Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 865 (TS)

Nyalam Chandraiah v. State Of Telangana

2025-06-10

E.V.VENUGOPAL, K.SURENDER

body2025
JUDGMENT : K. Surender, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.02.2020, in S.C.No.449 of 2017, on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Godavarikhani, whereby the appellant/accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/accused and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the record. 3. The complaint in the present case was lodged on 19.06.2017 by PW.1, who is the mother of N.Adilaxmi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’). The deceased was partially handicapped and married to appellant herein. Prior to the marriage of the deceased and the appellant, she was divorced. The appellant was working as conductor in TSRTC-Godavarikhani Depot. The marriage was performed on 11.11.2016 with a condition that a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- has to be deposited in the name of the deceased, since it was the second marriage for both of them. On 16.06.2017, PW.1 received information that the appellant was beating the deceased. Both PWs.1 and 4 went to the house of the appellant. The deceased was seen with injuries all over her body. PW.1 then requested the appellant to take her to the hospital. The deceased was taken to Srinivas Hospital, IB Colony, Godavarikhani, for treatment. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the house of PWs.1 and 4, and on 19.06.2017, she died. On the same day, at around 09.00 P.M., a complaint was lodged with Jammikunta Police. In the complaint, PW.1 narrated about the harassment made by the appellant and also that he had beaten the deceased, and thereafter the deceased was brought to their house. 4. Having registered the complaint, investigation was taken up by PW.14/Investigating Officer. The Police went to the hospital and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was then sent for post-mortem examination. The Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, found the following external injuries: Contusions over left neck and submental region which extended left shoulder and upper back. He also found the following internal injuries: Fracture of survical vertebra and large hameatoma in the neck which is surrounding the neck which is extending to left shoulder and upper back. 5. PW.14, on the ground of jurisdiction, sent the CD file to Godavarikhani I Town Police Station. He also found the following internal injuries: Fracture of survical vertebra and large hameatoma in the neck which is surrounding the neck which is extending to left shoulder and upper back. 5. PW.14, on the ground of jurisdiction, sent the CD file to Godavarikhani I Town Police Station. After re-registration of the complaint/Ex.P13, Inspector of Police/PW.15 started the investigation. PW.15 examined the witnesses and thereafter arrested the appellant on 11.08.2017. PW.15 concluded the investigation and filed a charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC. 6. The learned Sessions Judge, having framed the charges for the said offences, examined PWs.1 to 15 on behalf of the prosecution and marked Ex.P1 to P13. In defence, DW.1 was examined, who is a neighbor in Prashanth Nagar Colony, where the deceased and the appellant lived. 7. In the examination of DW.1, it is stated that she was acquainted with both the deceased and the appellant and the deceased never complained about any kind of harassment at the hands of the appellant. She further stated that 10 days prior to the death of the deceased, PWs.1 and 4, who are parents of the deceased, took the deceased to their house. 8. The learned Sessions Judge found favour with the version of the prosecution that the deceased received injuries at the hands of the appellant, resulting in her death subsequently. For the reason of the injuries being a direct result of the death of the deceased, conviction was recorded for murder under Section 302 of IPC. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the entire version projected by PWs.1 and 4 is a fabricated version. According to DW.1, the deceased and the appellant were living in harmony and there were never any disputes between them. Further DW.1 also stated that 10 days prior to the death of the deceased, PWs.1 and 4 had taken the deceased to their house. PW.1, in fact, admitted that the appellant visited their house twice to enquire about the health of the deceased which in itself reflects the falsity of the version of the prosecution that the appellant beat the deceased. Learned counsel further submits that the death was on account of Cardio Vascular attack, which cannot be denied. There are no eye-witnesses to state that the appellant had beaten the deceased or the deceased was examined prior to her death. Learned counsel further submits that the death was on account of Cardio Vascular attack, which cannot be denied. There are no eye-witnesses to state that the appellant had beaten the deceased or the deceased was examined prior to her death. There is a delay of 10 days in lodging the complaint. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the injuries were received in the house of the appellant. The burden is on the appellant to explain as to how the deceased received the injuries, and since the death was a direct consequence of the injuries, according to the Doctor/PW.13, the conviction imposed under Section 302 of IPC is proper. 11. It is not in dispute that the marriage of the appellant and the deceased was performed on 11.11.2016, and further, the deceased was living in the house of the appellant. Though the complaint was filed after the death of the deceased, however, the fact remains that the injuries were received by the deceased when she was in the house of the appellant. It is for the appellant to explain under what circumstances, his wife received injuries when she was in the house. A statement made by DW.1 that 10 days prior to the incident, the deceased was taken by PWs.1 and 4, or the admission of PW.1 that the appellant visited their house to enquire about the deceased, by itself would not indicate that it was not the appellant who had inflicted the injuries on the deceased. 12. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, there were external injuries, which are contusions on the left neck and submental region extending to the left shoulder and upper back, according to the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination. It is apparent that the said injuries, as mentioned in the post-mortem examination, are the result of physical assault. 13. The Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination did not speak about the death being a direct consequence of injuries that were seen on the neck of the deceased. The death happened nearly 3 days after the deceased was taken to the house of PWs.1 and 4. PWs.1 and 4 went to the house of the appellant after they received a phone call from the deceased. In fact, the deceased was taken to the hospital by the appellant. The death happened nearly 3 days after the deceased was taken to the house of PWs.1 and 4. PWs.1 and 4 went to the house of the appellant after they received a phone call from the deceased. In fact, the deceased was taken to the hospital by the appellant. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the house of PWs.1 and 4. 14. In the said background, when it was not conclusively stated that the contusion on the neck was the cause of the death, the question of convicting the appellant under Section 302 of IPC does not arise. For causing injuries on the neck, which are grievous in nature, the appellant is liable to be convicted under Section 325 of IPC. Further the injuries that were caused by the appellant are not with an intention of causing the death of the deceased. However, the age of the injuries are not mentioned, and how and when the said injuries were caused is also not known. Under these circumstances, the conviction recorded under Section 302 of IPC is set aside. The appellant is convicted under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five (5) years. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. It is informed that the appellant is in jail and since the appellant has already undergone the sentenced imprisonment of five (5) years, he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases. The fine amount paid, if any, shall be returned. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.