CRLA/3336/2018 of Gangipalli Satyanarayana Vs State of Telangana on 12 March 2026

I s492 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN ANO THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 3336 OF 20'18 Criminal Appeal Uis 374 (2) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment made in S.C.No. 563 of 2017 dated 'l 1.07.2018 on the file of the Court lX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, FAC VllAdditional lvletropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Between: Gangipalli Satyanarayana, S/o.Late G.Yellaiah, Age 52 years, R/o. H.No.'18- 2-6012119, Ambedkar Nagar, Nagulabanda, Falaknuma, Hyderabad ...ApellanUAccused AND State of Telangana, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad ... Res pod enUC om plai n ant l.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated 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 sentence imposed in S.C.No. 563 of 2017 daled 1110712018 on the file of the court of the Vll Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, pending disposal of Crl.A.No. 3336 of 2018, Counsel for the Appellant : Sri P Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Syesd Yasar Mamoon, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF - IILANGANA AT: HYDERABAT) HON'I]t,L, SRI.IIJS'I'ICE K. LAKSTI\ ,\N ANt) HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDH,.\ RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3336 OF 2( l8 DA-I.t : l2-03-2026 Between Mr. Gangipalli Satyanarayana 1.1 pcl lant - Accused Vs The State o["['elauganzL. rcp.br its Public Prosecutor. [ [igh (.]ourt lt [ [r d Rcsponc :nt - Complainant This Court rnadc thc [ollou'inc JUDGMENT: (Per Ilon'ble Srr Justicc K. Lakshrnan) Heard Mr. P. Prablral<ar Reddy. Iearnecl ounsel lor the appellant - accused and Mr. Syed. Yasar Mamoon, l: Lrned Additional Public Prosecirtor appearing on behalfofthe rcsponcr rt- State

2. 'l'his appcaI is file-d b1 thc appc'llant - ac ] r:ied challenging the judgrner.rt datecl 11.07.20 l8 in S.C. No.563 ot'1017 passed by learned VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge. i Iyderabad.

3. Vide rhe aloresaid judgrnent, learned trial (]olrrt convicted the appellant - accused lbr Lhe otlencc under Section i02 ol IPC, and I

KL..I& BRVR.I Cd 1 \o 1116 ol l(llS accordingly sentenccd him to undergo Iife imprisonrnent and to pav fine ol Rs. 1,000 (Rupees One Thousand Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment lor a period of two (02) months.

4. Thc case ol-the prosecution is as undcr:

i) The accused. a labourer, stopped working and was staying at his house situated at Ambedkar Nagar, Nagulabanda, L-alaknuma, I{yderabad. llis tirst w.il-e trad deserted hirn long back. Out of their wedlock, lre has onc son. namely G. Mahesh (pW.3). He was married and residing alor-rg with accused.

ii) Thereafter'. rhe accused married Susheela (deceased), who was working as an Aa.\,ct in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. Out of their wedlock, the accused was blessed with one son, namely Sai Kiran (PW. I ) and one daughter, namely Deepika. Second wil.e, Susheela also brought up PW.3, son of the accused with his first wif'e. along with her children.

iii) The accused rvas addicted to alcohol and was not doing any work. His second rvil'e. Susheela, used to go to work on daity basis. For the past lbw months, the accused startcd suspecting the character ofdeceased, quarrelling rvith her and beating her daily in an inebriated condition. l'hc accuscd becarnt-' rnore suspicious when the deceased l relused to lrave sexual intercourse rvith him and pr sumed that she might have illegal affairs with some other person I i 1& llt{\tR.l i \ \o lil(rr)l l(rltl

iv) On 01.01.2011 , PW.3 atong with L'r\/., and his sister. Deepika went to Karimnagar to au.end a lunction. On 02.01 .201 7, PW. I along with LW.9 also went to Karimnagar, trr bring his sister, Deepika

v) On 02.0 I .2oll in the cvening hours, tL : accused took money from the deceased and consunted alcohol. Ile lso brought one bottle of toddy and gave it to the dcceased, w,ho als r consumed the same. Thereafter, the deceased slept in the first roc r L. '[-he accused went near the deceased and asked her sexual favour. rut she refused, on that, he started beating hcr-. Thcn. the dcceasec .\,ent out of the house and brought their neighbour (PW.2), who chi rcd thc accused and asked him to sleep. Then, the accused infonrt I PW.2 that he would watch TV and sleep. [.atcr. I)W.] lett rhe horr:i

vi) After f-ew minutes, the accused noticed rl rt the deceased was in deep sleep, he went near her and removed her , rnga and saree, and tried to participate in sex with her, but she dicl r rt allow him to do, and thereby he became lrrrious and took the lonq., in his hand and smothered her with the langa and strangulated her r,. h tlre thrcad of

(1,,I & BRI\,{R,J Crl.\ No 1116 of20l8 the langa. After a lew lninutes, he found the deceased motionless. Immediately he came out of the house and slept in lront of the house In the early morning at about 6.30 hours, he rvent to the house ol PW.2 and infbrmed hcr that the deceased is not waking up and requested her to comc. On that. PW.2 and her husband went to rhe house of the accused and sar.,"' the deceased motionless. Then, PW.2 asked her husband to call neighbours. Meanwhile, all the neighbours gathered neat the house of the deceased. PW.2 with the help of others wore the lctnga and sdree to the deccased and they all suspected the accused. On that the accused f'led away frorn the spot. Thus, the accused cornrnitted thc aloresaid off'ence.

5. On 0.i.01 .2011 at 09.i0 hours, PW.l gave Ex.Pl - Telugu written reporr with PW.9, [nspector of Police of Chatrinaka, Hyderabad, rvho in turn registeled a case in Crime No.04 of 2017 and issued Ex.PS - FIR and theleaftcr handed over the case to PW. t0, lnspector of Police, for fur-ther investigation

6. PW. l0 examined tlie witncsses and recorded their statements. He had also taken stcps for conducting autopsy over the dead body ofthe deceased and dlarving ofscene ol offence etc.

f .1...r & BRNIR .l rl .\ No l.l.16.l l0l8

7. On rcce ipt o1- the post-ntonem exarnirLr ou report fiom PW.5, PW.l I altcled thc Section fiorn Section l7,l r 'Cr.P.C. to 304 ol IPC. 'fhcreafter, he laid charge sheet against thL accused fbr the offence under Section - 302 ol IPC'. -l'he samc \vas , .rnrnitted to the trial Court and the sarne was taken on tile as S.C. N. l)0 of 2015 for the offence under Section - 302 oflPC

8. The trial Court lramed charge lor the r c,resaid ofl-ence against the accused and thcn proceeded u,ith thc trial

9. During trial, prosecution cxanrined PWs. I ., I I and rnarked Exs.Pl to Pl0 and MO.l to prove its case. On bchrl .rl'thc accused, his legal aid counsel got tnarked contradiction pol'rio r I rhe staternent olPW.2 as Ex.Dl.

10. After completion ol evidence on be hall'() ' ltc prosecution, the accused was exarnined under Scctiorr - i I I ot'( r. '.('. 'l'herealier, upon hearing both sides, the trial Court recorded c r,,iction against the appellant helein for the albresaid oll'ence and acc r rlingly inrposed litb imprisonrnent. Challenging the said corrr,.iction rnd scnrcncc ol lil-e irnprisonment, the appellant pretcrred the presenr I rpeal

KL.] & I]RN,{R.J Crl A \o l.ll6 ol20l8 I l. Learned counsel lor the appellant - accused contended: There is no direct evidence in this case. Prosccution lailed to pror c the case beyond reasonable doubt Entire burden lies on the prosecution to prove its case. In this Last seen theory was proved through the evidence of pW.2. Though there is no direct evidence, there is ample circumstantial cr idcnce ri hiclt pror es the case ol prosecution beyond reasonablc doubr. \l ,/ tl The entire case rests on circumstantial evidence

iii. There are ornissions and contradictions in the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 7 No motive was proved b1,the prosecution I IV vl ll. case, the prosecution did not dischalge its priniary burden

vii. Without considering the aloresaid aspects, the trial Courl recorded convictior-r With the aforcsaid submissions. he sou-qht to set aside the conviction and sentence ot' tif-e imprisonrrcnt recotdcd against the appellant herein

12. On the othcr hand, leamed Additional Public prosecutor would submit as under l r-r..J & BRN,tR.l rl A No 1116 oa70l8 The prosecution proved motive on the paft ,t the accused in llt vl. commission of o ff-ence IV The medical evidence significantly proves llL, car-rse of death was due to strangulation associated with srnotlr, ring. v. There is no rebuttal evidence liom the side o1'rr c Lrsed. All the circumstances form a complete chair to connect the

vii. The trial Court relying on the evidence both oral and accused in commission of of1-ence documentary, recorded conviction against the Lppe[[ant herein. There is no error in it warranting interference tr this Court With the aforesaid submissions, he sought to dis r r ss the present appeal

13. In view above rival subrnissions, the 1r,r it that tzrlls [or consideration b1, this Court is Whether the conviction and sentence of irr rrisonment recorded by the trial Court for the offence unr[, r Scction - 102 of IPC against the appellant herein - r::used are sustainable, both on facts and in law?

14. In view of the aforesaid rival submissior : belbre dclving into the factual rnatrix, it is necessary to brietlv ad\ r I to the purport \ ., .3

Kt_..r & RR\tR.J Crl A No 1116 of20lE of the olfence alleged. Section - 300 ol IpC conternplates the gravest form of culpable homicide amounting to murder, requiring proof of an act done with the intention or knor.vledge that it would cause death.

15. PW. I is not only the cornplainant, but' also the son of the deceased and the accused. Ile has been rvorking as a Constable in City Army Reserve Head Quarter.s, Ilyderabad. He deposed rhat his deceased mother was an employee in Osmania Gcneral Hospital. I{e along with his parents. brother (PW.i ) and his rvif'e and sister were residing in one house- On 25'h or 26tr' Dccembcr. 20 16, his brother (PW.3) along with his wife and sister wenr ro Karirnnagar ro attend a function. On02.01.2017 in betw.een 10.00 and I t.00 p.M., he wenr ro Karimnagar to bring his sister since she u,as lraving exautination on the next day. On 03.0l.2017 at about i.00 hours. lre and his sister started their return journey by Car. W[ren they reached pragnapur, his maternal uncte (PW.4) made a call and inlbrmed that his morher died They retumed horne and lound the dcad bodv of his mother.on the bed. He found an injury on the head of his mother. fhereafter, he gave Ex.Pl report with the police

i) During cross-exarn inalion exccpt posing onc qucstion, there was no much cross-examination. For the said question, this rvitness

Li .t& ltRt\'11{.1 (rl \ Nol.l16ol l0l8 answered that at the tirne of giving the report, he ha< nt-r suspicion on any one. On thc same day of his report in the aftr: noon, tl're police had examincd him

16. PW.2 is tl.re neighbour of the accused ar d deceased. She deposed that on 02.01.2017 at about 11.30 P.N4 r.vhile she was sleeping in her house, the deceased came and inlor ned her that the accused was quan'eling with her and asked her to cor e to their house. When she accompanied with the deceased to her hc rse. the accused was fbund in drunken state. She told him not to crcirr : any galata and advised him to sleep in the veranda& and told thit [alks would be made next morning. On the next morning at 6.30 ,\ M., the accused came to her house and infonned her that his wif-e wl, not u,aking up. Then, she along u,ith her husband went to the hou:,r of accused and found the deceased died lying in her bed facing .r walds sk1, rvith swollen belly. She lound her petticoat and only jrr l:et in pell-rnell condition, but she did not find her saree. She sent h3 husband to call neighbours and relatives of the deceased. The n: p,hboirrs, LW.4, LW.5, LW.8, LW. l2 and Lavanya came there. Wit I thcir help, she tied the petticoat to the body of the deceased and r,., r rltped the saree. Sornetime thereafler, the police came and the body ,, us shiticd to the \

t0 KI,.I & BIiI,IR,J (lrl .\ Nr'lll6of2018 hospital. She lurther deposed that the accused rvas suspccting the character of the deceased.

i) During cross-examination, PW.Z admirted that she did not state to the police that the deceased was also in drunken state as in Ex.Dl

17. PW.3 is the son of the accused through first wife - Shobha. He deposed that the accused was in the habit oi consuming alcohol and not attending to any work. The accuscd used to suspect his step- mother (deceased) and abuse her. On 03.0 1.2017 while he was in Karimnagar, his maternal uncle (PW.4) nrade a call and informed that the deceased died. Immediately. he along with his rvil-e retumed home by 9.00 A.M. and found the dead body of deceased on the bed. His father was not found at the home

18. PW.4, maternal uncle ol'PW. I and PW.3, deposed that on 02.01.2017, he went to the house of PW. I and urct hirn and the deceased and spent for some time there. Half-an-hour later, PW. I went to Karimnagar. The accused was scolding his r.vife suspecting her character. When he questioned the accused why, he was scolding his wife, the accused remained silent. Then he left their house. On the u ,l t& II{MR.l r \ \(i -ll.l6 ol lr)18 next day at about 6.00 A.M., he went to their hou:;( to meet PW. I since he told him that he would come by next monrjr 0.. By the time he reached the house ol thc accused. he found PW.2 r nd her husband and two or three other' ladies. They told him that t[ r ,leceased died. He found an inj ury on the back ol the deceased l- :ad. Then, he immcdiately' infbnned the same to PW. I over phone. tle did not find the accused at the tirne ol his visit.

i) During cross-examination, PW.4 admitted tI at the deceased had the habit of consurning toddy which the accused [r bituated to her

19. PW.5 is the doctor, rvho conducted autops .' over the dead body ofthe deceased. He deposed that on 03.01.20 I /he received a requisition fionr thc police to conduct autopsy over tle dead body of the deceased. Accordingty, he conducted the autopsy r n tl're same day from 2.40 P.M. to 1.40 P.M. He found the follorv Lr g anrc-momem lnJunes:

(a) A contusion on the soalp of sizc l5Xl0 cms., ov(ir Temporal and left occipital regions which were re c (b) Anothcr oontusion over the Scalp ol size 4x3 crr s paricto region red in colour.

(c) Another contusion over the scalp olsize 2x2 ctrs fiontal legion red in colour. the loft Parieto in oolour. , ovcr the right I o\.'er the risht

(l .l & llll\lR. I ( rl A \f il i6 oflr)ts

(d) A conrusion on the lelt I crnporal muscle region red in colour.

2. Contusions 5 in nurnber each of size tx0.75 crns., over Mucosal surface o['thc lorrer lip red in colour rvith teeth tightll clenched.

3. (a) A contLrsion of3x2 crns., ovcr the risht sidc upper part olrhc ncck. 3cms.. he low the right angle of Mandible, redrlish.

(b) A contusion in thc intemal surlace olrhe neck diflused orer right and lclt side, uppcr and mid part of the neck rvith contusion around tips of superior horns of thl,roid cartila_qe.

(c) Gross congcstion u.ith sub-nrucosal haemorrhascs over llpiglottis. (i lottis and Trachca.

(d) lrracture in tips ofsupcrior horns ol both thyroid carlilagcs.

i) He furrher deposed that the cause of death w.as due ro strangulation associated with smothering. I{e gave his final opinion vide Ex.P2 and llnal opinion vide F_x.p3. ' ii) During cross-examination, he adrnitted that skull was not having any injury. The spinal column and spinal cord nerc intact.

20. PW.6. a panch witness for inquest, deposed that he- is the resident ol sarne locality where the accused and deceased reside. As per the instructions of porice, he visited Mortuary. osmania Generar Hospital and r.r,,as present ar the tirne of inquest on 0j.0 I .20 I 7 at I .00 P.M. LW. 13, another panch was also present. The1, lound an injury I_l (L I.( I]RMR.] ('rl \ \r' ijl6 oll0l8 on the neck ol the deceased, but he did not express rny opinion how she died. Er.P4-inquest pantlunanta bcars his signi.t rre

i) During cross-exam inat ion nothing useful r as eLicited fiom this witness

21. P'W .7 , pctnch r,' itne ss {br conless , n and scizure panchanama. deposed that he was rvorking AS ' i Ilaqe Revenue Oltlcer, Ottlce ol Bandlaguda Tahsildar. On the ir;u'uctions of his '['ahsildar, hc r,"'ent to thc policc statron along ,lith his olilce colleague, Mr. Sanrpath Kunrar ([-W.l4), who is ,pecial Revenue Inspector. I'hcy found the accused in the custody o tolice. On their questioning, the accused conf'cssed that he was ad,l cted to alcohol, developed suspicion against his wife and while c: nrnitting sexual assault, she resisted him. Then he smothered her anrl <illed her. The accused turthcr conlissed that on the night he had aken liquor and made his rvil'e to consume toddv. 'l-he accused furtlr.r confessed that hc killed his wife with petty coat and thread. Ex.P5 is the gtuttchanarno and N,{O. I is thc y,ellow colour petty corr '*,ith thread.

i) During cross-exam iuation nothing useful r as elicited frorn th is witness \

l4 KI-.J & BR\.fl1..1 Crl No -ll:6 o[2018

22. PW.8 is the panch witness for scene ol oflence and rough sketch. He deposed that on 03.10.2017 as per instructions olpolice, he went to the house ol the accused, where he saw a dead body ol woman. The police observed sunoundings in their presence. The police prepared a panchanama and drawn a rough sketch in their presence. He signed on both ofthem which are Exs.p6 and p7.

i) During cross-examination nothing useful was elicited from this witness.

