The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant:Sri P Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: Judgment ' '"" Jr ::: 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAI No.1334 OF 2Ol7 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the judgment dated O6.O4.2017, it S.C.No.298 of 2016, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, convicting the appellant/accused for the offence under ,) Section 3O2 of IPC, and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent-State.

3. PW3 had employed the appellant and his w'ife Laxmamma (deceased) for taking care of his cattle. Both the deceased ald the appellant were staying in the cattle shed and looking aJter the cattle. On 03.12.2015, PW3 went to the cattle shed at 04:3O A.M. and found the dead body of the deceased. The appellant was also sleeping in the shed. According to PW3, the appellant informed PW3 that when he tried to wake up the.deceased, she was not responding and there were bleeding head injuries. Immediately, the 2 l) information was passed onto PW1, who is the VRO of Village. Having received information regarding the dead body, PW I went to the Police Station and lodged Ex.P1 complaint. In the complaint, PWl narrated that deceased and the appellant were taking care of buffaloes in the cattle shed of PW3. It was informed that on the previous day, i.e., O2.L2.2O15, the appellant and the deceased quarreled. Further, it was suspected that the appellant has killed the deceased in order to marry a second time. 4 Lea-rned Sessions Judge mainly placed reliance on the evidence of PW3 and convicted the appellant on the following grounds: i. It is admitted that the deceased and the appellant were taking care of the cattle of PW3, and were living in the cattle shed. On the previous day, i.e., on O2.12.2015, there were differences between the appellant and the deceased; ii. In the morning, PW3 went to the cattle shed and found the appellalt in the cattle shed, with the deceased lying there with bleeding injuries; and iii. The appellant was addicted to drinking toddy and there were constant fights in between the deceased and the appellant. 3

5. karned counsel for the appella-nt would submit that the last seen theory would not suffice to infer that it was the appellant who had caused the death of the deceased. Learned counsei relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanhaiga Lal u. State of Rajasthanr. In the said case, the Honble Supreme Court, while dealing with the evidence of last seen, held as follows: "The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it r,vas the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishrng connectivity bettveen the accused and the crime. Mere non-explanation on the part of the appellant, in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the appellant."

6. In the above said case, dealt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the accused and the deceased were seen near the house of one witness PW4. PW4 gave one Iiquor bottle to the accused (kanhaiyalal). Thereafter, both the deceased and PW4 went away. On the next day, body of Kala (deceased) was found. The said facts differ from the facts in the present case.

7. In the present case, it is not disputed that both the appellant and the decearsed were living in the cattle shed and there was a scuffle on the previous night. The dead body was found at 04.30 A.M., and the appellant was present in the t (2014) 4 scc 715 4 cattle shed. It is for the appellant to explain under what circumstances the deceased died. Once the prosecution has laid foundation regarding the presence of the deceased and the appellant in the same place from the previous night until the dead body was found, presumption arises under Section 1O6 of the Indian Evidence Act. Then it is for the appellant to prove his defence that he was not responsible, by preponderance of probability. There is absolutely nothing in J the cross-examination of the witnesses, nor was anything stated by the appellant to infer that he was not present when the incident had taken place, or some 3.d person had come to the cattle shed and caused injuries to the deceased.

8. From the facts, it appears that there were constant fights in between the appellant and the deceased, and appellant was also addicted to drinking toddy. It can be inferred that the assault by the husbald on the deceased was on account of the scuffle in between them in a drunken condition.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Ratiq a. State of Madhgq. Prad.esh2, held as follows: 'The question of whether in a given case, a homicide is murder, punishable under Section 302 IPC or '? 2018 SCC OnLine MP 1806 5 culpable homicide of either descriptron, punishable under Section 304 of IPC, has engaged the attentron of Courts in India for over one-and-a-half century, since the entactment of the IPC. A welter of case Iaw, on the aforesaid aspect exists, including perhaps several hindered rulings by the Supreme Court. The use of the term 'likely'' in several places in respect of culpable homicide, highlights the element of uncertainity that the act of the accused may or may not have killed the person. Section 300 IPC which defines "murder'', however refrains from the use of term likely, which reveals absence of ambiguity left on beha-lf of the accused. The accused is for sure that his act will defrnitely cause death. It is often difficult to distinguish between culpable homicide and murder as both involve death. Yet, there is a subtle distinction of intention and knowledge involved in both t}re crimes. Such difference lies in the degree of the act. There is a very wide varialce of degree of intention and knowledge among both the crime s. " I I ( (

10. Basing on the injuries caused by the appellant, it cannot be held that the appellant entertained the intent of murdering his wife. Even according to PW3, when he went to the cattle shed, the deceased was lying on the ground and the appellant informed that she was not responding. From the said circumstance, it appears that though the appellant had injured her, he was not aware about the condition of the deceased. Since the quarrel in between them was a regular affair, as already discussed, the appellant, in all probabiliff, has caused injuries, however, the said injuries were caused without any intention to commit murder. 6

11. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 3O2 of IpC is set aside. However, the conviction under Section 302 of IPC is converted to Section 3O4-II, and the appellant is sentenced to undergo 8 years of imprisonment.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly-al1owed. Bail bonds shali stand cancelled. Sd/. C,V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar(with records) 2. The Superintendent, District Jail, Mahabubnagar 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri P Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies I I I : I i I I / To, \ ADKiplpw HIGH COURT DATED:2010212025 JPDGMENT CRLA.No.1334 of 2017 --; /:,.! 1'r. t () t ::/ 3 0 Nn 2[25 i'. i(\\ .-DFspnJc 'c .t * PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLA @ .t )K