Telangana High Court
Banavath Venkateswara Naik vs State Of Telangana on 13 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.704 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
This Criminal Appeal is filed questioning the judgment in
S.C.No.221 of 2016 dated 29.12.2017 passed by the Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the accused/appellant was
charge-sheeted for the offence of murdering his wife (deceased) at
Kachiguda railway station. The incident happened on
01.06.2014. According to the prosecution case, the husband of
the deceased used to harass her and frequently quarrel with her.
On the date of the incident, the appellant, who served as a police
constable, was removed from service because of his involvement
in several criminal cases. He started suspecting the character of
the deceased and quarreled with her. Due to the frequent
quarrels, both the appellant and deceased started staying
separately. The deceased was staying in Anjani Women's Hostel
and was attending her duties as a bus conductor at Kachiguda
RTC Bus Depot. On 01.06.2014, it is alleged that the appellant
called the deceased on phone, and asked her to continue living
with him as his wife. Since the deceased refused, the appellant
carried a knife and waited in front of Anjani Women's Hostel
where the deceased was staying. At about 1:00 PM, while the
deceased came out of the hostel and was proceeding towards
Kachiguda RTC terminal on foot, the accused followed her. When
she reached the Government Junior College, Kachiguda, the
accused beat the deceased with his hands. People on the road
tried to pacify him; however, the appellant did not heed their
advice. When the deceased reached the Commuter Amenity
Center at 1:15 P.M., he took a knife and stabbed her
indiscriminately on her throat, chest, hands, and other parts of
her body. The deceased fell on the road, and she was shifted to
CC Shroff hospital for treatment. She died in the hospital. PW-
1/complainant, who is an eye-witness to the incident, lodged a
complaint with the police. The said complaint was registered as
FIR No.187 of 2014. The Investigating Officer went to the
hospital, and conducted the inquest. Thereafter, the postmortem
was done by PW-17/the doctor, who found 29 injuries on the
deceased's body. The cause of death is due to multiple stab
wounds and cut injuries to chest and upper limbs.
3. During the course of trial, PW-1, the complainant, turned
hostile to the prosecution case. He stated that he came to know
about the death of the deceased around 1:30 PM, and when he
went there, he saw the deceased lying on the road with injuries.
Further, he did not find the asylum. PWs-2, 3, and 4 are the
drivers, and all three of them also turned hostile to the
prosecution case. PW-5 is the traffic inspector in the Kachiguda
RTC depot. According to him, he came to know about the death
of the deceased. PW-1 informed him that the deceased was
stabbed by her husband. The evidence of PW-5 is of no help to
the prosecution since the information about the appellant
causing injuries to the deceased was stated to him by PW-1.
However, Pw-1 did not support the case of the prosecution.
Evidence of PW-5 is hearsay. PW-6 is the panch for the scene of
offence who turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW-7 is the
panch witness for the inquest panchanama conducted by the
police in the mortuary at Osmania General Hospital. PW-8 is the
independent witness who was asked by the police to act as a
panch for the seizure of the knife and blood-stained clothes of the
appellant. PW-8, who is the witness for the confession, turned
hostile to the prosecution case. PW-9 is the security guard at
Kachiguda bus stand, and he denied witnessing the incident.
4. PW-10 is the Scientific Officer in the Clues team, Hyderabad.
Having received instructions from PW-18-Investing Officer, PW-
10 went to the scene of offence and collected the bloodstains,
normal saline, and bloodstained broken bangle pieces from the
scene.
5. PW-11 is the relative of the deceased who turned hostile to
the prosecution case.
6. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PW-12.
According to PW-12, while he was ironing clothes, the appellant
and the deceased quarreled on the road, and he saw the
appellant beating her. PW-12 tried to intervene, but the appellant
asked him to stay away, stating that it was their personal matter.
Thereafter, the appellant took the deceased to the Kachiguda
railway station. One hour later, PW-12 came to know about the
murder of the deceased.
7. PW-12, during his course of examination, admitted that he
was a stranger to the appellant and the deceased. He further
admitted that he had seen the appellant for the first time on the
day of the incident. PW-12 also admitted that he did not state
before the police that he saw the deceased and the appellant
beating one another. Further, the police did not take any steps to
conduct a test identification parade since PW-12 was a stranger
to the appellant. His identification nearly 3½ years after the
incident cannot be accepted. It is not as though PW12 witnessed
the stabbing incident to remember the person who stabbed the
deceased. According to the witness, he saw the appellant beating
the deceased. However, the said version was an improvement
made during the course of trial. No reliance can be placed on the
evidence of PW-12.
8. PW-13 worked as a Manager at Kachiguda bus depot. He is
the witness who stated that the deceased had informed him that
the appellant was beating her, suspecting that she was having an
affair. However, the evidence of PW-13 is of no help to the
prosecution. Though the deceased had earlier informed PW-13
about the harassment, however, in the present facts, where all
the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, his version cannot
be treated as corroboration to the allegation of murder committed
by the appellant.
9. PW-15 is the witness to the seizure of the blood-stained T-
shirt and pants at the instance of the appellant. Though the
material objects were found at the scene and sent to the FSL,
along with the wearing apparel and the knife, the prosecution
failed to file any FSL report. No reasons are given as to why the
Investigating Officer failed to submit the FSL report despite
sending the material objects for testing. An adverse inference has
been drawn against the prosecution for not placing on record any
scientific evidence, i.e., an FSL report, to support the case.
10. Learned trial Judge placed reliance on the evidence of PW-
12 and PW-13 to record the conviction. However, as already
discussed, the evidence of PW-12 to establish the presence of the
appellant on the date of the incident or to claim that he quarreled
with the deceased cannot be believed. Further, almost all
witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported even the
actual occurrence as narrated in the case. Their statements have
not been substantiated by material evidence. Even if some piece
of evidence is carved out from the hostile witnesses' versions, the
case still lacks corroboration. Therefore, in the absence of
substantive and reliable evidence, no order of conviction can be
passed.
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the
conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant in
S.C.No.221 of 2016 dated 29.12.2017, passed by the
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad are hereby set aside,
and the appellant/accused is acquitted for the offences for which
he was convicted.
12. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date:13.03.2025
pss
