CRLA/547/2017 of VANKUDOTH MALUKA, WARANGAL DT., Vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA, REP PP., on 31 December 2024

BAIL sLlP: The Appellant / Accused was directed to be released on bail by theOrder of the High Court dated 08-08-2023 made in l.A.No.1 of 2011 inCrl.A No.547 of 2O17Order of the High Court dated 08-08-2023 made in l.A.No.1 of 2011 inCrl.A No.547 of 2O17

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO IHOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDERANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO:547 OF 2017

Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.p.C. against the Judgment dated 15_05-2017 made in s.c.No.580 of 2011 on the file of the court of the Vl Additional DistrictJudge, Mahabubabad.

Between:Vankudoth Malluka, Wo._ Ramesh, Aged about 29 years, Lambada, R/oThotadasru Thanda, H/o Gudur Village, Warangal Diskict

...Appeilant / Accused

AND

The State of Telangana, through C.l. of police Gudur. District Waranoal. Reoby Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature, at Hyderabad, for the"StatJiiflelangana and the State ofAndhra Pradeshby Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature, at Hyderabad, for the"StatJiiflelangana and the State ofAndhra Pradesh

...Respondent / Complainant

Counsel for the Appellant

Sri Shaik Karimulla

Counsel for the RespondentSri Arun Kumar DodlaAdditional Public ProsecutorAdditional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following Judgment :

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDERAND

THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JU,KANTI

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.547 OF 2OL7

WDGMENT i (per Hon 'ble Sri Jusrice K.Surender)

This Criminal Appeal is liled nggrieved by thejudgment dated 15.05.2017 passed in S.C.No.580 of 20llon the file of VI Additional District Judge, Mahabubabad,convicting and sentencing the appellant/ accused toundergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine ofRs.10,OOO/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffersimple imprisonment for one month.

2. Heard Sri Shaik Kareemullah, learned counsel for theappellant/ accused, and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor for the respondent_ State .3. The appellant is the mother of the <leceased boy.According to the prosecution, on the date of incident i.e.,on 21.17.2O1O, [pW. ]l, who is the husband of theappellant/accused, six years old son along with thedeceased boy, who was one year old, were all in the house.PW. 1 went to the fields at B:30 A.M., and within half_al_

hour, PW.2, who [is ][the ][mother ][of PW'l, ][found ][that ][the]deceased boy was [crying]uncontrollablY [and froth ][was]coming out of [his ][mouth.]PW.2 ran to the [fields ][where]PW. 1 was workingand informed [that ]theappellant/ [accused, ][wife of ][PW' ][1, ][poured insecticide ][in ][the]mouth of the [deceased ][boy. ][On hearing ][the ][same' ][PW' ][1]immediately [went ][to ][the ][house ][and took ][the ][deceased ][boy]to the hospital, [where ][the ][boy ][was ][decla-red ][as ][brought]dead.

4. The body of the [deceased ][boy ][was ][subjected ][to ][post]mortem examination. [The ][Doctor, ][who ][conducted ][post]mortem examination, [gave ][opinion ][that ][the ][boy died ][on]account of [Cardio ][Respiratory ][Failure ][due ][to ][suspicious]is [the report ][issued ][by ][the ][Forensic ][Science]poison. Ex.P13 Laboratory, [which ][confirms ][that ][insecticide poison ][was]found in [the ][viscera, ][which ][are ][pieces ][of ][stomach' ][liver ][and]intestine.

the5. Learned [Sessions ][Judge found that ]poison in theappellant/accused [had ][poured ][insecticide]convicted themouth of deceased [boy and ][accordingly]appellant/ accused'

J

6. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. However,according to PW. 1, the husbald, he left for work to hisfields at around 8:30 A.M., leaving the appellant/accusedand the deceased boy. Within half-an-hour, PW.2 - motherof PW. I went to the fields crying and informed that theappellant administered insecticide poison to the deceasedboy.

