Telangana High Court
Kandukuri Srinivas vs State Of Telangana on 25 February, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA,
HYDERABAD
***
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.395 OF 2018
Between:
1. Kandukuri Srinivas, S/o Chandraiah
......Appellant/Accused No.1
Versus
The State of Telangana
.....Respondent/Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25.02.2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes/No
_____________________
K. SURENDER, J
_____________________
J. ANIL KUMAR, J
2
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL No.395 OF 2018
% 25.02.2025
1. Kandukuri Srinivas, S/o Chandraiah
......Appellant/Accused No.1
Versus
The State of Telangana
.....Respondent/Complainant
^Counsel for the appellant/
accused : Sri. P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy,
learned Senior Counsel
^Counsel for the respondent/
complainant : Dodla Arun Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
for State
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred: NIL
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.395 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. This appeal is filed by appellant/accused No.1,
aggrieved by the judgment, dated 05.01.2018 in S.C.No.275
of 2015, passed by the learned VI Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Siddipet, convicting the appellant/accused
No.1 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced
to undergo life imprisonment. The appellant was tried along
with his family members A2 to A4, who were acquitted by the
trial court.
2. Heard Mr. P.Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned counsel
for the appellant and Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
respondent-State.
3. PW1 is the brother of deceased. According to him, the
deceased was married to accused No.1 and PW2 is their son.
According to PW1, he received information on 17.05.2015, at
09.30 A.M., from Chandlapur Village, that deceased was lying
on the floor in the house. Again one of the villagers called him
and informed that his sister, i.e., the deceased died. Then,
PW1 and his brother went to the house of deceased, where
they found the deceased lying dead in the room. PW1 then
went to the Police Station and lodged Ex.P1 complaint. In the
complaint, PW1 narrated about marriage between the
appellant and the deceased, and thereafter, appellant
harassing the deceased for dowry. He further narrated that
on 17.05.2015, at 09.30 A.M., he received information from
the villagers about the deceased being found dead in the
house. Further, the villagers informed PW1 that the deceased
questioned the appellant about his absence on the previous
night and a quarrel ensued. During the said quarrel,
appellant strangulated the deceased with a belt.
4. PW15 registered the complaint and issued FIR.
Immediately, investigation was handed over to PW16. PW16
went to the scene of offence on 17.05.2015, i.e., on the same
day and examined the witnesses, i.e., PWs.2 to 7 and 11. The
scene of offence panchanama was conducted and body was
shifted for the purpose of autopsy, after conclusion of the
inquest proceedings. On 19.05.2015, appellant was
apprehended and pursuant to his confession, MO1/belt was
seized. The other acquitted accused were also arrested during
the course of investigation by the Investigating Officer.
5. The entire case rests on the evidence of PW2, who is the
son of the deceased and appellant. His evidence was recorded
on 06.02.2017, and at that time, PW2 was aged 8 years. The
incident happened on 17.05.2015, and the statement of PW2
was recorded on 06.02.2017, i.e., nearly 1 year 9 months
after the incident. PW2 was about 6 years old, when the
incident had happened.
6. PW2 stated that he belongs to Chandlapur Village and
that his father killed his mother, and he saw it. According to
PW2, his father took his school belt, placed it around his
mother's neck and pulled it, resulting in her death. Even
though PW2 requested the deceased not to kill his mother,
the appellant strangulated the deceased.
7. During the course of cross-examination of PW2, he
could not give his date of birth and when his birthday was
celebrated. He was accompanied by PW1 to the Court and he
has also stated that he does not know what the place is.
Further, he stated that he did not have friends in Chandlapur
Village. PW2 admitted that villagers informed that his father
killed his mother. PWs.3, 4, and 11 were all eye witnesses to
the incident, but all of them turned hostile during their
evidence before the Court and denied any knowledge about
the appellant's involvement in the death of the deceased.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
once the eye witnesses/PWs.3, 4, and 11 have turned hostile,
and there is no other evidence, apart from the evidence of
child witness, who was not even mentioned in the FIR, the
probability of PW2 being tutored cannot be ruled out,
especially since he was brought to Court by PW1. Further,
learned counsel argued that injuries that were found and
recorded in the inquest panchanama were not found in the
post mortem examination. The said difference in the injuries
also goes to show that the inquest report was subsequently
fabricated.
