The High Court · 2025

Perikolla Srikanth S/o. Late p prakash, Aged 33 years, Occ: Tea Stall Worker, ffi: ril,)& 2e -1 37 I t 4, East Kakatiya' N"r;;i Ma tkajsiri Mandat, -r,i"",&;et, AND ,..APPELLANT I|:"tiflSo"t relangana rep bv the Public Prosecutor, High cout Buildings, Counsel for the Appe ant: - Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar, Addl. public prosecutor The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: ...RESPODENTS I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.787 0F 20L7 JUDGMENT'. 1o:r Hon'ble Sri Justice K'Surender) The Appt:i is filed by the appellant/A-1 aggrieved by i. the judgment lated O5.O7.2017' in S'C'No'183 of 2('16' on the file of SVl\dditional District ald Sessions Judgt:-Cum- XVI Addition,al Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyber: 'bad at Malkajgiri, Riu-rga Reddy District' The appellarrt was convicted for t.l-re offence under Section 302 of Il'C and sentenced to 1i [,: imprisonment.

2. Learnecl counsel on record, on earlier o()caslon' appeared and informed that appellant has taken b':'ck the fi1e. This Court b1' order dated 2a'O1'2025 issued wilrrants' Learned Prinr:ipal District and Sessions Judge, Ivl edchal- Malkajgiri Driritrict at Malkajgiri, addressed a let er vide Lr.Dis.No.721 /ADMN/2025, dated 10.02'2025, to Fiegistrar (Judicial-l) inltrrming that the appellant's whereabor Lts rvere not knor,vn i tr-rd he was also involved in anoth er case registered at l).S.Alwal. In the said circumstances, ''vhen no alternate arrar-.gements were made by the appellant, we have i' i 2 gone through the record and taken the assistance of learned Additional Public prosecutor.

3. The appellant herein, A_2, and, A_3 were tried by the Iearned Sessions Court. During the pendency of the trial, A-2 died, as such, the case was abated against him. Learned Sessions Judge acquitted A_3 since there was no reliable evidence to convict him.

4. The case of the prosecution is that appellant was married to Srikala (deceased) on 2g.06.2007. At the time of marriage, cash of Rs.2,50,000/_ and other house hold articles were given towards dowry. After three or four months of marriage, A- 1 to A-3 started harassing the deceased for additional dowry of Rs.2,OO,OO/_ for purchasing car by A_1. The mother of the deceased/p.W. l, arranged 4 tulas of gold and gave it to the appeilant. However, harassment did not stop.

5. The deceased was found dead in her house on 05.04.2015. It was informed to the police and the police inturn, informed p.W. 1 regarding the death of p.W. 1,s daughter. Accordingly, p.W. 1 and others went to the hospital and on enquiry, p.W.4 informed p.W. 1 and others that the 3 appellant smothered the deceased with a piliow' The appellant also 11lve fist blows on the face of the deceasr:d'

6. The Investigating Officer received the complaint/Ex P'1' Thereafter, d.ead body was shifted to Osmania (ieneral Hospitai. At ttLe hospital, inquest was held and thereafter' body was senl to post mortem examination' P'W'l(r is the Doctor, 11r[6 ,3onducted post mortem examination Hr: found the follor,r'ing irtluries on the deceased: Br:rr:sing of 7 cm x 4 cm present on nose, Iled in ,:,rlour. "1) 2\ ol- r-he neck. Extending from left back necli to left. front neck. Horizontal at the level of thvroid cartilage caused by ligature red in C,f .LCr.l-1r 3) 4) Soi, tissue under ligature mark is contusel' hvoid bone and thYroid are intact'"

7. Accordirrq to the post mortem Doctor, the time of death was 12 hou -s prior to post mortem examination Post mortem was; :onducted in between 1:15 p'm' and 2:45 p 'rn" on 06.04.2O15. 'l 4 B. On |2.O4.2OIS, the appellant was apprehended Confession statement was recorded and thereafter, he was produced before the concerned Magistrate. After conclusion of investigation, p.W. 1 I filed charge sheet against A_ I to A_3 for the offences under Sections 498_4 and 3O2 of IpC. 9. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant on the basis of evidence of p.Ws. 1 to 6. p.W.4 is the daughter of the appellant who is the eye witness to smothering by the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant/A_ 1 was convicted. However, the learned Sessions Judge extended benefit of doubt to A-3. Having gone through the record, p.Ws.1 to 3, 5 and 6 stated about the differences in between the deceased and the appellant. According to them, there were constant fights between them.

10. The defense of the accused is that he never demanded any amount, nor did he have any fights with the deceased. The deceased committed suicide in a drunken condition and she was in a habit of consuming alcohol. I 1 . The version of suicide was ruled out by the evidence of Doctor/P.W. 10. According to p.W. 10, the cause of death was due to pressure over the nose and neck. P,W.4, who is the / ) daughter of th,r appellant, stated that the appellant t'rok the deceased intc, a. room and pressed' the face of the dr':ceased The evidence of P.W.4, whose narrre also pi1low. in tht: complaint,. corroborates with the rledical with a figured ) evidence

12. Once th e appellant takes the defense of dr:ceased committing suir:ide by consuming poison in a drunken state' it is for the apllellant to prove the circumstalces unde r which she committt:r1 suicide' Admittedly, P'W 4, dc'ceased' appellant, arLc. other children were staying in the vety same house. The <1eath was homicidal, and the post mortem Doctor did not find aly insecticide poison or alcoho during the course of' p,tst mortem examination.

13. Since it is not disputed that the appellant, cleceased ald children v"ere living under one roof, the burder: lies on the appellalt tc prove the cause of the death of the d':ceased' The appellanl did not elicit any evidence to suggest that he was not in thr: house, when the incident had taken place' In fact, his ca te is that deceased committed sujcide by consuming pi)ison, which is not true according to the post . mortem Doctor. I I ?,] 6 r-\l

74. The evidence of p.W.4, who is the daughter of the deceased, is clear that it was the appellant who had smothered the deceased. There are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.

15. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed The Police shall take steps to arrest the appellarrt, who is now absconding ald produce before the concerned Court to be sent to prison to serve out 'the remaining part of the senter o rq ! vr Lrrc scrrlence rmposed by the trial Court. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. I. NAGA LAKSHMI UTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,

1. Perikolla Srikanth S/o. Late P.Prakash, Aged 33 years, Occ: Tea Stall Worker, R/o. H.No. 29-1378/4, East Kakatiya Nagar, Neredmet, Malkajgiri lvlandal, RR. District. VI{

2. The XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-XVI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at It/alkajgiri, Ranga Reddy Diskict. (with records, if any)

3. The XX lvletropolitan lt/agistrate, Cyberabbd at Malkajgiri. 4. The Station House Officer, Neredment Police Station, Secunderabad 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies G.. - r'l , I HIGH COURT DATED: 18102,12025 ( q o (j 1 r{e STaG 1 1 APfl 1025 z o ar^^-^, i-,- '/ JUDGMENT CRLA.No.787 of 2017 DISMISSING THE APPEAL