Adla Narsimha Raju A1, vs The State Of Telangana,
2021 Latest Caselaw 893 Tel

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY
                          AND
        THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1055 OF 2014


JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Dr.SA,J)


     This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374 (2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the appellant/A1 challenging

the Judgment, dated 11.07.2014, passed in S.C.No.126 of 2014 by

the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, whereby, the

appellant/A-1 was convicted of the offence punishable under Section

302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to

pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for a period of three(3) months.


2.   Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/A1, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and

perused the record.

3. In the course of submissions, it is brought to the notice of this

Court by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the subject

death is homicidal, however, the Doctor, who conducted post-

mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, or any

person, who has acquaintance with the writing of the said Doctor,

was not examined, but the post-mortem examination report was

marked as Ex.P10 through PW.12-Investigating Officer.

4. As seen from the material placed on record, there is no

dispute with regard to marking of the post-mortem examination

report of the deceased as Ex.P10 through PW.12-the Investigating

Officer. But, the Doctor, who issued the post-mortem examination

report, was not examined. Examination of the Doctor, who

conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the

deceased, or any person, who has acquaintance with the writing of

the said Doctor, is necessary to find out whether the subject death

is homicidal or not, the time of death etc. Under these

circumstances, the impugned Judgment, dated 11.07.2014, is liable

to be set aside.

5. In the result, the impugned judgment, dated 11.07.2014,

passed in Sessions Case No.126 of 2014 by the VIII Additional

Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, is set aside, and the matter is

remanded to the trial Court with a direction to dispose of the subject

Sessions Case afresh, after recording the evidence of Doctor

concerned etc., as indicated above and providing opportunity to

both sides to lead evidence, if any. The appellant/A1 shall be set at

liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case and further,

he is directed to appear before the trial Court, on all the dates when

the case is taken up as indicated above.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal

shall stand closed.

_______________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J March 22nd, 2021.

MD