CRLA/801/2014 of PALADI MAHESH, HYD Vs S.H.O., SAROORNAGAR P.S. on 29 December 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEI\iIBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE K.LAKSHMANANDTHE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 801 OF 2014

Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., [judgment ]and decree [dated]14.02.2014 passed in S.C.No. 346 of 2009 on the file of the [lll ][Additional ][District]and Sesslons Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Between:

Paladi Mahesh, S/o. Late Yadagiri, aged about 35 [years, ][Rl/o.H.No.13-127 P ][& ][T]Colony Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad .,.APELLANT/ACCUSED

AND

The State of Telangana, [(through ]SHO, Saroornagar PS) [Rep. by ]the [Public]Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

Petition under Section 389 (1) CPC [praying ]that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ]the High Court [may ][be]pleased to enlarge the petitioner herein on bail by suspending the sentenceimposed in SC.No.346 of 2009 dated 14-02-2014 on the file of the lll [Addl. ][Dist. ][&]Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, [pending ]disposal [of the ][Crl.A.No.801 of]2014.

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. M LAXMAN [RAO]

Counsel forthe Respondent: PUBLIC [PROSECUTOR]

The Court made the following: ORDER

,1

HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

AND

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANACRIMINALAPPEAL No.801 OF 2014

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. l.akshman)

Heard Mr. M. Laxman Rao, learned counsel for the appellant - accused No.l and Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, leamed Additional pubticProsecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

2. The appellant herein is Accused No.l in S.C. No.346 of2009 and he filed the present Criminal Appeal challenging thejudgment dated 14.02.2014 passed by leamed III Additional Districtand Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District in Sessions Case No.346 of2009.

3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, trial Court found accused No.1

guilty of the offences under Sections - 302 and 201 of IpC andaccordingly convicted and sentenced life imprisonment for the offenceunder Section - 302 ofIPC and rigorous imprisonment for three (03)years for the offence under Section 201 of IPC. Accused No.2 is themother of accused No.l and she and accused No.l were found notguilty ofthe offence punishable under Section - 4984 ofIpC

4. The case [of ][the ][prosecution ][is ][as ][under:]

i) Accused [No.l ][is the ][husband ][of ][Sml ][P' ][Geetha (hereinafter]

called as 'the [deceased') and ][their ][mar:riage ][was ][solemnized ][in ][the]year 1996. [They'are ][blessed ][with two ][male ][children ][v2'' ][Mr' ][Vinay]Kumar and [Mr. ][Karthi.]

ii) At the [time ][of ][marriage, ][the ][parents ][of ][the ][deceased gave]cash of Rs.1,25,000/- [and ][10 ][tolas ][of ][gold omaments' ][Dissatisfred]with the said [dowry, ][accused ][No'l ][on the instigation ][of ][his ][mother']accused [No.2, ][demanded ][the ][deceased ][and ][her ][parents ][to ][pay]additional [dowry']

iii) Accused [No.l ][used ][to ][suspect ][the ][frdelity ][of ][the ][deceased]

and disputes [arose between ][them' ][Then, ][accused ][No'1 ][bore grudge ][on]thedeceasedanddecidedtogetridofherandwaitingforanopportunitY.

iv) On a [fateful ][day ][i.e', ][on the ][night ][of ][08'08'2008 ][after ][having]dinner, Mr. [P. Vinay ][Kumar, elder ][son' ][was slept ][in ][the ][bed room']while the [younger ][son, ][the ][deceased ][and ][accused ][No'l ][slept ][in ][the]front bed [room. In ][the mid-night ][of ][08/09'08'2008' ][accused ][No'l]woke up, shifted [his ][younger ][son to ][the ][bed ][room' ][where ][the ][elder ][son]was sleep and [at ][about 0300 hours, ][accused ][No'l ][picked up ][a ][pestle]

3KL,J & SKS,JCrl.A.No.80l of20l4

found in the corner of the house, assaulted and beat on the head of thedeceased indiscriminately while she was in sleep which resulted hersustaining bleeding head injury and died on the spot.deceased indiscriminately while she was in sleep which resulted hersustaining bleeding head injury and died on the spot.

v) Accused No.l then placed the body in a gunny bag, washedthe floor having blood stains with surf and again cleaned with clothes.He also washed the blood stained pestle and clothes by applying soap.Accused No.1 also applied white-wash on the walls where blood wasspotted. Later, he shifted the body into his Maruthi Car bearingregistration No.AP l6H 2913 and dumped the body on the bank ofBairamalguda Tank and fled away. He also applied grease/oil on therear seat where blood stains were found without giving scope toanybody to get suspicion. On the way, the vehicle went offroad, thencalled the mechanic and shifted to Bharath Motors Garage and thenfled away.

vi) On 10.08.2008 at about 1700 hours, accused No.l made a call to PW.l and informed that the deceased died in a road accident inthe limits of Maheshwaram to deviate their attention and switched offhis phone. Thus, accused No.l committed the aforesaid offences.

vii) PW. 1 suspected accused No.l and lodged a complaint withSaroomagar Police Station. On receipt of the complaint lodged by/

KL,J & SKS,JCrl.A.No.80l [of2014]

PW.l, the Police [registered ][a ][case ][in ][Crime ][No'951 ][of ][2008 ][under]

Section 'woman [missing' ][and ][took ][up ][investigation']

5. On completion of [investigation, the ][police ][filed ][a ][charge]

sheet against both the [accused ][for ][the ][offences punishable ][under]Sections - 498A, [302 ][arrd ][201 ][of ][IPC ][against ][accused ][No'l ][and]Section - 498,4. [of IPC ][against ][accused ][No.2' ][Thereafter, ][the ][case ][was]committed to the [Court ][of ][Sessions ][which ][was ][taken on ][file ][vide ][S'C']No.346 of 2000 [for ][the ][said offences.]

6. The trial Court [framed the ][charges ][under ][Sections ][- ][4984']302ald20loflPCagainstboththeaccused.Boththeaccuseddeniedthe charges and [pleaded ][not ][guilty ][and ][prayed ][for ][trial']

7. During trial, [the ][prosecution ][has ][examined ][as ][many ][as ][1l]

witnesses, v2., PWs.1 [to ][11 ][and ][marked ][Exs'Pl ][to ][P13 documents ][and]Mos.lto5wereexhibited.Nooralevidencewasletinonbehalfofthe accused, however [Ex.Dl ][was ][marked.]

8. After completion [of trial ][and ][on ][appreciation ][of ][evidence']

both oral and [documentary, the ][trial ][Court ][found ][accused ][No'l ][guilty]ofthe aforesaid charges [framed ][against ][him ][and ][accordingly convicted]

)

\;\

':,r"

I

5KL,J & SKS,JCrl.A-No.80l of20l4

him of the aforesaid charges, while accused Nos.l and 2 were found not guilty of the charges under Section - 498Aof IpC.

9. Feeling aggrieved by the said conviction, accused No.l preferred the present appeal.

10. Mr. M. Lakshman Rao, leamed counsel for the appellant - accused No.l contends as follows:

i) There is contradiction in the statement made by pW.6under Section - 161 of Cr.p.C. and his deposition;under Section - 161 of Cr.p.C. and his deposition;

ii) PW.S did not send MOs.l to 5 for Forensic Science

Laboratory. The said fact was admitted by pW.g _Investigating Officer during cross-examination. Eventhen, the prosecution filed FSL report (Ex.pl2) throughInvestigating Officer during cross-examination. Eventhen, the prosecution filed FSL report (Ex.pl2) through PW.9. There is no evidence to the effect that who sentMOs.l to 5 to FSL. Even then, trial Court relied upon thesame and convicted the appellant;MOs.l to 5 to FSL. Even then, trial Court relied upon thesame and convicted the appellant;

iii) There is also contradiction in the statement made by PW.4 before the Police under Section - 161 of Cr.p.C.and his deposition before the trial Court with regard tobringing the subject vehicle (MO.5) to the Shed. Thoughand his deposition before the trial Court with regard tobringing the subject vehicle (MO.5) to the Shed. Though KL,J & [SKS,J]Crl.A.No [801 ][of20l4]

there was [no ][seizure, ][the ][trial ][Court ][did ][not consider ][the]

said fact;

iv) There [is ][contradiction ][with ][regard to ][the colour of ][MO'5 ][-]

small cloth, [and ][the ][same ][was ][not ][considered ][by ][the ][trial]

