The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1 . I o pror c thc said ofTences, prosecution lr s exirntincd PW.l - cierrglrter oi'thc dcccased, PW.2 - wife ot'i c appellant, PW.l - hrothcr of- thc deceased, PW.4 - granddar llrtcr ol'the deceased. P\\'s.5 lo 7 elders, PW.8 villau : clder, who drafted Ex.l).5 customary divorce document datc,l l(r.08.20 14, Irw.g Panch Witncss lbr seizure, PW.l0 I toctor, wlro 4 conducted autopsy ovcr the dead body of the deccased, PW.11 - Panch Witness to thc inquest and PW. 12 - Invcsligating Offlcer. Exs.P.l to P. l2 documents alc exhibited on bchalf ol thc prosecution and M.Os.l to 6 were rnarked. L-.xs.D. I to D.3 are the porlions of staterncnts ol PWs.3 and ,1 rccorded under Scction 161 of the Code of the Crirninal Procedurc. 1908 (for sholt,'Cr.P.C.') exhibited on behallof the appcllant, u. On consideratiorr of the saicl evidencc. botlr oral and docurnentarl,, vide the irnpugneci Judgment datcd 16.04.2017,

learned trial Court convicted the appellant fbr thc oflence uncler Section 302 of'IPC and sentenced hirn to Lutdergo lit-e irnpfisonment. However, learned trial Court acquittcd hinr for tlie offence under Section 307 of IPC. Challengiug the said Judgment, appellant has prefelred the present appcal.

9. Pelitioner was in jail from 26.04.2017 and this Court granted bail to him on 05.01.2022. lle is on bail now i 0. Mr.P.Prabhakal Reddy, learned legal-aid counsel appearing for the appellant, contende d as follows: 5 it Prosecution tailed to prove the rnotr\ t be)'ond reeson airlt oo Lr bt: ii) Depositions o1'I)Ws.l to 4 are not re , LJlc anci did nor inspirc contldcnce- of thc Court; iii) P\\'s.5 to 7 elders did not slrr )oft thc prr)sec Lltion: ir') In Er.P.-i crrstornary divorce doctunr rt. dated I (r.08.11) 11. rhcrr- is no rncntion about th : allcged iurpotcr.icr oi thc appr-llant. 'l'hc same is e"'idenr rorn the deposiiior, ol l'\\'.8. '.vho dralted Ex.P.5 docunr,' t: i ) ['}\\is.9 and I I Panch Witnesses to t r seizure arrti irtluest did not state atrout the said offences: vi) lh.-re are serious contradictions of tl t versron o1' the prosccution u itncsses in thcir dcpositic r , ancl ir.r tircir stutcnrr'nts rccordcd under Section l6 l o Cr.P.C. (l:r-s.l) i to [)3 ); ' ii) l'ircic *,as no light at tllc sccne of oltir :e ar: the lelcr rinL point of tinre and tlrc said lact was a(tr ifted b,\' P\\i.1 hcrse li. Therc was a delay in lotl: ing thc cornpiaint ancl also in reaching Ex.Pl0 - FIR to 1 re Courl co Itccrned: viii) None of the prosecution witnessr;. more pa!-ticularl). PWs.l to 5, idcntifled the appellar helc.in. l-housh according to prosecution seven pe(1le uere 6 sleeping in one room, there are serious contradictions rn the depositions of the said witnesses with legard to the appellant entering into the said rooin anci cornmitting the allcged o f-fence: and ix) Prosecution did not examinc Srlt.Chanciramma, who was also sleeping beside the dcceased and husband of the deceased, who was sleeping outside the house. Ever-l then, r.r,ithout considering the said aspects, Iearned trial Court convicted the appellant lbr thc olfence under Scction 302 of lPC. I l. He has placed reliance on the principies laid do.''r'n b), the Apex Court in Parvat Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesht, Nurayana Retldy @ Babu v. State of Karnatuka2 and Mahtub Singh v. State of Llttar Pradeslrr to contcnd that there u'as darkness, no light and identification of the appellant IS impossible

