Telangana High Court
Guna Guruswamy, Nalgonda Dt vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp on 26 March, 2026
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT: HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.577 OF 2017
DATE: 26-03-2026
Between:
Gunja Guruswamy S/o Ramulu .. Appellant - Accused
Vs.
The State of Telangana, rep.by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyd. .. Respondent - Complainant
This Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Heard Mr. P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. Medikonda Kondal Rao, learned counsel for the appellant - accused and Dr. S. Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 22.03.2017 in S.C. No.244 of 2012 passed by learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge at Miryalguda.
3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, learned trial Court convicted the appellant - accused for the offence under Section - 302 of IPC and 2 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.577 of 2017 accordingly sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000 (Rupees One Thousand Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months and acquitted for the offence under Section - 498A of IPC.
4. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
i) PW.1 and LW.1 performed marriage of Gunja Nagamani, hereinafter referred to as 'deceased', with the accused as per customs prevailing in their caste. After the marriage, they lived happily for some time. During their wedlock, they were blessed with two sons.
ii) For the past 1½ years from the date of incident (i.e., 29.11.2011), the accused addicted to alcohol and started to suspect the deceased that she developed illicit intimacy with other male at Huzurnagar. Keeping such suspicion in mind, the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty, both physically and mentally.
iii) About 20 days prior to the incident, the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty and beat her indiscriminately. The same was informed to her father (LW.1), who in turn came and took her and her children to his house at Damaracherla and provided treatment to the deceased. Subsequently, the accused went to his in-laws house and 3 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.577 of 2017 promised that he would take-care them well. On that, LW.1 provided house of LW.7 at Damaracherla to the accused on rent. Since then, the accused along with deceased and their two sons is residing in the said house and the accused attending mason work.
iv) Thereafter, the accused again started subjecting the deceased to cruelty suspecting her fidelity. Since the accused obtained loans from known persons for his personal and domestic expenses, he insisted the deceased to attend coolie work to discharge such loan amount, but the deceased refused to do. Therefore, the accused developed grudge over the deceased and ultimately decided to kill her.
v) On 28.11.2011 night the accused along with deceased and children asleep in their rented house. In between 23.00 and 24.00 hours, while the deceased was in slumber, the accused throttled the deceased and murdered her. Later he had taken away gold ear studs from the person of deceased with intent to sell them for his personal expenses and fled away from the house, while escaping screws of ear studs fell down somewhere. Thus, the accused committed the offences under Sections - 498A and 302 of IPC. 4
KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.577 of 2017
vi) On receipt of report (Ex.P8) from the father of the deceased (LW.1), PW.11 - Sub-Inspector of Police, Wadapally Police Station registered a case in Crime No.135 of 2011 on 29.11.2011 for the aforesaid offences and issued Ex.P6 - FIR.
vii) Thereafter, on receipt of requisition from PW.11, PW.12 - the Tahsildar took steps conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased vide Ex.P7 - inquest in the presence of PW.8 and LW.11. On completion of investigation, PW.13 - Inspector of Police filed a charge sheet against the appellant herein. The same was committed to the Sessions Court which has taken on file as S.C. No.244 of 2012 and thereafter made over to the trial Court.
5. The trial Court framed charge for the offences under Sections - 498A and 302 of IPC against the accused and then proceeded with trial.
6. During trial, PWs.1 to 13 were examined, Exs.P1 to P9 were marked and MO.1 was exhibited. No oral evidence was let in by the accused, however, Ex.D1 was marked on his behalf.
7. After completion of evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section - 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, 5 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.577 of 2017 upon hearing both sides, the trial Court recorded conviction against the appellant herein for the aforesaid offence and accordingly imposed sentence of imprisonment in the manner stated above. Challenging the said conviction and sentence of imprisonment, the appellant preferred the present appeal:
8. Learned counsel for appellant No.2 - accused No.2 contended as follows:
i. There is no direct evidence and the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence.
ii. There is no nexus between the accused and the deceased. When the trial Court acquitted the accused for the offence under Section - 498A of IPC, it should have also acquitted the accused for the offence under Section - 302 of IPC. iii. Ex.P5 - post-mortem examination report does not disclose anything to connect the offence committed by the accused. iv. Motive was not proved by the prosecution. With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel sought to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.
9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit as under:
6
KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.577 of 2017
i) There is clear evidence from the prosecution witnesses to connect the guilt of the accused in commission of offence.
ii) Though there is no direct evidence, the circumstantial evidence forms a complete chain to convict the appellant.
iii) There was motive on the part of the appellant and the same was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
iv) Having considered all the aforesaid aspects only, the trial Court convicted the appellant and, therefore, there is no error in it.
