Anthati Arjunaiah, Nagarkurnool Dt., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp.,
2025 Latest Caselaw 2271 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 2271 Tel
Judgement Date : 18 February, 2025

Telangana High Court

Anthati Arjunaiah, Nagarkurnool Dt., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 18 February, 2025

                                    1




      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                      AND
     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1010 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

1. The Appeal is filed by the appellant/A-1 aggrieved by the

judgment dated 18.08.2017, in S.C.No.513 of 2014, on the file

of IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Nagarkurnool.

The appellant was tried along with A-2 for the offence under

Section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/A-1 and Sri

Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

respondent-State.

3. The allegation against the appellant was that both

appellant/A-1 and A-2 administered poison to the deceased.

The deceased is the husband of A-2. P.W.1 is the daughter of A-

2 and the deceased. She lodged a complaint on 28.08.2013, at

9 a.m., with Tadoor Police of Mahbubnagar District. In the

telugu written complaint, P.W.1 narrated that A-2 is her

mother. A-2 was having relation with A-1. Her deceased father

admonished A-2 regarding relation in between A-1 and A-2. On

27.08.2013, A-1 went to the house of deceased and took him to

his house. There, it is alleged that appellant mixed insecticide

poison in whisky bottle. Prior to consuming whisky, they have

consumed toddy. The villagers informed P.W.1 about dead

body of the deceased lying in the open place of one Anthati

Kashanna (not examined). On the basis of the complaint, the

Investigating Officer registered the complaint and went to the

scene of offence. Ex.P.7/scene of offence panchnama was

conducted and inquest proceedings were concluded. The dead

body was then shifted to hospital for autopsy. P.W.7, who

conducted autopsy, opined that death was due to organo

phosphate poison.

4. The appellant and A-2 were arrested on 03.09.2013 and

having recorded their confession statement, they were produced

before the concerned Magistrate Court and sent for judicial

remand. P.W.8 after concluding the investigation, filed charge

sheet for the offence under Section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC.

5. Learned Sessions Judge having framed charge under

Section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC found that, no evidence was placed

by the prosecution to show that A-2 was present in the house of

A-1/appellant, when appellant took the deceased from the

house. Further, nothing is placed by the prosecution to suggest

that A-2, in collusion with A-1, had pre-planned and then

committed murder of the deceased by administering poison.

For the said reason, learned Sessions Judge acquitted A-2.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit

that entire evidence on record against the appellant and A-2 is

the same. Once the trial Court had found A-2 not guilty, the

question of isolating the appellant herein and finding him guilty

is incorrect. Further, post mortem report does not corroborate

with the version of the prosecution that the deceased consumed

toddy initially, then poison was mixed with whisky. No

witnesses were examined by the prosecution to show that

insecticide was purchased by A-1.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute the fact that

there are no eye witnesses to the incident. However, he argued

that the circumstances clearly indicate that the appellant had

motive to commit murder of the deceased, for the reason of

appellant having illicit intimacy with A-2.

8. The prosecution relied on two witnesses, P.Ws.3 and 5,

who were examined before the Court below. However, both the

witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution case. Another eye

witness, Anthati Tirupataiah, though shown in the list of

witnesses as L.W.2, the witness was given up by the

prosecution.

9. Other than P.Ws.3, 5, and L.W.2, there are no eye

witnesses, who had seen the deceased either entering into the

house of the appellant, or anywhere near the premises.

According to P.W.1, the deceased was taken by the appellant

around 7 p.m, previous day. The dead body was found in front

of the house of Anthati Tirupataiah (L.W.2), in the land of

Anthati Kashanna. The said Anthati Kashanna, was also not

examined by the prosecution.

10. In the post mortem examination, there are no signs of any

forcible administering of poison. Assuming that the deceased

had consumed toddy and whisky, the same would be reflected

in FSL examination. It is not the case of the prosecution that

any alcohol was found in the blood of the deceased. Neither

any smell of alcohol was detected at the time of post mortem

examination, nor the post mortem Doctor/P.W.8 stated

anything about the presence of alcohol.

11. The case is one of circumstantial evidence. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of

Maharashtra 1, laid principles as to the acceptance of

circumstantial evidence and the basis to record conviction,

which read as under:-

(1984) 4 SCC 116

"1. the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established;

2. the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explained on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

3. the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;

4. they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and

5. there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused."

12. The only circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the

evidence of P.W.1 that the appellant accompanied the deceased.

The dead body was found near the house of appellant, however,

in front of the house of L.W.2, who was given up. The dead

body was found on the land of Anthati Kashanna, who was also

not examined. Other than the evidence of the appellant taking

the deceased at 7 p.m., it is not clear as to where the appellant

and the deceased went, or where they have consumed either

toddy or alcohol. The evidence of only P.W.1, that the appellant

had taken the deceased from his house, will not in any manner

suggest that it was the appellant who had caused death of the

deceased, when viewed in other circumstances, as discussed