Telangana High Court
Soma Mallesham, Jagtiyal Dt., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 9 January, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.715 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated
05.06.2017 in S.C.No.140 of 2016, on the file of the II
Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial convicting
the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 304-B
of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused
and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant
murdered deceased Mamatha/wife of appellant for additional
dowry, which was within 7 years of deceased marriage with
appellant. On 29.04.2015 at 12:15 hours, one Gurram
Chinna Shankaraiah/P.W.1 lodged complaint with Gollapalli
Police stating that he is a resident of Govindupalli village and
had two daughters namely Mamatha and Manjula. In the
year, 2010, his elder daughter's marriage was solemnized
with the appellant and at the time of marriage, he gave
Rs.7,50,000/- as dowry. For four years, his daughter lived
happily and was also blessed with one son and one daughter.
For the last two years, the appellant started harassing his
daughter demanding for additional dowry. For the said
reason, P.W.1 brought his daughter to his house six months
prior to her death. He further stated that one month prior to
her death, his daughter started visiting Jagitial for the
purpose of training in stitching. Due to continuous
harassment of appellant for additional dowry, his daughter
lodged a complaint with Dharmapuri Police Station on
28.04.2015. Keeping the same in mind, the accused
attacked his daughter while she along with his 2nd
wife/Gurram Laxmi/P.W.9 were at Govindupalli bus stop.
The appellant hacked his daughter at the bus stop using a
knife which was witnessed by his 2nd wife (P.W.9), who was at
a distance of 100 yards, Myaka Bhumaiah (P.W.4), Nallala
Sagar (P.W.5) and requested to initiate action.
4. The Inspector of Police/P.W.16 received the complaint
Ex,P.1 at 12:15 p.m. Immediately, the complaint was sent to
concerned Magistrate. Ex.P.20 is the FIR. The complaint
reached the concerned Magistrate at 7:30 p.m. on the same
day. Scene of offence panchnama was conducted by P.W.16
and also concluded inquest proceedings. The body was then
shifted to Government Hospital for autopsy. P.W.15
conducted autopsy and found the following injuries:-
1. A laceration on the left cheek measuring about
5cmx1cmx1cm.
2. A laceration on the left side of neck measuring
about 8cmx2cmx4cm.
3. A laceration on the left side of the neck measuring
6cmx3cmx3cm.
4. A laceration on the left side of the neck back portion
exposing cervical shine measuring about
8cmx7cmx5cm."
5. Learned Sessions Judge mainly relied on the evidence
of P.W.9 who is the 2nd wife of P.W.1 and step mother of the
deceased. P.W.9 narrated the disputes in between the
deceased and the appellant. P.W.9 further stated that on the
date of incident, she was waiting at Govindupalli bus stand
and the deceased was at a distance of 100 yards. The
appellant went there on a motor cycle and hacked the
deceased with butcher knife and fled. When the incident
happened P.Ws.4 and 5 were also present at the bus stand.
6. The complaint was lodged by P.W.1 at 12:15 p.m.
though the incident had taken place at 9:30 a.m. In the
complaint, P.W.1 stated that P.W.9 namely Gurram Laxmi
and his deceased daughter were at the bus stand to go for
attending stitching tuitions in Jagtial. P.W.9 did not speak
about taking stitching tuitions, however stated that she was
present at the bus stand 100 yards from the deceased.
7. Inquest was conducted at the bus stand by P.W.16. In
the inquest, the name of P.W.9 is not mentioned, however,
name of P.W.4 is shown as eye witness to the incident. The
inquest proceedings started at 2 p.m. and concluded at 4:30
p.m.
8. The complaint reached the Court at 7:30 p.m. From
the time of incident till complaint reached the Court, the time
gap is about 10 hours.
9. The name of P.W.9 was mentioned in the complaint,
however, the reason why she was not present during inquest
proceedings is not explained by the prosecution. If at all,
P.W.9 was present at the bus stand and informed P.W.1
about the incident, she would have been present during
inquest proceedings. However, name of mother of the
deceased namely Lachavva was mentioned in the inquest.
10. P.W.4/eye-witness was declared as hostile to the
prosecution case and also P.W.5. Both of them did not
support the prosecution version. P.W.5 stated that his
signatures were taken on some papers by the Police.
11. The only evidence left, is the evidence of P.W.9. As
already discussed, her name was not mentioned in the
inquest proceedings which took place around 2 p.m. On the
said day, complaint reached the Court at 7:30 p.m. It is clear
that after the inquest proceedings, the name of P.W.9 was
mentioned in the complaint. In the background of delay in
lodging the complaint and complaint reaching the Magistrate
at 7:30p.m., without any explanation for delay by the Police
and the presence of P.W.9 whose name was not mentioned in
the inquest proceedings, creates doubt about her presence at
the scene. No reason is given as to why P.W.9 was at a
distance of 100 yards from the deceased, when both of them
were going to attend the very same stitching tuitions. None
were examined to show that the deceased and P.W.9 were
attending tuitions. As already stated, P.W.9 did not state
about her attending any tuitions.
12. Once the evidence of P.W.9 is eschewed from
consideration, there is no other evidence apart from the
alleged seizure of M.Os.6 to 11. For the reasons best known
to the prosecution, neither M.O.6/knife nor M.Os.9 to 14,
wearing apparel of the accused were sent to FSL for
examination.
13. For the reason of presence of P.W.9 being doubtful and
there being no other evidence apart from the evidence of
P.W.9, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
_______________
K. SARATH, J
Date: 09.01.2025
dv
