Telangana High Court
Mudavath Gopal vs The State Of Telangana 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.1341 OF 2018
DATE: 26-03-2026
Between:
Mr. Mudavath Gopal .. 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 Mrs. Pendyala Suhasini Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant - accused and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 14.02.2018 in S.C. No.269 of 2015 passed by learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court'). 2
KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.1341 of 2018
3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court convicted the appellant - accused for the offences under Sections - 302 and 201 of IPC and accordingly sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and in default to pay fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) year, for the charge under Section - 302 of IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three (03) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and in default to pay fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months for the charge under Section - 201 of IPC.
4. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
i) The marriage of the accused was solemnized with his first wife (PW.3) - Modavath Paribai. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with one son (Narsimha) and two daughters, Laxmi Bai and Kavitha, respectively. His first wife (PW.3) was addicted to toddy and she was residing at her Mothkulabanda Thanda.
ii) Five (05) years ago from the date of incident, the accused performed second marriage with PW.4 - Soni Bai and they were residing at Hyderabad. Out of their wedlock, she was blessed with two (02) sons and one (01) daughter. The accused brought his first 3 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.1341 of 2018 wife's offspring's of son (Narsimha) and daughter (Laxmi Bai) to the house of his second wife. The accused left alone the deceased infant baby - Kavitha, aged 1½ years old with his first wife.
iii) Whenever the accused used to visit the house of his first wife, he used to scold her saying that his deceased infant baby could not born through him and used to pick up quarrel with her.
iv) On 01.07.2013 at about 22:00 hours, the accused came to the house of his first wife inebriation state with an intention to eliminate his infant baby and called his first wife, but she could not give any response from inside the house. Then he found with peevish mood and forcibly pushed the doors, as a result, the doors fallen inside of the house and he saw his infant baby was sleeping inside threshold and struggling under doors, while his first wife was in deep sleep in an addiction of toddy. Taking advantage of the same, the accused removed the doors from his infant baby and behaved with wild upon her and forcibly throttled her neck with his both hands and murdered.
After confirming the death, he took away the corpse infant at his agriculture fields in Survey No.7 at Gandlapally Forest Area and burnt his infant baby. After cremation, he returned to the house. Thus, the accused committed the offences under Sections - 302 and 201 of IPC. 4
KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.1341 of 2018
v) On receipt of report (Ex.P1) from PW.1 before whom the accused confessed about the commission of offences, LW.9, the Inspector of Police, Kodangal Police Station registered a case in Crime No.83 of 2013 on 05.07.2013 for the aforesaid offences and issued Ex.P8 - FIR.
vi) Thereafter, PW.7 took up investigation. During investigation, he secured presence of PW.5 and LW.7 and recorded confession of the accused. Then, he conducted scene of offence panchanama along with sketch vide Ex.P6. He also examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. Therefore, Pw.8 took up the investigation from PW.7, and after receipt of FSL report etc. he 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.269 of 2015 and thereafter made over to the trial Court.
5. The trial Court framed charge for the offences under Sections - 302 and 201 of IPC against the accused and then proceeded with trial.
6. During trial, PWs.1 to 8 were examined, Exs.P1 to P8 were marked and MO.1 was exhibited. Neither oral evidence, nor documentary evidence was let in by the accused. 5
KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.1341 of 2018
7. After completion of evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section - 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, upon hearing both sides, the trial Court recorded conviction against the appellant herein for the aforesaid charges 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 - accused contended as follows:
i. There is no direct evidence and the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. Even the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution did not form complete chain. ii. There are discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
iii. Prosecution failed to establish the biological paternity through burnt bones i.e. MO.1.
iv. Prosecution also failed to prove motive on the part of the appellant in commission of offence.
v. Without considering the said aspects, learned trial Court recorded conviction.6
KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.1341 of 2018 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:
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 complete chain to connect the appellant in commission of the aforesaid offences.
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 charges under Sections - 7
KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.1341 of 2018 302 and 201 of IPC against the appellant herein - accused are sustainable, both on facts and in law?
11. In this case, the prosecution examined as many as eight (08) witnesses as PWs.1 to 8. Before dealing with the discussion, it would be apt to discuss the depositions of prosecution witnesses.
12. PW.1, Village Revenue Officer of Takulkode Village, is not only the complainant, but also the person before whom the accused said to have made extra judicial confession statement with regard to commission of the aforesaid offences. He deposed that on 05.07.2013 at about 8.00 A.M., while he was at his house, the accused came and informed that on 01.07.2013 he throttled his daughter suspecting her paternity. He also narrated the events on the date of incident as mentioned in the above. He further deposed that the accused also told him that he set fire on the dead body of his daughter in order to destroy the evidence and threatened his wife with dire consequences directing her not to reveal the same to anybody. After the occurrence, he fled to Hyderabad. Immediately, he gave report vide Ex.P1 to the police.
i) During cross-examination, he admits that the first wife of the accused (PW.3) regularly consumes toddy. He along with PW.2 and 8 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.1341 of 2018 the accused went to the police station and gave Ex.P1 report to the police.
