Mudavath Gopal vs The State Of Telangana
2026 Latest Caselaw 99 Tel

Telangana High Court

Mudavath Gopal vs The State Of Telangana on 26 March, 2026

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                AT: HYDERABAD
            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
                                  AND
  HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1341 OF 2018
                          DATE: 26-03-2026
Between:
Mr. Mudavath Gopal                                .. Appellant - Accused
                                   Vs.
The State of Telangana, rep.by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyd.        .. Respondent - Complainant


      This Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

Heard Mrs. Pendyala Suhasini Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellant - accused and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated

14.02.2018 in S.C. No.269 of 2015 passed by learned Special Sessions

Judge-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at

Mahabubnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court').

KL,J & VRKR,J

3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court convicted the

appellant - accused for the offences under Sections - 302 and 201 of

IPC and accordingly sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and

to pay fine of Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and in default

to pay fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

one (01) year, for the charge under Section - 302 of IPC. He was

further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three (03)

years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only)

and in default to pay fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for

a period of six (06) months for the charge under Section - 201 of IPC.

4. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

i) The marriage of the accused was solemnized with his first

wife (PW.3) - Modavath Paribai. Out of their wedlock, they were

blessed with one son (Narsimha) and two daughters, Laxmi Bai and

Kavitha, respectively. His first wife (PW.3) was addicted to toddy

and she was residing at her Mothkulabanda Thanda.

ii) Five (05) years ago from the date of incident, the accused

performed second marriage with PW.4 - Soni Bai and they were

residing at Hyderabad. Out of their wedlock, she was blessed with

two (02) sons and one (01) daughter. The accused brought his first

KL,J & VRKR,J

wife's offspring's of son (Narsimha) and daughter (Laxmi Bai) to the

house of his second wife. The accused left alone the deceased infant

baby - Kavitha, aged 1½ years old with his first wife.

iii) Whenever the accused used to visit the house of his first

wife, he used to scold her saying that his deceased infant baby could

not born through him and used to pick up quarrel with her.

iv) On 01.07.2013 at about 22:00 hours, the accused came to

the house of his first wife inebriation state with an intention to

eliminate his infant baby and called his first wife, but she could not

give any response from inside the house. Then he found with peevish

mood and forcibly pushed the doors, as a result, the doors fallen inside

of the house and he saw his infant baby was sleeping inside threshold

and struggling under doors, while his first wife was in deep sleep in an

addiction of toddy. Taking advantage of the same, the accused

removed the doors from his infant baby and behaved with wild upon

her and forcibly throttled her neck with his both hands and murdered.

After confirming the death, he took away the corpse infant at his

agriculture fields in Survey No.7 at Gandlapally Forest Area and burnt

his infant baby. After cremation, he returned to the house. Thus, the

accused committed the offences under Sections - 302 and 201 of IPC.

KL,J & VRKR,J

v) On receipt of report (Ex.P1) from PW.1 before whom the

accused confessed about the commission of offences, LW.9, the

Inspector of Police, Kodangal Police Station registered a case in

Crime No.83 of 2013 on 05.07.2013 for the aforesaid offences and

issued Ex.P8 - FIR.

vi) Thereafter, PW.7 took up investigation. During

investigation, he secured presence of PW.5 and LW.7 and recorded

confession of the accused. Then, he conducted scene of offence

panchanama along with sketch vide Ex.P6. He also examined and

recorded the statements of witnesses. Therefore, Pw.8 took up the

investigation from PW.7, and after receipt of FSL report etc. he filed a

charge sheet against the appellant herein. The same was committed to

the Sessions Court which has taken on file as S.C. No.269 of 2015 and

thereafter made over to the trial Court.

5. The trial Court framed charge for the offences under

Sections - 302 and 201 of IPC against the accused and then proceeded

with trial.

6. During trial, PWs.1 to 8 were examined, Exs.P1 to P8 were

marked and MO.1 was exhibited. Neither oral evidence, nor

documentary evidence was let in by the accused.

KL,J & VRKR,J

7. After completion of evidence on behalf of the prosecution,

the accused was examined under Section - 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter,

upon hearing both sides, the trial Court recorded conviction against

the appellant herein for the aforesaid charges and accordingly imposed

sentence of imprisonment in the manner stated above. Challenging

the said conviction and sentence of imprisonment, the appellant

preferred the present appeal:

8. Learned counsel for appellant - accused contended as

follows:

i. There is no direct evidence and the entire case rests on

circumstantial evidence. Even the circumstances relied upon by

the prosecution did not form complete chain.

ii. There are discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of

prosecution witnesses.

iii. Prosecution failed to establish the biological paternity through

burnt bones i.e. MO.1.

iv. Prosecution also failed to prove motive on the part of the

appellant in commission of offence.

v. Without considering the said aspects, learned trial Court

recorded conviction.

