Telangana High Court
N. Chinna Narsimhulu vs The State Of Telangana on 8 April, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.925 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
The appellant, having been aggrieved by the conviction
dated 05.10.2017 recorded by the learned I Additional
Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar in SC No.237 of 2016 for the
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC,
filed the present criminal appeal.
2. Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned legal aid counsel
for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
3. The appellant is the husband of the deceased, viz.
Kanduri Indiramma. Their marriage was performed 11 years
prior to the death of the deceased. They were blessed with
one daughter and one son. According to the prosecution
case, the appellant suspected the character of the deceased,
that she was having an affair with someone, and harassed
her. The appellant used to beat her indiscriminately for the
Page 2
said reason. A panchayat was held in the presence of the
elders to console the appellant, and he was asked to take care
of the deceased and to live together. However, the appellant
continued to harass the deceased.
4. On 19.10.2015, at about 09.00 PM, the deceased
returned home, and the appellant picked up a quarrel with
her for coming late and also abused her for having
relationship with someone else. The appellant beat her with a
stick, thereby causing a fracture to her right leg, and when
she fell down, the appellant allegedly strangulated her,
resulting in her death.
5. A complaint was filed by PW1/brother of the deceased.
He narrated that the deceased was being harassed by the
appellant, since the appellant suspected the deceased of
having relationship with someone else. The appellant used to
beat her severely. On 20.10.2015 at about 09.30 AM, he
received information that the deceased died. Immediately, he
rushed to the house of the appellant and found the deceased
dead. According to PW1, he was informed by both the
children of the appellant that the appellant had beaten the
Page 3
deceased and strangulated her. On the said basis,
Ex.P1/report was field by PW1.
6. PW2 is the paternal aunt of the deceased. PW3 is the
younger sister of the deceased. PW4 is a relative of the
deceased. They all spoke about the differences between the
deceased and the appellant. Further, they also spoke about
the appellant harassing the deceased and beating her severely
on several occasions, suspecting her character.
7. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs.5, 6, 7,
and 8, who are circumstantial witnesses, who spoke about
the presence of the appellant in the house and beating the
deceased in their 161 Cr.P.C. statement to police. However,
PWs.5 to 8 turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW9 is the
scene of offence panch, who turned hostile. PW10 is the
inquest panch and stated that, during the inquest, it was
informed that the appellant had beaten the deceased with a
stick, resulting in her death. The said beating was on
account of the suspicion that the appellant entertained about
the character of the deceased.
Page 4
8. PW11 is an elder person in the locality. PW11 also
narrated the differences between the deceased and the
appellant, and that the appellant was continuously harassing
the deceased. PW12 is the confession and seizure panch, and
stated about the recovery of MO1/stick at the instance of the
appellant. PW13 is the scene of offence panch, and he turned
hostile. PW14/doctor found the following injuries on the body
of the deceased :
1) Fracture of the right limb at hip region.
2) Fracture of the Hyoid bone.
3) Finger marks seen around the neck.
4) Abrasion on the left foot with a measurement of 2x1cms.
5) Abrasion on the right cheek with a measurement of 3x1
cms.
6) Abrasion of the left side of the chest with a
measurement of 1x1 cms.
Evidence of PW14 further shows that, upon internal
examination, he found a facture of Hyoid bone on the right
side of the neck. According to PW14, the death was on
account of multiple injuries on the body and asphyxial
death on account of manual strangulation.
Page 5
9. PW15 is the Investigating Officer, and he speaks about
conducting the investigation right from receiving the
complaint to the arrest of the appellant.
10. The conviction recorded by the learned Sessions
Judge is only on the basis of circumstantial evidence of
PWs.1 to 4, who spoke about the harassment of the
deceased by the appellant, suspecting her character.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that though PWs.1 to 4 have stated about the
alleged harassment, however, there are no witnesses to
substantiate the alleged incident of the appellant beating
the deceased. Though the children of the appellant were
examined during the investigation, they were not examined
during the trial. There is no last seen evidence, and in the
absence of any proof that the appellant was in the house on
the date of the incident, convicting the appellant for
causing injuries to the deceased does not arise.
12. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,
submits that since the appellant is the husband, it is for
him to explain under what circumstances the deceased
Page 6
died. In the absence of any such explanation, the only
conclusion that can be drawn is that the deceased died
due to the harassment meted out by the
appellant/husband, the deceased died.
13. PWs.1 to 4 and 11 have spoken about the
differences between the deceased and the appellant. They
have consistently stated that the appellant treated the
deceased cruelly by beating her, suspecting that she was
living an adulterous life. However, the prosecution has not
produced a single witness to substantiate that the appellant
was in the house when the death took place.
14. To invoke Section 106 of Evidence Act and shift
the burden onto the appellant, the initial burden rests on
the prosecution to lay the foundation to draw such a
presumption. It is for the prosecution to prove that the
appellant was present in the house when the incident took
place. In the absence of any such evidence, the question of
shifting the burden to the accused with the aid of Section
106 of Evidence Act does not arise.
Page 7
15. Though the prosecution failed to prove the offence
of murder, however, there is consistent evidence regarding
the harassment meted out by the appellant to the deceased.
Accordingly, the conviction under Section 302 of IPC is set
aside, while maintaining the conviction under Section 498-
A of IPC.
16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed setting
aside the conviction imposed against the appellant for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, while
maintaining the conviction against him for the offence
punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
____________________
EV VENUGOPAL, J
Date :08.04.2025
Abb.
