Smt. Katravath Shanthi , Kitti v. The State of Telangana

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: K.SURENDER,K. SARATH

Judgment date: 2024-12-26

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-12-26. Smt. Katravath Shanthi , Kitti v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on...

Judgment text

1342e1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUST]CE K. SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE K. SARATH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2608 OF 2018 Appeal under Section 374 (2) of cr. p. c. against the Judgment dated 2s-07- 2018 made in s. c. No. 30 of 2017 on the file of the court of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under the scs & srs (poA) Act-cum-V Additional sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, FAC: Vll Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. Between: Smt. Katravath Shanthi rE Kitti, Wo. Narender, Aoed about 37 years, Occ. Water Business, nyo. pEooj thanda,'li;;; patan;heiu-Mbndat; VilEs", Medak District ... Appellant / Accused No 1 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad ...

Respondent / Complainant lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 430 (1) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the sentence passed in s. c. No. 30 of 2017 dated 2sto7l201B on the file of the special Jtidge for poA sc/sr Act-cum-V Additional sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, FAC: Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, sanga Reddy and release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the crl. A. No. 2608 of 2018 on the file of this Hon'ble Court. , Counsel for the Appellant Sri Kadiyam Neelakanteswara Rao Counsel for the Respondent Sri M Vivekananda Reddy Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following Judgment : t THD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2608 ()F 2018 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Surenderl This Criminal Appeal is Iiled by the appellant-accused No.

I aggrieved by the Judgment, dated 25. 07. 2018, in Sessions Case No. 30 of 2Ot7 passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, whereby she was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 2Ol of I. P. C. and accordingly, she was convicted and sentenced to undergo Life imprisonment and a-lso to pay an amount of Rs. 5,OO0/- towards fine for the offence punishable under Section 3O2 I. P. C, in default to undergo rigorous . imprisonment for a period of one year and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards frne for the offence -under punishable Section 2Ol of I. P. C, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. t KS. I&SK. J crla 2608 20lt 2. Heard Sri Kadiyam Neelakanteswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused No. 1 and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Additional Public Frosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. .. -\. 3.

According to the prosecution case, P. W. I lodged a complaint, dated 25. 12. 2015, wherein it is stated that his brother Narender (hereinafter referred to as, 'the deceased'), husband of the appellant-accused No. 1, owned Ac. O-3O guntas of lald in Survey No. 119 on the outskirts of their Village. Due to shortfall of rain, the agricultural land became dry. Therefore, the deceased dug a ditch beside the bore-motor, built sump and supplied water from bore-motor to sump to sell water through tankers and earn money. The appellalt-accused No. l. raised a cemen. t shed beside the sr. rmp and was living in the shed selling water, but, she did not give money to the deceased. There were quarrels between them about money received from selling water. Decea. sed questioned the appellant-accused No. 1 as to why she had raised a shed, got angry with her and damaged the shed. On 24. 12. 2015 a panchayat was held , 3 KSJ&SK.

J crla 2608 2018 and elders convinced both the deceased and the appellant- accused No. l to live amicably. However, on the next date i. e. , on 25. 12. 2015 at 6:OO AM. , P'W'1 came to know that the deceased's dead body was lying in the water sump' He No' 1 was responsible suspected that the appellant-accused for the death of the deceased. 4. On the basis of complaint frled by P'W'1' P. W. 11, Inspector of Police registered a case and issued Ex. P. 17-First Information Report' Police went to the scene and conducted scene of offence panchanama' which is Ex. P. 18. Ex. P. 19 is the rough sketch' Panchanama was one pair of black conducted by police, seized M'O'l - colour chappal and M. O'S-Iron piece' The dead body of a'fter the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination who P. W'10 is the Doctor' conducted inquest proceedings.

body of the deceased and opined autopsy over the dead was on account of head injury' He that th€ cause of death further stated that-he found ten ante-mortem external the the dead body of injuries and also internal injuries on 16-Report' deceased and he issued Ex'P' , KS. J&SK,J crla 2608 2018 5. On the basis of investigation done and after recording statements of witnesses, charge sheet was hled against the appellant-accused No. 1 and other accused for . the offences under Sections 3O2 and 2OI of I. p. C. Thereafter, as the appellant-achused No. l and the other accused were not complicit in committing the murder of the deceased, the learned Sessions Judge found that accused Nos. 2 to 4 were not guilt5r of the said offences and accordingly, acquitted them while convicting the appellant_ accused No. 1, wife of the deceased. 6- P. W. f , who is brother of the deceased and Iodged Ex. P. 1 -complaint, was declared hostile to the prosecution case.

He stated that somebody might have killed the deceased and thrown the dead body in the water sump. P. W. 2 is sister of the deceased. She stated that the appellant-accused No. l had kiled the deceased. However, she did not witness the acfual incident. p. W. 3 states that there were panchayats held between the deceased and the appellant-accused No. l on 24. 12. 2015 and the elders advised them to live amicably. However, on the next date t KSJ&SK,J c. la 2608 2018 i. e. , on 25. 12. 2OL5 the dead body of the deceased was found in the water sump. P. W. 4 deposed on the similar lines as stated by P. W. 3. P. W. 5 is the photographer, who took photos of the dead body of the deceased. P'W'6 is the witness for inquest proceedinls and scene of offence panchanama. P. W. 6 was declared as hostile by the prosecution. P. W. 7 is the panch witness to the confession- cum-seizure of M. O.