Court;

There is no [corroboration ][of ][evidence ][of ][prosecutron]v)

witnesses;

vi) There [is ][no ][eye-witnesses ][to the ][incident;]

vii) The trial [Court ][recorded ][conviction ][basing ][on]circumstantial [evidence' ][The circumstantial ][evidence ][is]circumstantial [evidence' ][The circumstantial ][evidence ][is]

not forming [complete chain ][and ][the ][link ][is ][missing' ][Even]

then, the trial [Court ][recorded ][conviction ][against ][accused]

No.1 without [considering the ][said ][aspects;]

viii) The Investigating [Officer ][did not ][examine the ][tenants ][of]

accused No.1 [and ][the ][deceased ][and ][also ][the ][brother']sister-in-law [of ][the ][accused, ][who were ][also ][present ][in ][the]sister-in-law [of ][the ][accused, ][who were ][also ][present ][in ][the]

said house;

ix) PW.3, minor [son ][of ][accused ][No'1 ][and the ][deceased' ][did]

not speak about [the ][offence' ][Even then' the ][trial ][Court]

,f

7KL,J & SKS,'Crl.A.No.80l of2014

relying on the last seen theory recorded convictionagainst the appellant herein;against the appellant herein;

x) There is contradiction with regard to the registration of FIR. As per the prosecution, the complaint was lodgedon 10.08.2008 at2200 hours, whereas in Ex.P10 - FIR, iton 10.08.2008 at2200 hours, whereas in Ex.P10 - FIR, it is mentioned as 11.08.2008. Therefore, the said FIR isdefective;defective;

xi) The prosecution did not send MOs.1 to 5 to FSL foranalysis either through PW.S or PW.9 or Mr. CPrabhakar Reddy, PC 571 of Saroomagar Police Station,through whom MOs were sent to FSL, Red Hills,Hyderabad. Thus, the trial Court erred in convicting theappellant; andanalysis either through PW.S or PW.9 or Mr. CPrabhakar Reddy, PC 571 of Saroomagar Police Station,through whom MOs were sent to FSL, Red Hills,Hyderabad. Thus, the trial Court erred in convicting theappellant; and

xii) PW.4 is the neighbor of PW.1 and, therefore, he is not anindependent witness.independent witness.

11. On the other hand, leamed Additional Public [prosecutor]

would contend as follows:

i) PW.8 received the complaint Ex.Pl on 10.08.2008 andthe same was registered on the same day at 10.00 P.M.which is evident from Ex.Pl. In Ex.Pl - FIR, on the top,the same was registered on the same day at 10.00 P.M.which is evident from Ex.Pl. In Ex.Pl - FIR, on the top,

ii)

8KL.J & SKS,JCrt.A No [801 ][of2014]

