SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Telangana) 1162

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SURENDER, ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, JJ.
Reddy Praveen Reddy - Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 310 of 2016
Decided On : 14-11-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : T. Pradyumnakumar Reddy, T.S. Anirudh Reddy
For the Respondent: Arun Kumar Dodla

In murder cases based on circumstantial evidence, the burden shifts to the accused to explain the circumstances, and failure to do so can strengthen the prosecution's case.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 201 - Conviction for murder - Appellant convicted for life imprisonment for killing family members by setting them on fire - Circumstantial evidence and extrajudicial confession considered - Prosecution failed to establish motive conclusively - Conviction upheld despite minor discrepancies in evidence. (Paras 1, 9, 26)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Burden of proof - In cases of circumstantial evidence, the burden shifts to the accused to explain circumstances surrounding the crime - Failure to provide an explanation can be an additional link in the chain of evidence. (Paras 16, 24)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of his parents and nephew by setting them on fire during a family dispute. The incident occurred on 29.08.2013, and the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and an extrajudicial confession. (Paras 1-3)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution established the presence of the appellant at the scene and the circumstances surrounding the deaths, despite the absence of direct evidence. (Paras 26)

Issues: The main issues included the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the appellant's failure to explain the circumstances of the fire. (Paras 16, 24)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the conviction, emphasizing the appellant's failure to explain the fire's origin. (Paras 26)

Result: Criminal Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.

JUDGMENT :

K. Surender, J.

1. The appellant is the sole accused convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 of IPC and he is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 201 IPC vide judgment in S.C.No.264 of 2014 dated 02.03.2016 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

2. In all three persons died in the present case, who are parents and elder sister’s son of the appellant. Parents will be referred as D1 an D2 and the boy as D3 hereinafter.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 29.08.2013, at around 3.15 a.m, P.Ws.3 and 4 heard screams of the appellant. When they opened the door, they observed the appellant outside his house screaming and they found smoke coming from his house. P.W.3 called the Fire Station in BHEL. Around 3.30 a.m, P.W.9/fire station officer received information that smoke was coming from home of the deceased. Immediately, he along with his crew took the fire engine and proceeded towards the house of the deceased. There, he found smoke and sprayed water. Around 3.50 a.m, the appellant telephoned to his cousins P.Ws.1 and 2 and asked them to come to his house in BHEL. Immediately, they proceeded to the house and observed a fire engine and fire personnel trying to extinguish the fire. D2 and D3 were shifted in an ambulance to Apollo DRDO Hospital. One more ambulance came and shifted D1 to BHEL Hospital. The accused informed them that he was sleeping in the hall. Around 8.30 a.m, P.W.1 gave report to P.W.21/Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramachandrapuram Police Station. Basing on the said report, P.W.21 registered case in Crime No.395 of 2023 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Ex.P16 is the original FIR sent to the Court. P.W.21 recorded the statement of P.W.1 in the police Station. P.W.21 found the dead body of D1 in the BHEL Hospital and proceeded to the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P5 and seized MO1-Bottle containing liquid. P.W.21 conducted inquest over the dead body of D1 in the presence of P.W.10 at BHEL Hospital. Ex.P3 is the inquest report of D1 and shifted the dead body of D1 to Government Hospital, Sangareddy for postmortem examination.

4. P.W.19 conducted autopsy over the dead body of D1 between 1.05 p.m and 2.45 p.m and found one injury. According to the doctor, the cause of death was due to Cardio Respiratory Arrest due to burns and approximate time of death was between 8 to 11 hours prior to postmortem examination. Ex.P13 is the postmortem report of D1. P.W.18 treated D2 and D3 who suffered burn injuries. D2 died in the evening. Ex.P11 is the death summary of D2. On 30.08.2013, P.W.21 went to the Apollo Hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of D2 in the presence of P.W.11. Ex.P4 is the inquest report of D2. Later shifted the dead body of D2 to Gandhi Hospital for postmortem examination. P.W.21 also recorded the statements of D3, P.Ws.3 and 4.

5. P.W.20 conducted autopsy over the dead body of D2 between 10.45 a.m and 1.00 pm and observed one injury. According to the Doctor, the death was due to 92% burns. Ex.P14 is the postmortem examination report of D2 and Ex.P15 is the final opinion.

6. On 13.09.2013, in the morning, the appellant went to P.W.14 who is a resident of Tellapur village and made an extrajudicial confession stating that due to family disputes, he killed D1 by pouring petrol on him and lit fire. During the said process, D2 and D3 also received burn injuries. P.W.14 then informed the police Inspector/P.W.21. P.W.21 recorded the statement of P.W.14 basing on which he altered the Section of law to Section 302 and 201 of IPC. Ex.P17 is the alternation memo. Thereafter, he handed over the investigation to P.W.22. On the same day, P.W.22 arrested the appellant. On interrogation, the appellant confessed to the crime in the presence of P.W.16 and in pursuance of the confession, P.W.22 seized MO2 empty plastic can from the house of the appellant. Exs.P8 and P9 are confession and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top