The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri C. Ruthwik Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri D, Arun Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1398 OF 2017 JUDGMENT: {per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K. SURENDER) This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the I Addl.Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in S.C.No.313 /2014, dated 28.O7.2017, for the offence under Section 302 of the Inclian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine o[ Rs. 1.000/-.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri D.Arun Kumar, lcarned Additional Public Prosecutor.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that corrrplaint was filed by PW. I with the Chandrayangutta Police. In the complaint, he narrated that the appellant is his son-in-law and his daughter was married to the appeilant and they were blessed with two children. The rleceased was visiting the parents' housr: frequently, since the appe'llant was quarrelling with her. The appellant was 2 called to their house and he was convinced by pW. 1 and others not to harass the deceased. However, the frequent quarrels in between the appellant ancl deceased continued. Further, it was stated in the complaint that the deceased fell down and received injury to her throat, resulting in her death. However, pW. 1 suspected the appellant of causing the injury.

4. Initially, the case was registered under Section IZ 4 of Cr.P.C. and investigation was taken up. During the course of investigation, the appellant was arrested on 13.09.2013. The appellant confessed to committing the murder of his wife. The section of 1aw was altered to 3O2 of Indian penal Code. The appellant was produced before the Magistrate. He was sent to judicial custody. Having concluded investigation, charge sheet was filed by the police.

5. The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of Section 106 of Evidence Act, drew presumption that the burden was on the appellant to explain the circumstances under which the death of appellant's wife occurred. It is not in dispute that both the appellant and the deceased were living together under one roof. 3 Since his presence in the house, when the death took place, was not disputed by the appellant, the learned Sessions Judge invoked Section 1O6 of Evidence Act to shift the burden on to the appeilant. Since the appellant failed to rebut the presumption, even by preponderance of probability, the appellant was convicted.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant would submit that the death was accidental and not homicidal. Even in the complaint-Ex.P1, the father of the deceased stated that the deceased fell and received injury on her neck. The prosecution has utterly failed to . prove any pre-meditation or motive for the appellant to kill his own wife. They have two small children and one of the child is differently abled. The learned Senior counsel submits that since the deceased was not looking after the disabled child, and beating her child, the spouses used to quarrel. Utnrost, the offence rvould fall under Section 304 part 2 ofIPC and not 302 of IPC

7. The learnecl Additional Public Prosecutor submits that strangulation of the appellant was apparent by the ftrct that nail marks were louncl on the neck of the deceased. Horvever, when 4 questioned, the public prosecutor did not point out from the record as to where from he argued about the nail marks. Even in the postmortem examination report, the doctor did not find any ante-mortcm injuries on the neck, especially, nail marks. B. PW. 10, who is the postmortem doctor, having conducted autopsy, found the following injuries "i) Abraded contusions 1 x Yz c.m. on the mucosal surface of lower lip at either angles of mouth ii) Contusions 2 Yz x 2 c.rn. on right anterior lrontal region and 4 x 1 Yz c.m. on right temporal region on reflection of scalp iii) A faint irregr.rlarly abraded ligature mark of 18 c.m. x 3 t/z lo 3 c.m. on the front of neck, over and above the thyroid cartilage horizontally placed, extending from left sterno hyoid muscle to right sterno hyoid muscle iv) Multiple petecheal hemorrhages on reflections of both the lemporal muscles v) Multiple grain like petecheal hemorhages on the mucosa of epiglothis, glothis and subglothis, vi) contusions of Y" c.m. size at the tip of right homs of hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage J vii) Contusions 9 x 8 c.m. on medial aspect or right arm and 4 x 3 c.m. on the eminence of right palm."

9. The cause of death was due to asphp<ia due to pressure over neck. The doctor, who was examined by the prosecution, could not conclusivr:lv opine that the death was homicidal. Merely stating that the death was on account of asphyxia due to pressure over neck, will not be sufficient to infer that the death was homicidal. The burden is always on the prosecution in a case of murder to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that tht: death was homicidal. Unless it is proved that the death was homicidal, the question of conviction under Section 302 of IPC does not arise.

10. PW.2, who is the mother of the deceased stated irr her cross- examination that the daughter of the deceased namely, Habeeba is physically handicapped. She further admitted that, at times the deceased used to beat the handicapped daughter for which reason, the appellant used to quarrel with the deceased. 1 1. The incident happenecl in between four walls. The appellant, deceased and the children were in the house. The doctor, as already discussed has not given any specific reason or explained (, to the satislaction of the Court that the causc of death was homicidal and did not rule out the possibility of either an accidental or suicidal death

12. Thc Honourable Suprcme Court in Mohd.Rafiq alias Kallu o, Stdte of Madhga Pradeshl, held as follows; "The question of uhether in a giuen case, a homicide is murder, punishable under Section 3O2 IPC or culpable homicide of either desciption, punishable. under Section 304 IPC, has engaged the attenlion of courts in India for ouer one and-a-half century. stnce the enactment of the IPC. A utelter of case latu, on the aforesatd aspecr exists, including perhaps seueral hundred rulings by the Supreme Court. The use of the term "likelg" in seueral places in respect of culpable hornicide, hig1l'ttights the element of uncertainta that the act of the accused moA or maA not haue killed the person, Section 3OO IPC u-thich defines "murder", houteuer refrains from the use of the term likelg, which reueals absence of ambiguity left on behalf of the accused. The accused is for sure that his act u-till definitelg cause death. It is often dfficult to distinguish betueen atlpable homicide qnd murder as both inuolue death. Yet, there is a subtle distinctton of intentton and knotuledge inuolued in both the cimes. Such difference lies in the degree of the act. There is a uery uide uaiance of degree of intention and knou-tledge among both the cimes." ' 1:o: t1 to suprerr)e Coun Cascs 706 7

13. In Stcte of And.hra Pradesh a. Ragavarapu punnagga and anotherz, honourable Supreme Court held: "27. From the aboue conspecfils, it emergcs that uheneucr a court is confronted Luith the question tuhether tlrc offence is .murder. or 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder", on the facts of a case, it tuill be conuenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage u.tould be, uhether the acansed Luts done an act bA doing uhich lrc has caused the death of another. Proof of such causal connection betlueen the act of the accused and the death, leads to the second stage for consideing uhether that act of the accused amounts to 'culpable homicide" as defined in Section 299. If the ansttter to this question is pima facie found in the affirmatlue, the staqe for considering the operation of Section 3O0 of the Penal Code, is reached. Ihis is fhe staqe at u.ftich the court should determine whether the facts protxtd by the prosecution bing the case uithin the ambit of ang of the Jour clauses of the definition of "murder" contained. in Section 3OO. If the ansu)er to lhis question is in the negatiue the offence uould lte "cutpable homicide not Gmounting to murder", punishable under the first or the seconcl pctrt of Sectton 3O4, depending, respectiuelq, on uhether the secontl or the third clause of Section 299 is applicctble. lf this question is found in tlrc positiue, but the case comes withirL ang of the exceptions tenumerated in Section 3OO, the offence would" still be 'culpable homicide not amounting to rnurder", punishable, under the Jirst part of Sacrion 3O4, oI the Penal Coda." r 1197614 Supremc {toun Cases 382 8

74. It Anbqzhagqr. u. The State Rep. bg the Inspector of police3, the Honourable Supreme Court held as fbllolvs: "(5) Section 304 of the IPC u.till applA to the follou-ting classes of cases : (i) when the case falls under one or the other of the clauses of Section 3OO, but it is couered bg one of the exceptions to that Section, (ii) uthen the injurg caused is not of the higher degree of likelihood uthich is couered bg the expression 'sufrtcient in the ordinary course of nature to couse death' but is of a louter deqree of likelihood which is generallg spoken of as an injury 'ltkelg to cause death' and the case does not fall under Clause (2) of Section 30O of the IPC, (iii) uhen the act is done with the knouledge that death is likely to ensue but rttithout intention to cause death or an injury likely to cause death. To put it more succinctly, the difference bettueen the two parts of Section 3O4 of the IPC is that under the first part, the cime of murder is firsl established and the accused is then giuen the beneft of one of the exceptions to Section 30O of the IPC, u.thile under the second part, the cime of murder is neuer established at all. Therefore, for the purpose dJ holding an accused guilty of the offence punishable under the second part of Section 3O4 of the IPC, the accused need not bring his case tuithin one of the exceptions to Section 3O0 of the IPC. 12023 scc onl.iDe sc 857 9 (1 2) In determining the question, tuhether an accused had guittg intention or guiltg knou.tledge in a case u_there onlg a single injury is inJTicted bg him and that injury is sufficient in the ordindrA course of nature to couse death, the fact that the act is done uLithout premeditation in a sudden frght or quarrel, or that the circumstances justifu that the injury uas accidental or untntentional, or that he only intended a simple injury, utould lead to the inference of guiltg knoutledge, and the offence would be one under Section 3O4 Part II of the IPC."

15. In the background of there being constant quarrels between the spouses, for the reason of the deceased beating the handicapped chilcl, who was aged around one year, it can be safely inferred that a quarrel ensued in between the spouses. As seen from the postmortem injuries, there were several contusions on the face and also on the right palm and neck. It is apparent that the deceased was physically abused. The consequence of such physical abuse is the death that occurred. In the present facts of the case, the death occurred while the spouses were in the house. Though, the prosecution was unable to prove that the death was homicidal, however, it appears that there was quarrel between them which resulted in the death of the deceased. 10

16. In the said circumstances, the conviction under Section 302 of IPC is altered to Section 304 part 2 of IPC. The . appellant is senLenced to seven years imprisonment.

17. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal IS partly allowed and the appellant is sentenced to seven vears rigorous imprisonment for the ofl-ence under Section 304 part 2 of IPC. Since the appeliarnt/accused is on bail, the Cor-rrt belou, is directed to cause apl)earance of the appellant / accused and sencl him to prison to serve out the reniaining part of sentcnce Sd/- C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR /iTRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The 1"t Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad' (with records, if any) (by SPecial Messenger)

2. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 3. The Supe rirltendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally. 4' The Station House officer, Chandrayangutta Police Station, Hyderabad District.

5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad IOUT] 6 One CC to Sri C Ruthwik Reddy' Advocate [OPUC] 7 Two CD Copies kam/ghw HIGH COURI' DATED:06102,12025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1398 of 2017 k I /.t i: l; 1 HE ST4 4 2 5 APF 2025

1..|' ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL .e \o W^p \tt"'