it is mentioned [as ][1 ][1/08/2008 ][due ][to insdvg6snsg' ][It ][is]only typographical [mistake ][as ][admitted ][by ][PW'8 ][-]Officer. [However, ][in ][column ][No'3 (b) ][of]Investigating Ex.P10 - [FIR, ][it ][is ][specihcally ][mentioned ][the ][date ][as]10.08.2008 [and ][time ][of ][receipt ][of ][Ex'P10 ][as ][2200 ][hours']In Ex.P4 - [crime detail ][form, ][the ][date ][is ][mentioned ][as]10.08.2008. [Therefore, ][accused ][No'1 ][cannot ][take]of [the ][same. ][Accused ][No'l ][informed ][PW'l']advantage brother of [the ][deceased ][and ][brother-in-law ][of ][accused]No.l, that on [10.08.2008 ][the ][deceased ][died ][due ][to]accident and, [therefore, ][switched ][of ][his ][phone']PW.l [got ][suspicion ][and, ][therefore' ][he ][along]Thereafter, with his [parents came ][to ][the ][scene ][of ][offence' ][observed]that the Chappal [of ][the ][deceased ][were there at ][the ][house]of the deceased [and ][accused ][No'l ][and ][white ][wash on ][the]walls etc. [He got suspicion ][and ][lodged complaint to ][the]police on 10.08.2008 [itselfat ][2200 hours;]In fact, MOs.l [to ][5 ][were ][sent ][to ][FSL ][by PW'8 ][himself']but due to [paucity ][of ][time ][between ][the incident ][and ][the]deposition [i.e., ][the ][incident is ][on ][the intervening ][night ][of]

\

/ :1

KL,J & SKS,JCrl.A.No.80l ot2014Crl.A.No.80l ot2014

08/09.08.2008 and the deposition was recorded on06.06.2013 i.e., five (05) years later. However, accusedNo.l did not object while marking Ex.pl2 _ FSL reportthrough PW.9. In fact, accused No.l did not cross_examine PW.9 at all. The said aspects were consideredby the trial Court;06.06.2013 i.e., five (05) years later. However, accusedNo.l did not object while marking Ex.pl2 _ FSL reportthrough PW.9. In fact, accused No.l did not cross_examine PW.9 at all. The said aspects were consideredby the trial Court; iiD Even minor contradictions in the statement made by PW.6 before the police recorded under Section _ 161 ofCr.P.C. and his deposition before the trial Court cannotbe considered due to paucity of time. However, the crimevehicle was marked as MO.5;Cr.P.C. and his deposition before the trial Court cannotbe considered due to paucity of time. However, the crimevehicle was marked as MO.5;

iv) PW.4 though resident of Afzalgunj, he came toSaroomagar to attend function and he has categoricallyadmitted that he does not know pW.l and, therefore, he isan independent witness. Admittedly, the deceased, wifeof accused No.l, was in the house along with accusedNo.1, PW.3 and LW.6, their sons on the intervening nightof 08/09.08.2008. Therefore, accused No.l hasknowledge about the same and, therefore, he has toexplain the commission of offence in terms of Section _Saroomagar to attend function and he has categoricallyadmitted that he does not know pW.l and, therefore, he isan independent witness. Admittedly, the deceased, wifeof accused No.l, was in the house along with accusedNo.1, PW.3 and LW.6, their sons on the intervening nightof 08/09.08.2008. Therefore, accused No.l hasknowledge about the same and, therefore, he has toexplain the commission of offence in terms of Section _

KL,J & [SKS,J]Crl.ANo.80l [of ][2014]

106 of the Indian [Evidence ][Act, ][1872, ][which ][accused]

No.1 failed to do;

PW.7 gave Ex.P9 - [postmortem ][examination ][report,]

v)

wherein he gave [his ][opinion ][that the ][cause ][of ][death ][to ][the]

best of his knowledge [and ][opinion is ][due ][to ][head ][injury]and time since [death ][is ][about ][two-three ][days ][prior to ][his]PME. The same [is also ][supported by ][Ex'P9;]

Accused No.1 [suspected ][the ][fidelity ][of ][his ][deceased ][wife,]vi)

who worked as Teacher [for ][some ][time, ][hatched ][a ][plan to]

do away her life [and, ][accordingly, ][taking ][advantage ][of]the deceased sleeping [on ][the ][intervening ][night of]08/09.08.2008, [attacked ][on ][her ][with ][MO'l ][- ][Pestle ][and]committed murder brutally. [Therefore, ][the ][prosecution]proved the motive beyond [reasonable ][doubt;]

vii) Prosecution [also proved destruction ][of ][evidence ][beyond]

reasonable doubt; and

viii) Considering the [entire ][evidence, ][both ][oral ][and]the [trial ][Court recorded ][conviction ][against]the [trial ][Court recorded ][conviction ][against]documentary, accused [No.l ][herein' ][There ][is ][no ][error ][in]the appellant [- ]

it.

