Telangana High Court
Bhoomireddy Narsireddy vs State Of Telengana on 27 February, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
and
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.575 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant was convicted for causing grievous head injuries
to his wife resulting in her death, and sentenced to undergo Life
Imprisonment vide judgment in S.C.No.377 of 2016, dated
12.02.2018, passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that a complaint was
filed on 20.06.2015, at 3.35 p.m, by P.W.1. P.W.1 is the colleague of
the appellant. He stated in the complaint that the appellant was
married to the deceased, namely Vijayalakshmi. They had two
children. At the time of incident, the daughter was 5 years old and
son was 3 years old. On 20.06.2015, P.W.1, appellant, and others
went to Kondapur for Swatch Bharath Programme. Around 10.30
a.m, the appellant informed his friends that his wife was frequently
quarrelling with him, and last night, he had beaten her. P.W.1, then
took phone number of the deceased and called her. The deceased
complained that the appellant was beating her unnecessarily. Again
around 1.40 p.m, on the same day, the appellant called P.W.1 and
informed that the deceased complained about the appellant to their
Commandant. P.W.1 and others went to the house of appellant and
found that the deceased was lying on the bed with bleeding injuries
on her body. The appellant was not found and immediately,
information was given to the unit Doctor/P.W.6. She examined her
and directed for the deceased to be taken to Apollo Hospital. After
they went to Apollo Hospital, deceased was declared as brought
dead. On the basis of the complaint given by P.W.1, crime was
registered by P.W.22. The investigation was handed over to P.W.23.
P.W.23 then went to the house of the appellant and prepared scene
of offence panchanama. The deceased's body was not in the house.
Having come to know about the deceased being shifted to Apollo
Hospital, P.W.23 went to the hospital and examined P.W.14/Doctor.
P.W.14 stated that the deceased was brought dead and gave
certificate to that effect. Thereafter, the deceased's body was shifted
to Osmania General Hospital mortuary. There, the inquest
panchanama was conducted. Thereafter, P.W.8 conducted autopsy
over the body of the deceased. According to P.W.8, the death was on
account of head injury.
3. P.W.1/complainant, P.W.2/daughter of the deceased, P.W.3, is
a colleague police constable of the appellant, P.Ws.4 and 5, the
wives of police constables working along with the appellant, have all
turned hostile to the prosecution case, and stated that they do not
know about the reason of the death of the deceased. All of them
have stated that both the appellant and the deceased were living
happily.
4. P.W.6 is the Doctor, who examined the deceased on
20.06.2015, at 11.00 a.m, when the deceased went to the hospital.
According to P.W.6, the deceased informed that she was beaten up
by her husband/appellant. P.W.6 gave injection and also some
tablets. P.W.6 further stated that during lunch hour, around 1.00
p.m to 2.00 p.m, one Sub-Inspector of Police called her and
informed that the deceased was lying on the bed with bleeding
injuries. P.W.6 went to the house of the appellant and could not feel
the pulse of the deceased. P.W.6 advised that the deceased had to
be shifted to Apollo Hospital. P.W.14, who is the Doctor at Apollo
Hospital, examined the deceased at 3.00 p.m on 20.06.2015.
According to P.W.14, she found injuries, which are, lacerated injury
over left perieto occipital region bone deep, contusions over left
zygomatic, lateral aspect of right upper arm, and lateral aspect left
arm, and bluish over left side of neck with mark resembling
strangulation mark. According to P.W.14, the patient was totally
unconscious and on examination, she was declared dead. Ex.P20-
'brought dead' certificate was given by P.W.14.
5. P.W.9 is the father of the deceased. He stated that he found a
head injury on the deceased, during inquest proceedings. According
to P.W.9, he came to know that the deceased died on account of
falling from steps. P.W.10 is the mother of the deceased. She stated
that she did not observe any injuries on the deceased's dead body.
However, P.W.10 stated that P.W.11/brother of the deceased,
informed that the deceased was beaten up by the appellant. P.W.11
stated that he found a head injury on the body of the deceased and
he came to know that she died on account of falling, while getting
down the steps.
6. P.Ws.12 and 13, scene of offence panchas, turned hostile to
the prosecution case. P.W.15 is the inquest panch. P.W.16 is the
Sub-Inspector of Police, who collected blood stains from the bed
room wall. P.W.17 is the inquest Tahsildar, who conducted
inquest, and examined witnesses including P.Ws.9 to 11. P.Ws.18,
19, 20, and 21 are the neighbors of the appellants. All of them have
turned hostile to the prosecution case and did not state anything
against the appellant. P.W.22 registered the FIR on the basis of the
complaint given by P.W.1. P.W.23 is the Investigating Officer.
7. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant mainly relying
on the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 14, the Doctors who stated about
examining the deceased with injuries. P.W.6 stated that it was the
deceased who informed her about being beaten by her husband.
Ex.P20 is the certificate issued by P.W.14. In Ex.P19/Medico Legal
Case Register, P.W.14 has given history of assault by the husband
of the deceased. P.W.14 found bruises and wounds on the body of
the deceased. According to P.W.14, the cause of death was head
injury.
8. According to P.W.14, the deceased was totally unconscious
when she was examined, and one neighbor, namely Rajeshwar, had
brought the deceased to the hospital and informed about the
appellant beating the deceased. However, the said neighbor
Rajeshwar, who is a Constable, was not examined. The evidence of
P.W.14, that the deceased was beaten by husband/appellant, is
hearsay. The history written in Ex.P19 cannot be taken into
consideration since information was not given by the deceased, but
by a Rajeshwar, Head Constable, who was not examined.
9. The only reliable evidence is that of P.W.6. According to her,
on 20.06.2015, at 11.00 a.m, the deceased came to their Unit
Hospital and informed her that she was beaten by her husband
with a stick. Other than the evidence of P.W.6, there is no
corroborating evidence to suggest that it was the appellant who had
caused injuries to the deceased. Only the evidence of P.W.6 cannot
form basis to infer that the appellant had inflicted fatal injuries on
the deceased. According to P.W.6, she did not give any certificate of
injuries, nor narrated about any injuries found on the body of the
deceased. In the absence of such description of injuries by P.W.6, it
cannot be assumed, on the basis of the evidence of P.W.14, and
P.W.6, that the injuries were inflicted by the appellant. In view of
the above discussion, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant.
10. The appellant succeeds in the present appeal and the
conviction recorded by the trial Court against the appellant in
S.C.No.377 of 2016 dated 12.02.2018, is hereby set aside. Since the
appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.
11. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed. Miscellaneous,
applications, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
__________________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date: 27.02.2025
kvs