With the aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the appeal.
10. In view above rival submissions, the point that falls for consideration by this Court is:
Whether the conviction and sentence of imprisonment recorded by the trial Court for the offences under Sections - 498A and 302 of IPC against the appellant herein - accused are sustainable, both on facts and in law?
11. In this case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13 of which, PW.1, PW.5 and PW.7 are the mother, younger brother and younger sister of the deceased respectively, while PW.2 is her relative and all of them along with PW.3, PW.4 and PW.6 are circumstantial 7 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.577 of 2017 witnesses to the occurrence; PW.8 is the panch witness for the scene of offence, PW.9 is the panch witness for the confession of the accused and seizure; PW.10 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased; PW.11 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who received report from the father of deceased and issued Ex.P6 - FIR; PW.12 - the Tahsildar, who took steps for conducting autopsy over the dead body of the deceased; PW.13 - Investigating Officer, who conducted investigation and filed charge sheet.
12. Before dealing with the discussion, it would be apt to discuss with regard to depositions of prosecution witnesses.
13. PW.1, mother of the deceased, deposed that LW.1 is her husband (died) and he is the complainant, who set the law into motion by giving report with the police. She got four daughters and one son. The deceased - Nagamani is her last daughter and she performed her marriage with accused. Out of their wedlock, her daughter was blessed with two (02) sons and her daughter and the accused started living at Huzurnagar.
i) PW.1 further deposed that the accused addicted to alcohol and started suspecting the character of her daughter attributing that 8 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.577 of 2017 she was having affair with others. On the day of incident, the accused remained at his rented house opposite her house complaining stomach pain and her daughter was watching T.V. in her house. After watching T.V., her daughter went to her rented house and she took food to her daughter and the accused. Her daughter requested the accused to have dinner. In spite of her request to have diner, her daughter informed her that she would take dinner after arrival of her brother, who was studying at Kodad. Her daughter sprinkled water in her front-yard and in front of rented house of her daughter and her daughter drawn some flowers with lime powder in the front yard and she went to her house for sleeping and her daughter went to her house for sleeping.
ii) PW.1 further deposed that at about 12.00 mid night, she heard the cries of Vishnu, the eldest son of her daughter and on hearing cries, PW.2 being the neighbor of her daughter came out for passing urine and went to Vishnu and enquired with him as to what happened. Vishnu informed PW.2 that the accused beaten her mother and running. Then, PW.2 entered the house and tried to wake up the deceased, but there was no response from the deceased. PW.2 came and knocked her doors and opened the doors and then she and her 9 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.577 of 2017 husband went to the house of her daughter, found her daughter dead and no response. There are injuries on the cheeks and neck of her daughter. On her cries, PW.2 and PW.4 and her neighbours came. She found missing of ear studs from the ears of her daughter. They all took her daughter to PW.3, the RMP Doctor, who examined and declared her daughter dead. Her villagers searched for the accused, but not traced out.
iii) During cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that the accused is the son of her husband's younger sister. Her husband (LW.1) gave report to the police that the accused killed her daughter.
14. PW.2, neighbor of PW.1, deposed that the accused and deceased took the house of LW.7 (died), which is beside her house for rent and started living therein. On the date of incident, while she was sleeping at midnight, she heard the cries of son of the deceased and she came out from her house and found the son of deceased in front of the house and she enquired with him and the boy stated that his father (accused) going in that way. Then, she took the boy into the house of deceased and tried to wake up her and there was no response. Then, she went to PW.1 and informed the same. Thereafter, she and PW.1 10 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.577 of 2017 took the deceased to the doctor (PW.3), who declared the deceased as died. The police examined her.
i) During cross-examination, PW.2 admitted that PW.1 is her relative. Before cries of the son of the deceased, she did not know what happened inside the house.
15. PW.3, RMP Doctor, deposed that on 28/29.11.2011, PW.1, LW.1 and PW.2 brought the deceased to his clinic and on examination, he declared her dead. He found some nail scratches on the neck and face of the deceased. According to him, the deceased died due to throttling.
i) During cross-examination, PW.3 admitted that he got a certificate to practice as Registered Medical Practitioner. He did not know the personal details of the accused.
16. PW.4, circumstantial witness, deposed with regard to the disputes between the accused and the deceased. His house is located abutting the house of PW.1. On the date of incident, PWs.1 and 2 were crying during night time and he went there and found the deceased was in unconscious state. Then, he shifted the deceased to 11 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.577 of 2017 the hospital of PW.3, which is at a distance of 20 yards from the rented house of the accused. The accused was not found in the house.
i) During cross-examination, PW.4 admitted that he did not see the actual incident.