12. Whereas, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would contend that the prosecution has proved the guilt o1' the appellant beyond reasonable doubt by examining PWs.l to 5 Appellant bore grudge on the deceased since she has abused '(2020) 4 scc ti t ito ro'1 r+ scc zrz t (:ooq) E scc ozo \ \ 7 him 1n lrithi language befbre thc elders stating t rat he ts an impotent trnd hc lras spoiled thc li{'e o1' hcr gr r rcldaughtcr l'hor,rgh tire saicl luct is uot rncntiorted ir-r Ex.l'.5 clt :ttrttettt, thc oculiir erirle ncc ot' PWs. I to 5 can bc considcr': l PW.10 I)octor, u hrr contluctcd autopsr, over the (lca(l rtdl' o1' the deceasecl. spe citicallv oprincd that thc causc of'tlrt lcath o1'the' deccescd ri lis clrrc 1o slrock ri,ith ce rcbral hcuttrrl tage dr-re to sustainecl hclrl inirrrl u,ith bltrnt object. 'lhe apn'llant killcd the cleceirscil bi tltrou inq M o I granite stonc ( n her head The depr:sitions ot' [)Ws. I to 5 inspired the con ll l -'nce of this Court. In a nruttcr likc this nrinor corrtradictions ar I omissiotis callnot bc' latal to the case ol'the prosecution. 'l'1r,,'appellant IS thc re lativc rrl' P\\'s.l to 5. l-lrerettrre. even thour r there was no light, the',, harc idcntilled the appellant. On ,: rrrsideratiou of the said asllccts onlv. learned trial Court cr nvicted the appellanl.-l'helc is no crror in it B

13. He has also placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in S.Sutlershan Rettcly v. State of A.P.a, Shivraj Bapuray Jadhav v. Stote of Karnutaka'' and Dwarika Prusatl Tiwari v. M.P.Stute Roud Transport Corporationu, to contcnd that though there was no light and there was darkness, the witnesses can identifo the appellant basing on the voice, mannerlsm. etc. Motive:

14. As discussed supra, according to the prosecution, the motive is ihat the appellant bore grudge on the deceased, on the ground that shc has abused him in filthy language before the elders stating that hc is an impotent,, even then, he urarried her granddaughter (PW.2) and spoiled her life. Thercfbre, he bore grudge on the deceased and killed her.

15. It is not in dispute that the marriage of the appellant with PW.2 was performed in the year 2014.lt is also not in dispute I t ' 1:ooo) to scc t6: t lzoo:; o scc :oz n(zoot)sscc::z 9 that thel' havc obtained customary divorcc r ilc llx.P.5 docuinent duted 1b.08.20 11. 'Ihc same \\ils i( riuccrcl inlo r,''riting and I)\\'.fi rs scribe ol I'.x.1'}.5 docunrcnl.

16. Perusal of [;r.P.5 docurne nt rvould reveal Lh:r tlrerc is no mention aborrt that thc appcllarrt is an irnpotcnt r rl tltat they have decidcrl to obtain dir orce. In [:r.I'}.5 clt,r r rncnt. it is mcntioned lhat tlrcrc ncrc disputcs bctucclr tlrc r;pcllar-rt and PW.2. Therelirre. ther are n()t in a positioll to stil\ )get ler and thel' have reLlucslcd tlrc cldcls t() conduci piurcl'r r at. Elders, including Village and (lastc clders, conductcd tir panchayat on l(r.08.20 l4 airri re-corded the dccision ol'thc r 1pcllant and PW.2 that th.'r' Itrrc clecidcd kr obtain divolc: .l marrv agaln

17. There are tu<l witnesscs 1o trx.l).5 docunrcnt ['.vcrr thert, prosecution ilid not cxanrinc any of the witnessc: to the said Ex.P.5 docuureut. ,According to the prosecution, 'W.8 is the elder. who has dratled F.x.P.5 document. l)\ /.8 in his deposition also did rlot say that botlr the appellar and PW.2 I 10 obtaincd divorce on the ground that the appellant ls an impolent. However, Ite has deposed that he can identil,v Ex.P.5 document,, which w'as shown to him. F)xcept tlrat hc did not knorv anything about the casc rcgarding abusing the deceased and threatening of appcllant. Tl.rus, except ocular evidence of PWs.l to 4, there is no other er.'idencc lvith resard to motive.

