LawSphereX

THE STATE OF TELANGANA, REP. BY PP., v. DR.SOMA CHAITANYA REDDY, HYD AND 3 OTRS.,

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: K.SURENDER,ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

Judgment date:

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-12-12. THE STATE OF TELANGANA, REP. BY PP., v. DR.SOMA CHAITANYA REDDY, HYD AND 3 OTRS.,. Read the...

Judgment text

I s41e ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENOER AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR CRIMINA L APPEAL N os: 961 and 1 051 of2016 Criminal Appeal No. 961 of 2016 Appeal under Section 378(3) & (. 1) of Cr. p. C against the Judgment dated 25'02-2016 in sc. No. 717 -nreiroporiirn of 2013 on the fire of the court or tne Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Betweenl The State of Telangana, rep. public prosecutor, by The High Court at Hyderabad ... AppellanUComplainant AND 1 Dr. Soma Chaitanva Reddv, S/o. Soma Devender Reddy, Occ:Business, "Aprii. ,"rts. R/o. Flat N. o 202, ptot Nos 55, a Bharani ,sz,-ValrefViu* Layout, Road No. 78, Jubilee Hills. Hyderabad. Rajeshwari, Wo. Soma ! ore. Devender Reddy. Age. 53 years. occ:Housewife, R/o. Frat No prot 202, rrros so a 57,'iailey vreivnpartrienii, Bharani Layout, Road No. 78, Jubilee Hitts. HVOeraOaj .

, Soma Devender Reddv S/o Soma Govinda Reddy, Age:6. 1 years, occ:Business, R/o. Ftat No pt;i 202 N-oss6'i'li, vrrr"i vi",,iAprrtrfi"ni. , Bharani Layout, Road No. 78, Jubilee Uilfs, HVAeraO'aa. 4 Soma Nithin Reddv. S/o S-oma Devender Reddy, Age:2g years, Occ: Manlger Brisah (A ijivision or namo;ib-roupf pJ,iir6ltrr, Nagarjuna Circte, R/o Nos. 56 & 57, Valey View . Plot np'artmeniJ, eh;;"ni La'youtinb"Jruo. 7d, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ... Respondents/Accused Counsel for the Appellant: Mr, Dodla Arun Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. N. Naveen Kumar and Mr. G. Ashok Reddy Criminal Ao eal No. 1051 of 2016 Appeal under section 372 of cr-p-c aggrieved by the . Judgment dated 25-02-2016 in sc No 717 of "naetropotiian 2013 on the fite Jitre court or fie Sessions Judge. Hyderabad Between: Sri K-Ragotham Reddy.. SJo KV. Ranga Reddy. Age:58 years. R/o plot No. 338, Road No. 23lA, Jubitee Hifls Hyderab"ad. ... APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT AND 1 .

The State of Telangana, through Assistant Commissioner of police, CCS, DD, Hyderabad ... RESPONDENT 2 Dr. Soma Chaitanva Redd_y. S/o. Sri Soma Devender Reddy. -& occupation Business, R/o. ftat' No. 201. ptot Nos # si. i)rrr"y vi"* npartrfiE"is, Bharani Layout, Road No 78, Jubitee Hills, Hydeia'baj a Soma Rajeshwari. Wo. Soma Devender Reddy, Aoe:53 years occupation House wife R/o. ftat No 202,. 56 &-57, Valrey ? lgt ryog View n[;il;;i;, Bharani Layout, Road No. jubilee 78, Hitfs,-HyOeiaOai' 4 Soma Reddy. Soma Govinda ,Devender _S/o. Reddy. r\ge:61 years. occupation business R/o. flat No. 202, plot Nos. SO d'S,. ,-Vr'ffer'Vilii Apartments, Bharani Layout, Road No 78, Jubitee-Hilf, ffvO"irbu Soma Nithin Reddy, S/o. Soma Devender Reddy. Age. 2! ) years. Occ: Man-ager Brisah. (A'Division oI Croupy, irrnl'"grt6 Bamoji frfagirjr"a Circh r/o ftar No 202, prot Nos s6 & 57, ViievVi5{"n[aii,ients Bfr,ai;;itt;;i Road No. 78. Jtrbilee Hills, Hyderabad. ...

RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. T. Batmohan Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar, Additional public prosecutor Counsel for the Respondents No. 2 to 5: Mr. N. Naveen Kumar and Mr. G. Ashok Reddy The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT ...!. r,*. -=7 I THE HONOURABLE SRJ JUSTICE K. SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 96 l AND 1051 ()F 2016 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Surender) 1. Criminal Appeal No. 961 of 2016 is frled by state and Criminal Appeal No. 1O51 of 2016 is filed by de-facto complainant who is father-in-law of accused No. 1' 2. Both these *{r. ^ appeals are filed against the judgment dated 25. O2. 2016 in S. C. No.

717 of 2Ol3 on the file of learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, acquitting the respondents-accused Nos'1 to 4 for the offence under Section 304-8 read with 2Ol of IPC and Sections 3 ald to 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and respondent-accused Nos'2 4 for the offence under Sections l2O-8, 498-A' 3O2 alternatively 304-8 read with 34 and 101 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act- 3. Heard Mr. $Balmohan Reddy, learned counsel for appellant/comPlainant and Mr. N. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel and Mr. G. Ashok Reddy, learned counsel for Dodla Kumar, Iearned respondents accused and Mr. Arun / Additional Public Prosecutor. f 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 18. 06. 2011, the complainant who is the father of the deceased gave a report to the Police that his daughter was taken to Apollo Hospital in an unconscious state and was declared dead. She h. as been married since six years and has a daughter of 3 years age.

The deceased and her husband went out at 08:00 P. M. on that day arrd came back in the midnight hours. Baserl on Lhe complaint, a case in Cr. No. 285 of 2Ol1 under Section 174 Cr. P. C. was registered. 5. During the investigation, the investigating officer, recorded the statement of the complainant, as thr: death occurred within 7 years of marriage of the deceasecl and a requisition was filed before the RDO, Secunderabad, to depute a Tahasildar to conduct inquest. A scene of offence panchanama was conducted in the presence of two panch witnesses, which is the bedroom situated adjacent to the staircase leading to the first floor. Clues team collected the incriminating material and the dead body was sh:. fted to mortuary of Galdhi hospital. No external injuries were found on the dead body. 6. While investigation was in progress, on 19. O6. 21011 at 06:00 A. M.

, the compiainant gave another report complaining that the death of the deceased was unnatural and occr-lrred in the matrimonial home and hence a doubt arises that she was deliberately killed by her husband. The Section of law was altered to Section 3O2 of IPC and further investigation was taken up by LW 16, as the offence is grievous in nature' Express report was submitted to XVII Additional Chief FIR' Metropolitan Magistrate Court to call for the original so 7 . The statements of the complainant was re-recorded, LW46, visited the scene also the statements of LWs. 2 and 3' report in the of offence. The team of doctors issued PME As meantime, stating that the death was due to smothering' was taken into custody and his such, on 27. 06. 2011, A1 was recorded' A pillow was seized' confession statement based on his confession, LW46 re-visited the scene of offence on 23.

C,6-2071 arld seized two bed sheets, one pillow cover and a party wear of the deceased and A1' The statements of other witnesses were recorded. The material objects were forwarded to FSL. 8. After concluding the investigation charge sheet was filed against the respondents-accused Nos'1 to 5, charge was framed for the offence under Sections 498, 304-8 r/w 34 and 201 IPC, Sections 3 & 4 of D. P'Act against accused Nos' 1 to 5. 9. 2. Alternate charge under Section 3O2 of IPC was framed against accused No. 1. 10. The learned Sessions Judge having examirred the witnesses acquitted the accused Nos. 1 to 5 mainly on the ground that death was not proved to be homicidal. P\tr/ 12 who is the doctor gave opinion that the death was on ac<:ount of Asphyxia due to "smothering", however, she correctec. herself stating that the death was associated with consumption of intoxication of ethyl aicohol.

Further, doctor during the cross examination stated that in cases of ethyl alcohol consumption, a particular stage of intoxication can lead to death due to inability to transport oxygen to the brain due to reduced supply of oxygen. Doctor/PW12 was cross e::amined extensively regarding the manner in which the death occurred and also possibilities of death as a conseqltence of ethyl alcohol consumption. I 1 . The main basis for acquittal of the accused by the Iearned Sessions Judge is that the death was not proved to be homicidal or suicidal. 12. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the de-facto complainant conceded to the fact that prosecution was not abie to prove that death was homicidal or suicidal.

Learned counsel for de-facto complainant and a,lso learned upon the Court that hrblic Prosecutor tried to impress was not though the finding on the basis of medical evidence conclusive,however,thefactremainsthatdeathhappenedin would were present' Burden the house when the accused 1O6 of Evidence Act' shift on to the accused under Section 13. In the absence of prosecution proving that death was on to homicidal or suicidal, the question of shifting burden Act not Section 106 of Evidence does the accused under prowing initially that of prosecution arise. Only in the event the death was homicidal or suicidal the burden shifts on to the accused. 14. Having gone through the evidence' since the prosecution has failed to prove that death was homicidal or suicidal,andaresultofeffectsofexcessiveethylalcohol appeals fail' consumption, both the peals are the Criminal A dismissed. 15. AccordinglY, Sd/- T. SRINIVAS DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, (with records' if any) Hyderabad 1.

The Metropolitan Sessions Judge' 2. ThexllAdditionalChiefMetropolitanMagistrate,Hyderabad. DD' Hyderabad- House Officer' CCS' 3. The Station of Telangana at Court for the State 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor' High t Hyderabad IOUT] 5. One CC to li4r T Balmohan Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Mr. N. Naveen Kumar Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Mr G Ashok Reddy , Advocate [OPUC / 8. Two CD CoPies @ kam/gh l HIGH COURT DATED:1211212024 I \ \ ---. ::1. :--- . a in i (- 1. ot' 0^' z I t I F U 7[25 a -t ;, . t * )€spaTc COMMON JUDGMENT \ CRLA. Nos. 961 and 1051 of 2016 DISMISSING OF THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS \ \ ! ? r

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.