)

llKLJ & SKS,JC.l.A.No 801 of20l4

12. In view of the aforesaid rival submissions, there is nodispute that the appellant - accused No.1 is the husband of thedeceased. Their marriage was performed in the year 1996. Theyblessed with two-male children i.e., LW.5 and pW.3. According tothe prosecution, on 08.08.2003 after having dinner, elder son of theappellant and deceased (LW.5) slept in the bed room, while pW.3,their younger son along with accused No.l and the deceased slept inthe front bed room. In the mid-night on 08/09.08.2008, accused No.1woke up PW.3, shifted him to the bed room where their elder son wassleeping. The appellant herein picked up pestle found in the comer ofthe house, assaulted and hit on the head of the deceasedindiscriminately while she was in sleep, which resulted bleedinginjuries on the head of the deceased and she died on the spot. Thus,all of them i.e., the appellant herein, the deceased, PW.3 and LW.5were in the same house on 08.08.2008. Accused No.l informed hisbrother-in-law, PW.l, brother of the deceased on 10.08.2008 at about5.00 P.M. over phone that the deceased met with an accident atMaheshwaram and disconnected the phone. Therefore, he gotsuspicion. PW. 1, his parents and brother rushed to the house of accused No.1 and found the [chappal ][ofthe ][deceased. ][They ][also ][found]patches of white-wash on the [walls of ][the bed ][room of ][the ][deceased.]

13. Accused No.2 was [present and ][informed that ][accused ][No'1]and the deceased went away [from ][the ][house ][on ][09.08.2008 ][in ][the]moming time. The brother of [accused ][No.l ][and ][his wife ][were ][also]there in the house along with [accused ][No.l. ][They did ][not give ][any]reply. They got suspicion [and ][lodged ][a ][complaint ][with ][Police,]Saroomagar. On receipt [of ][Ex.P1 ][- ][complaint, ][the ][police ][registered ][a]case in Crime No.951 of 2008 [under the head ]['woman ][missing' ][and]entrusted the investigation to Mr. [S. ][Narsimha, ][Sub-Inspector ][of]Police, who visited the scene [of offence ][and ][informed PW'8 that ][he is]having suspicion. PW.8 immediately [rushed ][to ][the ][scene ][of ][offence]and examined Mrs. P. Rama Devi, [co-sister ][of ][the ][deceased, ][both ][sons]of the appellant and the deceased. [The ][appellant ][was ][also ][present.]PW.S suspected the appellant [and interrogated ][him ][and recorded ][his]confession in the presence of two [mediators ][i.e., ][PW.4 and ][Mr.]Seetharam Arjun Kumar. The appellant [- ][accused ][No.l ][confessed]commission of offence at 0300 hours on 09.08.2008. [Accused ][No.1]led PW.8 to a lake near Bairamalguda, where he [had ][thrown the ]of the deceased. PW.S saw a gunny bag in which they [found ][body ][of]/

,;;- -':-r.!:*- -'...i,.*r.-

KL,J & SKS,JCrl.A.No.80l of20l4

the deceased. He prepared scene of offence panchanama in thepresence of the mediators and shifted the body to Osmania GeneralHospital. Thereafter, the appellant led PW.8 to Bharath Motorspresence of the mediators and shifted the body to Osmania GeneralHospital. Thereafter, the appellant led PW.8 to Bharath MotorsGarage, Champapaet, where they have seized the crime vehicle inwhich accused No.1 shifted the dead body to Bairamalguda Lake. Hewhich accused No.1 shifted the dead body to Bairamalguda Lake. Hehas also recorded the statement of the owner of the said BharathMotors. Then, he has altered section of law from woman missing toSections - 4984, 302 and 201 IPC. The police arrested accused No.lon I 1.08.2008 and produced before the Magistrate concemed.Motors. Then, he has altered section of law from woman missing toSections - 4984, 302 and 201 IPC. The police arrested accused No.lon I 1.08.2008 and produced before the Magistrate concemed.