KL,J & VRKR,J

With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel sought to set aside

the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.

9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

would submit as under:

i) There is clear evidence from the prosecution witnesses to

connect the guilt of the accused in commission of offence.

ii) Though there is no direct evidence, the circumstantial evidence

forms complete chain to connect the appellant in commission of

the aforesaid offences.

iii) There was motive on the part of the appellant and the same was

proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

iv) Having considered all the aforesaid aspects only, the trial Court

convicted the appellant and, therefore, there is no error in it.

With the aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

sought to dismiss the appeal.

10. In view above rival submissions, the point that falls for

consideration by this Court is:

Whether the conviction and sentence of imprisonment recorded by the trial Court for the charges under Sections -

KL,J & VRKR,J

302 and 201 of IPC against the appellant herein - accused are sustainable, both on facts and in law?

11. In this case, the prosecution examined as many as eight

(08) witnesses as PWs.1 to 8. Before dealing with the discussion, it

would be apt to discuss the depositions of prosecution witnesses.

12. PW.1, Village Revenue Officer of Takulkode Village, is

not only the complainant, but also the person before whom the

accused said to have made extra judicial confession statement with

regard to commission of the aforesaid offences. He deposed that on

05.07.2013 at about 8.00 A.M., while he was at his house, the accused

came and informed that on 01.07.2013 he throttled his daughter

suspecting her paternity. He also narrated the events on the date of

incident as mentioned in the above. He further deposed that the

accused also told him that he set fire on the dead body of his daughter

in order to destroy the evidence and threatened his wife with dire

consequences directing her not to reveal the same to anybody. After

the occurrence, he fled to Hyderabad. Immediately, he gave report

vide Ex.P1 to the police.

i) During cross-examination, he admits that the first wife of the

accused (PW.3) regularly consumes toddy. He along with PW.2 and

KL,J & VRKR,J

the accused went to the police station and gave Ex.P1 report to the

police.

13. PW.2 - Ex-Sarpanch of Tekulkode, before whom the

accused said to have made extra judicial confessional statement did

not support the prosecution and, therefore, he was declared hostile.

i) During cross-examination by learned Special Public

Prosecutor, nothing useful was elicited from him.

14. PW.3 is the first wife of the accused. She deposed that she

did not know the reason for the death of her deceased daughter as she

was in deep sleep. She was also declared hostile by learned Special

Public Prosecutor.

i) During cross-examination by learned Special Public

Prosecutor, she admitted that the accused is staying in Hyderabad

along with his second wife. Her eldest son and another daughter were

also staying with them.

15. PW.4 is the second wife of the accused. She also deposed

that she did not know the reason for the death of daughter of accused

through PW.3. She was also declared hostile by learned Special

KL,J & VRKR,J

Public Prosecutor. Nothing useful was elicited by learned Special

Public Prosecutor through her.

16. PW.5, the then Revenue Inspector of Kodangal Mandal, is

the panch witness for the confession said to have made by the accused

with regard to commission of offence. He deposed that on enquiry,

the accused revealed his identity and confessed his guilt in death of

his daughter and also shown the place where he burnt the dead body

of the deceased. He further deposed that the police seized the burnt

bones from there under a cover of panchanama as in Ex.P5. MO.1 is

the burnt bones seized under Ex.P5. Before proceeding to the spot,

the police prepared panchanama incorporating the confession

including disclosure statement as in Ex.P4. The accused had also

taken them to his house, where he killed the deceased by pushing the

door first and then squeezing the neck of the victim girl. The police

also prepared a panchanama incorporating a sketch. During cross-

examination, nothing useful was elicited from him.

17. PW.6 is the Assistant Director of Telangana State Forensic

Science Laboratory. He deposed that he received requisition from

SDPO, Narayanpet to conduct DNA examination of cloth parcel

KL,J & VRKR,J

produced with his specimen seals containing a paper parcel with Ash

and dust marked as Item No.1. He further deposed that the same was

subjected to autosomal STR analysis by using identifier plus kit.

There is no amplifiable DNA yield from item No.1. Therefore, DNA

profile was not generated from item No.1. Ex.P7 is the report dated

04.06.2014 given by him. Learned defence counsel did not choose to

cross examine him.

18. PW.7 is the Inspector of Police, Kodangal Circle. He

deposed that on 05.07.2013, on receipt of FIR from LW.9 - Sub-

Inspector of Police and on production of accused by him, he took up

investigation in this case. He further deposed that during

investigation, he secured the presence of PW.5 and LW.7 and

recorded the confessional statement of the accused. Thereafter, they

went to the house of the accused at Mothkulabanda Thanda, where he

conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of the very

same mediators and prepared CDF with sketch vide Ex.P6. Then, the

accused led them to his agricultural field in Survey No.7, where the

accused burnt the dead body of his daughter. He also conducted

panchanama of scene and seized boney remains and ash under Ex.P5

panchanama. Later, he secured the presence of PW.3, examined her

KL,J & VRKR,J

and recorded her statement. He also recorded the statement of PW.2.

On 06.07.2013, he produced the accused before the Magistrate for

judicial remand. He further deposed that the boney remains and ash

sent to FSL through SDPO, Narayanpet for analysis. He received

Ex.P7 FSL report. On his transfer, he handed over the investigation to

PW.8.

i) During cross-examination, he admitted that he did not record

the statement of PW.1. He did not examine the neighbours of the

accused as they are not residing there except brother of the accused.

Till 05.07.2013, they did not have information about the occurrence.

As per the confession, the deceased died on the night of 01.07.2013.

19. PW.8, another Inspector of Police, Kodangal Circle,

deposed that he took up investigation from PW.7 on 28.02.2014. On

the same day, he visited the Mothkulabanda Thanda and examined

and recorded the statement of PW.4 and LW.4. PW.4 stated as in

Ex.P3. On 14.06.2014, he received DNA report from FSL expressing

their inability to get DNA for analysis. On completion of

investigation, he filed charge sheet. As per his investigation, the

accused killed the infant baby and screened the evidence by

KL,J & VRKR,J

destroying scene of offence. During cross-examination, nothing

useful was elicited from him.

20. As discussed above, in the present case, there is no direct

evidence or eye-witness, and the entire case rests on circumstantial

evidence. There is no dispute with regard to legal position that relying

on circumstantial evidence, conviction can be recorded provided

circumstances relied upon by the prosecution should form a concrete

unbreakable complete chain of events. The said principle was also

held by the Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of

Maharashtra1, wherein it was held:

"152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1952) 2 SCC 71:AIR 1952 SC 343:1952 SCR 1091: 1953 Cri LJ 129]. This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of later decisions up-to-date, for instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar

. (1984) 4 SCC 116

KL,J & VRKR,J

Pradesh [(1969) 3 SCC 198:1970 SCC (Cri) 55] and Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra [(1972) 4 SCC 625: AIR 1972 SC 656]. It may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant case [(1952) 2 SCC 71:AIR 1952 SC 343:1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129]:

"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."

153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:

KL,J & VRKR,J

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v.

State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793:1973 SCC (Cri) 1033:1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047] "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."

(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 explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,

KL,J & VRKR,J

(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.

154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence."

Thereafter, the Apex Court reiterated the said principle in a catena of

decisions.

21. In the present case, the motive behind the commission of

offence by the accused is spoken by PW.1 - the complainant. He is

the Village Revenue Officer of the Tekuldode village. He has

specifically deposed that while he was at his house, the accused came

to him and admitted that he throttled his daughter, namely Kavitha,

aged 1½ years suspecting her paternity. Perusal of evidence discloses

that the accused has two wives, PWs.3 and 4, respectively. Through

first wife, the accused has one son and two daughters, while through

second wife, he has two sons and one daughter. The deceased is one

KL,J & VRKR,J

of the daughters of the accused through his first wife. The first wife

was habituated to consume toddy and she was residing at her Thanda.

The accused was residing with his second wife at Hyderabad along

with son and another daughter of first wife.

22. PW.5 is the panch witness for scene of offence, seizure of

bones remnants of the deceased and confessional statement made by

the accused. He specifically deposed that on his enquiry as to his

surrender before the police, the accused confessed his guilt in death of

his daughter and also shown the place where he burnt the dead body

of the deceased. After completion of scene of panchanama and

confessional statement, the accused led them to his house where he

killed the deceased by pushing the door first and then squeezing the

neck of the deceased girl.

23. Though there is no direct evidence with regard to

commission of offence by the accused, circumstantial evidence of

PWs.1 and 5 would disclose that the accused admitted about his guilt

before them and led PW.5 to the scene of offence, where he burnt the

dead body of the deceased and the manner in which he killed the

deceased. The motive behind the commission of offence is that the

accused suspecting the paternity of the deceased and, therefore, there

KL,J & VRKR,J

was quarrel between him and his first wife. Having waited for an

opportunity to eliminate the deceased and accordingly he committed

the offence on 01.07.2013 by throttling his daughter and thereafter

burnt the dead body as mentioned above. Thus, the motive was

proved on the part of the accused in commission of offence by the

prosecution.

