Hvderabad High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1259 OF 2oL7 JUDGMENT i 0,ar Hon blc Sri Justice K.surenrler) This ,lriminal Appeal is filed aggrie'\red by the judgment dzrted 19.09.2017, in S.C.No.232 of 2Ol2 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Juclge at Asifabad, convicting the appellant/accused for the olfences under Sectr,rns 302 and 324 of Indian Penal Code. 1860 (for short, 'lPC) and sentencing him to r-urdergo imprisonmeat for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- rrnd in default cf pa'r,ment of fine, to suffer simple rrnprisonment for one rnonth for the offence under Section ll02 IF'C and further s,entenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment t.or six (6) montlrs for the offence under Section 324 lFC. 2 . Hezrrd learned counsel for the appellzint/ accuS€d, and Mr. Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Addrtional -Public Prosecut,f r fcr the respondent-State

3. The appellant/accused was convicted for the n'rurder of husband of PW. 1. The only eye witness is PW.I,|. On KS, J &JAK, J Crl A.No.l)59 2017 2

22.09 .2010, there was a procession of Vinayaka Idols in the village. PW.2, along with others, went along rvith the procession to a distance and while returning back, at about 11:J0 P.M., PW.2 reached in front of the house of the appellant/accused. PW.2 saw the appellant/ accused cutting the neck of husband of PW.l with an axe. The deceased - Raju, who is the brother of PW.2, was lying on the road with bleeding injuries. The appellant was standing by the side of the deceased. On seeing PW.2, the appellant attacked PW.2 with the same axe and fled. Immediately, PW.2 informed about the incident to his friends and took the deceased to the Government Hospital at Asifabad, where the Doctor declared the deceased as brought dead. PW.2 went home from the hospital and informed PW.1 and others about the incident. The reason for the appellant murdering the deceased, according to the witnesses, is that there was business rivalry in between them.

4. PW. 1 is the wife of deceased. She went to police station and lodged a Telugu written complaint, which is Ex.P1, on the next day at about 9:30 A.M., i.e., on

23.09.2O1O. A case was registered uide Crime No.114 of K.:;,t&Jt1K.J ( rl 1 \o 1)59 2at7 3 2010 under Sections 3O2 and 307 of IPC. P\M 10, 'uvho is the Inspectrrr of Police, received the complaint. PW. 1 0 then went to the Crovernment Hospital, Asifabad, u-krere ti'r e dead body was kent in the mortuary. Statements, of PW 2 and others were recorded and inquest procer:dings were concluded. PW.9 - Doctor conducted autopsy on th,: dead body anrl lound the following injuries.

1. (l,rt laceration over the right occipital reilion of rl-e skull measuring 6x4x2 cm.

2. 'hvo cut lacerations over the right side c,f neck measuring 4x4x1 cm and 3x2x1 crn

3. .,\ cut laceration over the right sh ouider rneasuring 4x1x1 cm (lr:t laceration over the left side of tht,: neck

4. rleasuring 4x2x2 crn.

5. P\\'.9 - Doctor stated that there was an irLternal injury on rig;ht cardio artery severed (main artery which supplies blood to the body). PW.9 then issued trx.P22 - post mortenr report.

6. Thr: aposll2.t/accused was arrested on 29.Ot).2OlO at 4:30 P.NI., at his house, and was interrogated in the 4 KS, J &JAK, J Crl ,4.No.1259 2017 presence of PW.9 and other witnesses.. Pursuant to his confession, MO.3, which is the axe, al1egedly. tsed to assault the deceased, was seized

7. PW.10 - Inspector of Police, I Town, Khammam, handed over investigation to PW. 1 1 . PW. 1 1, having concluded investigation, fiied charge sheet.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has rightly disbelieved the evidence of PWs.1, 3, and 4 on the basis of the complaint - .Ex.P1. However, PW.2's eye witness account, which formed basis for conviction is doubtful. Further, the appellant did not abscond from his residence and PW. 10 arrested the appellant from his house six days after the incident. Though MO.3 - axe was seized and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), the FSL did not find any blood stains of the deceased on it.