14. The aforesaid facts would reveal that the appellant hereininformed PW. I , brother of the deceased that the deceased met with anaccident at Maheshwaram and, thereafter he switched of his phone.The appellant herein did not make any effort to lodge a complaint tothe police with regard to the alleged accident of the deceased atMaheshwaram. On the other hand, he has informed PW.l, brother ofthe deceased, over phone. He did not inform the said fact to themother of the appellant who is accused No.2. Therefore, the conductof the appellant is highly doubttul.

KL.J & SKS,JCrl A.No [801 ][of2014]

15. There is no explanation [from ]the appellant [with ][regard to]the alleged accident of his wife [at ][Maheshwaram. He ][has ][not ][lodged]complaint with police with [regard ]to the [said ][alleged ][accident']Admittedly, the appellant and [the ][deceased ][and ][their children ][had ][their]dinner on 08.08.2008 and slept [in ][the ][house. ][There ][is ][no ][explanation']much less plausible explanation [from the ][appellant ][with ][regard ][to ][the]alleged accident of the deceased [at ][Maheshwaram. ][Having ][knowledge]about the said accident [and ][the incident, ][it ][is ][the ][duty of ][the ][appellant]to inform the same to the [police ][concerned ][in ][terms ][of ][Section ][- ][106 ][of]the Evidence Act. In [the ][present ][case, ][the appellant ][failed to ][discharge]the said burden.

16. It is relevant [to ][extract ][Section ][- ][106 ][of ][the Evidence ][Act]and the same [is ][as ][under:]

"106. [Burden ][of ][proving ][fact ][especially ][within]knowledge.-When any fact [is ][especially ][within]the knowledge of any [person, ][the ][burden ][of]proving that fact is upon him.

lllustrations

(a) When a person does an act with some intentionother than that which the [character ][and]circumstances of the act suggest, [the ][burden ][of]proving that [intention ]is upon [him.]

\

(b) A is charged with travetling on a railwaywithout a ticket. The burden ofproving that he hada ticket is on him."without a ticket. The burden ofproving that he hada ticket is on him."

17 . PW.1 , the doctor, gave his opinion stating that the cause ofdeath is due to head injury and time since death is about two-threedays prior to his PME. Ex.P9 is the pME report. Nothing was elicitedfrom PW.7 during cross-examination. On the other hand, pW.7during cross-examination categorically admitted that the injury wasnot possible by a simple fall on hard surface and it is not possible inaccident as there would be other associated injuries in the accident.Thus, the cause ofdeath was due to head injuries.

18. PW.3 is the minor son of the appellant and the deceasedand he deposed that he was studying third class when his mother died.On the date of incident, his father, mother, junior patemal uncle andparental grandmother were in the house. On the next day of theincident, his father informed the police when police brought him to thehouse that he assaulted his mother with pestle and killed her. Duringcross-examination, he has admiued that he saw his mother on thenight of 8h day of that month lastly. 15. appellant was not looking after them properly. [He ][was ][assaulting. ][Therefore, ][PW'3 ][has ][last]seen his mother [and father ][in ][the said house ][on ][08.08'2008']

