The High Court · 2025

: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor, The Court delivered the foltowing : JUDGMENT THE HOIIOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1482 of 2Ol7 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justie K.Surender) This Criminal Appeal is frled by the appellant/accused No.1, aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.ll.2Ol7, S.C.No.77 of 2015, on the hle of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Asifabad, Adilabad District, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3O2 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPCJ.

2. Heard Ms.C.Vasundhara Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State.

3. PW. 1 is the brother of N.Bharya La:<rni (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceasedJ. Accused No. I is the son-in-law of the deceased and accused No.2, who is the mother of accused No.1, was also tried along with accused No.1.

4. On 24.05.2014, PW.l went to the police station and lodged Ex.Pl, complaint. In the complaint, he narrated that 5 years prior to the incident, the marriage of the daughter of 2 the deceased, namely Swarnalatha, was perfo rrned with the appellant herein. They ari blesied with two c.hildren. The appellant was harassing his wife, Swarnalat r;r (pW.6). 15 days prior to the incident, PW.6 went to Hyderabad and was staying at a relative's house. On 24.05.20 Lrl, u.hen the decea-sed was working as an aaya in a Schocl for mentally disabled people, Kaghaznagar, the appellant abused her for the reason that PW.6 was not living with him l'hereafter, he took a spaoe and beat the <ieceaseci on tht: i Leaci, ciue to which she sustained bleeding injuries. Later, her brother admitted her in the hospital.

5. During the course of the investigation, F,V/.l lodged a second complaint on 25.05.2014 at 8.30 p.M.. r,r'hich was marked as Ex.P19. In the complaint under l}<.p19, pW. 1 narrated that he lodged a complaint on the 1:,revious day against one Y.Ashok, the son-in-law of the cl --r;eased, who attacked the deceased and tried to kill her. p'r\r.l took the deceased to Vijaya Hospital, Kagl.:raznagar, and later shifted her to Sai Krishna Hosptial, Karimnagar, alcl s;r-rbsequently, the deceased succumbed to injuries. 3

6. Having taken up the investigation, PW.14 went to the scene and recorded the statements of PWs.1,4,5, 10, and others. The dead body of the deceased was photographed and inquest was held on the dead body, ard then the body was sent for autopsy. PW.9 conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries: (i) skull fracture was found at right parietal region extended from right ear to mid occipital region of tl.e head measuring 15 cm length and 4 cm depth and 4 cm width; and (ii) another fracture on occipital region measuring 5 x2 x2 clrr.

7. PW. 14 arrested the appellant on 28.05.2014. He was interrogated and according to PW. 14, the appellant confessed to the crime, and at his instance, the auto in which he travelled to the premises of the deceased was recovered. The spade which was at the scene, along with other material collected from the scene, was sent for FSL examination. Ex.P.2 1 is RFSL report pertaining to the material objects, which were found to contain human blood. During the course of the investigation, PWs.2 and 3 were identihed by the Investigating Oflicer. Both PWs.2 and 3 are the witnesses 4 who have allegedly seen the appellant presenr- at the scene and running away after throwing the spade whic:h was in his hands.

8. According to PW.2, on 24.O5.2OI4 in bet.,r,een 06.OO to

06.30 P.M., he went to a house situated behinci the school. Accused No.1 r.r,ent to meet the deceased iurd then the deceased asked PW.2 over the compound wall to send her cell phone. Thereafter, PW.2 heard the sho ::ings of the deceased. According to PW.2, the deceased earlier informed PW.2 that the appellant was harassing her daul3hter, i.e., the wife of the appellant. Recollecting the narration of the deceased ea-r-[icr, PW.2 jumped over the compound wall and found the deceased with injuries, and she was bteeding from the nose. The appellant then threw away the scrlde and fled from the place. PW.2 then called the ambulance and shifted her to Vij aya Hospital,, Kaghaznagar, (none e>:amined from the said hospital). PW.2 informed PW. I about the incident.

9. PW.3 is another witness who stated that on 25.O5.2014 at about 06.30 P.M., PW.2 called him and gari: him a cell phone, asking him to give it to the deceased for the reason that she wanted to call the police. PW.3 went to the school 5 and found the deceased lyrng on the floor, by which time people had gathered. PW.3 stated that he did not know how the deceased received injuries, however, the appellant was seen going away from the scene of offence in an auto. The prosecution mainly placed reliance on the evidence of pWs.2 and 3 to substaltiate its case that the appellant had inflicted injuries on the deceased with the spade and fled from the scene of offence.