17. PW.5, son of PW.1 and brother of the deceased, deposed with regard to accused beating the deceased. On the date of incident, he came back to his house from Kodad as he was studying Polytechnic at Kodad and after having dinner he went to sleep. At about 0.30 hours, PW.2 raised cries that the children of deceased were weeping and his sister was not woke up despite attempts made by PW.2. Then, he, PW.2 and 4 along with his parents went to the house of accused and found the deceased was in immobile condition, the children weeping and the accused already escaped. Then, they all shifted the deceased to the clinic of PW.3, who declared her sister dead. There is a contusion and nail marks on the neck of her sister.
i) During cross-examination, PW.5 admitted that he did not state before the police as in Ex.D1, which is relevant portion of his statement recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. Only the accused and the deceased were living in the house of LW.7 on rent. 12
KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.577 of 2017
18. PW.6, circumstantial witness, deposed that his house is opposite the house of LW.7. On the date of incident at about 12.00 mid night, he woke up to attend calls of nature, found the accused going on Janpahad Road and he presumed that the accused going to attend calls of nature and after one hour, he heard some cries from the rented house of accused, found the deceased lying on the ground in the house.
i) During cross-examination, PW.6 admitted that the deceased was related to him as daughter. He did not know about the disputes between the accused and the deceased. There was darkness on that night when he woke up to attend calls of nature. Due to darkness, he cannot identify the persons. He did not know the reason for the death of the deceased.
19. PW.7, elder sister of the deceased, deposed that after death of her husband, he came to her parents' house and living with them. The deceased complained about beating by the accused. On the date of incident, after having dinner by them and deceased, the deceased proceeded to her rented house to go to sleep. When they were sleeping, PW.2 came to them and informed that the elder son of deceased was weeping and the deceased was not moving while in 13 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.577 of 2017 lying condition. Then, they went to the house of deceased and shifted her to the clinic of PW.3, who declared the deceased as dead. The accused escaped. Prior to the death of deceased, she gave her ear studs (MO.1) to the deceased and they found missing them. However, MO.1 were returned to her upon filing an application.
i) During cross-examination, nothing useful was elicited from PW.7.
20. PW.8, panch witness for scene of offence and inquest, deposed that he found some black scar marks on the neck. The police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his presence as in Ex.P1 - scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P2 is the sketch mark and Ex.P3 is the inquest report.
i) During cross-examination, nothing useful was elicited from PW.8.
21. PW.9, panch witness for confession of the accused and seizure, deposed, on 02.12.2011, the Inspector of police, called him to the police station, and accordingly he went to the police station, where the accused was present and asked him to ask the accused for what purpose he was in the police station, on which the police recorded confessional statement of the accused as in Ex.P4. 14
KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.577 of 2017
i) During cross-examination nothing was elicited from PW.9.
22. PW.10, the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, deposed that on 29.11.2011, he commenced autopsy from 1.15 P.M. and concluded at 2.30 P.M. and found the following injuries:
i) Ten nail bite marks over the neck on both sides, right side (3) in number and left side (7) in numbers;
ii) A small laceration 1x1 cms., over left chin.
He also found the following internal injuries:
i) Neck muscles are congested of red in colour;
ii) Thyroid Cartilage fractured at the mid line;
iii) Hyoid bone fracture at junction body and left horn.
23. According to him, the cause of death is due to throttling. Ex.P5 is the post-mortem report.
i) During cross-examination, PW.10 admitted that there is no possibility of nail injuries at the time of epilepsy. If any third person meddled with the person suffering from epilepsy, such injuries are possible. There is no possibility of the said injuries at the time of heart attack.
15
KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.577 of 2017
24. PW.11, the Inspector of Police, deposed with regard to his receipt of report from LW.1 and his registration of Crime No.135 of 2011 under Sections - 498A and 302 of IPC and issuance of Ex.P6 - original FIR. He also recorded the statement of LW.1 under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. He visited the scene of offence along with PW.13, Inspector of Police and assisted him for further investigation.
i) During cross-examination, nothing useful was elicited from PW.11.
25. PW.12, the then Tahsildar, Damerachaerla, deposed with regard to receipt of requisition from Sub-Inspector of Police, Wadapally for conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Accordingly, she went to the house of deceased and conducted inquest in the presence of PW.8 and LW.11 and noted down the injuries as in Ex.P7 - inquest report.
i) During cross-examination, nothing useful was elicited from PW.12.
