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

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 2063

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.LAKSHMAN, VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, JJ.
Mr. Modala Veeraiah, S/o. Narsaiah – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Telangana, Rep.By Its Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.249 Of 2017
Decided On : 15-12-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Advocate Appeared: G Jaya Reddy
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor (TG)

The court confirmed the conviction for murder under IPC, establishing that motive and evidence proved the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, while setting aside the conviction under the Arms Act due to absence of statutory violation.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Indian Arms Act, 1959 - Section 27(2) - Conviction for murder and use of firearm in commission of offence - Appellant accused convicted under IPC for committing murder of a police constable - Sentenced to life imprisonment and fine - Motive established by evidence of witnesses - Evidence from eye-witness corroborated with forensic evidence supports prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction under Arms Act set aside due to lack of statutory violation - Appeal allowed in part. (Paras 3, 52)

(B) Burden of proof - The burden lies on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime with requisite mens rea and actus reus, failing which the accused cannot be convicted. (Paras 13, 42)

JUDGMENT:

K. Lakshman, J.

1. Heard Mrs. G. Jaya Reddy, learned counsel for appellant -accused and Dr. S. Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutorappearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 16.01.2017 in S.C. No.277 of 2012 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court convicted the appellant - accused for the offences under Section - 302 of IPC and Section - 27 (2) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and accordingly sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000 (Rupees One Thousand Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months for the offences each.

4. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

i) It is a case of murder occurred on 07.11.2010.

ii) Deceased - Ch. Gopi Venkata Narayana was working as Head Constable with G.No.626 at 12th Battalionb, APSP, Anneparthy, Nalgonda District. PW.5 and LW.7 are wife and brother-in-law of the deceased respectively.

iii) The appellant herein is the accused and he was appointed as Police Constable in the same battalion on 01.09.1999.

iv) The accused got married to his niece (daughter of his sister), namely Mangamma. She was blessed with a male child, who is a dumb. The accused used to quarrel with her and sent her back to her parents’ house. Thereafter, he divorced her.

v) The accused again married PW.14 on 20.05.2002. She was also blessed with two daughters in the years 2003 and 2005 respectively.

vi) After giving birth to second daughter, they were staying in Government Quarters at 12th Battalion, APSP, Anneparthy. Since then, the accused started suspecting the character of PW.14 and used to harass her, both mentally and physically.

vii) The deceased was working as Head Constable in the said battalion and he too was residing in the residential quarters of the battalion. The accused observed the deceased was moving closely with his wife and tortured her, both mentally and physically and bore grudge against him.

viii) While so, on 23.01.2007, the accused beat his wife indiscriminately under the pretext of she developed illegal sexual relationship with the deceased and caused injuries. Therefore, she lodged a report against him with Women Police Station, Nalgonda, who in turn registered a case in Crime No.20 of 2007 for the offences under Sections - 498A and 324 of IPC . The accused was kept under suspension. Since then, the wife of the accused had been residing at her parent’s house at Suryapet.

ix) After one year, suspension orders were revoked and accused started performing duties. Thus, the accused bore grudge against the deceased and waiting for an opportunity to take revenge.

x) On 07.11.2010 at 17:00 hours, PW.1 deputed the deceased, accused, PW.2, PW.3 and LW.4 for performing sentry duty at rearguard situated on the first floor of the Upper Primary School, within the premises of battalion headquarters. The guard personnel were allotted with SLR weapons and 100 rounds ammunition each. The deceased took charge as guard in-charge from PW.8. PW.2 mounted on sentry duty from 17:00 hours to 19:00 hours. The accused, who was in waiting and the deceased were present in the guard room while PW.2 was performing the sentry duty by standing in the sentry post which is on the top. The accused taking advantage of the situation, decided to kill the deceased. The accused took his SLR weapon bearing butt No.672, loaded the same and targeted at the deceased. The deceased alerted on hearing the cocking sound of SLR weapon and started climbing the ladder to reach the sentry post on the top to escape from the accused. But, the accused aimed at the deceased and fired four rounds and caused bullet injuries on the chest, abdomen and head of the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased collapsed on the ladder. The accused left the SLR weapon at scene of crime and ran way. PW.2 who witnessed the incident informed the same to his Higher Officials immediat

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