was not seized. Further though PWs.7 and 1O stated that the appellant was tied to a stone, however, no such statement is mentioned in the complaint/Ex.Pl.

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional public Prosecutor would submit that the appellant was found at the scene, detained by the neighbors, and handed over to the police. In the said circumstances, the evidence of PW.7 and PW. 10, who are the independent witnesses, can be believed 7 . The version given by PW. 1 is that the deceased and the appellant were colleagues at the school, both working as teachers, and they had disputes regarding the partnership and running of the school. On the date of the incident, pW.7 went to the scene, broke open the door, and found the appellant inside the house. He was caught and handed over to the police. In the cross-examination, he stated that he did not giye any complaint to the police and someone had informed to the husband of the 4 deceased. PW. 10 is another witness who was at the scene When PW. I broke open the main door of the house, the appellant came out of the house, where he was detained by the neighbors. Thereafter, the police took the appellant to the police station.

8. The defence of the appellant is one of denial. Though PWs.7 and 1O are strangers to the appellant, however, they were present when the main door of the house was broken, and the appellant was found inside the house while the deceased was in flames. The deceased died due to the burns' PWs.7 and 10, who are independent witnesses and have absolutely no acquaintance with the appellant, have no reason to speak false against the appellant. 9 . The incident was of such a nature that it would have occurred for a considerable amount of time. The neighbors/PWs.7 and 10, found the deceased in flames and the accused in the house. When PW.7 went there and broke open the door, the appellant was detained. According to PW.IO, he heard noices at 12.30 P.M. and then he, along with PW. 1, broke open the door and frnding the appellant inside, the appellant was detained. The police arrived at 7.OO P.M. in the evening 5 after receiving a complaint from PW.l. Given the incident occurred over a considerable period, i.e., from 12.30 P.M. tilt O7.O0 P.M. until police arrived, which is nearly seven hours, it I I cannot be said that the witnesses would not have identified the appellant and falsely implicated him in the case. In fact, the I evidence of PWs.7 and 10, who are independent witnesses, is believable, and it is for the appellant to explain as to why he was present in the house of the deceased at the time of the incident. It is not in dispute that the door was broken down and the appellant was caught hold of by the neighbors. It is not a case of mere glance by PWs.7 and lO that would require test identification parade for the purpose of identification. As already discussed, the appellant was detained for 7 hours until police arrived. As seen from the cross-examination of pWs.7 and 1O, the appellant did not deny his presence at the scene. When the appellant was found inside the locked door where the deceased was burnt, the burden is on the appellant to explain the cause of burns. Except stating that the evidence of prosecution is fa-lse, the appellant did not give any explanation for his presence at the scene. The grounds raised by the learned counsel for the appellant calnot be sustained and the appeal fails. 6

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal tails is dismissed Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. 7 //TRUE COPY// SD/-MOHD,I MAIL DEPUWREGI TRAR I SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 kS The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District The lil Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, R.R.District The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapalli, R R-District The lnspector of Police, Medipally Police Station, Cyberabad One CC to Smt Y.Ratna Prabha, Advocate (OPUC) Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.(OUT) Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:2710312025 ORDER CRLA.No.1181 ot 2019 Dismissing the Grl.A. @*1