9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor would submit that there is no reason why the son
of appellant would speak false against his own father.
10. PW2's evidence is extracted:
"Chief Examination:
I belong to Chandulapur village. My mother's name is
Vinodha, My father's name is Srinivas. My mother was a
beedi roller. My mother is not there. My daddy killed my
mother. I saw it. My father took my school belt and put it to
the neck of my mother and pulled the belt and killed my
mother. My mother died. I told 'no no'. But still my father
killed my mother. All came. I can identify the belt. MO1 is
the belt (Witness is shown the belt seized in this case and
witness Identified it). Police examined me and recorded my
statement.
Cross Examination by counsel for accused:
I celebrate my birth day.
1. When do you celebrate birth day?
Ans: Witness could not give the date.
Today I came to court with Brahmam uncle (PWI). I do not
know what is this place. I do not have friends in
Chandulapur village. I did not study at Siddipet. No body
told me to give evidence in the court. I know it. Police did
not examine me after my mother died. I do not know who is
sitting there (witness was shown the presiding officer).
Villagers told me that my father killed my mother. It is not
true to suggest that I am deposing false at the instance of
PW1 that I saw the incident."
11. The presence of PW2, when the incident occurred, has
to be gathered from the evidence produced by the prosecution
and also his statement in Court. In the complaint/ Ex.P1,
PW1 narrated that it was the villagers, who had informed him
about killing of the deceased by the appellant. All the villagers
have turned hostile to the prosecution case. In the complaint,
PW1 did not state about the presence of PW2 in the house
when the incident had taken place, or when he went and saw
the dead body of the deceased. As already stated, complaint
is silent with regard to the presence of PW2 at the scene.
PW15, who is the Investigating Officer, stated that PW1 did
not mention the presence of PW2 in the complaint.
12. Even in his chief-examination before the Court, PW1
did not speak about the presence of PW2, when the incident
had taken place, and also when he had visited the house,
where the dead body was lying. PW1 is totally silent about
PW2. PW2 was aged around 6 years when the incident has
taken place. None of the witnesses stated about PW2 staying
along with deceased. On the date of evidence, PW1 had taken
PW2 to the Court. During the course of cross-examination,
PW2 stated that he does not have friends in the village and
does not remember his date of birth and also stated that
villagers have informed about the murder. The said admission
in the cross-examination, corroborates with the version of
PW2 that villagers informed PW1 about the death of the
deceased.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zafar v. State of U.P. 1,
held that the testimony of a child witness has to be accepted
with caution and in the circumstances of a particular case. In
Pradeep v. State of Haryana 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that a child witness is easily susceptible to tutoring and
it is unsafe to record conviction, solely on the basis of
evidence of a child witness.
AIR 2003 SC 931
2023 SCC OnLine SC 777
14. The child witness's evidence has to be treated and
accepted with caution. The boy was aged around 6 years,
when the incident had taken place, and as already discussed,
nowhere the prosecution has come with any evidence to show
that PW2 was living with his mother or was present when the
incident had taken place. The possibility of tutoring cannot
be ruled out, when the chief-examination and the cross-
examination of PW2 are looked into. At the age of 8 years, the
child may not be intelligent to face the cross-examination and
have knowledge as to what has to be stated in the Court of
law. The answers given by PW2 in his cross-examination are
not convincing to accept his solitary testimony, to convict the
appellant. There is absolutely no corroboration to the
evidence of PW2. There is no clear narration by PW2, as to
where he was present, at what time the incident happened,
and the details of persons who were present or came there
when the incident happened. All the circumstances
collectively give rise to doubt regarding the presence of PW2,
coupled with PW1 not mentioning about the presence of PW2,
in the complaint or in his statement to the Police.
Accordingly, once the evidence of PW2 is kept aside from
consideration, there is no other evidence to connect the
appellant with crime.
15. In view of the above discussion, this Criminal Appeal is
allowed and the sentence and conviction imposed against
the appellant in the judgment, dated 05.01.2018 in
S.C.No.275 of 2015 is hereby set aside. Since the appellant
is in jail, he shall be released forthwith, if he is not
required in any other case.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
___________________
J. ANIL KUMAR, J
Date: 25.02.2025
plp
Note: Registry is directed to dispatch
the copy of order forthwith.