13. PW.2 - Ex-Sarpanch of Tekulkode, before whom the accused said to have made extra judicial confessional statement did not support the prosecution and, therefore, he was declared hostile.
i) During cross-examination by learned Special Public Prosecutor, nothing useful was elicited from him.
14. PW.3 is the first wife of the accused. She deposed that she did not know the reason for the death of her deceased daughter as she was in deep sleep. She was also declared hostile by learned Special Public Prosecutor.
i) During cross-examination by learned Special Public Prosecutor, she admitted that the accused is staying in Hyderabad along with his second wife. Her eldest son and another daughter were also staying with them.
15. PW.4 is the second wife of the accused. She also deposed that she did not know the reason for the death of daughter of accused through PW.3. She was also declared hostile by learned Special 9 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.1341 of 2018 Public Prosecutor. Nothing useful was elicited by learned Special Public Prosecutor through her.
16. PW.5, the then Revenue Inspector of Kodangal Mandal, is the panch witness for the confession said to have made by the accused with regard to commission of offence. He deposed that on enquiry, the accused revealed his identity and confessed his guilt in death of his daughter and also shown the place where he burnt the dead body of the deceased. He further deposed that the police seized the burnt bones from there under a cover of panchanama as in Ex.P5. MO.1 is the burnt bones seized under Ex.P5. Before proceeding to the spot, the police prepared panchanama incorporating the confession including disclosure statement as in Ex.P4. The accused had also taken them to his house, where he killed the deceased by pushing the door first and then squeezing the neck of the victim girl. The police also prepared a panchanama incorporating a sketch. During cross- examination, nothing useful was elicited from him.
17. PW.6 is the Assistant Director of Telangana State Forensic Science Laboratory. He deposed that he received requisition from SDPO, Narayanpet to conduct DNA examination of cloth parcel 10 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.1341 of 2018 produced with his specimen seals containing a paper parcel with Ash and dust marked as Item No.1. He further deposed that the same was subjected to autosomal STR analysis by using identifier plus kit. There is no amplifiable DNA yield from item No.1. Therefore, DNA profile was not generated from item No.1. Ex.P7 is the report dated 04.06.2014 given by him. Learned defence counsel did not choose to cross examine him.
18. PW.7 is the Inspector of Police, Kodangal Circle. He deposed that on 05.07.2013, on receipt of FIR from LW.9 - Sub- Inspector of Police and on production of accused by him, he took up investigation in this case. He further deposed that during investigation, he secured the presence of PW.5 and LW.7 and recorded the confessional statement of the accused. Thereafter, they went to the house of the accused at Mothkulabanda Thanda, where he conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of the very same mediators and prepared CDF with sketch vide Ex.P6. Then, the accused led them to his agricultural field in Survey No.7, where the accused burnt the dead body of his daughter. He also conducted panchanama of scene and seized boney remains and ash under Ex.P5 panchanama. Later, he secured the presence of PW.3, examined her 11 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.1341 of 2018 and recorded her statement. He also recorded the statement of PW.2. On 06.07.2013, he produced the accused before the Magistrate for judicial remand. He further deposed that the boney remains and ash sent to FSL through SDPO, Narayanpet for analysis. He received Ex.P7 FSL report. On his transfer, he handed over the investigation to PW.8.
i) During cross-examination, he admitted that he did not record the statement of PW.1. He did not examine the neighbours of the accused as they are not residing there except brother of the accused. Till 05.07.2013, they did not have information about the occurrence. As per the confession, the deceased died on the night of 01.07.2013.
19. PW.8, another Inspector of Police, Kodangal Circle, deposed that he took up investigation from PW.7 on 28.02.2014. On the same day, he visited the Mothkulabanda Thanda and examined and recorded the statement of PW.4 and LW.4. PW.4 stated as in Ex.P3. On 14.06.2014, he received DNA report from FSL expressing their inability to get DNA for analysis. On completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. As per his investigation, the accused killed the infant baby and screened the evidence by 12 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.1341 of 2018 destroying scene of offence. During cross-examination, nothing useful was elicited from him.
20. 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 Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra1, 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 1 . (1984) 4 SCC 116 13 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.1341 of 2018 Pradesh [(1969) 3 SCC 198:1970 SCC (Cri) 55] 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:
14
KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.1341 of 2018 (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
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, 15 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.1341 of 2018 (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so 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."
Thereafter, the Apex Court reiterated the said principle in a catena of decisions.
21. In the present case, the motive behind the commission of offence by the accused is spoken by PW.1 - the complainant. He is the Village Revenue Officer of the Tekuldode village. He has specifically deposed that while he was at his house, the accused came to him and admitted that he throttled his daughter, namely Kavitha, aged 1½ years suspecting her paternity. Perusal of evidence discloses that the accused has two wives, PWs.3 and 4, respectively. Through first wife, the accused has one son and two daughters, while through second wife, he has two sons and one daughter. The deceased is one 16 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.1341 of 2018 of the daughters of the accused through his first wife. The first wife was habituated to consume toddy and she was residing at her Thanda. The accused was residing with his second wife at Hyderabad along with son and another daughter of first wife.
