Telangana High Court
Challa Shiva Prasad vs The State Of Telangana on 27 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1181 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused,
aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.11.2019 in S.C.No.39 of
2016, on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, whereby the
appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State. Perused the record.
3. PW.1 lodged a complaint with the police on 24.03.2015 at
07.15 P.M., alleging that he received information from his
neighbors that his wife was burnt, and at that time, the
appellant was present besides the dead body. The colony people
caught him. The deceased and the appellant were teachers
working in Rushi High School. They were quarreling with one
another. On the date of the incident, the neighbors noticed
smoke emanating from the house of the deceased, and as such,
PWs.7, 10, and others went near the house, broke open the
door where they found the appellant. The appellant was
immediately apprehended by the colony people and handed
over to the police. PW.12/Investigating Officer received the
complaint, registered a crime, and took up the case for
investigation. Thereafter, he went to the scene of offence and
the scene of offence was observed. PW.11/Doctor, who
conducted the post-mortem examination, opined that the death
was on account of the burns and the percentage of burns
received by the deceased is 99%. According to PW.12, the
appellant was apprehended while he was in the custody of the
local people. After completion of the investigation, the police
filed the charge sheet against the accused.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that admittedly, PWs.7 and 10 are strangers to the
deceased and no test identification parade was conducted
during the course of the investigation to believe the
identification of the appellant by PWs.7 and 10. The incident
happened on 24.03.2015 and PWs.7 and 10 were examined in
the year 2019, which is nearly 4 years after the incident, and
the same cannot be believed.
5. The learned counsel further argued that the vehicle on
which the appellant allegedly went to the house of the deceased
was not seized. Further though PWs.7 and 10 stated that the
appellant was tied to a stone, however, no such statement is
mentioned in the complaint/Ex.P1.
6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor would submit that the appellant was found at the
scene, detained by the neighbors, and handed over to the
police. In the said circumstances, the evidence of PW.7 and
PW.10, who are the independent witnesses, can be believed.
7. The version given by PW.1 is that the deceased and the
appellant were colleagues at the school, both working as
teachers, and they had disputes regarding the partnership and
running of the school. On the date of the incident, PW.7 went to
the scene, broke open the door, and found the appellant inside
the house. He was caught and handed over to the police. In the
cross-examination, he stated that he did not give any complaint
to the police and someone had informed to the husband of the
deceased. PW.10 is another witness who was at the scene.
When PW.1 broke open the main door of the house, the
appellant came out of the house, where he was detained by the
neighbors. Thereafter, the police took the appellant to the police
station.
8. The defence of the appellant is one of denial. Though
PWs.7 and 10 are strangers to the appellant, however, they
were present when the main door of the house was broken, and
the appellant was found inside the house while the deceased
was in flames. The deceased died due to the burns. PWs.7 and
10, who are independent witnesses and have absolutely no
acquaintance with the appellant, have no reason to speak false
against the appellant.
9. The incident was of such a nature that it would have
occurred for a considerable amount of time. The
neighbors/PWs.7 and 10, found the deceased in flames and the
accused in the house. When PW.7 went there and broke open
the door, the appellant was detained. According to PW.10, he
heard noices at 12.30 P.M. and then he, along with PW.1, broke
open the door and finding the appellant inside, the appellant
was detained. The police arrived at 7.00 P.M. in the evening
after receiving a complaint from PW.1. Given the incident
occurred over a considerable period, i.e., from 12.30 P.M. till
07.00 P.M. until police arrived, which is nearly seven hours, it
cannot be said that the witnesses would not have identified the
appellant and falsely implicated him in the case. In fact, the
evidence of PWs.7 and 10, who are independent witnesses, is
believable, and it is for the appellant to explain as to why he
was present in the house of the deceased at the time of the
incident. It is not in dispute that the door was broken down
and the appellant was caught hold of by the neighbors. It is not
a case of mere glance by PWs.7 and 10 that would require test
identification parade for the purpose of identification. As
already discussed, the appellant was detained for 7 hours until
police arrived. As seen from the cross-examination of PWs.7
and 10, the appellant did not deny his presence at the scene.
When the appellant was found inside the locked door where the
deceased was burnt, the burden is on the appellant to explain
the cause of burns. Except stating that the evidence of
prosecution is false, the appellant did not give any explanation
for his presence at the scene. The grounds raised by the
learned counsel for the appellant cannot be sustained and the
appeal fails.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal fails is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
K.SURENDER, J
_____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 27.03.2025
PNS
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1181 of 2019
Dated 27.03.2025
PNS