10. Learned Sessions Judge believed the version of pWs.2 and 3, as well as the recovery of material objects from the possession of the appellant/accused No. 1, and accordingly convicted accused No.l/appellant while acquitting accused No.2, the mother of accused No.l. 1 l. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the eyidence is one of denial of the appellant being at the scene. Even PWs.2 ald 3 did not speak about witnessing the appellant assaulting the deceased. In the absence of any such evidence that the appellant had assaulted the deceased, the question of conviction solely on the basis of the appellant being found at the scene or 6 running away from the scene cannot form the basis to convict the appellant.

12. tearned counsel further argued that the alleged weapon, i.e., the spade used to assault the deceased, was not shown to the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination to ascertain whether the injuries f,lund on the deceased couid liave been caused with the :;;>aCe. In rhe absence of such evidence no reliance can be :laced on the verston of the prosecution that the death was r:aused by the appellant and that too with the spade found at r-he scene.

13. Learned counsel relied on the judgment rlf the Honlcle Supreme Court in Mallappa a. State o;f Karnatakat, wherein it was held as follows: " 12. We have already reproduced the part of the deposition of Snnivas (PW2), the seizure witttt,ss in whi<;h he has stated that the club was not broken. PWI has also deposed on spot panchana-rnzL made by f.he police on the morning of 206 April, 1999 from the place of occurrence. He also does not speak of seizure of the broken piece of th: club. These two prosecution witnesses do not support tJle statement made by PW8, the inquest ofticer in his examination that the latter had seized a small piece ' 202 r(z) arr (c.t ) 19 r (sc) 1 of wooden club. The autopsy surgeon Dr. Venkatesh Y (PW7) was not shown that club. It does not transpire so from his deposition. Club is a common irnplement which can be found at random in rural households of this country and in absence of any cogent evidence demonshating that the club seized was used to assault the deceased, the prosecution story seeking to establish commission of the offence by circumstaltial evidence of discovery of the weapon of assault fails.

13. Even if the prosecution version that the pW3, PWS and PW6 could and did see the appellant running in front of Devendrappa's house from the respective positions they were in at the time of occurrence of the incident was accepted, the evidence we would have been left with would have been two accused persons being seen running away. That would have been too thin piece of evidence to convict someone under Section 3O2 of the Code, applj,lng the principle of res gestae. The first Court of facts on appreciation of evidence had acquitted the appella:nt. We do not find any major lacuna in its reasoning which would have warranted interference by the Appeal Court for reversing such Frnding into that of guilt." L4. Learned counsel further relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Machindra a. Sajjan Galfa Rqnkhqmb2, wherein it was held follows: '? 1zo rz; r scc +s r 8 "16. But looking at the post-mortem report, oause of injuries was not staled nor was any op lnion formed to create independent testimony. We rvould like to emphasise on the vital role played by the opinion of the expert which is simply a conclrsion drawn from a set of facts coming to his knoule:dge and observation. Expert's opinion shoul,l be demonstrative and should be supporte<l by conr,incing reasons. The court cannot be expe,:ted to sur-render its own judgment and delega:e its authority to a third person, however great. tf the repoft of an expert is slipshod, inadequate or cryptic and information on similaritier; or dissimilarities is not available in the report ol- an expert then his opinion is oi no value. Such opinions are often cf nc use ta tle court and often lead to the breaking of very important links of prosecuLion evidence which are led for the purpose of prosecution, Therefore, we are of the considr:red opinion that the prosecution has failed to p:ove that death was caused due to the injuries inlli:ted by the recovered weapons. 17 . Furthermore, lool<ing at tJle facts and circumstances of this case, we have noticec. that PW 3 the eyewitness to the incident has n:ither stated as to when the accused came with alk:ged weallons nor he extended any help tc the deceased. Rather he fled away from t]re spot irs per his deposition, and came to know about the dr:ath of th.e deceased in the evening- This peculiar la,:t of the case completely overrides the direct evi lence rrle. because ultimately probabilities crr:ating doubts with respect to the cause aIId nrc'dus 9 operandi of offence increase when alleged eyevritnesses flee away from the place of occurrence. Where the medical evidence is such that it does not give any clear opinion witll respect to the injuries inflicted on the body of ttre victim or the deceased, as tb.e case may be, the possibilities that the injuries might have been caused by ttre accused are also ruled out. Such medical evidence is also very important in assessing the testimonies of the eyewitnesses and in determining whether the testimonies of eyewitnesses can be safely accepted. Moreover, it is setfled law of criminal jurisprudence as has been recognised by this Court in Sta,tc o.f U.p a. Krishna Gopal3 that: "25. A person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of al offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. ""

