The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri. V.Mythili Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: ,l THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2592 OF 2018 JUDGMENTI rp,.r llon bla Su Justicc K.Surender)

1. The Appeal rs filed by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the judgmeni- dated 11.09.2018, in S.C.No.88 of 2017, on the file of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, at Asifabad. Th,' appellalt was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3O2 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, and also under Sectron 304 II of IPC and senten,;ed to 7 vears ol imprisonment. The appellant was convicted rrnder tu,o counts for causing the tleaths of two persons, D.I ald D.2.

2. Heard leirrned senior counsel for the appellant ald Sri Arun Kumar D:clla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-Stir te.

3. Accordinr, to P.W.1, who is the wile of Bhumaiah (D1), while D.1 u.as, going to his fields, it is alleged ttrat the appellant hanrled over a quarter bottle to him, informing that it is the rnedr,:ir-re for body pajns. Having taken the said bottle from tht,appellant, the deceased went to his fields and 2 consumed the medicine with one Azgar (D.2). After consuming the liquid that was in the quarter bottle given by the appellant, both D. 1 and D.2 started vomiting near their fields. P.W.3 is the person who was present along with D.1 and D.2. P.W.3 stated that, having seeri D.1 and D.2 vomiting, he refused to consume the liquid given by the appellant, stating that it is the medicine for curing body pains. D.1 died in Mancherial hospital on L0.02.2016, and D.2 died on 01.03.2016 at NIMS hospital, Hyderabad.

4. The complaint was hled on 15.02.2016, stating that the incident of the appellant handing over the quarter bottle to the deceased occurred on 14.02.2016 at 10:30 p.m. in the night. The motive suggested by the prosecution is that, two months prior, the appellant developed illegal intimacy with his junior materna-l aunt, namely Salpala Sunitha, and D.1 had seen them together. The appellant threatened D.1 with dire consequences ald also threatened that he would kill him if he disclosed the intimacy between the appellalt and his maternal aunt.

5. Having received the complaint Investigating Officer started the on 15.O2.2016, the investigation. On a -)

18.02.2016, thl Policc went to the house of appellant and seized M.O.1, lhrch is a piastic bottie containing liquid, in the presence o' P.W.9. M.O.2, which is a quarter bottle allegedly har-rdl rl over by the appellant to Bhurnaiah (D. 1 ), was seized fron. tht' house of P.W.3. The said serzure was on

03.03.2016.

6. After the ,leaths of D.1 and D.2, the dead l:odies were sent for postm()rtem examination. The postmortem Doctor found that tl'Le deaths were on account ol paraquat dichloride, a hcrbicide poison

7. Learned senror counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant did not commit any act falling rvithin the definition of culpable homicide. It is alleged that the appelJant had passed on the quarter bottle to the deceased stating that it is the medicine for body pains. The said act of hanCing over the bottle will not fa-II within the four corners of culpable homicide, and at most, the offence may falI under Seclron 304-lI of IPC.

8. Learned Public I)rosecutor, on the other hand, would submit that rhc appellant had the intent to commit the murders of tht: deceased, and as such, he gave poison in a I I { 4 ) quarter bottle, informing that it was medicine for body pains. The said misrepresentation reflects the intent on the part of the appellarrt to murder D. 1.

9. The act of handing over the quarter botfle by the appellant was on 14.02.2016. The complaint was lodged on 75.O2.2016. However, the quarter bottle/M.O.2 was handed over to the police by p.W.3 on 03.03.2016, which is nearly lB days after the alleged incident. It is not explained by the prosecution as to why the bottle, which is subject matter of the complaint, was neither seized by the police nor handed over by P.W.3 or p.W.s, both of whom were present when the incident happened. The non_explanation of the delay in seizing M.O.2, which is a McDowell company quarter bottle, casts doubt on the prosecution version. In fact, p.Ws.3 ald 5 did not state about McDowell,s quarter bottle being handed over to the deceased by the appellant. lO. The plastic bottle/M.O.1 was found and.seized from the house of the appellant but it was not sent to the FSL for the purpose of examination. Only the McDowell,s bottle (M.O.2) was sent for the purpose of examination. Under Ex.p22, the FSL report analysed the contents of the McDowel1,s bottle \ ) ) and the viscera o1' D.1 and D.2, and gave a report that they contain paraquat dichloride herbicide poison. Not sending M.O.1 to the FSL lor the purpose of examination to relate the liquid found in the plastic bottle (M.O.1) with the quarter bottle (M.O.2) s, ized from P.W.3, it cannot be said that it was the appellant who had handed over the bottle, having knowledge aborrt the poison in it.

11. Culpable lromicide under Section 299 of IPC reads: "Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of caLrsing death, or u'ith the intention of causing such bodily inlury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the ofl'cnce of culpable homicide." I I

12. It is the c rtse of thc prosecution that the said bottle w$.s handed over br the appellant to the deceased. I{alding over the bottle, eve'n assuming for a moment that it contained poison, it would not fall within the offence of culpable homicide. Handing over the bottle with the liquid, arrd neither the liquid being administered nor forced by the appellant to bc consumed, the said act would not fall within i I 6 I the act mentioned under Section 299 of IpC. At most, the said act may faIl within the definition of Section 304_ll of IpC.

13. However, keeping in view that the prosecution has failed to prove that M.O.2 was the bottle.handed over by the appellant to the deceased, and considering the seizure of M.O.2 nearly l8 days a-fter the incident, we are inclined to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction.

14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Since the appellant is in jail, he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. SD/. K. SRINIVAS RAO JOINT REG TRAR //TRUE GOPY// To, any) SECTION OFFICER 1. The lll Additional District and Sessions Judge at Asifabad. (With records, if 2. The Station House Officer, Dahegaon police Station. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally, Hyderabad. (By Special 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, State of Telangana, High Court Buildings, Messenger) at Hyderabad (OUT)

5. One CC to Sri V.Mythili, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies DL t_ ._ _- HIGH COURT DATED:08/04/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.2592 of 2018 HE :i 1 :=\- ,irA,\.. q\ ( 'i- 7'\ l_) 1 7 Af'Fi 2025 \..t ^ \-- \. r.1 'r'I:,. ir ''ri --:j-:..r' .' ALLOWNG THE CRIMINAL APPEAL )o