18. It is apt to note that the rrotive is a thing u,hich is priuiarily knorvn to tLie accused himseli'and it is not possibic for the prosccution to explain what actuaiiy promotcd or excited hiu.r to commit the particular crime. The motive may be considered as circumstance il'hich is relevanl fbr assessing the evidence. But, il thc cvicicrrce is clear and unarrbiguous and thc circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the rnotive is not a very strong one The motive looses all its irnporlance in a case where direct evidence of eye-witnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused person to commit a particular crime, he cannot be convicted if the evidence of ( t \ \ 11 eye-witnesses is not convincing. In the same wa)'^ , \'en if there may not be air apparent motive but if the cvid: rcc of e1's- r.r,itnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or ir r tlequ:rcy ol moti',ve canrot stanC in the u,av o l- convicLir r . 'l-hc principle was laid dou,n b]'thc Apcx Clourt in SlttLt ol U.P. t' Kishanpal'.

19. It is apt to note that the absence oi n'rotir: rr a c:lse depending on circumstantial cvidcnce is a factor t I at ir ights in favour of the accused as hcld b,v thc Apex Corrl in Bubu v. State of Keralat

20. It is also apt to note that though in a ci r: cl direct el idcnce, motive would not be relevant, in a casc ol circumstantial evidence, motive plays irnpor ant link to cornplete the chain of circumstances as held by th,: Apcx Courl in Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State oJ Mahsruslxtr, i' '1:ootl re scc r: t i:orol9 scc t89 '1zoz ti s scc r;26 II 12

21. In the li.sht of tl.re aforesaid principle and coming to the case on hand, PW. 1 is the daughter olthe deceased. She has specifically deposed that after one rnonth of execution of Ex.P5 document, dated 16.0E.20 14, appellant went to the house of her daughter (PW.4) and gave a letter stating that he is ready to lead matrinronial tile with PW.2. On tl-Lat they have refused and kept quitc without disclosing to anybody. Two months after taking divorce, cltl olte ciay appcllant carne to their house at about 03.30 A.M. while thcy v',ere sleeping in one room without locking the door. Appellant brought one boulder fro rn outside the house, threr.r'the same ol.l the head of the deceased and rvhiie he was escaping fiom the sccne of offence, his leg touched her and shc lvoke-up and found that the appellant is escaping fiom their house. She heard noise of her mother simultaneously. Her mother died instantaneously. Therefore, she lras lodged a complaint with Police, Kalwakurthy Police Station at 08.00 A.M. on 24.11.2014. I \ 13

22. During thc cross-exarrination of PW she has categoricalll adrnitted that November rronth is r, nler season In the said season, people will closc all tl.re door.:, rn tlie niglrt Thel' havc not closed the doors as hcr father las sleeping outside the house. ller father is aged about 90 v,r ils as on thc date of incident and he has no proper healing brL he can sce She did nol- state to police that his lirther was sle: ring outsicle tl're irouse. In the letter said to have been gi.', n to PW.4. appellant did not mention an)/ abLts ve or thrcult ning words He only requested that he is willing to lead n'rat irnonial lif'e with PW.2

23. PW.2 is the wil'e of the appcllant and grrir l daughter of the deceased. She also deposed on the same lirrr:' . Ilowcver, during her cross-examination, she has adrnitteci .1rat herself, her rnother (PW.l), the said Smt.Chandramma. rrother/PW. 1 and her father (PW.3) are residing in thc ;aid house. Appellant studied upto 7th class. Her grandur,t lier died in winter season i.e., November rnonth. In the said st ason, ali the I I t4 people will close doors during night. They have not closed the door as her grandfather was sleeping outside the house. It was dark in the night in thcir house. It is diltrcLrit to identily a particular person in the darkness. It is not possible to identily a person, who is coming inside and going otitside the house in the darkness. -t'hus. PW.2 categoricallv adrniticd that there was no light, it was u.intcr season and it u,as ciark.

