Telangana High Court
Asiya Begum vs The State Of Ts., on 11 March, 2025
1
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No. 1205 OF 2018
Between:
Smt.Asiay Begum,
W/o. Chand Pasha
... Appellant/
Accused
And
The State of Telangana through
SHO, P.S.:Kodangal, rep., by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Judicature at Hyderabad.
... Respondent/
Complainant
DATE OF COMMON JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 11.03.2025
Submitted for approval.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
_____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
2
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
+ CRL.A. Nos. 1205 OF 2018
% Dated 11.03.2025
# Smt.Asiay Begum,
W/o. Chand Pasha
... Appellant/
Accused
And
$ The State of Telangana through
SHO, P.S.:Kodangal, rep., by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Judicature at Hyderabad.
... Respondent/
Complainant
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri P.S.Bhramaramba Devi
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor for
State
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
(1984) 4 SCC 116
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1205 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. The Appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the
judgment dated 28.06.2017, in S.C.No.73 of 2016, on the file of
Principal Sessions Judge, at Mahboobnagar District. The
appellant was convicted for the offence of murder punishable
under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun
Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State.
3. P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased, went to the
Police Station and informed the Police about the death of his
son (deceased). The statement was recorded by ASI/P.W.15,
which was registered as FIR for the offence under Sections 302,
201, and 506 of IPC. In the statement, P.W.1 stated that the
appellant is the daughter of his first wife and the deceased was
the son of his 2nd wife. When he went home, he found the dead
body of the deceased in front of the house of one Raheem.
When P.W.1 questioned the appellant about the death, she
allegedly confessed that she killed the deceased.
4. P.W.15 handed over the investigation to P.W.14/Inspector
of Police. P.W.14 went to the scene and found the body of the
deceased, namely Sameer, in front of the house of Raheen (not
examined). In the presence of P.W.9 and P.W.10, scene of
offence panchnama was conducted. One gunny bag/M.O.1 was
also seized. A rough sketch was prepared. The statements of
P.Ws.1 to 4 were recorded. Then, the body of the deceased was
shifted to the Government hospital. Next day, the inquest
proceedings were conducted and thereafter, the dead body was
sent for postmortem examination.
5. The appellant was arrested on 01.09.2015, when P.W.13
(stranger to appellant) took her to the Police Station and
handed her over to P.W.14. After recording the statement of
P.W.13, before whom the appellant allegedly confessed to have
committed the murder of the deceased, P.W.14 arrested the
appellant.
6. Having examined the witnesses and collecting other
documents, P.W.14 filed a charge sheet. Learned Sessions
Judged framed charges under Sections 302, 201, and 506 of
IPC. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 15 were examined
and Exs.P.1 to P.19 were marked on behalf of the prosecution.
M.O.1 was also placed on record by the prosecution.
7. Learned Sessions Judge found that according to the
investigation, the offence occurred in the kitchen of the house
of P.W.1 and the accused was in the house when the incident
happened. Though, there is no direct evidence, however, on the
basis of circumstantial evidence, learned Sessions Judge found
that, it was the appellant who had committed the murder of the
deceased.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that none of the independent witnesses supported the case of
the prosecution. Even the complainant/P.W.1 was declared
hostile and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. The
prosecution relied on the evidence of P.W.13, before whom the
alleged confession was made by the appellant. According to the
prosecution, it was P.W.13, who had handed over the appellant
to the Police, however, P.W.13 did not identify the appellant. In
the absence of any admissible evidence pointing towards the
guilt of the appellant, an assumption cannot be made as basis
to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of
IPC.
9. On the other hand, the leaned Public Prosecutor submits
that since the appellant was in the house along with the child
at the time of incident, the burden is on her to prove under
what circumstances, the death occurred. In the absence of any
explanation by the appellant, the Sessions Court has rightly
convicted the appellant.
10. P.W.1 is the complainant/father of the appellant. He
stated that the appellant is his 1st wife's daughter and the
deceased-Sameer was the son of P.W.2, who is his 2nd wife.
P.W.2 turned hostile to the prosecution case. P.W.1 also did
not stick to his version which was stated in the complaint.
