The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Through S.H.O. P.S Narsingi. Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature At Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. P. S. Bhramaramba Devi Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR WKANTI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.14OO OF 2017 JUDGMENT: (per The IJon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER) The appellant/Al was tried along with A2 for committing the murder of wife of A1, namely Sayamma, for the offences under Sections 302 ancl 2Ol of the lndian Penal Code, zrnd sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a Iine of Fls.500/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC; to undergo Rigorotts Imprisonment for a period of sevett 1'ears and to pay a fine of Ifs.2OO/- for the offence under Section 201 of IPC.

2. Bnefly, the facts of the case are that the said Sayamma (deceased) r.r,as rnarried to A1 (appellant herein), 20 1-ears prior to her death. PW. 1 is the )'ounger brother of the deceasr:d. According to PW. 1, after marrying his deceased sister, appellan.t went to Bombay and rcturned to their village, two years prior to the incident. The deceased informed PW. 1 that the appellant was having illicit intimacy with A2. PW. 1 questioned the appellant regarding the whereabouts ol his deceasecl sister and why stre could not be contacted. The appellant replied that she was at home' PW'I then 2 went to the house of appellart, but did not hnd the deceased. He grew suspicious and went to the Police Station on 03.01.2015, and lodged complaint Ex.P1.

3. The Investigating Officer-PW.9 registered the crime as toman missing'. On 05.01.2015, the appellant was arrested and interrogated about the deceased. When the appellant confessed that he killed his wife with the help of A2, PW.4 and another person M.Venkat Reddy were present during the confession of the appellant on 05.01.2015. From the police station, the appellalt took the police and the independent witnesses to Feel Good Homes, Gandhamguda. The dead body was buried in between the compound wall and bath room of the house. The Police exhumed the body from the place and the relatives of the deceased identified the body as that of the deceased-Sayarnma. On the same day, inquest proceedings were held in the presence of PW.7 arld other witnesses. After concluding the inqr.rest proceedings, the body was sent for postmortem examination. The postmortem doctor-PW.8 found the following injuries: "An obliquely placed ligature mark measuing 22 cms. uith uarying uidth of 1 % to 2 cms. around the neck placed ouer aboue the thgroid cartilage in front and extending obliquelg \

1.:rara_t.tttt lri*alrat-ra:llranra- upuards a.nd backutards on either side of neck disappearing at the sca.lp hairline below and behind the tight angle of mandible and scalp hairline on left side baclc of neck. Sofi fissues of the neck are decomposed and mummified. Hgoid bone shouts postmortem disarticulation of botlt greater horns from the bodg of hyoid. Thgroid cartilage deccmposed and softened inlo mass like structure. Ligature mark is brotunish black colour. All internal organs are decomposed shanunkem and mass Like. ''

4. The postmortem doctor opined that the cause of death was suggestive of hanging, and the death must have occurred 2 to 3 months prior to the postmortem examination. P\41.8, further stated that on 19.08.2015, he received clarihcation from the SHO to state whether the death was homicidal or suicidal. PW.t3 stated that there were no other ante mortem injuries, except the ligatr:re marks, which is suggestive of suicidal hanging. PW.S again stat€,d that homicidal hanging cannot be presumed unless proved during investigation.

5. The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, found the appellant guilty. Horrvever, the learned Sessions Judge found that, other than the confession of the appellant/A 1, there is no other evidence against ,{2 and accordir':Lgly. acquitted 42. D 4 In fact, A2 was arrested on 16.02.2015, which is nearly I Y" rnonth a-fter the arrest of A I .

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the trial court acquitted A2 and that the same benefit has to be extended to the appellant also, since the illegal intimacy between A1 and A2 was not proved.

7. The Honourable Supreme Court in Shankar u, State of Mahara.shtrar, held as follows;