4-stick from accused No'3' P'W'8 is another panch witness for confession of accused and he was declared hostile to the prosecution case' P'W'9 is also witness for confession of accused and he was declared hostile. P. W. 10 is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P. W. 11 is the Inspector of Police, who received complaint from P. W'1 and proceeded to scene of offence. 7. P. W. 12 took over investigation from P. W- 11, arested accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 on 3l'12'2015 and accused No. 3 on 03. 01. 2016. P. W'13 is the elder sister of the deceased, who turned hostile. P. W'14 is also brother of the deceased, who turned hostile to the prosecution case' t I KS,I&SKJ crla 2608 P. W. 15 is the Inspector of Police, who took over investigation from P. W. 12 and having verified investigation done by P. W -12, liled charge sheet' independent investigation was done by P.

W'15' P'W'16 was also examined by police )nd in his presence they conducted scene of offence-cum-seizure palchanama also inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased and obtained his signatures. But, he declared as hostile by the prosecution. 8. As already stated, the alleged collusion appellant-a. ccused No. 1 and accused Nos. 2 to 4 to murder the deceased was not made out during the course of trial' None of the witnesses have stated an5rthing about assault b-y the appellant-accused No. 1 or that appellant-accused No. 1 was staying along with deceased on the outskirts of their Viltage prior to the dead body of the deceased being found. None of the vritnesses have seen the appellant-accused No. l with the deceased, the day prior to the death of the deceased. The only evidence in the case is that of P. Ws. 2 to 4 who stated { J l 7 KS-J&SK. ' lr c. la 2608 2018 disputes in between the there was a panchayat held, due to They were and the deceased' appellant-accused No.

l parchayat elders' asked to live amicably by the g. that the appellant- The investigation reveals to 4 help of accused Nos'2 accused No. l with the committed murder of the deceased' However' since there was no evidence against accused Nos'2 to 4' their involvement was not believed by the trial Court and they were acquitted. Similar is the case of the appellant- accused No. 1 also. Apart from the evidence of P'Ws'2 to 4 there is no stating that there was a panchayat, absolutely No'1 with other evidence to connect the appellant-accused deceased' It is not the case that anyone the murder of the prior No'l near the scene has seen the appellant-accused panchayat was deceased and after the to the death of the he1d. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the - presumption has to be drawn against the appellant- 'the of deceased accused No-1 that she committed murder cannot be The said argument since she is the wife. t KS,J&SK,J crla 2608 2018 accepted.

Even according to the prosecution case, the incident happened on the outskirts of the Village near the sump. The temporary structures, which were erected by the appeliant-accused No. 1, were destroyed by the deceased. As already discussed none of the witnesses stated about the appellant-accused No. l and the deceased s taying together on the outskirts of their Village after the panchayat was held. Since it is an open place and there is no evidence to substantiate that the appellant-accused No. I stayed along with the deceased after panchayat was held, question of drawing presumption that the appellant-accused No. 1 was responsible for murder of the deceased, cannot be accepted. I 1. Further, to draw presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, l8Z2 (for . the short, Act, 7a72) the prosecution has to lay foundation to draw such presumption.

The only circumstance narrated by the witness is that there was a panchayat held on the previous day of the dead body being found in the water sump. The only circumstance of the panchayat being held, does not in J KSJ&SKJ crla 260E 20lE to the any manner lay foundation to shift the burden on the It is not a case where appellant-accused No. 1- the deceased were staying appellant-accused No. l and the husband was found together as husband and wife and in the outskirts of their dead. The incident happened Village near water sump. The presumption under Section 106 of the Act, 1872, canlrot be drawn' , L2. The other evidence relied upon by the I ( prosecution is insufficient even to raise suspicion that it ( No-1, who had committed the was appellant-accused murder of the deceased. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and conviction and sentence recorded uide Jwdgment' dated 25. 07.

2OL5, in Sessions Case No'30 of 2Ol7 passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Meddak at No'l for the Sangareddy, against the appellant-accused Sections 3O2 and 201 of IPC are offences p-unishable under set aside and accordingly, she is acquitted for the said offences. The fine amount, if any, paid by'the appellant- accused No. l shall be refunded to her' The appellant- I t l0 KS,J crra 2608 tt forthwith, if she is not be accused No. l shall released case' required in anY other shali stand if any' pending petitions, Miscellaneous closed. RAO Sd/. K. SRINIVASA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, ,Ini"? of jsllffi ! 1"""1. ""-. e$jXJ!? ":ff $,1:si:J::id:sss ! iI:J["^) (wiih recoids' if anv) Lrog? jul'"iuk"Xibingo"dov Additional Sessions Judge' Medak at Sangareddy 2. The Vll Additional Sessions 3. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile Court' Sangareddy PS' Medak District fficer, Patancheru 4. The Station House Prison for Women' ChT;53"3,'flklJff:?!

"' 5. The Superintendent, Special of Telangana' High Court for the State 6. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad [OUT] T. OneCCtoSriKadiyamNeelakanteswaraRao'Advocate[OPUC] 8. Two CD CoPies VA {e' T -t HIGH COURT DATED:2611212024 I . -- ':a'--: - . 1i,E sTn ,C ,( ( z0l I 0 E:[ j JUDGMENT f- CRLA. No. 2608 ot 2018 ALLOWING THE CRLA I\ l t ll{ \v bo

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.