P.W.1 was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, and even
in his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the
appellant was with the deceased and that when P.W.1
questioned the appellant about how the deceased died, she
admitted to having killed him. The motive attributed to the
murder of the deceased is that the appellant was excluded from
the share in the property of P.W.1. P.W.1 had given Ac.3-00 of
land to 3 of his daughters.
11. P.Ws.3, 4, 5, and 6, who are the independent witnesses,
turned hostile to the prosecution case.
12. P.W.7 is the Sarpanch of the village. According to him,
there were disputes in the family of P.W.1 and P.W.6, who is the
sister of 1st wife of P.W.1, P.W.6 stated that she approached
P.W.1 and requested that he shall convey property to 3 of his
daughters from his first wife, and P.W.1 agreed to give his
property to 3 of his daughters from his first wife. Ex.P.8 is the
document that was executed and scribed by P.W.7. P.W.7
stated that he does not know about the children of P.W.1's 2nd
wife and did not make any mention about the appellant.
13. P.W.8 is the post-mortem examination Doctor. P.Ws.9,
10, 11, and 12 are the independent witnesses who turned
hostile to the prosecution case.
14. The case is one of circumstantial evidence. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra 1, laid down principles regarding the acceptance of
circumstantial evidence and the basis for recording a
conviction, which read as under:-
"1. the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be
fully established. The circumstances
concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be'
established;
(1984) 4 SCC 116
2. the facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of
the accused, that is to say, they should not
be explained on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty;
3. the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency;
4. they should exclude every possible
hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. there must be a chain of evidence so
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground
for the conclusion consistent with the innocence
of the accused and must show that in all human
probability, the act must have been done by the
accused."
15. The prosecution heavily relied on the evidence of P.W.7 to
show that the property of P.W.1 was partitioned between 3 of
his daughters from his 1st wife, who are unmarried, and his
elder daughter/the appellant, who was married was not given
any property. Since the appellant was not given any property,
aggrieved by the said discrimination, the appellant allegedly
committed the murder of her step brother, who is the son of
P.W.2/2nd wife. The other circumstance relied on by the
prosecution is the alleged confession of the appellant to P.W.13.
16. P.W.7 did not speak about anything or any kind of
objection raised by the appellant when Ex.P.8 was executed. In
fact, he had not even identified the appellant and pleaded
ignorance of the appellant being the daughter of P.W.1. P.W.13
is the witness who, according to the prosecution, had taken the
appellant to the Police Station and handed her over to the
Police.
17. P.W.13 stated that, on 02.09.2015 at about 7:30 a.m.,
while he was waiting at Kodangal chowrastha to go to
Chitlapally village, a muslim woman wearing a burka and
covering her face approached him and informed him that she
had killed her brother by throttling him and she wanted to
surrender before the Police. Immediately, P.W.13 took the
appellant to the Police Station and handed her over to the
Police. However, P.W.13 did not identify the appellant in the
Court.
18. The version of P.W.13 is doubtful and improbable. There
is no reason as to why the appellant would approach a
stranger, who was waiting at the bus stand, and confess to him
about the alleged murder and ask him to take her to the Police
Station. For an extrajudicial confession to be admissible under
Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution has to
prove the circumstance under which the accused confessed to a
person. Consequently, the circumstances would be that a
person who has committed an offence, out of fear or due to a
particular relationship with someone, may confess to that
person about the offence committed. There are absolutely no
reasons shown by the prosecution which compelled the
appellant to confess about her crime to a stranger. The said
evidence of P.W.13 cannot be taken into consideration to accept
his claim that appellant confessed to him and to consequently
convict the appellant.
19. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution should
form a complete chain to rule out any possibility of the
innocence of an accused. The circumstance relied up on by the
prosecution in the present case are not convincing and do not
form a chain to rule out the possibility of the innocence of the
appellant. In fact, the circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution, at most, create a suspicion against the appellant.
However, a suspicion cannot form the basis to convict the
appellant. Accordingly, the appellant is acquitted.
20. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Since the
appellant is on bail, her bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
_____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 11.03.2025
dv
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1205 OF 2018
Dt. 11.03.2025
dv
