The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: Judgment / I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRJMINAL APPEAL No. 1 1O8 of 2Ol7 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is f,rled questioning the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused No.l uide Judgment, dated 01.08.2017 in Sessions Case No.731 of 2013 by the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the appellant/accused No.l was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punisherble under Section 3O2 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "I.P.C.") and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two (02) months.

2. Heard Sri M.Laxmi Raj, learned counsel for the appellant / accused No. 1 learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant-State.

3. The appellant was conrricted by the learned Sessions Judge and found guilty for murdering his wife on 7/8.O7.2013 at 4.OO A.M. According to the case of the prosecution, the appellant was married to one Maleka 2 KS.J and EVVJ CrlA No I108 ot20l7 Begum, (deceased) and out of their wedlock, they had a seven months old daughter. There were frequent quarrels between the spouses. The appellant and his father-accused No.2 (died) harrased her for gold and quarreled with the deceased. Appellant and accused No.2 used to consume alcohol and abuse the deceased in filthy language. 4. PWl, the mother of the deceased, received a phone call about the death of the deceased at 2.OO A.M. on 718.O7.2OI3 . Immediately, she went to the house of the deceased and found the deceased lying in the bed room with injuries on her throat, neck, and other parts of the body. PWl enquired with PW5, who is the owner of the house, and PWS informed that the deceased and the Appellant were fighting since 9.00 P.M. on the said night and around 1.00 A.M., she found the appellant standing outside the house with his seven months old daughter. Upon questioning the Appellant, he stated that he committed the murder of his wife. Both PW5 and PW6 went inside the house and found the deceased dead, and thereafter, PW1 was informed by the neighbours of the deceased. 3 KS,J and EVVJ C-l.A.No I I08 of 2017

5. PW 1 went to the police station and lodged a complaint-Ex.Pl on O8.OZ.2OI3. pWl affixed the thumb impression on the engalish typed complaint.at 4.OO A.M., i.e., two hours after PWI came to know about the death of the deceased.

6. The said complaint was received by pW12. l\ case was registered under Section 3O2, 498-4 of I.p.C., anrl Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act, 1961 . proceeded to the scene of offence and in the presence of tfre pW12 independent witnesses, conducted the scene of offence and inquest panchanamas, and the body of the dece,ased was seized for the purpose of medical examination. ThereaJter, the body was shifted to mortuary of Osmania, General Hospital, where the inquest proceedings were conducted in the presence of two mediators. Thereafter, the body was sent for autopsy, and the doctor-pWl l found the following, injuries on the body of the deceased: ' 1) Multiple scratch abrasions of nails lO x 9 cm on front of neck over the th5rroid cartilage, 2) Abrasion 1 x I cm below the outer algle of right eye, 3) Abrasions 0.2 x O. I cm on the middle 3rd of left forearm and 1 x O. I cm on the dorsum of left wrist, 4) Contusions 5 x 4 cm of the flat muscles on left sr,le of thyroid cartilage and 3 x 2 cm below the left horm of hyoid trone, 4 KS,J and EVV,J Crl.A No.l 108 of 2017 5) Contusions 3 x 2 cm on the medial aspect of tips of left horms of hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage, over the back of oesphagus and 3 x 2 cms on the outer aspect of right horms of thyoid and hyoidbone 6) Contusions I x lYz cm along the margins of left vocal cord dnd 2 x 1 cm below the right vocal cord. PWl l-doctor concluded that the death of the deceased was due to throttling.

7. Learned Sessions Judge found in favour of the version of the prosecution and also relied on the evidence of the house owners, PWs 5 and 6, as well the medical evidence, which suggested a homicidal death. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant for murdering his

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant would submit that the Appellant was not present in the house when the death took place. Even according to PWs 5 and 6, the Appellarrt went to the house around l.O0 A.M., and by that time, the deceased was found dead. The death of his wife was informed to PWs 4 and 5. The Appellant has nothing to do with the death of the deceased and he is not aware as to how she died. ; a 5 KS.J and Evv,J Crl A.No. I 108 of 2017

9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitr; that the death of the deceased has to be explained by the l\ppellant. Mere denial will not help the Appellant, and as rightly fou.nd by the learned. Sessions Judge, the burdt'n shifted onto the Appellant was not discharged.

10. The undisputed facts are that, according to PWs. 1 to 6, the deceased and the Appellant were constantlr' Iighting, and the appellant was harassing her in a drunken condition and also demanding gold.

11. According to PWs.S and 6, who are the owners of the house where the Appellant and deceased were livtng, on the early hours of O8 .07.20 1 3, the Appellant was standing outside the house along with his daughter ald when he was questioned, he informed that he killed the deceased. PWs.S and 6. went to the house and found the deceased dead. Thereafter, the information was given to tl-re mother of the deceased

12. Under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence ,\ct, 1872 (For short, "the Act, 1872"1, the burden shifts to the Appellant/accused to explain the facts which are rvithin the 6 KS,J and EVV.J Crl.A.No.I 108 of20t7 exclusive knowledge of such person. The death happened in the house where the deceased and Appellant were living. The deceised was found dead and the deg.th was homicidal. The prosecution, on the basis of the said circumstances, has laid the foundation to shift the burden on to the Appellant

13. Mere denial will not in arry manner absolve the burden that has been shifted to the Appellant under Section lO6 of the Act, 1872. It is not the case of the Appellant that by the time he entered the house, a third person had committed the murder of the deceased. In such a case, the conduct of the person finding his wife dead would be to lodge a complaint with the porice or inform the neighbours. But no such events tralspired in the present case. PWs.S and 6 have clearly stated that the appellant and the deceased were constantly fighting with one alother, and on the date of the incident, the Appellant was present in the house , 1 KSJand EW,J Crl A No ll08ol20l7

14. Even in the examination of the accused undr:r Section 313 of Cr.P.C., no explanation was given by the appellant except stating that he is innocent.

15. There are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge in convicting the Appellart. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly disroissed

16. Since the Appellant is on bail, he shall be summoned by the concerned Court and sent to prison. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, sh all stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. SAILESHI JOINTJREQISTRAR -:--\-- rF. SECTION bFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 5 6 ADK . The lAdditional lVletropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad. (with records) . The station House Officer, Falaknuma poticL Station, Hyderrabad . The Superintendent, Central prison, Chanchalguda, HydLrabad . Two ccs to the Public Prosecutor, High courtlor the state of rerangana at Hyderabad (OU! . One CC to SRI M. LAXMI RAJ, Advocate tOpUCI . Two CD Copiesv HIGH COURT DATED:2010312025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1108 of 2017 s 1|lE S14 14: L) 10 JUN 20[ DISMISSING THE CRLA 1 0l 0