9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on tftE'ltn". hand, would submit that PW.2 is an eye witness and also injured person. trx.P23 is the certificate, which was issued by the Doctor. PW.2 received a laceration on his right foot, 5 K5 J&J,IK,J Cri.l \e lli9 2017 which clearll/ indicates that PW.2 witnesse(l the incident and when tre tried to resist the acts of the appellanl , PW.2 received the rnjuries. 1 O: Accor<1ing to PW.2 , the incident happened at 1 1 :O0 P.M. From there, PW.2 had taken the deceased to the hospital and after the deceased was declared dead, he came ba.ck a nd informed about the inciclent to PW . 1 and others. Lezrrned Sessions judge has rightly c.iscarcled the evidcnce ol PWs.1, 3, and 4, who statr:d tha: they witnessed llie incident of the appellant aLtacking the deceasecl. 1 1 . It is zLclmitted by PW. 10 - Investigating Officr,:r that the hosprital and police station are side by sir1e. If at all, PW.2 had tal<en the deceased to the hospital, it carrnot be believed that no one was present in the police station or in the outpost of the hospital.

12. The cor.eplaint was filed at 9:30 A.M., on the nt:xt day with a de1a5. of 11 hours. If the incident was rvitne:rsed at 11:00 P.M., on the previous night, and the dead bo,[y yTag taken to th e hospital, the information woukl havt,r been given by P\V.2 to the Doctor attending to rhe dec:eased. 6 I(S,J&JAK,J Crl.A.No.l259 2017 PW.9. is the post mortem examination Doctor, who treated the deceased at the iirst instance when he was takeh to the hospital, and he was not examined. The case sheet of the degeased was also not filed by the prosecution. The earlieSt version given by PW.2 at the time of the deceased being taken to the hospital would have thrown light on the exact version of the deceased receiving injuries. Why there was a delay of 1 t hours in lodging the complaint is not explained, either by PW.1 or PW.2, when the hospital and police station are side by side. The delay caused in loclging the F.I.R. is fatal to the prosecution case, in the present facts and circumstances of the case. No reasons are given by either PW.2, or any other prosecution witnesses for not lodging complaint with the police, when the police station was beside the hospital.

13. Though it is stated by PW.2 that he received injury on his right foot, the same cannot be believed that the appellant had in fact inflicted injury on PW.2. It is evident from the facts that the complaint - Ex.Pl came into existence after due deliberations. PWs.l, 3, and 4 have stated falsely before the Court that they have ,\'i ./.t ./..11i, J Crl..1. \ t.I)i9 2017 7 witness,:d the appellant attacking the deceased. Thr: events that transF,it-ed at the earliest point of time are s1-lpllressed and a conc()cted version was given by the prosecution at 9:30 A.M., on the next day with a delay of 11 hours. 14 . Fc,r tlrt: said reasons, benefit of doubt is exte nded to the appr:llan t/ accused. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed Jt4rscellaneous Petitions, if any, pen,Cing in this Criminal Aplreal sha11 stand cancelled. i I I l sal- c.v. MALLIKAR.',UNA VABryt^ JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// A i SECTION OFFICER U to'',. ,n" Judge, lll Additional District and Sessions Juclge' at Asifabad a . +[ : **zuq,gt+g+',: Y,?.'j'J:i{,"j ff {: i " 4. The station .rorsJtimter, Aii6o"o Po'iice statiorr Asifabad. ;. o;; cE'6 s;mt n.civattrri Reodv , Advocate (oPUC) 6 Two CCs to punr,"-irtleiutoi, ffigh Court for the State of Telangana z Two-CD CoPies Ks/gh at Hvderabad (OUT) w HIGH COURT DATED:0410212025 t JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1259 ol 2017 t" ( .1,. . /,..*) o ,' lti C ST4 I 2 4 llArl ZflZs (: ( ( t oCgp6-'r,;rr f' -1 Allowing the Crl.A. \O 6I,P\arC- Yr- 6<"'