IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN AND HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1393 OF 2017 DATE: 16-04-2026 Between Mr. Katikala Venkatesh @ Venkat .. Appellant - Accused Vs.

The State of Telangana, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyd. .. Respondent - Complainant This Court delivered the following:

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

Heard Mr. R. Prashanth, learned Legal-Aid Counsel for the appellant - accused and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated

30.01.2015 in S.C. No.337 of 2014 passed by learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, learned trial Court convicted the appellant - accused for the offence under Section - 302 of IPC and accordingly sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four (04) months.

4. The charge levelled against the appellant herein is that on

12.01.2014 at about 6.30 P.M., on the Eastern Side Footpath of Nayapul (Old Bridge), Hyderabad, he committed murder of the deceased by attacking her with a sickle and an axe and on her neck and on both hands, and thereby he committed the aforesaid offence.

5. On receipt of Ex.P1 - report from the husband of the deceased (PW.1) on 12.01.2014 at 20:20 hours, PW.8 - Sub-Inspector of Police, Afzalgunj Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.25 of 2014 under Section - 307 of IPC and issued Ex.P6 - FIR. He recorded the statement of PW.1 and visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW.4 and LW.10. He also recorded statements of PW.2 and LW.3 and then prepared scene of offence panchanama as in Ex.P2. He also collected blood samples from the scene of offence as in MOs.1 to 4. On receipt of information at 10.00 P.M. that the victim succumbed to the injuries at 9.00 P.M., he altered the section from 307 of IPC to 302 of IPC vide Ex.P7 - alteration memo. Then, he handed over the CD file to PW.9, who conducted part of investigation and thereafter remaining part of investigation was conducted by PW.10. On receipt of postmortem examination report and FSL report, PW.11 laid charge sheet against the appellant herein.

6. The trial Court framed charge for the offence under Section -

302 of IPC against the accused and then proceeded with trial.

7. During trial, PWs.1 to 11 were examined, Exs.P1 to P10 were marked and MOs.1 to 11 was exhibited. No evidence, both oral and documentary, was let in by the accused.

8. After completion of evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section - 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, upon hearing both sides, the trial Court recorded conviction against the appellant herein for the aforesaid offence and accordingly imposed sentence of imprisonment in the manner stated above. Challenging the said conviction and sentence of imprisonment, the appellant preferred the present appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant - accused contended as follows:

i. There are contradictions in the versions of the prosecution witnesses.

ii. There is no mention in Ex.P1 - report that the accused also attacked the deceased with axe apart from sickle, whereas PWs.1 and 2 deposed that the accused attacked the deceased with both. Thus, there is major contradiction between Ex.P1 -

report and the evidence of PWs.1 and 2.

iii. PW.2 is nothing but a planted witness to suit the case of prosecution as he is a stranger and no Test Identification Parade was conducted. Therefore, his identifying the accused is far from the truth.

iv. PW.1, husband of the deceased, did not make any effort to save his wife. This itself shows that he was not accompanied the deceased at the time of incident.

v. There are contradictions with regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased in th