Telangana High Court
Mohd.Naseeruddin , Bablu, Karnataka ... vs The Staet Of Ts., Rep. By P.P. on 20 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1108 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed questioning the
conviction and sentence imposed against the
appellant/accused No.1 vide Judgment, dated 01.08.2017
in Sessions Case No.731 of 2013 by the learned I Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the
appellant/accused No.1 was convicted and sentenced to
undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short,
"I.P.C.") and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer
simple imprisonment for two (02) months.
2. Heard Sri M.Laxmi Raj, learned counsel for the
appellant/accused No.1 and learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant-State.
3. The appellant was convicted by the learned Sessions
Judge and found guilty for murdering his wife on
7/8.07.2013 at 4.00 A.M. According to the case of the
prosecution, the appellant was married to one Maleka
2 KS,J and EVV,J
Begum, (deceased) and out of their wedlock, they had a
seven months old daughter. There were frequent quarrels
between the spouses. The appellant and his father-accused
No.2 (died) harrased her for gold and quarreled with the
deceased. Appellant and accused No.2 used to consume
alcohol and abuse the deceased in filthy language.
4. PW1, the mother of the deceased, received a phone
call about the death of the deceased at 2.00 A.M. on
7/8.07.2013 . Immediately, she went to the house of the
deceased and found the deceased lying in the bed room with
injuries on her throat, neck, and other parts of the body.
PW1 enquired with PW5, who is the owner of the house, and
PW5 informed that the deceased and the Appellant were
fighting since 9.00 P.M. on the said night and around 1.00
A.M., she found the appellant standing outside the house
with his seven months old daughter. Upon questioning the
Appellant, he stated that he committed the murder of his
wife. Both PW5 and PW6 went inside the house and found
the deceased dead, and thereafter, PW1 was informed by the
neighbours of the deceased.
3 KS,J and EVV,J
5. PW1 went to the police station and lodged a
complaint-Ex.P1 on 08.07.2013. PW1 affixed the thumb
impression on the English typed complaint at 4.00 A.M.,
i.e., two hours after PW1 came to know about the death of
the deceased.
6. The said complaint was received by PW12. A case was
registered under Section 302, 498-A of I.P.C., and Sections
3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. PW12
proceeded to the scene of offence and in the presence of the
independent witnesses, conducted the scene of offence and
inquest panchanamas, and the body of the deceased was
seized for the purpose of medical examination. Thereafter,
the body was shifted to mortuary of Osmania General
Hospital, where the inquest proceedings were conducted in
the presence of two mediators. Thereafter, the body was
sent for autopsy, and the doctor-PW11 found the following
injuries on the body of the deceased:
1) Multiple scratch abrasions of nails 10 x 9 cm on front of
neck over the thyroid cartilage,
2) Abrasion 1 x 1 cm below the outer angle of right eye,
3) Abrasions 0.2 x 0.1 cm on the middle 3rd of left forearm
and 1 x 0.1 cm on the dorsum of left wrist,
4) Contusions 5 x 4 cm of the flat muscles on left side of
thyroid cartilage and 3 x 2 cm below the left horm of hyoid
bone,
4 KS,J and EVV,J
5) Contusions 3 x 2 cm on the medial aspect of tips of left
horms of hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage, over the back of
oesphagus and 3 x 2 cms on the outer aspect of right horms
of thyoid and hyoidbone,
6) Contusions 1 x 1½ cm along the margins of left vocal
cord and 2 x 1 cm below the right vocal cord.
PW11-doctor concluded that the death of the
deceased was due to throttling.
7. Learned Sessions Judge found in favour of the version
of the prosecution and also relied on the evidence of the
house owners, PWs 5 and 6, as well the medical evidence,
which suggested a homicidal death. Hence, the learned
Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant for murdering his
wife.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant
would submit that the Appellant was not present in the
house when the death took place. Even according to PWs 5
and 6, the Appellant went to the house around 1.00 A.M.,
and by that time, the deceased was found dead. The death
of his wife was informed to PWs 4 and 5. The Appellant has
nothing to do with the death of the deceased and he is not
aware as to how she died.
5 KS,J and EVV,J
9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the
death of the deceased has to be explained by the Appellant.
Mere denial will not help the Appellant, and as rightly
found by the learned Sessions Judge, the burden shifted
onto the Appellant was not discharged.
10. The undisputed facts are that, according to PWs.1 to
6, the deceased and the Appellant were constantly fighting,
and the appellant was harassing her in a drunken
condition and also demanding gold.
11. According to PWs.5 and 6, who are the owners of the
house where the Appellant and deceased were living, on the
early hours of 08.07.2013, the Appellant was standing
outside the house along with his daughter and when he
was questioned, he informed that he killed the deceased.
PWs.5 and 6 went to the house and found the deceased
dead. Thereafter, the information was given to the mother
of the deceased.
12. Under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
(For short, "the Act, 1872"), the burden shifts to the
Appellant/accused to explain the facts which are within the
6 KS,J and EVV,J
exclusive knowledge of such person. The death happened
in the house where the deceased and Appellant were living.
The deceased was found dead and the death was homicidal.
The prosecution, on the basis of the said circumstances,
has laid the foundation to shift the burden on to the
Appellant.
13. Mere denial will not in any manner absolve the
burden that has been shifted to the Appellant under
Section 106 of the Act, 1872. It is not the case of the
Appellant that by the time he entered the house, a third
person had committed the murder of the deceased. In such
a case, the conduct of the person finding his wife dead
would be to lodge a complaint with the police or inform the
neighbours. But no such events transpired in the present
case. PWs.5 and 6 have clearly stated that the appellant
and the deceased were constantly fighting with one another,
and on the date of the incident, the Appellant was present
in the house.
7 KS,J and EVV,J
14. Even in the examination of the accused under Section
313 of Cr.P.C., no explanation was given by the appellant
except stating that he is innocent.
15. There are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the
findings of the learned Sessions Judge in convicting the
Appellant. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
16. Since the Appellant is on bail, he shall be summoned
by the concerned Court and sent to prison.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE K.SURENDER
___________________________
JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
Date: 20.03.2025
EDS
