Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 298
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P.SAM KOSHY, N.TUKARAMJI, JJ.
Tekumatta Chakrapani Medak Dt. - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Telangana Rep PP. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 552 Of 2016
Decided On : 01-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : PALLE SRIHARINATH
For the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR TG
In murder cases based on circumstantial evidence, a complete chain of circumstances must point solely to the accused's guilt, excluding any other hypothesis.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Conviction for murder - The accused was convicted for the murder of his wife, sentenced to life imprisonment and fined Rs.200/- - The prosecution established a clear chain of circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime, including motive and last seen evidence. (Paras 2, 10, 18)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Legal principles - In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that point solely to the guilt of the accused, excluding any other hypothesis. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The accused, after suspecting his wife's fidelity, murdered her by strangulation and blunt force trauma. The body was discovered based on his information. (Paras 4, 18)
Findings of Court:
The trial court's conviction was upheld, finding that the prosecution proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 20)
Issues: The main issues included the sufficiency of evidence linking the accused to the crime and the implications of the delay in filing the FIR. (Paras 6, 19)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the accused's silence regarding facts within his knowledge and the established ill feelings towards the deceased were critical in affirming guilt. (Paras 18, 20)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
N. Tukaramji, J.
This appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 03.03.2016 in Sessions Case No.23 of 2014 passed by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak.
2. By the impugned judgment the appellant/convict/accused (hereinafter ‘the accused’) was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC ’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also pay fine of Rs.200/- in default simple imprisonment for six months.
3. We have heard Mr.Chitneni Vidyasagar Rao, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Mr. Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Syed. Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
The prosecution case:
4. On 16.09.2013, the police received a written report (Ex.P-1) from the mother of the deceased (PW-1), stating the following facts:
Eight years ago, the accused, who was already married and had a daughter, eloped with her daughter (the deceased) and married her at Lord Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadagirigutta. Later, in the presence of caste elders and with the consent of his first wife, he remarried her daughter (the deceased), and they begot a son.
After five years of marriage, the accused began to suspect the fidelity of her daughter and subjected her to both physical and mental harassment. On three or four occasions, the matter was brought before caste elders. Subsequently, after the accused beat his first wife, she left for her parents’ house.
The deceased used to visit nearby villages to sell dolls and toys. The accused, suspecting her fidelity due to these visits, would beat her. Later, the accused took a room in Medak for business purposes and pledged 15 tolas of silver ornaments, a 3.5 tola silver chain, and 4.2½ grams of gold ornaments belonging to the deceased and used that money for his own purposes. He later redeemed these ornaments and gave them to his first wife without informing the deceased.
One month prior to the incident, in Medak, the accused, acting on suspicion, attempted to kill the deceased by causing a head injury, but she was rescued by Shivkumar and neighbors. In another incident, the accused took the deceased and their son to Yedupayala dam. While the deceased was bathing, he pushed her into the water, telling her to die. However, when their son began to cry, the accused pulled her back. The accused also proclaimed that he would kill the deceased and go to prison.
On 14.09.2013, as usual, the accused took the deceased to villages for their doll/toy business but did not return. At about 9 p.m., the accused called T. Balaraju (PW-4) and asked whether his wife (the deceased) had returned home, stating that she had left him and returned to the village. PW-4 informed him that she had not returned. The accused returned to the village a day later, on 16.09.2013, at about 6 p.m. When PW-1 and other caste members questioned him, the accused revealed that on 14.09.2013, he had taken the deceased on his moped to sell dolls/toys. At about 3:30 p.m., he took her to a forest area beside the Ablapur to Gajulagudem road and, as per his plan, strangled her with a towel. After she fell, he smashed her head with a stone and killed her. Immediately, they rushed to the place and found the deceased’s body with a head injury, lying in a pool of blood. Thus, PW-1 prayed for appropriate action.
Proceedings before the trial Court:
5. Upon the police report/Ex.P-1 the crime was registered and after due investigation charge sheet was laid against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC . Learned Magistrate took cognizance and after the proceedings committed the matter to the Sessions Division and upon numbering the Sessions Case the file was made over to the trial Court for adjudication.
Learned Sessions Judge after examining the accused framed the charge under Section 302 IPC and proceeded with trial. In trial the prosecution examined PWs.1
