The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri. R Swarnalatha Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K.SURENDER And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.746 oF 20L7 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Si Justice K.Surend"er)

1. The appellant was convicted arrd sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of IpC vide judgment in S.C.No.50O of 2011, dated 14.06.2017, passed by the VIII Additional Sessions Judge at Miryalagr.rda. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that p.W. 1 was married to one Sk.Jani, and she gave birth to two children. Her husband deserted her due to some disputes and she got acquainted with the appellant. P.W.l married the appellant. The appellant forced her to do prostitution. One year prior to the incident, a person, namely Muthaiah, asked p.W.1 to have sex with him and also insulted her. Coming to know about the incident, the appellant and his friends, who are, the deceased herein, B.Kondaiah, and P.W.2, namely Moulali, and another person, tried to commit the murder of Muthaiah. A case was registered against all of them for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and same is pending trial on the file of the Assistant Sessions .-.-..1 \ 2 Judge, Miryalagr-rda. All of them were attending to the Cotrrt P.W. 1 developed intimacy with the deceased and married him. They stayed together in Nizamabad and then in Hyderabad for some time. Four months prior to the incident, P.W.1 and deceased rented a room in Haliya town and were residing there.

3. The incident happened oo 2l .O9 .2OlO. P.W. 1 along with the deceased went to the Court to attend the case. Since the case was before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda Court, both P-W.l and the deceased went to a hotel, and from there, they arrived at the Court and were sitting under a neem tree on the pial (cement construction around the neem tree) . P.W.2 questioned the deceased and the appellant also confronted the deceased and threatened to see his end at Nagarjunasagar. Before the deceased could reply, the appellant took out a knife and stabbed him on his throat, stomach, and chest, several times. The appellant tried to flee, then, two constables, P.Ws.3 and 4, chased him.

4. A complaint was hled by P.W. 1 with the police, narrating the incident. 3

5. The deceased died while being taken to the hospital. The scene of offence panchanama was conducted at the scene and thereafter, the inquest proceedings were also concluded in the hospital. After the inquest proceedings, p.W.12 conducted autopsy and found the following injuries: "1. Lacerated wound dorsal ofleft hand from little finger to dorsal aspect 5 cm x Yz cm.

2. Lacerated wound left cubital fossa of left elbow 6 cm x 5 cm 3. Lacerated wound near left nipple 3 cm x 2 cm 4- Lacerated wound epigastrium (centreof the stomach) 3 cm x 1 cm 5. Lacerated wound centre ofchest 6 cm x.3 cm x 2 cm 6. Lacerated wound left base ofneck 3 cm x 3 cm x g cm deep 7. Lacerated wound below right eye 3 cm x 2 cm 8. Lacerated wound right nipple 3 cm x 2 cm 9. Lacerated wound right hypochomdrium near oblicus 2 cm x 3 cm x 2cmx5cm iO. Lacerated wound right wrist 3 cm x 3 cm ventral aspect 1 1. l"acerated wound dorsum of right wrist 2 cm x 3 cm 12. Fracture of 1 cm x 2 cm left ribs and 5 and 6left ribs 13. Fracture of 1,2,3,4, 5 on right ribs 14. A hole in left lung anteriority 1 cm x 1 cm 15. A,hole in left upper part of heart I cm x I cm and it-rferior aspect of heart l cmx 1cm

16. A hole in the left lobe superior aspect of liver 17. Blood in the pericardial cavity,"

6. According to the Doctor, all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and the cause of death was due to multiple injuries. Learned trial judge mainly placed reliance on the evidence of eye witnesses P.Ws.1, 3,4,6 and 8, and convicted the appellant.

7. Sri Brahmadandi Ramesh, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for R. Swarna,latha Reddy, Iearned counsel for the 4 appellant argued that the evidence of p.W. 1 cannot be considered since she is an interested witness. She is the wife of the appellant and she lived with the deceased. Apart from the evidence of P.W.1, there is no other evidence, which could be relied upon to conclude that it was the appellant who had committed the murder. The trial Court has disbelieved the eye witness account of P.W.3, P.W.6, and p.W.g, and found that their evidence could not be relied upon to convict the appellant. However, having found that the prosecution has come up with fabricated evidence against the appellant, the trial Court erred in convicting the appellant only ol the basis of the evidence of p.W. l.

8. Alternatively, the learned Senior Counsel submits that there was no premeditation or intent on the part of the appellant to murder the deceased. Even according to p.W. 1, a quarrel ensued in between the deceased and the appellant, resulting in the aileged attack.

9. P.W. I was right beside the deceased when the appellant, along with P.W.2, went there and the appellant stabbed the deceased. Though, P.W.2 turned hostile to the prosecution case, the hostility will not, in any manner, help the appellant to 5 disbelieve the evidence of p.W. 1 and also of p.W.5. p.W.S is an independent witness, who was in the Court premises. He stated that he saw the appellant stabbing the deceased and fleeing from the place. Two constables, p.Ws.3 and 4, chased him and tried to catch him. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination to discredit the evidence of p.W.5. 1O. Though, p.W.4 stated that he witnessed the appellant stabbing the deceased and fleeing from the scene, however, in the cross-examination, it was elicited by marking trxs.D2. and D3 that he could not see the actual stabbing. However, p.W.4 has witnessed the appellant running away from the scene and being chased by two constables.

11. The learned Senior Counsel,s argument that the trial Court disbelieved the evidence of some of the eye witnesses, and the evidence of . p.Ws.l and 5 should be discarded, cannot bs accepted. Not believing the evidence of p.Ws.3, 4, and g will .not, in any manner, discredit the eye witness account of p.ws.1 and / 5. It is notihe quantity but the quality of the evidence that has to be looked into. Though, there were several witnesses and some of them were disbelieved by the Court below, that in itself will not, I l l 6 ln any manner, affect the evidence of p.Ws.l and 5, who were examined at the earliest point of time and the incident was narrated to the police.

12. The alternative submission of the learned Senior Counsel that since there was no premeditation to commit the murder, the offence falls under Section 304_II of IpC, cannot be accepted. It is a court premises and the appelant went there with a knife in his possession. He had continuously stabbed the deceased, resulting in the deceased receiving multiple stab injuries, and dying, as a result of the said injuries. The nature of injuries caused would reflect the intent on the part of the appellant to cause. death of the deceased. i i l i 3. There are no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.

14. Accordingly, Criminal Appeai is dismissed \ To SD/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER e Vlll Additional Sessions Judge, at Miryatguda. e Statio1 House Officer, Miryalaguda I Town police Station 1, Th 2. Th 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4. One CC to Sri. 5 Two CD Copies R Swarnalatha, Advocate tOpUCl Hyderabad. (OUT) DL/PSL G I t t HIGH COURT DATED:18/03/2025 // <" // ,-t a-; 6 S o; ,i 2[25 0 3 A P v )- 4+ JUDGMENT CRLA.No.746 ol 2017 o ., t)* * E Ps 'A Hr DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL