CRLA/1641/2017 of Olleppu Narasiah Vs The State of Telangana on 18 February 2026

: JUDGMENT

Labourer, Mandal, AND Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondent The Court delivered the following ...Appellant /Accused The State of Telangana, Through Circle lnspector of Police, Dichpally, Nizamabad District, Rep.by the Public Prodecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ...RespondenURespondent

IIY THE HIGH COURT r.|OR THE STATE OF TELITNGAITA AT: IIYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JT'STICE K.I,AKSIIUAN ATD THE HON'BLE JI'STICE B.R.}IAI'HUSI'DHAN RAO CRIMIITAL APPEAL IYO.1541 OF 2017 DATED: IK FEBRUARY. 2OiI6 Between: Ol.lepu Narsaiah ' ..Appellant-Accused Vs. The State of Telangana, Sub-Inspector of Police, Hyderabad, Rep. by the Publirc Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. .. Respondent-Respondent This Court delivered the following: JUDGMEIYT: (per Justice B.R.Madhasudlwn Rao)

1. This Memorandum of criminal Appeal is Iiled under section 374(21 of criminal Procedure code, LgTg (for short cr.p.c.J assailing the judgment passed by the learned special Judge for Trial of cases under SCs/STs (poA) Act at Nizamabad in sc.No.147 of 2O16 dated 25.10.2016, wherein the appellant- accused is found guilty for the charge under section Bo2 of Indian \ \

..KLJ &BRMR'"J Ctiminal nPPe a{-l64 L -2O 17 2lt7 penal code, 1860 (for short lPCl a"nd convicted under section 235

(2) of cr.P.c., sentenced to undergo Imprisonrnent for Life and to payfineofRs.SOOl',indefaultofpaymentoffinetoundergo Simple lmprisonment for one month

2. Thecaseoftheprosecutioninnutshellisthaton15.ol.20|6 Durs, PW.l lodged a complaint under Ex'P1 before PSDichpallystatingthaton15.0l.2016atabout2.2oA.M. I.yellappa-Pw.4 has informed him that he has heard some noise of quarrellingofthe.accusedwiththedeceased,hencehewentand saw the accused beating o.Malraiah with hammer (Sutti) on his head,whenPw.4askedtheaccusedaswhathadhappened,then the accused pushed him and fled from the scene with the hammer.Pw.l3hasregisteredFlRunderEx.Pllagainstthe accused for the offence under section 302 0f lN uide crime No'5 of 2Ol6and further investigation is taken up by PW' 15' PW' 15 has verified the investigation done by P\M.13 and found to be on correct lines. During t]:e cours€ of investigation' he recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 4, E.Komuraiatr. Lu/.s, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the pr:sence of mediators i.e', PW'9-K'Raju and Lw.11-B.Mallesh, drew rough sketch of the scene and recovered the rnaterial and has taken photographs with the help of pw.14-A.Yadagiri. Dead body was subjected to p.3l!.*9t!9ln / / /

3lL7 KL,J &BRMR,' Criminaf Appeall & L -2O L7 examination. PW.15 proceeded to Community Health Centre, Armoor, secured the presence of PW.1O-B.Shankar. agd Gunje Ganga Naraiah-LW. 13, seized the material. PW.12-Dr.A.Amar Bushan has conducted autopsy over the d.ead body of the deceased. Pw.15-H.Venkateshwarlu recold.ed the statement of P\M.s and PW.6 on 16.01.2OL6. On 18.01 .2016, the accused was apprehended and on interrogation, he confessed that he has committed the offence. In the presence of PW.ll-Puli Sat5ranandam and LW.ls-Venkat Venugopal Rao, seized T-shirt arld: blood stained T-shirt and Lungi of the accused. Then ttre accused has led them to the agricuttural fields of Errolla Sayar.rna arid produced blood stained hammer (MO.S). On 03.05.2016, P\M.15- H.Venkateshwarlu received Final opinion from F\il.12-Dr.Amar Bhushan who opined that the cause of d.eath of the deceased was due to head injury. After completing the investigation, PalI.lS has I filed charge sheet.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor, has taken the case on file as PRC No.14 of 2016 under Section 302 of IPC against the accused and committed the same to the Court of Sessions, Nizamabad Division, Nizamabad. Sessions Court has numbered it as SC.N o.I47 of 2016 and made over to the learned 4l17 TLJABRMRJ Criminal Appeal- Lffi L -2O Lz Special Judge for Triat of cases under scs/srs (poA) Act at Nizamabad.