22. PW.5 is the panch witness for scene of offence, seizure of bones remnants of the deceased and confessional statement made by the accused. He specifically deposed that on his enquiry as to his surrender before the police, the accused confessed his guilt in death of his daughter and also shown the place where he burnt the dead body of the deceased. After completion of scene of panchanama and confessional statement, the accused led them to his house where he killed the deceased by pushing the door first and then squeezing the neck of the deceased girl.
23. Though there is no direct evidence with regard to commission of offence by the accused, circumstantial evidence of PWs.1 and 5 would disclose that the accused admitted about his guilt before them and led PW.5 to the scene of offence, where he burnt the dead body of the deceased and the manner in which he killed the deceased. The motive behind the commission of offence is that the accused suspecting the paternity of the deceased and, therefore, there 17 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.1341 of 2018 was quarrel between him and his first wife. Having waited for an opportunity to eliminate the deceased and accordingly he committed the offence on 01.07.2013 by throttling his daughter and thereafter burnt the dead body as mentioned above. Thus, the motive was proved on the part of the accused in commission of offence by the prosecution.
24. The circumstances which form a complete chain of events to connect the link for commission of offences are after commission of offence by the accused on 01.072013, the accused himself went to PW.1 on 05.07.2013 at about 8.00 A.M. and confessed his guilt by stating that while his first wife was sleeping inside the house by bolting the doors from inside and did not open the doors though he knocked, then forcibly pushed the doors and opened it. He further stated that he set fire to the dead body of his daughter in order to destroy the evidence and threatened his wife with dire consequences not to reveal the same to anybody. After the occurrence he fled to Hyderabad to screen himself from the attack. That was the reason why, his two wives i.e., PWs.3 and 4 did not support the case of prosecution. Even then, in view of the evidence of PWs.1 and 5, an inference can be drawn that the accused had committed the aforesaid 18 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.1341 of 2018 offences. Nothing contra was elicited by the accused during cross- examination of PWs.1 and 5.
25. PW.7, the Inspector of Police, deposed that he recorded the confession of accused in the presence of PW.5 and LW.7. Thereafter, they all proceeded to the house of the accused, where he conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of same panchas and prepared CDF with sketch as in Ex.P6. The accused led them to his agricultural field in Survey No.7, where he burnt the dead body of his daughter. There also, PW.7 conducted panchanama of scene and seized boney remains and ash under the cover of Ex.P5 - panchanama.
26. PW.8, another Inspector of Police, deposed that on receipt of DNA report from FSL expressing their inability to get DNA for analysis, and on completion of investigation he laid charge sheet. According to him, the accused killed the infant baby and screened the evidence by destroying scene of offence and thereby he committed the aforesaid offences.
27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the prosecution established motive, suspicion regarding the paternity of 19 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.1341 of 2018 the deceased. The extra-judicial confession made by the accused to PW.1, the complainant is voluntary and inspires confidence. Recovery of incriminating material and proof of burning of the body corroborate the prosecution case. Though both wives turned hostile during trial, their hostility does not demolish the prosecution case, particularly when other reliable evidence is available. The Forensic Science Laboratory expressed inability to get DNA results due to destruction of the body; however, such scientific failure does not benefit the accused when other evidence establishes guilt. The conduct of the accused in absconding from normal conduct and subsequent confession further strengthens the chain of circumstances.
28. The homicidal death of the deceased is established. The act of throttling clearly falls within the ambit of "murder" as defined under Section - 300 of IPC, punishable under Section - 302 of IPC. Further, the deliberate act of burning the dead body to screen himself from legal punishment squarely attracts Section - 201 of IPC. The events of motive, presence of the accused at the relevant time, extra- judicial confession, recovery and proof of destruction of the body and 20 KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.1341 of 2018 conduct of the accused, form a complete chain to connect the commission of offences by the accused.
29. Learned trial Court has elaborately dealt with the principle of corpus delicti in the present case. Corpus delicti in a murder case means proof that a person has died; and the death was caused by a criminal act. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that production of the dead body is not an absolute requirement to prove murder. Conviction can be sustained even in the absence of the physical body, provided the prosecution establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the victim is dead and that the death is homicidal. Courts have consistently held that where the body is destroyed or rendered unidentifiable, the fact of death and criminal agency can be proved through strong circumstantial evidence.
30. Learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly convicted the accused under Sections - 302 and 201 IPC. There is no perversity, illegality, or mis-appreciation of evidence warranting interference by the High Court. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed by learned trial Court deserve to be confirmed, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 21
KL,J & VRKR,J Crl.A. No.1341 of 2018
31. The present Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed confirming the conviction and sentences of imprisonment recorded and imposed against the appellant - accused vide judgment dated 14.02.2018 in S.C. No.269 of 2015 by learned Special Sessions Judge- cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar.
32. Since the appellant - accused is on bail, he is directed to surrender before the Special Sessions Judge-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar, within one (01) month from today for serving out remaining sentence of imprisonment. If he fails to surrender, learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar, 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