24. The circumstances which form a complete chain of events

to connect the link for commission of offences are after commission

of offence by the accused on 01.072013, the accused himself went to

PW.1 on 05.07.2013 at about 8.00 A.M. and confessed his guilt by

stating that while his first wife was sleeping inside the house by

bolting the doors from inside and did not open the doors though he

knocked, then forcibly pushed the doors and opened it. He further

stated that he set fire to the dead body of his daughter in order to

destroy the evidence and threatened his wife with dire consequences

not to reveal the same to anybody. After the occurrence he fled to

Hyderabad to screen himself from the attack. That was the reason

why, his two wives i.e., PWs.3 and 4 did not support the case of

prosecution. Even then, in view of the evidence of PWs.1 and 5, an

inference can be drawn that the accused had committed the aforesaid

KL,J & VRKR,J

offences. Nothing contra was elicited by the accused during cross-

examination of PWs.1 and 5.

25. PW.7, the Inspector of Police, deposed that he recorded the

confession of accused in the presence of PW.5 and LW.7. Thereafter,

they all proceeded to the house of the accused, where he conducted

scene of offence panchanama in the presence of same panchas and

prepared CDF with sketch as in Ex.P6. The accused led them to his

agricultural field in Survey No.7, where he burnt the dead body of his

daughter. There also, PW.7 conducted panchanama of scene and

seized boney remains and ash under the cover of Ex.P5 -

panchanama.

26. PW.8, another Inspector of Police, deposed that on receipt

of DNA report from FSL expressing their inability to get DNA for

analysis, and on completion of investigation he laid charge sheet.

According to him, the accused killed the infant baby and screened the

evidence by destroying scene of offence and thereby he committed the

aforesaid offences.

27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the

prosecution established motive, suspicion regarding the paternity of

KL,J & VRKR,J

the deceased. The extra-judicial confession made by the accused to

PW.1, the complainant is voluntary and inspires confidence. Recovery

of incriminating material and proof of burning of the body corroborate

the prosecution case. Though both wives turned hostile during trial,

their hostility does not demolish the prosecution case, particularly

when other reliable evidence is available. The Forensic Science

Laboratory expressed inability to get DNA results due to destruction

of the body; however, such scientific failure does not benefit the

accused when other evidence establishes guilt. The conduct of the

accused in absconding from normal conduct and subsequent

confession further strengthens the chain of circumstances.

28. The homicidal death of the deceased is established. The act

of throttling clearly falls within the ambit of "murder" as defined

under Section - 300 of IPC, punishable under Section - 302 of IPC.

Further, the deliberate act of burning the dead body to screen himself

from legal punishment squarely attracts Section - 201 of IPC. The

events of motive, presence of the accused at the relevant time, extra-

judicial confession, recovery and proof of destruction of the body and

KL,J & VRKR,J

conduct of the accused, form a complete chain to connect the

commission of offences by the accused.

29. Learned trial Court has elaborately dealt with the principle

of corpus delicti in the present case. Corpus delicti in a murder case

means proof that a person has died; and the death was caused by a

criminal act. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that

production of the dead body is not an absolute requirement to prove

murder. Conviction can be sustained even in the absence of the

physical body, provided the prosecution establishes beyond reasonable

doubt that the victim is dead and that the death is homicidal. Courts

have consistently held that where the body is destroyed or rendered

unidentifiable, the fact of death and criminal agency can be proved

through strong circumstantial evidence.

30. Learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence

on record and rightly convicted the accused under Sections - 302 and

201 IPC. There is no perversity, illegality, or mis-appreciation of

evidence warranting interference by the High Court. Accordingly, the

conviction and sentence imposed by learned trial Court deserve to be

confirmed, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

KL,J & VRKR,J

31. The present Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed

confirming the conviction and sentences of imprisonment recorded

and imposed against the appellant - accused vide judgment dated

14.02.2018 in S.C. No.269 of 2015 by learned Special Sessions Judge-

cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar.

32. Since the appellant - accused is on bail, he is directed to

surrender before the Special Sessions Judge-cum-VII Additional

District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar, within one (01) month

from today for serving out remaining sentence of imprisonment. If he

fails to surrender, learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-VII Additional

District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar, shall take necessary

steps in accordance with law.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending

in this appeal shall stand closed.

_________________________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J

_________________________________ VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J 26th March, 2026 Mgr