24. Though PWs.l and 2 specificalll, cleposed rhat alicr one month of the executiorr o1'Ex.P5 docuntcnt, ciatec i6.08.2014, appellant went to the house of PW.4 and handed over a lctter stating that he will take PW.2 tc leaci rnatriinoniai lif'e. Irven then, Investigating Olficer did not collcct the said letter and filed before the learncd trial Court. Thus, tliis Ccurt is of the view that the prosecution lailed to prove thr. rnotive i.e., appellant bore grudge on thc deceased on the ground that deceased abused him in filthy language before the elders stating that he is an impotent. even then, lre inarried her I \ \ 15 granddaughter/'Pw.2 and spoiled her lifc" Burde tr ies on the prosccution to prove the guilt of the accused

25. At the cost of repetition, as discussed .rzrprr, exccpt the ocular evideuce of PWs.l to 4, there is no oLlr, r evidence. PWs.l to 4 are family members of thc deceasc<l ind they are interested witnesses. It is also settled law thal thorr lh PWs.l to ,1 are relatives. their evidencc cannot be disbclie'' : i However. their evidence has to gain confidence. In thc prt:; nt case, the er,idcnce of I'Ws.l to 4 with regard to motive anc tomllltsslon of olfbnce try the appellant is improbable. The j Lrnc has nol gair.red confidence. 'l'hus, the prosecution has tai cd lo prove the motive.

26. Perusai of the record, more particularll,. tir: depositions ol'PWs.l to ,1 and PW. 12 - lnvestigating Officer, r 'oulcl reveal that five people were there in the said house. Err n according to PWs. I and 2, they themselves, the said Smt.(' randramma, Sri Krishnaiah/Pw.3 were there in the hor-rse. 'lhev were sleeping. PW.2 specifically deposed that she ahr rg rvith her 16 f, maternal aunt - Smt.Chandramrna, her mother (PW.l ) rvere sleeping just beside the dcceased. IJer grandfather i.e., husband of the deceased was sleeping outside the house Therefore, they have not boltcd the door. Since the age o1-her grandfather was about 90 years old at the tirnc of incide.nt, he can't hear, properly but lre can see. -fhc said fact was acirn itted by PW.2 during cross-examinatior.r. ]Jowever, perrrsal ol'the evidence, more pafticulariy, rhc depositions oi' [rWs.1 to 3 would also reveal the said fact. Even thcn, plosecution did not examine the said Smt.Chandramma and huslrand of, the deceased. 21 . In Ex.Pl complaint and aiso in I'ier deposition. PW.l stated that while they were sleeping in one room r,rithout locking the door, on 24.11.2014 at about 0i.30 A.lV{. thc appellant came to their house being amed '"vith one boulder and he threw the same on the head of the deceased. While he was escaping from the scene of otfence, his leg touched her body, she woke-up and found hirn escaping from thc house. I \ \ . . :::r.i=5 t7 She also heald the noise of her mother simultart ously. Iler mother died instantaneously. PW.2 also deposed rn the same lines. 'l'hus, tlie depositions of PWs.l to 4 are lt in.piring confldenoe.

