Telangana High Court
Arka Srinivas vs The State Of Telangana on 18 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.442 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
This Criminal Appeal is filed aggrieved by the
judgment dated 19.09.2017 in S.C.No.276 of 2013 on the
file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge at
Asifabad, convicting the appellant/accused for the offence
under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short,
'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment
and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
2. Heard Mr. Srinivasa Srikanth, learned Legal Aid
Counsel for the appellant/accused, and Mr. Arun Kumar
Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
3. The deceased is Kova Prameela. The appellant/
accused belongs to the same caste as of Prameela, and
related to her. The appellant demanded that he would
marry the deceased and forcibly took the deceased to his
KS, J & JAK, J
Crl.A.No.442_2018
house and confined her for a period of two months.
Thereafter, the deceased came back to her parents' house.
However, the appellant/accused did not change his
attitude and continued to harass the deceased.
A panchayat was held and in the said panchayat, the
appellant was admonished and asked to wait for one more
year to perform his marriage with the deceased, since the
deceased was aged only 15 years.
4. The incident happened on 08.11.2012. The deceased
went to the nearby village along with PWs.2 and 3 to
attend 'Dandora Devara' programme. While returning
from the programme at about 8:00 P.M., the appellant
followed them and stabbed the deceased in her stomach.
The deceased fell down. Out of fear, PWs.2 and 3 went to
PW.1's house. PW.1 is the mother of the deceased. PWs.2
and 3 informed PW.1 and other villagers about the
incident. Thereafter, all of them went to the scene of
offence and found the dead body of Prameela. The next
day morning, Mr. Sonerao, father of the deceased, went to
the police station and lodged a Telugu written complaint.
However, Mr. Sonerao was not examined, during trial.
KS, J & JAK, J
Crl.A.No.442_2018
5. In the complaint, it was narrated that the
appellant/accused was following the deceased and took
the deceased to his house. A panchayat was held before
the elders and in the said Panchayat, the appellant was
asked to wait for one year to perform his marriage with the
deceased. On the date of incident, the deceased went
along with PWs.2 and 3 to attend 'Dandora Devara'
programme and while returning, the appellant stabbed the
deceased in her stomach. The incident took place between
the hamlets of Punaguda and Burdagudem. After
receiving the complaint at 9:00 A.M., on 09.11.2012, the
Investigating Officer - PW.11 went to the scene of offence,
where the scene of offence panchanama was prepared and
inquest proceedings were also concluded. The body was
sent for postmortem examination. PW.10-Doctor, who
conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of
the deceased, found the following injuries.
1. A stab injury on the right iliac fossa at MC
burney's point level (right lower abdomen)
measuring cm 2x1 depth of peritoneal cavity,
edges are clean cut, wedge shaped injury.
KS, J & JAK, J
Crl.A.No.442_2018
2. A stab injury on left groin region measuring
1x0.5x1.5 cm.
On internal examination, I found the following
internal injuries.
1. A laceration on large intestine measuring 4 cm.,
length.
2. A laceration present on inferior surface of right
lobe of liver measuring 2.5x1x0.5 cm.
I found blood of 1.5 to 2 liters in the peritoneal
cavity.
6. PW.10-Doctor opined that all the internal and
external injuries are ante mortem in nature and caused by
sharp edged weapon, such as MO.6.
7. Learned Sessions Judge examined PWs.1 to 11 and
marked Exs.P1 to P19 on behalf of the prosecution,
besides marking MOs.1 to 7. The appellant did not
examine any witness. However, Exs.D1 to D4, which are
part of Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs.1,
2, and 3, were marked during cross examination of the
witnesses.
KS, J & JAK, J
Crl.A.No.442_2018
8. Learned Sessions Judge found favour with the
version of eye witness account of PWs.2 and 3. Further,
learned Sessions Judge found that the hostility of the
witnesses to the seizure of MO.6 is of no consequence in
the background of reliable testimony of PW.4, who is an
independent witness and speaks about the panchayat
regarding the issue of appellant and deceased.
9. Learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant/accused would submit that there is a delay in
lodging the complaint. Though the incident happened on
08.11.2012 in the evening, the complaint was lodged on
the next day morning at 8:00 A.M., which goes to show
that after due deliberations, the complaint was filed
against the appellant only for the reason of his proposal to
marry the deceased. The proposal of appellant was
refused, and kept on hold, for a period of one year, since
the deceased was aged 15 years at the time of incident.
Exs.D1 to D4, which are contradictions in the evidence of
PWs.1, 2, and 3, would go to show that PWs.2 and 3 were
not the witnesses to the incident. Ex.D1 is the
contradiction marked during the evidence of PW.1,
KS, J & JAK, J
Crl.A.No.442_2018
wherein PW.1 stated about the deceased was struggling for
her life by the time they went to the scene, and on the
other hand, PW.1 during evidence stated that the deceased
was found dead, when they reached the scene. The
statement is contradictory with the statement of Ex.D1.
Exs.D2 and D3 are the statements made by PW.2 before
the Magistrate. In the statement made to the police, it is
mentioned that the deceased was stabbed between
Chikkiliguda and Rajaguda. However, under Ex.D3,
statement made before the Magistrate, PW.2 stated that it
was near Chikkiliguda. Ex.D4 is the part of statement
made before the Magistrate by PW.3. According to Ex.D4,
PW.3 stated that the appellant stabbed Prameela and
thereafter, both PWs.2 and 3 went back to Prameela, after
informing PW.1.
10. Learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant/accused
relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Vinobhai v. State of Kerala 1. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court dealt with the issue of omissions that were admitted
by the eye witnesses therein, who are PWs.4 and 5. Since
2025 LawSuit (SC) 149
KS, J & JAK, J
Crl.A.No.442_2018
the omissions were material omissions, amounting to
contradictions, benefit of doubt was extended to the
accused therein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further
observed that the case was not proved beyond all
reasonable doubt by the prosecution and accordingly,
allowed the appeal.
11. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor would submit that the names of PWs.2 and 3
were mentioned in the complaint, which was at the earliest
point of time. The incident happened near the hamlets.
PWs.2 and 3, having witnessed the stabbing, went to the
house of PW.1 and again came back to the scene. Since
it was late in the night and no transportation was
available, the complaint was lodged on the next day.
12. Learned Legal Aid Counsel mainly stressed on the
delay in lodging the complaint-Ex.P1. In the complaint,
it is mentioned that the village/scene of offence is at a
distance of 20 kms., from Thiryani police station. There
was no conveyance in the night to go to the police station.
The said explanation given at the earlier point of time
appears to be probable. Admittedly, the incident happened
KS, J & JAK, J
Crl.A.No.442_2018
in the Forest area in between two hamlets and in the
night. The incident was informed to the relations of
deceased and villagers by PWs.2 and 3 and thereafter,
the villagers went to the scene. Immediately, on the next
day morning, father of the deceased went to the police
station and lodged Ex.P1 - complaint. The delay in lodging
the complaint cannot be treated as fatal in the background
of the present facts and circumstances of the case. The
delay is of no consequence, since it was explained
convincingly by the prosecution.
13. According to PWs.2 and 3, eye witnesses, they along
with the deceased went to attend 'Dandora Devara'
programme in Punagudem Village. After sometime, while
they were returning and reached Chikkiliguda, the
appellant/accused went there and stabbed the deceased in
her stomach. Similar is the evidence of PW.4. During the
course of cross examination, certain discrepancies, as to
the timing of the 'Dandora Devara' programme and the
exact location where the stabbing happed, crept in. The
discrepancies are of no consequence, since the incident
happened in the night time and having seen the appellant
KS, J & JAK, J
Crl.A.No.442_2018
stabbing the deceased, both PWs.2 and 3 went to their
Village and informed PW.1 and others about the incident.
The contradictions, which were elicited as Exs.D1 to D4,
also do not have any impact on the version of the
prosecution. Minor discrepancies in such cases are likely
to happen. Unless the discrepancies or contradictions go
to the root of the case, to disbelieve the evidence of
witnesses, such discrepancies, which are minor in nature,
cannot form basis to reject the case of the prosecution.
Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings
recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this
Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
____________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date:18.02.2025
KH
