Telangana High Court

The State Of Telangana Rep By Pp., vs Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Hyderabad., on 29 April, 2025

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                     AND
 THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.388 OF 2017

JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti)

This criminal appeal is preferred by the State,

challenging the judgment dated 21.10.2016 in S.C.No.99

of 2016 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad, acquitting the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

(for short, 'IPC').

2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

appellant-State and learned counsel for respondent/

accused.

3. The case of the prosecution is that PW.1, sister of

the deceased, lodged an English written complaint on

08.07.2015 at 14:00 hrs, stating that her younger sister

(deceased-Saritha Sharma) informed her a few days

earlier that her husband (accused-Rajesh Kumar Sharma

@ Rajesh Sharma) was suspecting her character and KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.388_2017

harassing her mentally and physically and requested to

settle the issue. That on 08.07.2015, at 12:30 p.m., when

she along with her daughter was entering the deceased's

flat, her brother-in-law (accused) hurriedly ran away,

pushing her aside without replying. It is further stated in

the complaint that she saw the deceased lying on the bed

in a pool of blood, with injuries on her head and blood

oozing from her head. A small iron rod was found on the

bed, blood was scattered on the walls and found her sister

dead. When she raised hue and cries, the inmates, Sonia

Sharma w/o. Rakesh Sharma (co-sister of deceased) came

out of her room and Kamal Nayan Sharma, father-in-law

came from down. She intimated her husband and other

relatives and they came to Police Station, Mangalhat, and

lodged complaint stating that her brother-in-law (Rajesh

Sharma) brutally murdered her sister with an iron rod by

beating her on her head.

4. Crime No.150 of 2015 was registered under Section

302 of IPC. PW.10 took up investigation, recorded

statement of PW.1, rushed to the scene of offence and

found the body lying in the pool of blood. PW.10 secured KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.388_2017

two panchas PW.6 and Susheel Kumar, conducted the

scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama in their

presence. They also drafted a rough sketch of scene of

offence and took photographs. PW.10 examined and

recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 6, conducted inquest

panchanama and shifted the body to Osmania General

Hospital. PW.7 conducted autopsy on 09.07.2015. PW.10

collected MOs.1 to 4 from the scene of offence and MOs.5

to 8 at the hospital, after autopsy.

5. On receiving information about the accused, a

special team rushed to Secunderabad Railway Station and

apprehended the accused at 13:40 hrs on 09.07.2015 and

produced him before PW.10. On interrogation, accused

admitted his guilt. Confession statement was recorded in

the presence of two panchas and seized his clothes i.e.,

MOs.9 and 10. Accused was produced before the Court on

10.07.2015 with remand report and was sent to judicial

remand. Material Objects seized were sent to FSL.

Statement of PW.5 was recorded under Section 164

Cr.P.C. before XVII Addl. C.M.M., Hyderabad. After KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.388_2017

completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against

the accused.

6. According to the investigating officer, the accused

harassed his wife physically and mentally in front of his

children and that he was suspecting her character. On

08.07.2015, accused picked up an altercation, abused her

in filthy language and insulted her as characterless. When

his wife raised objection and warned him not to abuse,

the accused went into kitchen, picked up an iron rod,

pushed her on bed and attacked with iron rod on her

head, breaking the skull, causing instantaneous death.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on

behalf of appellant-State submitted that PWs.1 and 4

were at the place of incident immediately and rejecting

their evidence, terming them as chance witnesses is

erroneous. That evidence of PW.5 was not considered and

was discarded without any reasons.

8. PW.1 and PW.4 are not eye witnesses to the offence.

They came to the house of deceased and found her dead.

PW.1 in her evidence states that when she raised hue and KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.388_2017

cries on seeing her sister in a pool of blood, Sonia Sharma

w/o. Rakesh Sharma, who was present in her bedroom

(adjacent bedroom, scene of offence panchnama along

with sketch Ex P.2), came. PW.1 in the complaint, Ex P.1,

stated that Sonia Sharma came out of her room, when

she raised hue and cries. Sonia Sharma is not examined.

