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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 8608

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Lakshman, Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, JJ
Mudavath Gopal – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1341 OF 2018



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pendyala Suhasini Reddy
For the Respondents: Syed Yasar Mamoon

In a case of circumstantial evidence, a conviction for murder and destruction of evidence under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC is sustainable even without a preserved dead body or direct witnesses, provided the prosecution proves the motive, a consistent extra-judicial confession, and an unbroken chain of incriminating events.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 201 - Murder - Destruction of evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction based on extra-judicial confession - Prosecution proved motive relating to suspicion regarding paternity - Forensic failure to retrieve DNA due to complete incineration of body does not exonerate the accused when the chain of circumstances is complete - (Paras 20, 23, 27)

(B) Evidence - Extra-judicial confession - Reliability - When the extra-judicial confession to a witness followed by recovery of incriminating material and proof of the destruction of the body form an unbreakable chain, it is sufficient for conviction despite witnesses turning hostile. (Paras 12, 16, 24, 27)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering his 1.5-year-old infant daughter by throttling her and subsequently burning her body in a forest area to destroy evidence, suspecting her paternity. The prosecution's case relied on an extra-judicial confession made by the accused to a village official, discovery of bone remains, and circumstantial evidence, as there were no direct eye-witnesses.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution established the motive and the chain of circumstances. The extra-judicial confession was voluntary and inspired confidence. The destruction of the body did not preclude a conviction as the criminal agency and death were proven.

Issues: Whether the conviction for murder and destruction of evidence is sustainable based on circumstantial evidence and an extra-judicial confession when the dead body was largely destroyed and witnesses turned hostile.

Ratio Decidendi: Production of the dead body is not an absolute requirement for a murder conviction; where strong circumstantial evidence corroborates an extra-judicial confession and proves homicidal death, a conviction is sustainable.

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.

Table of Content
1. summary of prosecution case, charges, and trial court proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. rival contentions concerning circumstantial evidence and motive. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
3. analysis of prosecution evidence and witnesses' testimonies. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. evaluation of circumstantial evidence chain, confession, and corpus delicti principle. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
5. final confirmation of conviction and surrender order. (Para 31 , 32)

This Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

Heard Mrs. Pendyala Suhasini Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant - accused and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 14.02.2018 in S.C. No.269 of 2015 passed by learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’).

3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court convicted the appellant - accused for the offences under Sections - 302 and 201 of IPC and accordingly sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and in default to pay fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) year, for the charge under Section - 302 of IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three (03) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and in default to pay fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months for the charge under Section - 201 of IPC.

4. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

i) The marriage of the accused was solemnized with his first wife (PW.3) - Modavath Paribai. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with one son (Narsimha) and two daughters, Laxmi Bai and Kavitha, respectively. His first wife (PW.3) was addicted to toddy and she was residing at her Mothkulabanda Thanda.

ii) Five (05) years ago from the date of incident, the accused performed second marriage with PW.4 - Soni Bai and they were residing at Hyderabad. Out of their wedlock, she was blessed with two (02) sons and one (01) daughter. The accused brought his first wife’s offspring’s of son (Narsimha) and daughter (Laxmi Bai) to the house of his second wife. The accused left alone the deceased infant baby - Kavitha, aged 1½ years old with his first wife.

iii) Whenever the accused used to visit the house of his first wife, he used to scold her saying that his deceased infant baby could not born through him and used to pick up quarrel with her.

iv) On 01.07.2013 at about 22:00 hours, the accused came to the house of his first wife inebriation state with an intention to eliminate his infant baby and called his first wife, but she could not give any response from inside the house. Then he found with peevish mood and forcibly pushed the doors, as a result, the doors fallen inside of the house and he saw his infant baby was sleeping inside threshold and struggling under doors, while his first wife was in deep sleep in an addiction of toddy. Taking advantage of the same, the accused removed the doors from his infant baby and behaved with wild upon her and forcibly throttled her neck with his both hands and murdered. After confirming the death, he took away the corpse infant at his agriculture fields in Survey No.7 at Gandlapally Forest Area and burnt his infant baby. After cremation, he returned to the house. Thus, the accused committed the offences under Sections - 302 and 201 of IPC.

v) On receipt of report (Ex.P1) from PW.1 before whom the accused confessed about the commission of offences, LW.9, the Inspector of Police, Kodangal Police Station registered a case in Crime No.83 of 2013 on 05.07.2013 for the aforesaid offences and issued Ex.P8 - FIR.

vi) Thereafter, PW.7 took up investigation. During investigation, he

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