26. PW.13 - the Investigating Officer deposed with regard to conducting of investigation, examination and recording of statements of the witnesses etc. He also took steps for inquest over the dead body of the deceased.
16
KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.577 of 2017
i) During cross-examination, nothing useful was elicited from PW.13.
27. As discussed above, in the present case, there is no direct evidence or eye-witness, and the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. There is no dispute with regard to legal position that relying on circumstantial evidence, conviction can be recorded provided circumstances relied upon by the prosecution should form a concrete unbreakable complete chain of events. The said principle was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1, wherein it was held:
"152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1952) 2 SCC 71:AIR 1952 SC 343:1952 SCR 1091: 1953 Cri LJ 129]. This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of later decisions up-to-date, for instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1969) 3 SCC 198:1970 SCC (Cri) 55] 1 . (1984) 4 SCC 116 17 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.577 of 2017 and Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra [(1972) 4 SCC 625: AIR 1972 SC 656]. It may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant case [(1952) 2 SCC 71:AIR 1952 SC 343:1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129]:
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.18
KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.577 of 2017 It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v.
State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793:1973 SCC (Cri) 1033:1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047] "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so 19 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.577 of 2017 complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence."
The aforesaid principle was also reiterated by the Apex court in a catena of decisions.
28. In the present case, perusal of evidence of prosecution witnesses proves the motive on the part of the accused in commission of offences. The motive behind the commission of offences by the accused was that he addicted to alcohol, he used to suspect the character of the deceased and there used to be quarrels between them. The same was proved by the prosecution by examining PW.1 - mother of the deceased; PW.5 - brother of the deceased; PW.7 - elder sister of the deceased and PWs.2, 4 and 6 - neighbours of the deceased. PW.1, mother of the deceased, deposed that the accused addicted to alcohol and started suspecting the character of her daughter attributing that she was having affair with others. Her daughter also informed her that the 20 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.577 of 2017 accused used to beat her in a drunker state and suspecting her character. PW.4, neighbour of the parents of the deceased, deposed that during the days of incident, the accused and deceased were living at Huzurnagar. During disputes between them, father of the deceased brought her to his house. After ten days, the accused came to his in- law's house at Janapahad road of Damaracherla Mandal and deceased and accused started living in a rented house opposite the house of parents of the deceased. There used to be quarrels between the accused and the deceased. PW.5, brother of the deceased also deposed with regard to the vices of the accused and suspecting her sister's characters. PW.7 - sister of the deceased also deposed the same. Thus, from the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution proved the motive on the part of the accused in commission of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
29. Now, coming to the circumstance, which also forms a complete chain of events is as to whether the accused and the deceased were present in their house on the date of incident or not. PW.4 deposed that on the date of incident PWs.1 and 2 were crying during night time and he went there and found the deceased was in 21 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.577 of 2017 unconscious state. Before the death, the deceased and the accused along with their children were residing in a rented house of LW.7, who was not examined as he is no more. The same was also admitted by the accused in his examination under Section - 313 of Cr.P.C. PW.2 deposed that on the date of incident, while she was sleeping at mid-night, heard the cries of son of deceased and she came out from her house and found the son of the deceased and on her enquiry, he told her that the accused was going in that way. Then, she took the boy and went to the house of deceased and tried her to wake up, but there was no response and then she and PW.4 took the deceased to PW.3, who declared her died. Even PW.3, RMP doctor, found that the deceased died due to throttling. PW.4 also deposed that the accused was not found in the house and they came to conclusion that the accused killed the deceased.
30. PW.6, whose house is located opposite the rented house of the accused, deposed that on the date of incident at about 12.00 mid night, he woke up to attend calls of nature and found the accused going on Janpahad road and he presumed that he was going to attend calls of nature and after one hour, he heard some cries from the rented 22 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.577 of 2017 house of the accused and found the deceased lying on the ground. The deceased was shifted to the PW.3's hospital, where she was declared dead.
31. PW.5, brother of the deceased, deposed that on 28.11.2011 at 11.30 p.m., he came back to his house from Kodad as he was studying Polytechnic at Kodad. At about 0.30 hours, PW.2 raised cries that the children of his sister were weeping and her sister did not wake up despite the attempts made by PW.2. Then, he, PW.2 and PW.4 along with his parents rushed to his sister's house and found her sister was in immobile condition. The accused already escaped. There is a contusion and nail marks on the neck of her sister. The accused killed his sister by throttling suspecting her character.