15. Learned Additional public prosecutor would submit that PWs.2 and 3 are independent witnesses who were present at the scene. Their evidence is believable and there is no reason why they would speak against the appellalt. They are independent witnesses and there is no animosity against the appellant. The narration given by pW.2 is believable and there is no reason why the appellant would run from the I (1988) 4 scc 302 i0 scene when the deceased was found lying on the ground with bleeding injuries.

16. PW. 1 did not support the prosecution case and only stated that he went to the police station and lodged a complaint/Ex.P. 1. In both the complaints, i'e, Ex'P'1 and Ex.P. 19, neither the name of PW.2 nor PW'3 is mentioned' According to PW.2, the5r '''1'31. present and h ar1 taken the deceased to the hospital; hou'ever, PW 2 did no' speak about the narne of the specific hospital' PV/ 1, in his complaint/Ex.P. 1, stated that the deceased 'vas taken to Vijaya Hospital with the help of 108 Ambula-nc':' Both PWs'I and 2 claimed that the deceased was taken tc lhe hospital; however, PW. 1 did not mention about the preience of PW'2 in both the complaints. PW.2 was not even exa:ttined at the time of inquest which was conducted on 25'05'2014' 17 . If PW.12 was present at the scene and, in Iact, ran to the rescue of the deceased, there is no reason u'iry his name does not frnd a place either in Ex.P. 1, Ex'P' 19, or the inquest report/Ex.P.4. 11

18. If the events narrated by PW. 14/Investigating Officer and the complaints are looked into, it is evident that pW.2 was pressed into service by the pfosecution to speak about the incident and to corroborate the evidence of pW.3. Though PW.3 did not speak of any incident involving the appellant with the spade; however, PW.3 stated that he saw the appellant going away from the scene.

19. The other reason why the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 cannot be believed is the very narration before the Court. According to PW.2, the deceased asked him to give her a cell phone while the deceased was standing at the compound wall. There is no explalation as to why PW.2 did not hand over the cell phone when she asked for it. The said version, when viewed along with the earlier complaints filed by pW.1, I \ reveals that ttre presence of PW.2 was not reflected at any point of time, either during the inquest proceedings or at the scene of offence. Therefore, the presence of PW.2 at the scene ) cannot be believed.

20. Once the evidence of PW.2 cannot be considered for the reasons discussed, there is no other evidence to connect the appellant with the alleged assault on the deceased. t2 Accordingly, the benefit of doubt is exte r,led to the appellant.

21. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed by setting aside the Judgment dated 14:1 l.2Ol7 in S.C.No.77 of 20 1 i, on the file of the III Additional District ald Sessions Ju<[ge, Asifabad, Adilabad District. The appellant/accused No.l is acquitted for the said offence and he shall be set at liberlr,, if he is not required in any other case. The fine zunount paici, if any, shall be returned. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if anr., shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Scl/. l. NAGA LAKSHMT REGTSTRAB_ * .JelNT ',\-*,--' ,-"SECTION OFFICER To, i . The iil Additional District.and Sessions Judge, Asifabad, Adilabad Diptrict, ^ T_elangana. (With Records, if any) 2. One CC to Sri C.Vasundhara ieddy, Advocate [OpUC] 3' Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High court roitne ste.o of rerangana at 4. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUTI I Svsigh HIGH COURT DATED: 1 5l,0#2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1482 ot 2017 r ::- :i l-zr r ,i. ...\ 25 0[I 2ffi ) \ ALLOWING THE CRLA t0\E/