Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Golla Mogulaiah, Mahabubnagar Dt And 3 ... vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp.,
2025 Latest Caselaw 1530 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1530 Tel
Judgement Date : 30 January, 2025

Telangana High Court

Golla Mogulaiah, Mahabubnagar Dt And 3 ... vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 30 January, 2025

                                1




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


             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.392 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

1. This appeal is filed by the appellants, aggrieved by the

judgment dated 31.03.2017 in Spl.S.C.No.64 of 2014, passed

by the Special Sessions Judge-cum-VII Additional District

and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar, convicting the

appellants/accused for the offence under Sections 450, 324,

302 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SCs/STs (POA) Act,

1989 and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment.

2. Heard Mr. M.Achutha Reddy, learned counsel for

appellants and Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent-State.

3. The appellants are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4.

During the pendency of appeal, accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 died.

Learned counsel argued on behalf of accused No.2 since

accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 died. The case stands abated against

accused Nos.1, 3 and 4. The present appeal is not pressed

against accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 and is heard in so far as

accused No.2 is concerned.

4. The case of the prosecution is that PW8, who is sister of

accused Nos.1 to 3 and daughter of accused No.4, was having

illicit intimacy with deceased. The deceased is the husband of

PW1. She lodged a complaint/Ex.P1 with the Police that her

deceased husband was having illicit intimacy with PW8. In

the midnight on 07.11.2013, deceased went to the house of

PW8 and she came to know that accused Nos.1 to 4 beat the

deceased with sticks and caused severe injuries. She went to

the house of PW8 and found her husband dead.

5. On the basis of complaint, which was lodged at 06.00

A.M. on 08.11.2013, the Inspector of Police PW13 took up the

investigation. He went to the house of PW8 and conducted

the scene of offence panchanama. There, one bamboo stick,

and blood stained earth, were collected. PW13 also concluded

the inquest proceedings. Thereafter, the body was sent for

post mortem examination.

6. On the basis of suspicion expressed by PW1, accused

Nos.1 to 4 were apprehended on 16.11.2013 i.e., 9 days after

the incident. At the instance of accused No.1, a pestle was

also seized, which is MO5.

7. During the course of trial, PW1, wife of deceased, PWs.

2, 3 and 4, who are residents of village, PW5 is the cousin of

the deceased, PWs.6 and 7 residents of village and also PW8

with whom the deceased had the illicit intimacy have all

turned hostile to the prosecution case. PWs.1 to 7 stated that

the dead body was found near the tank of the village. The

same is the version of PW8.

8. PW9, who is the VRO and acted as independent witness

to conduct scene of offence panchanama, spoke about the

scene, blood stained cloths of the deceased and their seizure

along with controlled earth at the scene. PW10 is the witness

to the alleged confession of accused Nos.1 to 4 and seizure of

MO5 pestle.

9. PW11 is the post mortem examination doctor who

stated that on account of head injury, there was respiratory

failure, resulting in death.

10. PW12 is the person who registered the crime on the

basis of complaint given by PW1. PW13 is the investigating

officer who stated about going to scene on receiving Ex.P1

and conducting scene of offence panchanama, inquest

proceedings and thereafter, sending the body for post mortem

examination. PW13 also stated regarding the arrest of

accused and recovery of MO5 at their instance. Other than

the recovery of MO5, there is absolutely no other evidence on

record. The post mortem doctor has not stated in his opinion

whether MO5 could have caused injuries that were found on

the dead body.

11. There is absolutely no evidence in the case to remotely

connect the appellant/accused No.2 with the crime.

12. Accordingly, criminal appeal is allowed in respect of

appellant/accused No.2, and the criminal appeal stands

abated against accused Nos.1, 3 and 4.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J

___________________ J. ANIL KUMAR, J Date: 30.01.2025 plp

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter