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
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
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.
Conviction must be based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence; lack of motive and conflicting witness statements create reasonable doubt dismissing the case.
(1) Mere suspicion would not be sufficient unless circumstantial evidence tendered by prosecution leads to conclusion that it “must be true” and not “may be true”.(2) Failure to explain can only be h....
Murder – Only on the basis of post-mortem report there cannot be conviction for offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act in cases where the accused fails to provid....
(1) Section 106 of Evidence Act will apply to those cases where prosecution has succeeded in establishing facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn.(2) When a case is resting on circumstan....
In murder cases based on circumstantial evidence, a complete chain of evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt is critical; any reasonable doubt must lead to the acquittal of the accused.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.