32. PW.7 - sister of the deceased deposed that on the night of the incident, PW.2 came to her and informed that the elder son of deceased was weeping and the deceased was not moving while in lying condition. Her parents proceeded to the house of the deceased and shifted her to PW.3's clinic. Then, she and Srinu went to the clinic of PW.3, where the deceased was declared dead. There are marks on the neck of the deceased. Prior to the death of deceased, she gave her 23 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.577 of 2017 ear-studs to the deceased and she found missing of the same. The accused might have taken the same.
33. In view of the said specific evidence of PWs.2, 4, 5, 6 and 7, an inference can be culled out that as on the date of incident, the accused was at his house and after commission of offence he fled away. Nothing useful was elicited from their cross-examination to disprove the case of the prosecution that the accused was not at all present at his house on the date of incident. Therefore, it can be presumed that the accused was responsible for the death of the deceased.
34. One more circumstance which forms a chain of events is with regard to the injuries that were found over the body of the deceased. To prove the same, PW.3, the RMP doctor deposed that according to him, the deceased died due to throttling. PW.8, a panch witness for scene of offence and inquest as in Exs.P2 and 3, also specifically deposed that she found some black scar marks on the neck. PW.10, the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, found the external and internal injuries as mentioned above. As per Ex.P5-postmortem examination report, the cause of 24 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.577 of 2017 death was due to throttling. During cross-examination, he admitted that there is no possibility of nail injuries at the time of epilepsy. If any third person meddled with the person suffering from epilepsy, the said injuries are possible. There is no possibility of the aforesaid injuries at the time of heart attack. PW.10, the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased found the aforesaid five injuries. In view of the aforesaid specific evidence, it can be inferred that the injuries were caused only due to the throttling of neck of the deceased by the accused.
35. As per evidence of PW.13, the Investigating Officer, on 02.12.2011 at about 19.30 hours, the accused surrendered before him at his office and confessed the offence. Pursuant to such confession, he seized MO.1-ear studs from his possession. PW.9, panch witness deposed with regard to the confession made by the accused and pursuant thereof, seizure of MO.1 as in Ex.P4.
36. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the deceased was the legally wedded wife of the accused. The evidence on record establishes that the accused habitually subjected the deceased to cruelty and physical assault and constantly suspected her 25 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.577 of 2017 character frequently beat and harassed her. On the date of incident, the deceased was found dead inside the rented house. Medical evidence clearly establishes that death was caused on account of throttling. Manual throttling is a homicidal act and cannot be self-inflicted. It is settled law that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence if the circumstances are fully established; they form a complete chain; the chain excludes every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. As already stated above, the evidence proves that the accused frequently beat the deceased and suspected her character. Persistent suspicion of infidelity provides a strong motive for the commission of murder. Motive assumes greater importance in cases based on circumstantial evidence. When the death occurs inside the rented house of the accused, burden shifts on the accused under Section - 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to explain how the deceased died. The accused failed to offer any plausible explanation.
37. It is apt to note that repeated physical assaults and suspicion of illicit relations amount to mental cruelty and physical cruelty. The prosecution witnesses have consistently deposed about the accused's violent behavior and harassment. Learned trial Court 26 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.577 of 2017 has properly appreciated evidence. Unless findings are perverse or contrary to evidence, the appellate Court should not interfere with conviction. The judgment is based on appreciation of evidence. Therefore, the findings of learned trial Court regarding cruelty are supported by evidence and do not warrant interference for the offence under Section - 498A of IPC.
38. As far as offence under Section - 302 of IPC is concerned, throttling involves applying force to the neck, obstructing breathing. The neck is a vital and vulnerable part of the body. Any reasonable person knows that such an act is likely to cause death. Thus, the accused had knowledge that his act was imminently dangerous. Medical evidence confirms that the injuries caused due to throttling. Therefore, the act falls squarely within the definition of murder. Thus, the impugned judgment of conviction is well-reasoned, based on cogent evidence, and requires no interference. Thus, the present appeal fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.
39. The present Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed confirming the conviction and sentences of imprisonment recorded and imposed against the appellant - accused vide judgment dated 27 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.577 of 2017 22.03.2017 in S.C. No.244 of 2012 by learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge at Miryalguda.
40. Since the appellant - accused is on bail, he is directed to surrender before VIII Additional Sessions Judge at Miryalguda, within one (01) month from today for serving out remaining sentence of imprisonment. If he fails to surrender, learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge at Miryalguda, shall take necessary steps in accordance with law.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
_________________________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J _________________________________ VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J 26th March, 2026 Mgr