23. PW.9 is the Sub-Inspector of' potice. Hc deposed with regard to PW. I giving Ex.p t - reporr with him on 03 .01 .201j at 9.30 hours with regard to death of his mother (deceased) and pursuant thereof, his registering a case in Crime No.04 of 2017 (Ex.pg) under Section - t 74 of Cr.P.C. and handing over the same to pW. 1 0.

i) During cross-exam ination, pW.9 admitted that though it was mentioned in the report that there is no suspicion against anybody, to ascertain whether it is natural death or unnatural, FIR was registered.

24. PW. 10, lnspector of police, deposed that on receipt ol case file from PW.9, he visited the house of the accused, found the dead body of thc deceased. He took steps for conducting autopsy over the t5 (I- ] & BRMR.J I I A NJ -1116 of2018 dead body of the deceased. He secured panch witrL, sses and drawn scene ol o|-ence and rough sketch as in Exs.P6 and I) '. Hc examined and recorded statelnents of relevant witnesses. Or receipt. of post- mortem exarnination reporl, he lranded over the ce .s ] to PW.l 1 for further investigation.

25. PW. t I, [nspector of Police, deposed that basing on statement ol PW.3. he altered section fi'om 174 of Cr P.C.. to Section 302 of IPC. The accused conlessed the offence ir, the presence of panch witnesscs and the same was recorded. After receipt of final opinion from the doctor, he tilcd charge sheet againsl he accused

26. On an overalI examination of prosecutior witnesses, it is clear that there is no direct evidence with regard tc commission of offence by the accused. The entire evidence rests : r cilcumstantial evidence. J o consider with regard to any motiv : cn the part of accused in commission of off-ence, the evidence of I) ,\/s.2. 3 and 4 is crystal and clear. PW.2, neighbor o[ the accused r.r cl the deceased, deposed that tlle accused and his wile were alway s luanelling. The accused was slrspecting her char4cter PW.3, son of the accused through his llrst rvil'e, deposcd that the accused us: lto suspect his l \

l6 KL.J & BR\,1R..I ( rl A No il t6 oa2ol8 step mother (deceased) and abuse her_ pW.4, rnaternal uncle of PWs. I and 3, also deposed that previous day of incident when he went to the house of accused, the accused was scolding the deceased suspecting her character. Thus, b1, virtue of the evidence ofaloresaid witnesses, it can be presumed that there was motive on the part of the accused prior to commission of olfence. The accused failed to elicit anything useful h'orn the above rvitnesses during cross-examination to disprove the sarne.

27. Now. i[ has to be seen whether there was motive on the part of the accused at the time of commission of offence in the present case. According to pW.7 bel.ore whom the accused confessed that he was addicted to alcohol, developerJ suspicion against the deceased and when he intendcd to have sex, she resisted him, then he smothered her and killed her. The accused further confessed that on that night he had consumed liquor.and made the deceased to consume toddy. Thus, the evidence on record does not establish that the accused had the intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as was sufficient in the ordinaty course of nature to cause death. The incident appears to have occurred in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel between the husband and wite inside their house.

t7 T:I ,J & I]I(MR.J rl A \o ill6 o{ 201t

28. With regald to last seen theory, as pet .he evidence of prosecution rvitnesses, it is clear that belore the deatlr ol the deceased, the accused and the deceased were in their house. lr this regard, the evidence of PW.2 is lelevant. l'}W.2 has specificall', deposed that on 02.01.2027 at about 11.30 P.M.. while she was sleeJr rg in her house, the deceased carne and inforrned her that her husbar J (accused) was quarrelling $,ith her and askcd her to come to her (r €ceased) house She accompanied the deceased to her house that time the B accused was also present at that house. The accu:;, cl was found in drunken state. She told him not to create any galota rnd advised him to sleep in the verandah and told that talks wou i, be made next moming. On the next morning at 6.30 a.m., the accr sed came to her house and inlormed her that the deceased was not v, king up. Then, she along with her husband went to the house of he accused and found the deceased died lying on her bed facing t< wards sky with swollen belll . In vierv of the ei,'idence ol PW.2, it i:; :lear that on the date of incident. the deceased and the accused rr,er ' in their house only. Even PWs.3 and 4 deposed that the accusecl las not found at the scene ol of'fbncc on the date of incident. -l'1.r: i:lbrc. the facts relating to horv thc incidcnt occutred are espc<,r rlll' within the

KL,J & AR|\4R,I Crl A. No 1116 ot.20t8 knowledge of the accused. In such circumstances, the burden shifts upon the accused under Scction - 106 olthe Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to o ffer a reasonable explanation regarding the occurrence. There is no explanation from him.

29. Wirh regard ro the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased, the evidence ol pWs. t, 4, 5 and 6 is relevant. pW. I - complainant and son of the accused and the deceased deposed that he lound an injury on the head ol his mother (deceased). pW.4, rnaternal uncle of pW.l and pW.j also deposed that he found an injury on the back of her head. pW.5, the doctor, who conducted autopsy over thc dead body of tlie dcceased, specifically deposed that he found ante- rnortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased, the details of which have been extracted above. According to him, the cause ol death u as due to strangulation associated with smothering. PW.6, panch for the autopsy also deposed that he found an injury on the neck of the deceased. Thus, testimonies of pW. 1, the complainant, PW.4, maternal uncle of pWs.I and 3, pW.5, the doctor, who conducted the post-moftern examination, and pW.6, panch witness, conclusively establish that the deceased had sustained ante-mortem injuries, thercby indicating a hornicidal death. / -,/