4. The learned trial court has frarned c*rarge under section 3o2 of IPC against trre accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. Prosecution has examined PWs.l to 15 and got marked Exs.Pl to P14 and MOs.l to 10. Prosecution has given.up LW.S- E.Komariah, LW. 1 l-B.Mallesh, LW.lg-G.Ganga Naraiah and Lw.18-K.Jayaram Reddy, Additional JFCM, Armoor. Appellant- Accused was examined under section 313 of cr.p.c., he denied the incriminating material put forth to him. Ttre learned trial court after analysing the evidence adduced by the prosecudon coupled with the documents marked tlrereon has convicted the accused for the offence he is charged with and sentenced him to undergo Life Imprisonment as stated supra in Para No.1. 6-1. learned counsel for the appellant raised the following grounds in the Appeal:

(i) The judgment of the learned trial Court is contrary to law, weight of enidence and probabilities of ttre case, erred in convicting the -- slLT KL,J &BRMR,"I Criminal Appe oLl64. L 20 17 :(iit Ttre learned trial Court has not considered the facts that the defence counsel has raised the point that non-examination of the son of the accused who is 3 years old is fatal to the case of the prosecution, who was present on the date of ttre alleged incident in the same hut. PW.l1 is a stock witness to tlle prosecution and erred in sentencing the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 6,2. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Nandkumar @ Nandu Manilal Mudaliar vs. State of Gujara tr, (2lSri Nage Gowda vs. state of Karnataka2.

7. Learned Additionat Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of PW.4 coupled with Ex.Pl3-Section L64 Cr.P.C. statement of the witness supports the case of the prosecution in its entirety and human blood is deducted on Mo.6 and Mo.7 which are Lungi and T-shirt of the accused with that of MO.8-blood stained hammer. No interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the Appeal.

8. Heard learned counsel, perused the material on record.

9. Now the point for consideration is : whether the appellant- accused has made out any case to interfere with the I zozs INsc 13oz 2 Indian lGnoon-http://indiankanoon.orgldod187 L6t624l \ \

KL,"' & BRMR,.J CrimiDal Appcal- 164 L -2O L7 passed by the learned trial Court in SC.No. L47 of 2C16, dated

25. LO.20L6?

10. PW.l is the brottter of the deceased, he resiled from Ex.pl- complaint. Pw.2 and PW.3 are the cousin brotlrers of the accused- O.Narsaiah, they did not depose anything against the accused.

11.1. PW4-I.Yellappa is the neighbour of the accused-O.Narsaiah and that of the deceased-Mallaiah. His evidence is that on one night he heard some big noise and went intg 'tlr. hut; of .the deceased-Mallaiah and saw he was beaten to death with a hammer by the accused-O.Narsaiah. The deceased was lying on the ground with bteeding injuries on head, the accused has left the hut. Around 6.00 A.M., he informed the same to PW.li"rra his famrly members. The accused is in the habit of drinking and,used to work occasionally, his wife has left him long back as he used to quarrel with her. The deceased and the acctrsed used to quarel very often and his statement is by JFCM, Armoor. LL.2- In his cross-examination he stated that he stood in front of the hut of the deceased-Mallaiah and he saw ttre accused coming out of the hut after beating/hitting the deceased and he ran away o.a* scene of offence and out of fear he returned to his hut and in the morning he went into the hut and saw the deceased, ,: ,: iI ;l,l II il

7 lL7 KL,J & BRMR,.' Criminal Appeal-l 64 1-20 17 thereafter informed the same to PW.l and his family members, no other persons came there during the night hours. He denied the suggestion that he is not an eyewitness to the incident. t2. PWs.S and 6 are the daughters of the deceased-Mallaiah and sisters of the accused-Narsaiah, they turned hostile and their Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements are marked as Exs.P2 and P3, 13.1. P\t1.7-Ajmeera Adavi Raj deposed that he runs a hotel at Ganya Thanda. About few months ago at about 4-OO A.M. the accused came to his hotel, had tea and went away and thereafter he came to know that the father of the accused is killed. Police cafite to his place and enquired about the whereabouts of the accused, he informed them that if the accused visits his hotel again, he will call them. After two days, the accused came to his hotel and was having tea then he called the police and informed them. Police has apprehended the accused.

13.2. In his cross-examination he stated that the police has examined him around 11.00 A.M. and 12 Noon. He denied the suggestion that he has not seen the accused at any point of time and he is giving false evidence. L4.L. Pw.8-O.Nagalarmi @ Savithri is the wife of the accused- Narsaiatr. She deposed that she calne to know about the death_of \ \

,T 8/t7 KLJ&BRMRT' Crininaf Appcal-Le I :n fi her father-in-law - Mallaiah through police. Thg accused used to quarrel with her and with that of the deceased-Mallaieh very often in drunken condition. Thereby, she left to her parent's house along with her daughters. She has two daughters and. one son, son is residing with the accused-Narsaiah and the deceased.-Mallaiah. Accused was not present at the time of funeral and she has questioned her son, he replied that the accused has killed his father-Mallaiah by hitting with a hammer. Accused never used to work and was an alcoholic and her son has informed her that 14.2. In her cross-examination she stated that she has not stated before the police that her son has informed her about the incident, she do not know whether her husband is suffering with AIDS.

15.1. PW.g-K.Raju deposed that on 15.OL.2Ot6, he was called !y the police, Jakanpally along with Lw.11-Mallesh. Police 'has conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rotrgh sketch. Ex.P4 is the scene of offence panchanama cum seizf,rre panchanama, Ex.PS is the crime details form and the police has seized one Towel-Red in colour with stripes (MO.l); one bedsheet- cream colour with Maroon colour flowers (MO.2) and his signahrres are appearing on Exs.P4 and P5, Police has conducted Inquest Panchanama under Ex.P6 which bears his signature. /

9lL7 KLJ & BRMRJ C.iei!.al Appea.l-I64 l-20 17

15.2. In his cross-examination he stated that he has signed twice. : He denied the suggestion that police has not seized any material objects nor conducted panchanama and inquest in his presence.

16. PW.1O-B.Shankar deposed that on 15.O1.2O16, he was called by Jakranpa y police to the post-mortem room at Armoor along with LW.l3-Ganga Narsaiah, in their presence police has seized white colour full hand shirt-MO.3, white colour Doti-MO.4, cream colour Baniyan-MO.S and conducted seizure panchanama under Ex.P7 , he identilied his signature on the said document. He denied the suggestion that police has not conducted any panchanama nor seized any material objects.

17.1. PW.1l-P.Satyanandam deposed that on 18.01.2016, he was called by C.L of Police to the Hotel of PW.7-Adavi Raju at Ganya Thanda along with LV/.15-Venugopal Rao. He questioned the accused by taking him aside and he confessed that he has committed ttre offence. Police has seized one blood stained Lungi BIue in colour (MO.6) and one Black and Ash colour blood stained T-shirt (MO.7) which wene wom by the accused. Following the confession, accused has led them to bushes by the side of N.H.No.7 of 44 near the fields of one Errolla Sayanna and has shown the blood stained hammer (MO.8). Police has seized MO.8.

7', LOILT KLJ&BRMRJ Criminal Appeal- I @ L :N L7 Ek.P8 is the confession cum recovery panchanama of the clotlres of the accused and the recovery panchanama of MO.8'is Ex.P9, his signahrres appear on them and also on the material objects, identified the accused in the open Court.

17.2. In his cross-examination he stated that he is having acquaintance with the police as he is a VRO. He denied the suggestion that he is a stock witness to the police.

18.1. PW.l2-Dr.K.Amar Bhushan deposed that on 15.01.2016 hp received a requistion from Police, Armoor to conduct autopsy on the dead body of O.Mallaiah and accordingly he issued PME report under Ex.P1O and he found the following injuries:

1. A depressed found on the left fronto parietal bone.

2. Sub dural Hematoma found on the fronto parietal region.

3. A lacerated injury I x Yz over the root of the nose. The cause of death of the deceased was found to be cardio respiratory arrest as a result of head injury, the injuries found on the dead body is possible if beaten with MO.8 L8.2. In his cross-examination he stated that the age of the iniury is not mentioned in Column No.l I because he cannot make out the age of injuries in case of fractures. Such type of injuries are possible with the type of object with MO.8. He denied the I I I /

ttltT KL,J&BRMR,J Criminal Appe d-l il I -2O 17 suggestion that the injuries in Column No.l1 of Ex.P8 are possible if a person falls:from a height and that he issued Ex.P1O-PME report at the instance of police without conducting autopsy over the dead body of the deceased.