The presence of accused could have been testified by

Sonia Sharma. PW.1 in her evidence stated that she

talked to her sister-in-law as to how the incident

occurred. No information is gathered from the inmates.

When there are other inmates present in the flat at the

time of offence, it is unsafe to conclude the guilt of the

accused, without the inmates being examined. Non-

examination of Sonia Sharma is fatal to the case of

prosecution.

9. PW.1 and PW.4 were not present at the time of

occurrence. If an offence is committed in a dwelling

house/flat, the inmates are natural witnesses. When a

witness is interested in the deceased, the evidence needs

to be weighed cautiously, more so, when they are not

direct witnesses. Testimony of PW.1 and PW.4 is not free KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.388_2017

from doubt. PW.10 admits that there are others residing

along with the accused, but did not record their

statements (the inmate Sonia Sharma is not examined).

Explanation for not recording is that they were not

present at that time. PW.10 admits that the building

consists of residential houses and commercial rooms,

however, he did not record the statements of the

occupants of the building. These lapses go to the root of

the case.

10. PW.5 in her cross-examination stated that Phone

Number 9603463209 was of her father. In Ex.D1, which

is a statement recorded by Police under Section 161 of

Cr.P.C, it was stated by PW.5 that her mother was using

the Phone Number 9603463209. Ex.D2 is also the

statement of PW.5, in which, she states that her father

was using Phone Number 9676910867. Statements filed

in the Court do not contain Exs.D1 and D2 part of the

said statements. This is contrary to what is stated by

PW.5 before the Court in her cross-examination that

Phone Number ending with 209 belongs to her father.

PW.10 in his cross-examination stated that he examined KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.388_2017

PW.5 twice, but only one statement is filed in the Court

and the second statement was not furnished to the

accused. Non furnishing of statement to the accused is hit

by concept of fair trial and suppression has an impact on

the outcome of the case. No call data records pertaining to

the mobile number of the deceased is placed on record.

These lapses are fatal to the case of prosecution.

11. PW.2 and PW.3 are residents of Yadagiri, Karnataka.

In the evidence, they stated that they came to Hyderabad

on 08.07.2015 and were informed by PW.1 that accused

suspected the character of the deceased and was

harassing her. They found the deceased lying with

bleeding injuries on the head and that accused killed her.

PW.3 in his cross-examination states that the deceased

did not have cell phone. This evidence is contrary to the

evidence on record.

12. PW.10 in his evidence states that he did not seal the

property seized from the scene of offence or from the

possession of the accused. He again says that he sealed

the property. These contradicting statements do not KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.388_2017

inspire confidence of this Court. PW.9 in his evidence

states that the Police Station is at a distance of 2 to 3 kms

from Nampally Criminal Courts and it was a working day.

Magistrate received the FIR at 10.45 p.m. on 08.07.2015,

though the complaint was received at 02.00 p.m. The

unexplained delay gives rise to any amount of doubt as to

the timing of the complaint.

13. PW.1 and PW.4 are not eye witnesses, inmates are

not examined, there is suppression of statements, delay in

dispatch of FIR, contradicting statements with regard to

the seizure of property, non-examination of the occupants

of the building and no call data record is obtained. These

lapses are fatal to the case of the prosecution.

14. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of

Delhi) and another 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held

that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the

appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court's

view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when

the evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is

(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.388_2017

that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of

innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate

court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the

trial court rendering acquittal.

15. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2 the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to several

Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the

powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of

acquittal, held at para 70, as follows:

"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:

1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.

A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons"

exist when:

i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong:

ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;

iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice";

iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;

(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.388_2017

v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;

vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic Ex.Pert, etc.

vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.

2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court.

If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction __the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."

16. Though blood group O+ was found on the bed and

clothes, however no test was conducted to link the said

blood with that of the accused. The said blood O+ being

found is of no consequence. Further, the delay in sending

the FIR to the Court and also the recording of statements

of PWs.1 and 4 make them unreliable and cannot be

termed as chance witnesses. It appears that the

witnesses PWs.1 and 4 were planted.

17. In the present case, on a cumulative reading and

appreciation of the entire evidence on record, we are of

the considered view that the trial Court had not fallen in

error in appreciation of evidence in accordance with law.