Telangana High Court
Muppuraju Mohan Rao, vs State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 4 August, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.899 OF 2009
Between:
Muppuraju Mohan Rao. ...Appellant.
And
State of A.P.,
Rep.by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Hyderabad. ... Respondent.
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 04.08.2022
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to Yes/No
see the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their
Ladyship/Lordship wish to see Yes/No
the fair copy of the Judgment?
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
+ CRL.A. No.899 of 2009
% Dated 04.08.2022
# Muppuraju Mohan Rao ... Appellant
And
$ State of A.P.,
Rep.by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Hyderabad ..Respondent.
! Counsel for the Appellant: D.Sangeetha Reddy,
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.899 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant is convicted for the offence under Section
304-Part I of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of
Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for four
months vide judgment in S.C.No.491 of 2008, dated
13.08.2009 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC),
at Asifabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.09.2007, P.W.1
filed a complaint stating that he came to know that the wife of
the appellant was axed to death. He went to the house and
found the deceased on cot with injuries on neck. He further
came to know that there were disputes between the husband
and wife and because of the said disputes, the appellant might
have axed her and escaped. Immediately, the same was
informed to the family members. Crime under Section 302 of
IPC was registered by the police on the same day on the
complaint of PW1. Body was sent to postmortem and after
post mortem examination, the police having conducted
investigation and examining family members and others, filed
charge sheet for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
3. The witness, PW.1 defacto complainant stated before
Court that he does not know how the deceased died and the
complaint Ex.P19 was drafted at the instance of the police and
he only signed on the complaint. The signature on complaint
Ex.P19 was marked as Ex.P1 since PW1 denied the contents of
complaint.
4. PW.2 is the son, P.W.3 is the daughter of the deceased,
P.Ws.4 and 5 are neighbours. All the said witnesses turned
hostile to the prosecution case and stated that they have not
seen the appellant on the day of incident or the previous day.
They further stated that there were no disputes in between the
appellant and the deceased.
5. The witnesses to the scene of offence panchanama,
confession and recovery, have turned hostile to the
prosecution case.
6. P.W.10 is the mother of the deceased, who also stated
that the appellant and the deceased were living cordially and
she was declared as hostile to the prosecution case. P.Ws.11
and 12 are the witnesses to the seizure of MOs.1 to 4, who
turned hostile to the prosecution case.
7. Another prosecution witness PW.14 was living in the
same locality. On the date of incident, she went to the house of
the appellant and found that body was lying in the house and
she tried to give first aid to the deceased. However, there was
no response. She stated that she does not know who was
responsible for the death of the deceased.
8. P.W.15 is the Investigating Officer, who stated that the
appellant was apprehended on 03.10.2007 and pursuant to
his confession the axe was recovered.
9. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant on the
following grounds (i) that appellant was present in the house
(ii) he has won over the witnesses who turned hostile to the
prosecution case and (iii) basing on the relation of deceased
and appellant it can be presumed that the appellant was
responsible for causing her death.
10. Learned Sessions Judge erred in finding the appellant
guilty when none of the witnesses supported the prosecution
case. None of the witnesses stated anything about any
differences amongst the appellant and the deceased. No one
has seen the appellant in the house where the body was found
either on the day of the incident or the previous day. The
confession seizure panchas turned hostile. In the absence of
any evidence, on the basis of assumptions, the Court cannot
conclude the guilt of an accused. Imagination cannot be made
basis to convict the accused when there is no legally
admissible evidence.
11. Learned Sessions Judge has failed to narrate any
incriminating circumstances proved beyond doubt to draw an
inference of guilt except stating that the appellant 'might have
won over witnesses' and 'might have murdered the deceased'.
The prosecution utterly failed to prove its case. In the said
circumstances, the impugned judgment of the trial Court is
liable to be set aside.
12. In the result, the impugned judgment in S.C.No.491 of
2008 dated 13.08.2009 is set aside and the appellant is
acquitted. Since, the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall
stand cancelled.
10. Criminal Appeal is allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 04.08.2022
Note: LR copy to be marked.
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.899 OF 2009
Date: 04.08.2022.
kvs
