Gudavalli Bhavani Shanker, ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5188 Tel

        HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                          AT HYDERABAD
                               *****

               Criminal Appeal No.937 OF 2010

Between:


Gudavalli Bhavani Shanker                   ... Appellant

                           And
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of A.P,
Hyderabad                                   ... Respondent


DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED:           19.10.2022

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. 937 of 2010


% Dated 19.10.2022



#Gudavalli Bhavani Shanker                        ... Appellant

                           And
$The State of Andhra Pradesh,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of A.P,
Hyderabad                                         ... Respondent




! Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. Indira


^ Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor



>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred
1
                                3


              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

               CRIMINAL APPEAL No.937 of 2010
JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section

304-Part-II and Section 309 of IPC and sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and three

months respectively vide judgment in SC No.491 of 2009, dated

09.07.2010 passed by the Special Judge for Trial of offences

under SCs. & STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Secunderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present

appeal is filed.

2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 who is the owner

of the premises where the deceased was found dead filed

complaint on 30.03.2009 at 10.30 a.m stating that one of the

portion was let out to the person by name Rajasheker (examined

as P.W.3). P.W.3 stays alone in that portion. Around 9.30 a.m,

he found the deceased was killed in the said room and requested

to take action. The police, on receiving complaint, commenced

investigation and identified the deceased as G.Chaitanya. On the

same day, the elder brother P.W.2 and matrimonial uncle, who

was not examined, went to the police station and informed that

the deceased was friendly with the appellant herein namely

Bhavani Shanker. They suspected that since the appellant

expressed love for the deceased, he might have killed her. On the

basis of the said suspicion, the appellant was apprehended by

the police on 07.04.2009 and having recorded the confession in

the presence of independent mediators, the appellant was sent to

judicial custody.

3. P.W.1 who is the owner of premises did not speak anything

about the appellant being present in the room on the previous

day or on the day when the dead body was found. He specifically

stated that it was P.W.3, who was staying in the rented room. No

witnesses are examined to speak about the presence of the

appellant anywhere near the room where the dead body was

found on the day of incident, previous day or at any time.

4. P.W.2 is the brother of deceased, who suspected that the

appellant might have murdered the deceased and tried to commit

suicide as the deceased refused to marry the appellant.

5. The only evidence available to the Court was the confession

of the appellant and consequently producing the rod alleged to

have been used to beat the deceased.

6. The other circumstance was that the appellant consumed

sleeping pills on 30.03.2009 and was taken to the hospital about

7.00 p.m and 8.00 p.m. when he went to police station. However

the prosecution has not produced any medical record to show

that he was sent to the hospital. In the absence of any medical

record or Doctor being examined who treated the appellant, the

said version of the prosecution that the appellant went to the

police station in drowsy condition, cannot be accepted. If the

appellant had gone to the police station and stated that he was

responsible for the death of the deceased, the appellant would

have been detained at the police station itself or sent to hospital

along with a constable. It was an afterthought to connect the

appellant to the crime, the version was created to say that the

appellant went to the police station having consumed 30 sleeping

tablets.

7. The case of the prosecution entirely rests upon the

suspicion that was expressed by P.W.2, who is the brother of the

deceased. The other circumstances are that the rod was

produced by the appellant from his house nearly one week after

the death. There is no explanation by the prosecution regarding

the period from 30.03.2009 to 07.04.2009, why the appellant was

not apprehended and details are not known as to what transpired

in those days. No witness was examined to state that the

appellant stayed in the premises where the rod was found.

8. In cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to

prove beyond reasonable doubt every circumstance to convince

the Court that it was the appellant who had committed the

murder of the deceased and all the circumstances when viewed

collectively forms a complete chain to rule out the possibility of

the appellant being innocent or un connected. One of the three

circumstances as stated above regarding the appellant going to

the police station appears to have been fabricated at a later date

to suit the prosecution case. Further, the rod which was

produced was in the house and it cannot be said that the said

recovery can form the basis for determining that this appellant

had committed the murder. The exclusive possession of the

premises is not proved and that no one else was staying in the

said house in the one week between the incident and recovery.

9. Though it is the case of the prosecution that the appellant

had cut his wrists after committing murder of the deceased, there

is no evidence forthcoming to show that any wounds were on his

wrists or blood to have been found at the scene in the event of

wrists being cut. Blood would have been found at the scene.

Though the wearing apparel of the deceased and the blood found

at the scene were sent to the FSL, it could not determine that the

blood of the appellant was present at the scene of offence.

10. In view of there being no evidence of being last seen

anywhere near the scene of offence and the appellant being

arrested after nearly seven days, it casts a doubt on the

prosecution case being correct. More so, in the back ground of

the prosecution coming up with a false statement of the appellant

going to the police station in a drowsy state. For the said reasons,

benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant.

11. In the result, the conviction of the appellant vide judgment

in SC No.491 of 2009 dated 09.07.2010 is set aside and the

appellant is acquitted. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail

bonds shall stand cancelled.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 19.10.2022 Note: LR copy to be marked.

B/o.kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.937 OF 2010

Dated: 19.10.2022

kvs