19. PW.4 is the [panchwitness ][for ][the confession ][of ][the ][accused]No. 1, seizures and inquest. [He ][is ][the ][resident ][of ][Ashok ][Bazar,]Afzalgnj, Hyderabad, [where ][PWs.1 and ][2 ][reside' ][According ][to]leamed counsel [for ][the appellant, he ][is ][not ][an ][independent ][witress ][and]he is known to PWs'l [and ][2. ][However, ][during ][cross-examination']PW.4 admitted [that PW.2 is ][also ][resident ][of ][the ][same street, ][where ][he]resides. He has [no ][acquaintance ][with ][PW.2. ][He was ][in ][the ][house ][of]his brother Mr. [Yadagiri ][as there ][was marriage ][at P ][& ][T ][Colony,]Saroomagar, and [at ][that ][time ][the ][police ][called ][him' ][He ][does ][not ][know]LW.9, anothe r [panch ][witness. ][Therefore, ][it ][cannot ][be ][said ][that ][he ][is]not an independent [witness. ][Just ][because ][he ][is ][also ][resident ][of ][Ashok]Bazar, Afzalgunj, it [cannot ][be ][said ][that he ][is ][known ][to ][PWs'l ][and ][2]and he is not an independent [witness.]

20. PW.6 is the Mechanic [in ][Bharath ][Motors' ][He ][deposed that]four (04) years back in [the month ][of August, ][accused ][No'1 ][brought ][his]Maruthi 800 Car [bearing registration ][No.AP ][l6H ][2919 ][to ][their ][shed']Then, he went to [Karmanghat, ][where the ][car ][was ][parked' ][As ][the]

t7KL,J & SKS.JCrl.ANo E0l of20l4

battery was down, he started the car with another battery and broughtthe car to the shed. They have informed accused No.l that the batteryhas to be replaced. Accused No.l went away to bring the amount forreplacement of battery, but he did not tum up. Two (02) daysthereafter, the police came and seized the car. The police informedhim that the accused used the car to transport the dead body of hiswife after killing her.

21. However, referring to the deposition of pW.6 and hisstatement recorded by the police under Section - 161 of Cr.p.C.,wherein he stated that accused took Mr.pratap Reddy, owner of theshed, to Karmanghat and his owner changed the battery and took thecar to their shed. Therefore, according to leamed counsel for theappellant, there is discrepancy with regard to getting the vehicle to theshed.

22. It is relevant to note that the incident is dated08/09.08.2008, whereas the statement of PW.6 was recorded on11.08.2008 by the Investigating Officer and his deposition wasrecorded ot 19.l2.2lllalmost after four (04) years four (04) months.Therefore, minor variation with regard to the seizing of vehicle can be 1i l8KL,J & SKS,JCrl-A.No.8ol of20l4

ignored. The appellant cannot [take ][advantage ][of ][the ][said ][minor]contradictions.

23. With regard to the contention of [leamed counsel ][for ][the]appellant that PW.8 did not send [MOs.l ][to ][8 ][to ][the ][FSL, ][during ][cross-]examination, PW.S admitted [that he ][did ][not ][send ][MOs.l ][to ][5 ][to ][FSL.]However, FSL report was [marked ][through ][PW.9, ][successor ][of ][PW.8.]It was marked as Ex.P12. [There was ][no objection ][from ][the ][appellant]while marking Ex.Pl2. There [is ][no ][cross-examination on the ][same ][by]the appellant. However, [perusal ][of ][the ][said ][FSL report would ][reveal]that the seized articles were sent to [FSL through ][Mr. ][C. ][Prabhakar]Reddy, PC 571 on22.09.2008.

24. ltis further contended by leamed [counsel ][for ][the appellant]that PW.l admitted that he filed [a ][declaration given ][by ][accused ][No.l]and handed over the children to him in a civil [case. ][Along ][with]declaration, the accused also handed [over ][the FDRs ][initially ][to ][the]police and the police, in tum, handed over the [same ][to ][PW.l.]Accused No.l handed over those FDRs at [11 ]A.M. [The ][accused]brought the said FDRs to the police station [and handed over ][the ][same.]He has admitted the said fact in the civil [case.]

a. i.

-

KI,J & SKS,JCrl.ANo.801 of2014

25. PW.3, minor son of the appellant and the deceased, duringcross-examination, he has admitted that he came to know that hisfather deposited Rs.6.00 lakhs in the form of fixed deposit in hisname

26. It is relevant to note that PW.l during cross-examinationcategorically admitted that he saw accused No. I on I 1.08.2008moming time in police station

27. As discussed above, the Investigating Officer arrestedaccused No. 1 on I 1.08.2008. In fact, the appellant was present at thescene of offence on 10.08.2008 when Investigating Officer (pW.8)visited the scene of offence. Therefore, it appears that there weresome compromise talks between the appellant family and the parentsetc., of the deceased keeping in view the welfare of the minorchildren, the appellant cannot take advantage of the same.

