Salpala Srinivas vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 4629 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4629 Tel
Judgement Date : 8 April, 2025

Telangana High Court

Salpala Srinivas vs The State Of Telangana on 8 April, 2025

                                  1




      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                      AND
     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2592 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

1. The Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused, aggrieved

by the judgment dated 11.09.2018, in S.C.No.88 of 2017, on

the file of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, at

Asifabad. The appellant was convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to

undergo life imprisonment, and also under Section 304-II of

IPC and sentenced to 7 years of imprisonment. The appellant

was convicted under two counts for causing the deaths of two

persons, D.1 and D.2.

2. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and Sri

Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

respondent-State.

3. According to P.W.1, who is the wife of Bhumaiah (D1),

while D.1 was going to his fields, it is alleged that the

appellant handed over a quarter bottle to him, informing that

it is the medicine for body pains. Having taken the said

bottle from the appellant, the deceased went to his fields and

consumed the medicine with one Azgar (D.2). After

consuming the liquid that was in the quarter bottle given by

the appellant, both D.1 and D.2 started vomiting near their

fields. P.W.3 is the person who was present along with D.1

and D.2. P.W.3 stated that, having seen D.1 and D.2

vomiting, he refused to consume the liquid given by the

appellant, stating that it is the medicine for curing body

pains. D.1 died in Mancherial hospital on 10.02.2016, and

D.2 died on 01.03.2016 at NIMS hospital, Hyderabad.

4. The complaint was filed on 15.02.2016, stating that the

incident of the appellant handing over the quarter bottle to

the deceased occurred on 14.02.2016 at 10:30 p.m. in the

night. The motive suggested by the prosecution is that, two

months prior, the appellant developed illegal intimacy with

his junior maternal aunt, namely Salpala Sunitha, and D.1

had seen them together. The appellant threatened D.1 with

dire consequences and also threatened that he would kill him

if he disclosed the intimacy between the appellant and his

maternal aunt.

5. Having received the complaint on 15.02.2016, the

Investigating Officer started the investigation. On

18.02.2016, the Police went to the house of appellant and

seized M.O.1, which is a plastic bottle containing liquid, in

the presence of P.W.9. M.O.2, which is a quarter bottle

allegedly handed over by the appellant to Bhumaiah (D.1),

was seized from the house of P.W.3. The said seizure was on

03.03.2016.

6. After the deaths of D.1 and D.2, the dead bodies were

sent for postmortem examination. The postmortem Doctor

found that the deaths were on account of paraquat

dichloride, a herbicide poison.

7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant

would submit that the appellant did not commit any act

falling within the definition of culpable homicide. It is alleged

that the appellant had passed on the quarter bottle to the

deceased stating that it is the medicine for body pains. The

said act of handing over the bottle will not fall within the four

corners of culpable homicide, and at most, the offence may

fall under Section 304-II of IPC.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would

submit that the appellant had the intent to commit the

murders of the deceased, and as such, he gave poison in a

quarter bottle, informing that it was medicine for body pains.

The said misrepresentation reflects the intent on the part of

the appellant to murder D.1.

9. The act of handing over the quarter bottle by the

appellant was on 14.02.2016. The complaint was lodged on

15.02.2016. However, the quarter bottle/M.O.2 was handed

over to the Police by P.W.3 on 03.03.2016, which is nearly 18

days after the alleged incident. It is not explained by the

prosecution as to why the bottle, which is subject matter of

the complaint, was neither seized by the Police nor handed

over by P.W.3 or P.W.5, both of whom were present when the

incident happened. The non-explanation of the delay in

seizing M.O.2, which is a McDowell company quarter bottle,

casts doubt on the prosecution version. In fact, P.Ws.3 and 5

did not state about McDowell's quarter bottle being handed

over to the deceased by the appellant.

10. The plastic bottle/M.O.1 was found and seized from the

house of the appellant but it was not sent to the FSL for the

purpose of examination. Only the McDowell's bottle (M.O.2)

was sent for the purpose of examination. Under Ex.P22, the

FSL report analysed the contents of the McDowell's bottle

and the viscera of D.1 and D.2, and gave a report that they

contain paraquat dichloride herbicide poison. Not sending

M.O.1 to the FSL for the purpose of examination to relate the

liquid found in the plastic bottle (M.O.1) with the quarter

bottle (M.O.2) seized from P.W.3, it cannot be said that it was

the appellant who had handed over the bottle, having

knowledge about the poison in it.

11. Culpable homicide under Section 299 of IPC reads:

"Whoever causes death by doing an act with the

intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing

such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the

knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death,

commits the offence of culpable homicide."

12. It is the case of the prosecution that the said bottle was

handed over by the appellant to the deceased. Handing over

the bottle, even assuming for a moment that it contained

poison, it would not fall within the offence of culpable

homicide. Handing over the bottle with the liquid, and

neither the liquid being administered nor forced by the

appellant to be consumed, the said act would not fall within

the act mentioned under Section 299 of IPC. At most, the

said act may fall within the definition of Section 304-II of IPC.

13. However, keeping in view that the prosecution has

failed to prove that M.O.2 was the bottle handed over by the

appellant to the deceased, and considering the seizure of