19. Pw.l3-Sridhar Goud has registered Ex.P11-FIR on the complaint given by PW.1 under Ex.Pl. Thereafter, he handed over the file to PW. 15-H.Venkateshwarlu.

20. Pw.14-A.Yadagiri deposed that previously he worked as constable at Jakranpatly P.S. from 2OL2 to 2016. On 15.O1 .2OL6 on the instructions of S.I. and C.I., he went to Balanagar carnp, taken the photographs of the dead body of O.Mallaiah under Ex,P12 (four photographs) and thereafter he shifted the dead body to the Hospital.

21. PW.ls-H.Venkateshwarlu deposed that on 15.01.2OL6, he received the file from P\M.13 and. commenced the investigation, visited Balanagar camp and recorded the statements of PWs.l to 4 and LW.5-E.Komuraiatr, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of P\il.9 and LW.1l-B.Mallesh, seized MOs. L and 2 and blood stained earth-MO.9, control earth-Mo.10 and conducted inquest in the presence of the same witness and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination to Government Hospital. After -f _l ,,1 I t2/t7 KL,J&BRMR,J Criminalepeal_L&L_nfl PME, he seized the clothes of the deceased (Mos.s to s) and took tl:e photographs of the scene of offence under Ex.pli and also the dead body with the help of pw.14. on L6.oL.2o16, he visited Balanagar camp and recorded the statements of pws.S and 6. on 18.o1 .20,06 on credible information, he went to the Tea stall of Pw.7 and apprehended the accused. In the presence of pw.l1 and Lw.15-v.venugopal Rao, the accused has confessed to have committed the offence, following his confession he has seized Mos.6 an:d' 7 and went to the field of one y.sayanna at the instance of the accused and seized Mo.g and he caused the arrest of the accused and produced him before the court and thereafter recorded the statement of pw.14. on 19.01 .2ot6, he filed requisition before JFCM for recording section 164 cr.p.c. statement of PIM.4, his statement is recorded by K.Jayaram Reddy, Additional JFCM, Armoor under Ex.pl3 on 10.o2.2oL6. He visited Ganya Thanda and recorded the statement of pw.7 and thereafter went to Balanagar camp and recorded the statement of pw.g. He has sent the material objects to FSL. He has collected Ex.pl4-FSL report and Bi.Plo-PME report and on completion of investigation, he frled charge sheet. PWs.S and 6 stated before him as in Exs.p2 and P3.

22. In his cross-examination he stated that he went to the scene of offence alaround 8.3o A.M. about 5 to 6 people gathered there / ./ ./ t t3lt7 KLJ & BRMR,J Ctiminal Apped- l6a l-20 17 at the scene of offence. On the day of the offence, the deceased, accused and his sofl w€re together in the house, thg son of tlre accused was 3 years old, so he has not recorded his statement. He denied the suggestion that he has not recorded the statements of the witnesses nor seized material objects and conducted panchanama and also denied the s-uggestiol that the accused never confessed his offence.

23. L. In Nandkurlra.r @ Nandu Manilal Mudaliarr, ttrere was an assault between the appellant-accused with that of the deceased and started abusing, there was element of impulse, anger and self- provocation on the part of the accused. Thereby, the Supreme Court has converted the sentence of tJ:e appellant-accused under Section 3O2 of IPC into one under Section 304 Part I of IPC.

23.2. In Sri Nage Gowdaz, there was a sudden provocation at the spur of the movement and the incident has happened. Thereby, the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore has set aside the lmprisonment of Life of the appellant-accused and modilied and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3O4 Part II of IPC. The Facts in the above two decisions are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus the ratio of those cases would not apply in the Appeal.

-t ti'. -1 , L4lL7 KL,"'&BRMRJ Criminal Appe al_l 64 L _2O L7

24. Pw.4 is the eyewitness to the incident, his evidence is that he saw the accused beating the deceased-Mallaiah with the hammer. In Ex.Pl3-section 164 cr.P.c. statement, he stated that 'I went there and saw that ollepu Narsaiah beating his father Mallaiah with hammer, due to beating by hammer on the head of Mallaiah, he sustained bleeding injuries on the head and died on the spot. When I asked him as to why he caused injury, Ollepu Narsaiah left from there". Though pw.4 was cross-examined by the accused counsel, he gave an explanation that due to fear he went to his hut and slept and informed the same to pw.l and his family members at about 8.OO A.M.

