Telangana High Court
Muttavarapu Sirisha vs The State Of Telangana on 27 December, 2023
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.10522 OF 2023
Between:
Muttavarapu Sirisha ... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana
Through Public Prosecutor and another. .Respondent/Complainant/A6
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED :27.12.2023
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
Wish to see their fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.P. No.10522 of 2023
% Dated 27.12.2023
# Muttavarapu Sirisha ... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Telangana
Through Public Prosecutor and another ..Respondents/Complainant/A6
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Rachna Reddy & Associates
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1
Sri C.Sharan Reddy for R2
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
(2012) 12 Supreme Court Cases 180
2
(2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 649
3
(2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 143
4
M.Cr.C.No.16087 of 2021 dated 18.04.2022
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.10522 of 2023
ORDER:
1. The petitioner herein is the defacto complainant seeking
cancellation of bail granted to the 2nd respondent, who is A6 in
Crime No.927 of 2023 on the file of Miyapur Police Station,
Cyberabad registered for the offences under Sections 302, 307,
498-A, 120-b r/w 34 of IPC, vide order dated 20.09.2023 in
Criminal Petition No.8797 of 2023.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 26.06.2023, the
petitioner's mother was admitted in the hospital for ill-health.
While being treated, she died on 05.07.2023. On 26.07.2023, the
petitioner's sister-in-law underwent tests and it was found that she
had arsenic poison in her body. On 29.07.2023, the petitioner's
brother was also tested in a lab in US and his blood/urine tested
positive for arsenic. Similarly, petitioner's father was tested positive
vide report dated 03.08.2023. On 05.08.2023, petitioner's father
and sister-in-law were admitted to the hospital. The petitioner also
was tested positive for arsenic on 08.08.2023.
3. The back ground of the case is that A3 and A4 in the present
case tried to inject succinyl choline in the neck of the father of the
petitioner unsuccessfully. All the sequence of events led to
suspicion that all the family members including the mother were
administered arsenic poison by mixing in chilli powder in their
house. The said mixing was done in between 17.03.2023 to
09.04.2023, during which period, A1 had came to India for three
weeks and the petitioner suspects that during the said period, A1
with the help of the 2nd respodnent/A6 might have mixed arsenic in
the chilly powder. A1 and A6 only had access to the locked flat.
There is no other person who would have mixed arsenic apart from
A1 and A6 in the back ground of the differences between the
petitioner and her husband i.e., A1.
4. This Court, by order dated 20.09.2023 in Criminal Petition
No.8797 of 2023 granted bail to the 2nd respondent/A6. The ground
on which bail was granted to the 2nd respondent/A6 is at para 5 of
the order dated 20.09.2023, which reads as follows:
"5. On instructions, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor would submit that as on date, the investigation
does not reveal that there was any poison that was found
either in the body of the dead person or in the body of the
complainant and others."
5. Smt. B.Rachana Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner would submit that the very basis for granting bail is
incorrect instructions by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
In fact, the remains of the deceased after funeral were sent for
testing to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the results are
awaited. Further, the petitioner, her father, sister and brother were
tested positive for arsenic poison. The only person who could have
mixed arsenic is A1 and A6 who had access to the Flat of the
complainant's family. A6 was living in the same building complex.
The said act of mixing arsenic was done in between 17.03.2023 to
09.04.2023, when A1 visited India, during which time, complainant
and others were in the USA. The attempt made by A3 and A4 to
inject succinyl choline injection on 25.06.2023 in the neck of the
father of the complainant and subsequent events also clearly
establish that it was the 2nd respondent/A6, who had mixed
arsenic deliberately to commit murder of petitioner's mother and all
the family members.
6. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the following judgments in
support of her contentions: i) Kanwar Singh Meena v State of
Rajasthan and another 1; ii) Harjeet Singh alias Seeta v. State of
Punjab and another 2; iii) Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra
and others 3 and iv) Father of prosecutrix-x v. State of Madhya
Pradesh through Mahila thana District Katni (Madhya Pradesh)
and others 4. On the basis of the judgments, learned Senior
Counsel argued that the grant of bail has to be after consideration
of the gravity of the crime, the evidence in the case, tampering with
the evidence etc. In the present case, when the very foundation for
grant of bail is factually incorrect, the bail can be cancelled by this
Court. It is not necessary that the petitioner has to approach the
Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking cancellation of bail. In the back
ground of the present case, when this Court was misled into
granting bail by stating that arsenic poison was not found in any of
the family members, which is factually incorrect, the 2nd
respondent's bail has to be cancelled and sent to prison.
7. Further, learned Senior Counsel also relied on the
characteristics of arsenic. It was argued that arsenic was a
common poison used to slowly administer to a person and commit
murder. For the reason of its characteristics, death may appear to
(2012) 12 Supreme Court Cases 180
(2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 649
(2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 143
M.Cr.C.No.16087 of 2021 dated 18.04.2022
be due to natural reasons. Having knowledge about the way in
which arsenic works, A1 and the 2nd respondent/A6 have mixed
the poison in the chilli powder.
8. Learned Senior Counsel also provided printouts of report
published by the United States Secret Service in a case of arsenic
poison. Similarly, the news reports in the Times of India, an article
in the USA regarding dentist killing his wife by arsenic poison by
mixing it in protein shakes.
9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed
the report of the Investigating Officer. In the said report, it is stated
that the petitioner's mother, prior to her death was admitted at
various hospitals for treatment and her dead body was cremated on
05.07.2023 for which reason autopsy was not conducted. However,
her bones collected after funeral were sent for FSL examination and
report is awaited. Further, the petitioner and others were tested
positive for the presence of arsenic in their bodies.
10. Learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent/ A6 submits
that once this Court had granted bail, except in cases of violation of
conditions of bail, this Court cannot cancel the bail as it amounts
to reviewing its own order. Even on facts, no case is made out
against the A6. The death occurred on 05.07.2023 and the
complaint was filed after 1 ½ months on 18.08.2023 only on
account of differences between A1 and his wife. The 2nd
respondent/A6 is made scapegoat and falsely implicated.
11. Having granted bail, this Court cannot cancel the bail unless
conditions are violated. However, keeping in view that the basis for
grant of bail is for not finding arsenic poison in the deceased,
complainant and others, however it is factually incorrect, for the
said reason, the public prosecutor was asked to provide the entire
CD file and the same was provided by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor.
12. I have gone through the CD file.
13. The police have been investigating into the case by collecting
medical reports, recording statements, confessions of accused etc.
The foundation of the complaint is mainly on the basis of the
suspicion of the defacto complainant and others that arsenic
poison was mixed by A1 and A6 who had access to the Flat of
complainant in between 17.03.2023 to 09.04.2023, when A1 visited
India. Except for the said suspicion that A1 with the help of A6,
might have mixed arsenic poison in chilli powder, there is no
evidence to show that the 2nd respondent had purchased any
substance containing arsenic poison. In the absence of any proof
that A6 had procured arsenic poison in any form either rat poison
or any other substance, the suspicion that arsenic poison must
have been mixed by A6, who lives in the same apartment, cannot
form basis to pass any order, as prayed for by the
petitioner/defacto complainant.
14. Genesis of the complaint is suspicion against the accused.
Assumption and suspicion without any admissible proof cannot
form basis for incarceration by cancelling bail.
15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition fails both on facts and Law
and same is dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date :27.12.2023
Note: LR copy to be marked.
b/o.kvs.