t9 t.L ..t & BIlr,lR,J lrl .\ \o ll16 oa20l8

30. With regard to cont-ession leading to disct ver). as already discussed above, according to PW.7, when he questi( ned the accused as to why he rvas with the police, he conlessed that ht rvas addicted to alcohol, developed suspicion against his wife and v' ile intending to have sex, she resisted him, then he smothered her an i kilted her. He lurther confessed that on that night, he had consumecl iquor and made his wife to consume toddy. The police have shor'vn rim a petty coat and its thread and asked whether he killed tris u,it'e u i h the same. On that, the accused confessed that he kitled his wif'e u i fr thc petty coat and thread. The same was seized by the police as in I 1O. i. '['hus, the said disclosure statement, to the extent that it led to he discovery of material objects, is admissible in evidence under Se,r rion - 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The recover)' of the incri rrinating articles at the instance of the accused is a strong circumstan: ' connecting the accused with the commission of the off'ence. 3t. Though therc is no direct evidence ri, tr regard to the commission of oflence by the accused, the lrosecution has successfully established the chain of circumstanti,t evidence. The circumstance ol "last seen tosether" has been dL v proi,ed. The medical evidence estabtishes that the deceased sr stained injuries kl-..r & tsR\fl{._l Crl r\. No.lji6 ot 20lE which resulted in death. 1'he prior rnotive on the patr of the accused has also been provcd. i.e., the accused used t0 suspect the character of the deceased. All thesc circurnstances lonn a complcte chain pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused and are inconsistent with any hypothesis olinnocence. Hence. it can be safery concruded that it is the accused who comnritted the offence.

32. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that PW. I dcposed in liis evidencc that he lound an injury on the head of his mother, whereas i, Ex.P | - reporl given by hirn to the police, there is no such mention of finding injury and, therefore, such discrepancy would cut to the root of the prosecution. It is apt to note that the complaint (FIR) is not expected to be an encyclopedia of facts. It contains the basic version of thc occurrencc. Minor omissions or improvernents made during deposition do not automatica y render the witness unreliable unless thcy aurount r.o a materiar contradiction alfecting the core of the prosecution case. Therefore, the said contention of learned counsel lor the appellant is unsustainable.

33. In view. of the aloresaid discussion, it is clear though the prosecution has alleged nrotive on the ground that the accused 2I I ]. . .. IJR\ll{.1 -l A \,, il16 of20lE suspected thc charactel of the deceased, the evidenc, on tecord does not establish that the accused had the intention to ( use death or to cause such bodily injury as was sulficient in the olr inarr course of nature to cause death. 'fhe incident appears to har': occr.Lrred in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel between the lr rsbrand and wile inside their house and that too both of them werc urt er the influence ol alcohol and toddy respectively. Because, as per ,he evidence ol PW.7 belore rrhom the accused conf-essed that he ias addicted to alcohol, developed suspicion against his wile (decc,r,; d1 and when he intended to har e sex, the deceased resisted him, then [ : smothered her and killed her. In view of the same, the accuse,l was under the inf'luence of alcohol and committed the off'ence. BuI hor,r'ever. there IS no evidence of premeditation, prior planning. preparatron to (l commit such offence and must have committeci rn the spur of morlrent. At the highest, it can be said that thc i:cLrscd had the knowledge that his act was tikely to cause death. )Lrt there is no material to cstablish the requisite intention as cor 1 :nrplated under Section - 300 ol IPC. 'fherefore. the case would tall vithin the ambit ol' culpable homicide not arnounting to rnurrl r'. In these circurnstances. the olfence would be punishable unc t l Scction - i04

ll kL...r & BRi!,1tt.J ( rl A No ll16 of20lE Part II of IPC, as the act was done with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death, but without an intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likety ro cause dearh.

34. "Culpable Homicide', is a genus and.,murder,,is its species and all "murders" are "culpable homicides, but a[ ,,culpable homicides" are not "murders" as held by the Apex Court in Rampat Singh v. State of uttar pradeshr. 'r-he intention of the accused must be judged not in the light of acrual circumsrances, but in the light of what is supposed to be thc circumsrences. -fhere is nothing on r.ecord to suggest that the accused had corne and prepared to commit the offence or there was premeditation for commission of offence. ' 35. Section - 702 of IpC is irnportant in many ways. persons accused of murder are tried under this section only. Further, if in case, an accused of murder is lound guilty of an offence, Section _ 302 provides tbr punishrnent to such oft-enders. It states that whoever commits murder shall be punished with either life iniprisonment or death (depending on the gravity of the murder) along with fine. The primary point of consideration for the Court in matters relating to murder is the intent and purpose ol the accused. That is why, it is (10 r2) 8 scc 289

) ,l Ll. rJIl\ll(-.r rl ,\ \ r il.lrj ol_201E necessary that the objcct and intention of the accLr-.:d is proved in cases under thrs section. 'lhe rcquiled materials fir" rnurdcr irrclude intention (must be intendcd to cause death), cause o1' I :ath (thc act has to be done r.i,ith the knowledge that the act may ( i r se the death of another and bodily injury (there must be intent to c:r rse such bodily injury as is likelr to causc death). i6. In Basdev v. State of Pepsu2 the Apt: Courr held as under "Ol course. rve have to distinguish hct rnoti\ e . intcntion and knowledge. Mor i , sunrctlrins r\,hich prornpts a man to Ii'r'r' intcntion and knowledge is an arvarencss ,r c(rn\cquenccs rrf (he act. ln rnanl cases ir,l ' and knowledge mergc into each other and r tlte surnc thing rnore or lcss and intcntion ( i prcsurned from knorvledge. The demarcatin r bctu'cen linsrvlcdge and intention is no dorrl,t but it is not dilficult to perceive that thel' cr r di Utrcnt things. Iivcn in some English dcci: thc thrcc idcas are uscd interchangeably anr has lcrl to a certain arnount olconlusion." \'Cen ' l\ an thc tion )ean rbc I inc thin n otc ( )ll s. .his AtR 19._i6 SC "138 -Ij

