Telangana High Court
Paligiri Vinoda vs State Of Telangana on 13 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.456 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed questioning the
conviction and sentence imposed against the
appellant/accused No.1 vide Judgment, dated 18.01.2018
in Sessions Case No.458 of 2016 by the learned VI
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Godavarikhani,
wherein the appellant/accused No.1 was convicted and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short, "I.P.C.") and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in
default to suffer simple imprisonment for one (01) month.
2. Heard Ms.Y.Ratna Prabha, learned counsel for the
appellant/accused No.1 and learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant-State.
3. Appellant and her son-accused No.2 were tried for
murdering the husband of appellant/accused No.1.
2 KS,J and JAK,J
Learned Sessions Judge found that accused No.2 was not
responsible and accordingly, acquitted him.
4. PW1 is the daughter of the appellant. She went to
police station on 27.04.2016, and lodged a telugu written
complaint at 7.15 P.M. In the complaint, she narrated
that she is the daughter of the deceased and
appellant/accused No.1 is her mother. In the evening
around 5.30 P.M., she came to know that her father died
and for the past few years the relation between her
mother/appellant and father/deceased was not proper
and they used to fight for the property. Appellant was
staying away from the deceased since two (2) years. PW1
further narrated that her maternal uncle Devulapalli
Venugopal (not examined), informed her about the
appellant and accused No.2 killing the deceased.
5. PW1 came to know about the death of her father
and went to her maternal uncle Devulapalli Venugopal.
Venugopal was enlisted as witness in the charge sheet,
however, he was not examined during the trial. PWs.2 to
7 have all turned hostile to the prosecution case.
3 KS,J and JAK,J
6. PW9 registered FIR on the basis of complaint given
by PW1. PW10 is the investigation officer who went to
scene of offence and conducted panchanama and
thereafter, inquest proceedings were held. The body was
sent for post-mortem examination. PW8 is the doctor, who
conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body
of the deceased and stated that cause of death of the
deceased was due to asphyxia, due to strangulation.
7. Apart from the evidence of PW1, who lodged
complaint on the basis of information given by Devulapalli
Venugopal, who was not examined, there is absolutely no
evidence to remotely connect the appellant with the death
of the deceased. As seen from the photographs, the dead
body was found tied to a pole on the road. There is no
last seen evidence. None of the witnesses stated that the
appellant went near the house of the deceased.
Admittedly, the deceased and the appellant were staying
separately since two years according to PW1. There is
absolutely no evidence whatsoever to find the
appellant/accused No.1 guilty of the offence alleged
4 KS,J and JAK,J
against her. The conviction and sentence recorded by the
learned Sessions Judge are set aside.
8. Criminal Appeal is allowed. The appellant/accused
shall be released forthwith, if she is not required in any
other case. Her bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE K.SURENDER
__________________________________
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
Date: 13.02.2025
EDS
5 KS,J and JAK,J
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.456 of 2018
Date: 13.02.2025
EDS