28. In the charge-sheet as well as Ex.P.6 onf-essional panchanama. dated 25.11.2014, there is a specilic rcntion that appellanr r,r,es in Shiva mala, therefore, he 'r c,re saflrou clothcs. But in E,r.Pl - complaint, PW. 1 stated il at appcllant \\'rls irr r.i hite clothes. 'l herefore, therc rrc sef tous contladictions with regard to the dress of the appel ant. 29 lhcre is no dispute that appellant is relatec ,o P\[/s. I to

4. .iust becarrse they are related, prosecution car irot contend that tl.rcy hal'c idcntified the appellant. Though c u receipt of thc l.read iniury, the deceased started groaninll even then PWs.l, 2 and the said Srnt.Chandramma did rL, ,t u'ake up. According to them, on touching the leg of the app rllant, PW.l lr,okc up. Thc said evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is imprr bable and it is not gaining confidence of the Court. 1B

30. It is thc settled principle that how much grave the offence may be, the prosecution has to ptove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by producing sulre and safe evidence. Unless and until the guitt of'the accused is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, lic shalt be presumed to be an innocent. Thus, heavy burdcn lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.

31. As discussed supra, in thc prescnt case, it is not in dispute that it was winter season, there w.as no tight and it was dark. Even then, PWs.l to 3 had identified the appellant. -l'heir evidence did not gain confidence. Therc are -serious contradictions in their version i.e., Exs.D.1 to D.3 and depositions of PWs.l to 3. PWs.5 and 6 - elders of the said panchayat did not suppo( the prosecution and they turned hostile.

32. It is also settled principle that though the witnesses have turned hostile, their evidence-in-chief to the extent usetul to the prosecution can be considered. In the present case, the ) \ \ --.i: -4 19 chiel'-examination ol PWs.5 to 7 is not tt:lr ful to thc prosecutioti. 3i. I'ufiher. PW.S. who drafted Ilx.P.5 docrr nent, datcd

16.08.2014. did not slate about the motive and co nrnission of otl-ence. Thcre is no dispute with regard to the leath ol the deceased. According to PW.10 Doctor, rvht conductcd autopsv ovcr the dead body of the deceased, ll: fbund the lbllou ing inj ulies [) Laceralion i x 2 r I cm over the scalp left parietl region; 2) Contusion 2 x 2 cn ovet the Ieft side of face; 3) Abrasion 2 x 1 cm over the left supra orbital regrt n; and ,1) Abrasion I x 1 cm over the frontal region of soalp Accordin-e to hiri'r, the cause of the death was c ue to shock u ith cerebral hemorrhagc due to sustained hea,1 injury with blunt ob-iect. Evcu then,, by producing reliable : ridence, the prosecution has to prove that the appellant is res ponsible for the death ofthe deceascd and he has killed the de::ased. In the 20 f present case, prosecution failed to prove Lhe guilt of the appellant

34. The lnvestigating Officer has collected Er.p.i2 F.SL reporl, dated 21 .02.2015.I-Ie has also recovered \I.L)s.i to 6. PWs.9 and 1l are the panch witnesses for inquest and scizure. Their evidence is not useful to the prosecution. None oi tl.rem spoke about the recovery of M.O.l at the instancc of the appellant. Exs.P.6 and P.8 are silent with regard to the sanre.

35. Perusal of the record would also reveal that as per pWs.l to 3, the alleged incident was at about 03.10 A.M, on 21.11.2014. PW .l lodged Ex.P.1 complainr ri,il.h police, Kalwakurthy Police Station, at about 09.00 A.N,l on

24.11.2014. Ex.P.l0 FIR, dated 24.11.2014 was rccelved by tlre learned Magistrate concerned on 24.11.2A14 at ahout 07.30 P.M. In the light of the same, it is apt [o note that place of incident, police station and learned Magistrate concerned are in Kalwakurthy Town. Place of offence is about t./z K.M. far from thc police station and FIR was dispatched frorn the police I*ta 2l station at about 09.00 A.M. on 24.11.2014, wh r h is evident {iom E,x.l'.10 FIIi. Ii is an express FIR. Eveu hen, it was receir"ed bl the lezrmcd Magistrate concemed ar about 07.30 [).M. on 21.1 1.2014. -fhere is no explanati,r r fron.r the prosccution on thc saicl aspccts.