II,.I & BRIIR.] Crl A No.li16 ot l0l8

37. It requires ro be borne in rnind that the t€sr suggested in the aloresaid decision and the fact that the legislature has used two different terminologies, ,intent, and ,knowledge, and separate punishments are provided lor an act cornrnitted with an intent to cause bodily inlury which is likely to cause death and for an act committed with a knorvledge that his act is likely to cause death without intent to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, it i'ould be unsafe to treat 'intent' and 'knowredge' in equal terms. They ar.e not difrerent things. Knowledge would be one of thc circumstances to be taken into consideration while determining or i,G.ring tl-re r.equisite intent. where the cvidence would not discrose that there was any intention to cause death of the deceased but it was clear that the accused had knowledge that his acts were Iikely to cause death, the accused can be held guitty under Section - 304 part-[ of lpc. It is in this background that the expression used in IpC namely .,intcntion,, and ,,knowledge,, has to be seen as there being a thin li^e of distinction between these trvo expressions. The act to constitute rnurder. if in given facts and circumstances, would disclose that the ingredients of Section - 300 are not satisfied and such act is one ol'extrerne recklessness. it would not attract the said Section. In o.der to b.ing a case within part III of \\ \

l5 tit-.j & ltR\llt.J :rl A l\o lli6 ol20l8 Section - 300 o1'IPC, it must be proved that there \ i s an intention to inflict that par.ricular bodily injury which in the or iinary course of nature was sultlcient to cause deat.h. In other wortlr " that the injury found to be prcsent was the injury that was intended ,, be inflicted. i8. The Apex Courl in Pulicherla Nagarrr u (a) Nagaraja Reddy r,. State of Andhra Pradeshr, held as under '" rercfbrc. the courl should procced to deci, pir otal question of intention, with care cautiou. as that will decide whethcr the ca: r undcr Section 302 or i04 Part I or 304 [', Man\ petty or insignificant matters - pluckin fiuit. strafing ol cattlc, quarrel ol chi utterance ol'a rude word or even an objectic glance. may lead to altercations and group o culurinating in deaths. Usual motives Iike rer erced..jcalousv or suspicion rnay be totallr z ilr 'trrlt eascs. [here rnal be no intentiorr. rnar bc no premeditation. [n fact, there rna er cn be crirninality. At the other end .t spccLrurn. there rnay be cases of murder *'h : accrLsed attenrpts to avoid the penalty lbr n bv attcmpting to pu1 lbrth a case that there 1\ intention Lo cause death. It is lor the co r ensure that the cases of murder punishable €l the and lalls rt tl. : of a drcn. rable rshes .rnge. tsent 'hcrc 'nol ' thc c the rrder IS NO t:; [o rndcr j AIR 1006 SC l0l(l

(I .] & BRMR.J trl \ No ll lil ol20l8 Section 302, arc noI converted into oft'ences punishable under Scction i04 Part lil[. or cases of culpable hornicide not amounting to rnurder. are treated as murder punishable under Scction j02. The intention to cause death can be 16 gathered gencrallr liom a cornbinalion of a lerr or ser eral ol the following, alnong other, circumstances: (i) nature of thc weapon used; (ii) rvhether the weapon rras carried by the accused or was picked up tiorn the spot: (iii) whcther the blo,,v is aimed at a viral part ol the bodl; (iv) the amounr of lorce employed in causing injuri'; (v) whether the act rvas in the course of sudden quarrcl or sudden fight or lree lor atl fight; (vi) whcther thc incident occurs bv chance or whether there was any premeditation; (vii) whether there was any prior enmity or r.l,hether the deceased was a stranger;

(viii) w,hether there was any grave and suddcn provocation. and il so, the cause lor such provocation; (ix) whether it rvas in the heat of passion: (x) whether thc person intlicting thc injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) rvhether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The above list of circumstances is, of oourse, not exhaustive and there may be several other special circumstanccs with rcference to individual cases rtliich rna., throri tight on the question o[' intention. Be that as it rnay.,'

l. t..i & BR\'lR,l '1 A No 1316 of20l8 -i9. The Apex Court in Anbazhagan v. The St rte represented by the lnspector of Policel, held as under -'60- Fcw, ilnportant principles of law disc,:r rible fiom the aforcsaid discussion may be sumnr d up thtr>. ( I ) When the court is contionted rvith thc qu: u,hat ol'f'ence the accused could be said tr, comuritted. the true tcst is to find out thc inli: or knorr ledge ol the accused in doing the act intention or knorvledge lvas such as is descrit Cllauses (t) to (a) oiSection 300 olthe lPC. I u,ill lre rnurdcr even though only a single I u'as causcd. 'lo illustratc: 'A' is bound harr, foot. B' corncs and placing his revolver i the head ol'A'. shoots 'A' in his head killirrl instantaneousll. I{ere, thore will be no diffic,r holding that the intcntion ol'B' in shootirr, u'as to kill him. though only singlc in-juri caused. The case would, therefbre. be ol rr falling rvithin Clause ( I) ol'Section 300 ol thr Taking anothcr instance. 'B' sncaks into tlr, roonr ol'his enernv 'A'rvhile the latter is asl : his bcd. Taking airn at the left chest of '1. lorcibly plungcs a srvord in the lelt chesl .) and runs awav. 'A' dies shortll thereafle' injulr lo'A'uas fbund to bc sulficient Iron, have rtion { the :d in e act lrury and ainst him ty in was rrder IPC. bed pon 'B' fhc r2l 2023 SCC On t.ine S('857

)a IiI-J&BRMRI Crl A No ill6 ol20l8 ordinary course ol nature to cause death. There nray be no difliculty in holding that .8. intentionally inflictod the parlicular injury foun<i to hc caused and that the said injury was obiectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. fhis rvould hring the act of -B' rvithin Clause (3) of Section 300 of rhe IpC and rendcr him guiltl. of the oifence of murder although only single injuri, was caused.