25. The evidence of Pw.7 is that the accused came to his hotel at

4. o0 A.M. and had tea, went away. Thereafter he came to know that accused father is killed and after two days, the accused came to the hotel to have tea and he informed the same to the police and police have arrested the accused. It is the case of the prosecution in the charge sheet that PW,15 has apprehended the accused at the hotel of P\M.7.

26. Accused has confessed that he has committed the murder of his father before PW.l1 on 18.O1.2016.

27. Ex.P14 is the FSL report dated rr.04.2016 which shows that -, o-Blood Group is detected on item No.4 (Mo.4 white colour Doti), tsltT KL,J&BRMR,J Criminal Appe al-l @ L -2O 17 item No.6 (one blood stained Lungi bhre in colour), item No.7 (MO.7 one black and ash colour blood stained T-shirt) and gn item No.8 (MO.8 blood stained hammer). MO.4 is the white colour Doti of the deceased-Mallaiah and MOs.6 and 7 are of the accused.

28. The evidence of PW.8 is significant tg the case of the prosecution that the accused was not present at the time of the funeral. Incident has happened on 15.01 .2C16 and tlle accused was apprehended on 18.01.2016, the chain of evidence of the ..,. witnesses with that of Ex.P14-FSL report and,the evidence of PW.12 coupled with Ex.P1O-PME report goes to sho\ry that it is the appeltant-accused who has committed the offence-.

29. One of the ground raised in the Appeal is that the son of the accused is not examined by the prosecution. PW.15 gave explanation in his cross-exarnination that as the son of the deceased was 3 years old as on the date of accident, tJrereby he did not record his statement.

30. In Joy Devaraj Vs. State of Kerala, 2024 INSC 473, the Supreme Court has observed as under: "17. Even otJrerwise, Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, L872 ordains that no particular number of witnesses is required, in any case, to prove a fact. Ttrerefore, it is.not the law that a conviction cannot be recorded unless there is oral \ \

.11 I L6lL7 KL,J &BRMRJ Ctiminal Appeal_ l@ L 20 17 testirnony of at least two witnesscs matching with each other. It is the quality of erridence and nOt tlre qtrantity tha$ matters. If the evidence of a solitary witness appeals to tlre court to be wholly reliable, the same can form the foundation for recording a conviction. Viewed thus, the conviction of the appellant does not call for interfererrce based on tlre sole testimony of p\N.2, which we have found to be entirely trustworthy. Version of PW.2 being sufticienfly corroborated by PW.l (except tl.e weapon) is an additional gpound not to accept tlre argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant to reverse the conviction'.

31. The direct eyewitness to the incident is PW.4 with that of his Section 164 cr.P.c. statement under Ex.P13 and the evidence of PW.7 with that of the evidence of PWs.8, 11 coupled with Ex.p14- FSL report, all t]rese circumstances prove that it is the appellant- accused who has committed the offence and killed his father- Mallaiah.

32. The learned trial Court has discussed the evidence in proper prospective in Para Nos.28, 33, 34, 35 & 36 and rightly convicted the appellant-accused for the offence charged under section 302 of IPC to Life Imprisonment. The learned trial court has also given set off against the perid of Imprisonment for the remand period from

18. O1.2OL6 till the date of judgment (25.10.2016) under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. No interference is called for, appellant-accused has not made out any case to interfere with the judgment passed by 17 l17 Ig,J&BRMRdJ Criminaf Appe al-l @ L -2O L7 the learned trial Court. Appeal deserves no consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

33. Appellant-accused is enlarged on bail as per orders in IA.No. L of 2025 dated 2L.O1.2026, his bail bonds stands cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act at Nizamabad, within one (O1) month from today for serving out the sentence of lmprisonment for Life. If he fail to surrender, the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act at Nizamabad, shall take necessary steps in accordance with law. Miscellaneous applications, if any, stands closed. SD'. MO}ID. ]SMAIL DEPUW REGTSTRAR To //TRUE COPY" OFFICER 1- The Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (PoA) Act at Nizamabad

2. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally.

4. The Station House Officer, Police Station Dichpally, Nizamabad District.

5. The Station House Officer, Police Station Jakranpalty, Nizamabad District.

6. one cc to Sri K.Rajesh Reddy, Advocate-cum-LegalAid tourl 7 - Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

8. Two CD Copies BalSa tty

? HIGH COURT DATED i 1810212026

ORDER

CRLA.No.1641 ot 2017 THE S LrL "( rJ 2 3 ru,in lit,,ii * DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL th I \t \