16. As discussed srq2r'ul, prosecution has to pro';: the guilt of the appellanl and thc ollences committed br- rim bel,ond reasonable doubt by producinq sure and safe ev r cncc. ln thc prcscnt casc. the evidencc ol PWs.1 to 4 is I (rt reposing conflclence . PWs.5 to 1, elders, did not ,upport the prosecution. l-hcir cvidence is also not u:;r ful to the prosecution. Tl.re evidence of PW.8 elder. vho drafted Ex.P.5 cusl.ornarl'divorce document, dated 16.08. 1014, is also not useful to the prosecution to prove the guilt of t re appellant.

37. Furlher, prosecution failed to examirr( the said Sn.rt.Chandramma, sister of PW.1 and father of P'/'.1 (husband ofthe deoeased), who was aged about 90 years o r on the date

22. of incident and was sleeping outside the scene of offcncc

38. As discussed supra, it was winter season and there r,vas light in the scene of offencc room. 'Ihe said faci u as admittcd by PW.2 during her cross-examination. In such case, identification of the appellant is highly doubtfLii. The said principle rvas aiso laid down by the Apcx Court in Porvat Singh (cited ,strpra), Narayana Reddy (|, Babu (cited supru) and Muhtab Singh (cited supra).

39. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor placed reliancc on tlre aloresaid three Judgments i.e., S.Sudershan Reddy (cited supra), Shivraj Bapuray Jadhav (cited supra) and Dwarika Prasad Tiwari (.cited supra). In all the three judgments, the Apex Cour.t held that accused therein was known person. 'l'hercfore, by hearing his voice and his mannerism, they can identily the accused in the darkness. In the present case, c\,'en according to the prosecution, more particularly, PWs.l to 4, appellant did not open his mouth. Even, as per F)x.P.1 \ \ .t:; 23 complaint daLed 24.11.2014, appellant wore \!rite clothes r.l,hile comrnrtting thc ofl-ence. In the chargc ; Leet, it was spccifically nrentioned that the appellant wore Sf i'za mala and he r,i'ore sallion clothes. The said fact was also r rentioned in Exs.P.6 and P.8 confessional statement r rd inquest panchanama. 1-hus, there are serious contra(r, :tions with regard to lhe drcss colour o1' the appellant. 'l'[ :refbre, the principlc laid dorvn by the Apex Courl in the alt resaid three Judgments relied on by the learned Assistant Publi : Prosecutor is not useful to the prosecution.

40. It is also settled law that w'hen two vier,vs ire possible, the vie u, rvh icir is fa.,,orable to accused has to b: considered. WithoLrt considcring thc aforesaid aspects, learnc, , trial Court con'"'icted the appellant for the off-ence under St:r tion 302 of lPC. The impLrgned Judgmcnt is not a reasoned Ji dgment and the interf'erence of this Coud is warranted. -[he :efore. it is t , I I ) liable to be sel aside and accordingly, it is set asid: / 24 4l . In the light of the above said discussion, the present Criminal Appeal IS accordingly allowed sctting aside the conviction recorded against the appellant herein - accused and the sentence of irnprisonment imposed on him vfule .judgment dated26.04.20i7 passed by learned the Judge, Farnily Court - cum Vlll AdCitional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, in S.C. No.352 of 20 15. Appellant/accused iS acqurtt;:d for the of-fence under Scction 302 of IPtl. ilari tronds furnished by him stand cancelled. Finc amount, if anir, paid b;'' him is also ordered to be retumed to the appellant herein - accused after expiry of appeal tirne As a sequel thereto. misceilaneous applications, if any, pending in the Criminal Appeal shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR 6SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Vlll Additionar sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. (with records, if any) 2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, jadcherla.- 3. The Station House Officer, Kalwakurthy police Station. 4. rwo ccs to the Public Prosecutor, State of rerangana, High court Buirdings, 5. One CC to Mr. P Prabhakar Reddy Legal Aid [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies at Hyderabad (OUT) DL/PSL : s *dffi HIGH COURT OATED:1211112025 /" JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1271 ot 2017 ,/. \ i/ , "', J l.r. ?ril !ir.,'r, '' ALLOWING THE GRIMINAL APPEAL t II 0-^