(2) E,ven rvhen thc intention or know.lcdge oi thc accused rna1, fall tithin Clauses (l) to (4) ol Section 300 of the IPC, thc act of the accused rt'hich r.vould othenvisc bc ururder, will be taken out ol thc purvieu, ol rnurder. if the accused's case attracts an-\. one o{' the five cxceptions enurnerated in that section. In thc event ol the case falling s'ithin an), ol those exceptions. the offence would be culpable homicidc not amounting to murder. ialling rvithin Part I of Section 304 ol thc IpC. if the case of the accused is suoh as to lall within Clauses ( l) to (3) of Secrion 300 ol the IpC. It u.ould be ofl-ence under Parl II of Section 304 if thc case is such as ro fall within Clause (4) of Scction J00 o[ the [[,C. Again, the intention or knorvledge of the accused ma1, be such that only 2nd or 3rd part ol Section 299 ol the tpC, may be attracted but not anv ol the clauses of Section 300 ol the IPC. ln that siruation also. thc off'ence w,ould bc culpable honricidc not amourlting [o l under Section 104 of the lPC. [t u'ould t ollcncc under Part I of that section, il the cas w ithin 2nd part of Scction 299, r,'hile it u,o r an ol-l-ence under l)art ol Scction 104 if thc lull rr ithin 3rd part ,,l scction 299 olthe [Pr

(3) I'o put it in other ivords, if the act ( accused person fal[s rvithin thc first trvo claL s cascs ol culpable hornicidc as describcd in Sc 299 ot'the IPC it is 22 punishable under thc part of Scction 304. If , hor,r,ever, it fal[s rvit[ i third clause, it is punishable under the secorr of Section 304- In elt'ect. therefbre. the first 1r this section u ould appll r.vhen there is 1 intcnlion.' whereas l.he second pa( would whcn there is no such intcntion, but there is 1 knou ledgc' .

(4) I:.r'en il- single in jurv is inUicted. il' pa(icular injun' r.vas intcnded, and ob.jective . in jun' r.r,as suflicipnt in the ordinary cou't nature to cause death, the requirernents of (i 3rdl-r to Section i00 ol- thc [PC- are fulfilltr the o lf'ence would be rnurdcr.

(5) Section 30.1 of the IPC rvill appll' rr lollouing classes olcascs: (i) rvhcn the cas: under onc or the other of thc clauses of Sc i00. but it is covercd bl one of the excepri r that Scetion. (ii) rrlrcn th. iniur\ causcd i. r iL_.J & flR\1R..i rl ^ No ll16 of20lE rlder ian fatt cr be (riISe lan rs of 't.ion ll rst r the llart rt of u ilt1, pptv uilt1, ,hat that :of ausc rnd the falls 't ion l:i to )t- ol i0 KL.] & BRMR.] Crl A. No.lli6 of 20t 8 the higher degree of Iikelihoocl which is covered bl thc cxprcssion 'sufficient in the ordinary course ol nature to cause death, but is ol a lou,er degree of likelihood which is gcncrally spoken of as an injury'like11, to cause death'and l.he case does not fall under Clause (2) of Seoion 300 of the IpC. ( iii ) w'hen the act is done u irh the knowledge rhat dcath is likely to ensue but rvithout intention to cause death or an iniury likelv to cause death. To put it rnorc succinctly. thc differencc between thc t\\,o parts of Scction j04 of the IpC is that under the [irst part. the crime of murder is first established and the accused is then given the benefit of one ol the cxceptions to Section 300 of the IPC. rvhilc under the sccond part, the crime of rrurder is never established at all. Therefore. for the purpose ol holding an accused guilty of 23 the ot-[ence punishable under the second part of Section 30,1 of thc tlrC. the accused need not bring his case uithin one of the cxceptions to Section 100 of the It,C.

(6) The rvord '[ikcl1" means probably and it is distinguished [iom rnore 'possibly'. When chances ol- happcning arc creu or greater than its not happenine. \\re ma!. sa-v that the thing will 'probabll'' happen'. In r-eachin,e the conclusion, the court has to place itsell' in the situation of the accuscd and then.iudge rvhcther the accused had the knowledge that b) the act he was Ir[ r v to cause dcath. 3l

(7) the distinction betri ccn culpable hor (Scction 299 ol'thc IPC) and rnurder (Sccti,) of thc IPC) has always to he carefully bc r mind while dealing r.r'ith a charge under !,i 302 ol the II']C. Under thc category of Lrr I hornicides, both. the cases ol culpable hor amounting to rnurder and those not anroLur i murder w'ould lall. Culpablc homicidc i: murder when the case is brought rvithin tl,r exceptions to Section 300 of the [PC. I]ur. though rrone olthe said tive exceptions arc pl, or prima lacie establishcd on the evider r record. the prosecution lnust still be required the law to bring the case under any of the clauscs of Section 300 of' the [PC to susrr i charge of murder. lf thc prosccution li i discharge this onus in cstablishing an)' one ( four clauses ol Section i00 of the IPC, n r lstly to 4thly, the chargc ol murdcr u,oukl n made out and the case rnay be one of cL I homicide not amounting to rnurder as dcsc under SecLion 299 of the IPC. l.r..r & BR\lR.1 'l ^ No ll16nl 2018 i,:ide i00 rr: in ,rtion rvlul ir.:idc rs, to not five even lricd ron nder lbur r Lhc ito I thc rcly, )l- be ,able ibccl

(8) The court must address itsclf to the ques i)n of mens rea. If Clause thirdll ol Section 300 i' r, bc applicd, the assailant 2;1 rnust intend thc ptrrt r.rlar injurl. intlicted on thc deccased. -l his ingrr licnt l2 KL,I & I]RMR.J Crl A No Jll6 ot20lE -\ could rarcl,v be proved bv direct cvidence. Inerritabh. it is a utatter of inl-erence to be drau,n fiorn the proved circumstances of the casc. The court lrusI nccessarill., have regard to the nature ol the weapon used, part ol thc body injured, extent ol the injurr. dcgrcc of lorce uscd in causing the inj ury, the manne r of attack. the circumstanccs preccding aud attendant on thc attack.