28. Perusal of the Ex.P12 - FSL report would reveal that bloodwas detected on item Nos.5 to 8. Origin of blood stains on itemNos.5, 6 and 8 is of human. However, blood is not detected on itemNos.l to 4. Origin of blood stains on item No.7 could not be KL,J & SKS,JCrl.A No.80l of20l4

determined, while blood group of blood stains on item Nos.5,6 and 8could not also be determined.could not also be determined.

29. The aforesaid facts would reveal that there is no eye-witness to the incident. The entire case rests on circumstantialevidence. Conviction can be recorded basing on circumstantialevidence if circumstances form complete chain. Prosecution has toprove the chain of all circumstances in commission of offence beyondreasonable doubt. The said principle was also laid down by theHon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State ofMaharashtrar; Prem Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)2; and RaviSharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)3. In the presentcase, prosecution has proved all the circumstances which formedcomplete chain and there is no missing of any link.

30. It is settled law that however grave the offence may be,accused cannot be convicted based on suspicion. In the present case,prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonabledoubt.

(1984)4SCCll6Q023) [3 SCC ][3',72]Q022) [I ][SCC ][536]Q023) [3 SCC ][3',72]Q022) [I ][SCC ][536]

KL,J & SKS,JCrl.A-No.80l of2014Crl.A-No.80l of2014

3 1 . There should not be any missing link and the entire eventsshall form the chain. Considering the said aspects and also motive,the trial Court found that accused No.1 committed murder of his wifeand thrown the dead body in Bairamalguda tank. Thus, accused No.1was found guilty ofthe offences punishable under Sections - 302 and201 IPC. There is no eror in the said finding. The findings of theimpugned judgment are on proper reasons and on consideration ofentire evidence, both oral and documentary.

32. Defect in conducting investigation is no ground to acquitthe accused, more particularly, where other circumstances are provedguilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

33. In a matter like this, minor contradictions of the witnessescannot be considered. As rightly contended by learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor that the incident was dated 09.08.2008 and most ofthe witnesses deposed in the years 2012 and2013 i.e., after lapse of4y, years. In the light of the same, accused No.l cannot takeadvantage of minor contradictions and deviations of prosecutionwitnesses.

I,

KL,J & SKS,JCrl A.No 801 of20l4

34. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the appellant failed to establish any ground to interfere with the impugned [judgment.]Thus, the appeal fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.

3 5. The present Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissedconfirming the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed byleamed III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga ReddyDistrict in Sessions Case No.346 of 2009 against the appellant -accused No. 1, vide [judgment ]dated I 4.02.20 | 4

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.

sDr M ENgfl,A#["#^iJ

//rRUE coPY//

SECTION [OFFICER]

To.1. The lll [Additional ][District ][and ][Sessions ][Judge' Ranga ][Reddy District (with]1. The lll [Additional ][District ][and ][Sessions ][Judge' Ranga ][Reddy District (with]

, ffi:";';Jflll [Public ][Prosecutor' Hish ][court ][for ][the ][state ][of ][relangana ][at]

, i. ci;;;a; i;!"Jent"t3ou,'"'" [sir' ][r"r ][on't"..' ][r-nxrt'rar'r ][Saroornasar ][RAo' ][Advocate ][Policestation' ][[oPUC]][Ransa ][Reddv District']5. [Two ][CD ][Copies]5. [Two ][CD ][Copies]

PR

NS

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2911212023

JUDGMENTCRLA.No.801 of 2014

DISMISSING THE CRL.APPEAL

nd

1[t\][E ][STATE]qc2 3 [JrN ][2[2[]booiD71t'rit-'\'