7. The case is one of circumstantial evidence. The maincircumstance relied on by the prosecution is that theappellant was present in the house when PW. I left andwithin half-an-hour the deceased boy was found by pW.2,crying and froth was coming from out of his mouth. It isnot disputed by the appellant that she along with pW. 1were staying separately with children. However, the defenceof the appellant is that she was not present in the house.In fact, divorce was given to her by her husband- pW. 1 andas such the question of administering poison to the childdoes not arise.

8. Ex.Dl is agreement, dated 23.08.2009, entered inbetween PW.l and the appellant/accused. In the saidagreement, PW. 1 agreed to pay -Rs.l,OO,000/_ to the appellant, since PW.1 married another woman. [According]to Ex.D1, Rs.80,0OO/- had to be [given ][to the child who ][was]yet to be born (the deceased child). Ex.D2 is dated19.O2.2O12, which is the Divorce Deed [entered between the]appellant and PW.1.

9. Learned counsel appearing for [the appellant/accused]would submit that there are [no ][eye ][witnesses ][to ][the]incident. Further, it was suspicion [which prompted ][PW.1]to lodge a complaint. [PWs. ]I [and ][2 ][and other ][witnesses]state that they suspected [the ][appellant ][of ][administering]poison into the mouth of the [deceased ]boy' [There ][is]possibility of a third person entering [into ][the ][house ][and]administering poison to [the child.]

10. On the other hand, [learned ][Additional ][Public]Prosecutor would submit that [the ][mother ][was ][taking ][care]of the child and there [is ][no ][evidence ][of third ][person]entering into the [house, ][after ][PW. ][1 ][left the ][house.]

11. Ex.Dl is an [agreement, ][which was ][entered ][into ][by]PW. 1 and the appellant/ [accused. ][According ][to the ][said]PW.1 [married ][another woman ][and ][the]agreement, I

ry

\

5

who [is ][his ][first ][wife was ][carrying ][six ][months]appellant that [money ][would ][be ][given ][to the ][child' ][It]pregnarlcy, [and ]that [there ][were ][differences ][on ][account ][of ][PW' ][1]appears marrying another [woman]during Pregnancy [of ][the]drafted, [which ][is ][an]appellant. [Though ][Ex'D1 ][was]agreement [between ][PW.l ][and ][the ][appellant ][before ][the]the [fact remains ][that ][the ][relationship ][between ][PW' ][1]elders, and the appellant [was ][strained' ][Further' ][they ][were ][living]in the same [house.]

t2.The appellant/accused [is ][the mother of the ][deceased]The fact remains [that ][she was ][in ][the ][house ][when ][the]boy.incident took [place. ][Under ][Section ][106 ][of ][the ][Indiart]Evidence Act, [7872, ][the burden would ][be ][on ][the ][appellant]to prove under [what circumstances, the ][child' ][who ][was ][one]year old, died [of ][poison. ][Though there ][was knowledge ][on]the part of the [appellant, ][it ][cannot ][be ][said ][that ][she ][had]intent to [commit ][murder ][of ][her ][own ][child' ][PW' 1 ][divorced]the appellant [while ][she ][was carrying ][pregnancy ][of ][six]months and married [another woman']

f(

\

(t

13. In the facts of the present case, we deem itappropriate that the conviction under Section 302 IpC hasto be set aside, while convicting the appellant/accusedunder Section 304 Part I IpC.

14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.The sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the periodalready undergone by the appellant/accused.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in thisCriminal Appeal shall stand closed.Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.

Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAOJOTEGISTRAR//TRUE COPY'SN OFFICER

To,

1. The VI Additional District Judge, Mahabubabad [(with ][records, ][if ][any)]

2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsampet, [Warangal ][District]

3. The Circle lnspector of Police, Gudur, [Warangal District]

4, The Superintendent, Central Prison, Warangal

5. The Superintendent, Women's Prison, [Central Prison, Chanchalguda,]HyderabadHyderabad

6. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, [High ][Court for ][the State ][of Telangana,]Hyderabad [OUT]Hyderabad [OUT]

7. One CC to Sri Shaik Karimulla, [Advocate ][OPUCJ

8. Two CD Copies

v,

VA/gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:31 11212024

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.547 of 2017

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLA

s

1HE [Sr ]rG(v3 tl FEB 2mzC)-hattpATcH