(9) Intention to kill is not thc only intention l.hat ntakes a culgratrlc homicide a murder. The intention [o cause injurv or injuries sufficicnt in the ordinary cause ol naturc to cause death also makes a culpablc homicidc a rrurder il'death has actually been caused and intcntion to cause such injury or injuries is to be inf'e rred lrom the act or acts rcsulting in thc inirrrr or injurie,.

(10) Whcn single injury inflicted by rhe accused rcsults in the dcath ol the victirn. no inference, as a gcneral principle. can be drau'n that the accused did not har c the inlcntion to causc thc death or that particular injury wtich resultcd in the dearh of the victim. Whcthcr an accused had the requircd guilty intention or not. is a questiou ol fact which has to bc detennined on the facts of each case_ ( t t ) Where the prosecution proves that the accused had the intention to causc dcath of any person or to cause bodilr in-ju11, to hirn and thc intendcd injury is sufficient in the ordinarv coursc of nature to J-l l,t-.J & IIR\lR.l -rl /\ No 1116 oI20l6 cause death, then. even il he inflicts a sin-eli ,r jury which results in the death of the victirn. [hc o i:nce squarell' lalls under Clausc thirdl,v o1'SecLi r 300 olthe IPC unless one o['the exceptions applr,. ( 12) tn determining the question. whctlr r an accused had guilty intcntion or guiltr kn,, r cdge in a casc where only a single injury is inflir t d by him and that injury is sufficient in the o r rnary course ol nature to causc death. the lact thar t c act is done without premeditation in a sudden li ht or quarrel, or that the circurnstanccs justif] tr t the injurl, rvas accidental or unintentional, or I rt hc only intendcd a sirnple injury, r.i'ould lead r thc inference of guilty knorvledge, and the <, iurce would be one under Section J04 Part I I r I' the IPC."

40. The Apex Court in a recent judgmcnt in \ , Ramkumar v. The State, rep.by Inspectors also reiterated the albr':,ai<I principte.

41. [n State of Madhya Pradesh v. Udham' the Apex Court held as under: "12. Sentencing for crimes has to be analyzerl l the touch stone of tfuee tests r,'i2., crime test. crinrir I rcst and comparative proportionality tcst. Clrirr ( tcst involves lactors like extent.of planning, clrrlc of '. Crl.A. No.2006 ol202i. decided on 06.09.2011 o 2019 scc onLine SC 1378

KL..ll( BtiMR.J (il ,\ \o 1116 ol20lS weapon. modus o['crinle. disposal modus (if any). role o[ thc accused. anti-social or abhorrcnt charactcr of the crirnc. statc of Victiln. Crintinal test involves asscssment ot lactors such as aqc o[' thc criminal. gcndcr of-the climinal. economic conditions or social background of the crimina[. ntotivation lor crime, availabilitl, of del'ensc. state of mind. instigarion by the deccased or an) onc lionr the deceased group. adcquately represenlcd in the trial. disagreement bv a judge in the appeal proccss, repcntance, possibility ol relorrnation. prior criminal record (not to takc pending cascs) and anv othcr rclcr.ant tactor (not an crhaustivc list)'

42. ln the light of the albresaid discussion and the principle laid down in the above decisions, coming to the case on hand, there is no evidence of prior planning or preparation. -l-hc incident appears to have occurred in a sudden qual'rcl arising out of suspicion regarding the wife's rejection to have sexual intercourse with the accused Further, both of-them were undcr the influencc olalcohol and toddy. No material shows prior procurcrtrent of rveapon or calculated conduct prior to the incident. [n such circurnstances, we are of the opinion that it was a case where an act rvas committed bv the accused with knowledge but without intention. Wlren the olf'ence is cornrnitted on the spur of the moment, it indicates the absence ol premeditation and )

l5 KL.I & BRI,IR.J (il .\ No l116 ol 20l8 Iack ol intention to comrrit rnurder, which is lL .t.ucial lactor in convefiing the ot-fence lrom Section - 302 oi [pC tc ,,:ction _ 304 part II of IPC. -I'he trial CoLrn did nol consider all tirr: rfbresaid aspects rvhile imposing lil'e imprisonment on rhe ap;r lant _ accused. Accordingly, [his Courr while upholding the findi, : ol guilr against the accused, converted the conviction from Sectior ,. 302 ol IpC to Section - 304 Parl-ll of IPC and he is sentenced to he imprisonment fbr the period aheady undergone. The appe[ant her rrn _ accused has been in jaiI from 06.01.20r7. The.cfore, the Supe .i rr.errclcnr, central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, is directed to rei, ase trim. if he is not required in any other case. 4i. Ihc present Criminal Appeal is accordin6.l allowed in part in the above tc-rurs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applicatior r in this appeal shall stand closed. il-any. pending /ITRUE COPY'/ S,N'- 6 V.S.S.C.S.M.SARMA /: -iorxr REGISTRAR / /.+- L-/' SECTION OFFICER To,

The Vll Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge, Hy lerabad (with records' if anY) z ih"'if ,i"t Metropolitan Magistrate' Hyderabad'

3. The Superintendent, 'clni'ar Prison' Chart' halguda'(by messenger)

4. The Station House Officer, Chalriaal1g,Dolice Statir r Hyderabad special d il i I I I !

5. Two ccs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the State of Telangana' Hyderabad [OUT] 6 o;; CC to Sri P irabhakar Reddy' Advocate [OPUC] i in" s""*tary, High Co;rt Ld;i Services Gommittee' Hyderabad (Bv Special Messenger) B. Two CD CoPies \qr t I SA/pst I

o { \ HIGH COURT DATED: 1210312026

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.3336 of 2018 ALLOWING THE APPEAL IN PART |'1Afl 2026 f,} )t * '1l tri Il "oP&r' Fi- 66le I /' t' :\ ,) , t