Telangana High Court
Nilawar Ganapathi vs The State Of Telanagana on 23 July, 2026
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
IN THE HIGH CO FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT: HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3035 OF 2018
DATE: 23-07-2026
Between:
Nilawar Ganapathi .. 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. P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant – accused and Mr. M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent
extensively.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated
17.09.2018 in S.C. No.773 of 2015 passed by learned VIII Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar
(hereinafter referred to ‘trial Court’).
2
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.3035 of 2018
3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, learned trial Court convicted
the appellant – accused for the charge under Section – 302 of IPC and
sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.
4. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
i) The accused and the deceased are husband and wife. It was a
love marriage. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two
children i.e., daughter and son. They hail from Maharashtra State.
Both of them worked in Sanghi Industries at Anajpur by staying at
Sanghi Quarters.
ii) The deceased eloped with one Biharee, nine (09) months
prior to the incident. After three (03) months, she came back to
Anajipur and was staying at H.No.1-56 by doing labour work.
iii) While so, the accused addicted to alcohol. After coming to
know that the deceased came back, he went and requested her to
rejoin him, but the deceased refused and quarrel took place between
them. Thereafter, both of them decided to take divorce by mutual
consent before the Family Court at L.B. Nagar. However, the accused
decided to eliminate the deceased.
3
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.3035 of 2018
iv) On 03.03.2015, both of them attended the Court. At that
time, the accused requested the deceased to join his company, but the
deceased refused. After returning from the Court, the accused left his
son – Vishnu at the house and went to the house of the deceased and
again requested her to accompany him, but the deceased refused the
same. Then, the accused lost his temper and attacked on the deceased
with knife on the Village road in front of her house. When PW.2 –
their daughter tried to rescue the deceased, the accused pushed her
away and killed the deceased by causing injuries to her stomach, ear
and on wrist with sharp edged weapon. As the deceased made illegal
intimacy with some other person and neglected the accused, he
developed grudge on the deceased and killed her.
v) Therefore, PW.1, owner of the house where the deceased
resided as tenant, gave report to PW.7, Inspector of Police,
Hayathnagar Police Station, who in turn registered a case in Crime
No.179 of 2015 and issued Ex.P8-FIR. During the course of
investigation, he visited the scene of offence, examined the relevant
witnesses and recorded their statements. On receipt of medical
examination report and FSL report, he filed charge sheet against the
accused for the aforesaid offence.
4
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.3035 of 2018
5. Since the offence is triable by the Court of Sessions, learned
Magistrate committed the same to the Sessions Court, which in turn
had taken on file as S.C. No.773 of 2015 and made over to learned
trial Court, which in turn proceeded with trial.
6. The trial Court framed charge for the offence under Section –
302 of IPC against the accused.
7. During the trial, for the prosecution, PWs.1 to 7 were
examined, Exs.P1 to P9 were marked, and MOs.1 to 4 were exhibited.
However, 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, learned trial Court recorded conviction
against the appellant herein for the aforesaid charge in the manner
stated above.
9. Challenging the said conviction and sentence of life
imprisonment, the appellant herein preferred the present appeal.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant – accused contended as
follows:
5
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.3035 of 2018i. There are material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution
witnesses.
ii. There was no motive on the part of the appellant to commit the
aforesaid offence. Thus, at the most, it may attract an offence
under Section – 304 Part-II of IPC.
iii. PW.2 is the daughter of the deceased and the accused. At the
time of giving evidence, she was 15 years old. Although she
was a minor at the relevant time, learned trial Court did not
conduct any preliminary examination before recording her
evidence, so as to test her ability and competency to give
evidence. Therefore, her evidence cannot be considered.
iv. MO.4 – knife was not sent to the FSL to find out as to whether
the blood stains on it belonged to the deceased and if the finger
prints on it belonged to the accused. The said omission is fatal
to the case of prosecution.
v. Without considering all the said aspects, the learned trial Court
convicted the accused erroneously.
vi. Learned trial Court erred in convicting the accused for the
charge under Section – 302 of IPC.
6
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.3035 of 2018With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel sought to set aside
the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.
11. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
would submit as under:
i) There is direct evidence through PW.1 and 2 to prove the guilt
of the accused.
ii) If there are any inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution
witnesses, the same are minor in nature and do not tilt the case
of prosecution.
iii) Though learned trial Court did not conduct any preliminary
examination before recording the evidence of P.W.2, the same
would not be fatal to the case of prosecution as she was 15
years old as on the date of giving evidence and she was in a fit
position to give evidence.
iv) There is ample evidence to prove the offence against the
accused.
v) Having considered all the aforesaid aspects, the trial Court
convicted the appellant and, therefore, there is no error in it.
7
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.3035 of 2018
With the aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
sought to dismiss the appeal.
12. In the view of above rival submissions, the point that arises
for consideration by this Court is:
Whether the conviction and sentence of imprisonment
recorded by the trial Court for the charge under Section –
302 of IPC against the appellant herein – accused are
sustainable, both on facts and in law?
13. As discussed supra, the prosecution alleges that this case
concerns a homicidal act arising out of accused suspecting fidelity of
his wife. Section 302 of IPC embodies the punishment for murder.
Its essence lies in penalizing acts where a person intentionally causes
the death of another, or commits an act with the knowledge that it is
so imminently dangerous that it will likely result in death. The
provision reflects the gravity with which the law treats the unlawful
taking of life. It authorizes the imposition of the most severe
punishments, like death penalty or imprisonment for life, depending
on the circumstances of the case.
14. The focus under this section is not merely on the act of
causing death, but on the presence of intention or knowledge that
8
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.3035 of 2018
elevates the act to commit murder, thereby justifying stringent
punishment.
15. Perusal of record would reveal that the prosecution
examined PWs.1 to 7 to prove its case. PW.1 is the owner of the
house where the deceased was residing as tenant. According to the
prosecution, he is an eye-witness to the prosecution case. PW.2 is the
daughter of the deceased and the accused. PW.3 is the person to
whom the dead body of the deceased was handed over for funeral.
PW.4 is the panch witness for scene of offence, rough sketch and
inquest. PW.5 is the panch witness for confessional statement of
accused, and for the seizure and recovery of M.O.4 knife. PW.6 is
the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased.
PW.7 is the Investigating Officer.
16. In this case, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is of material
importance with regard to motive and commission of offence by the
accused. The evidence of PW.1 is to the effect that he is the resident
of Anajipur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal. The deceased used to
reside as a tenant in his house and she was residing with her two
children. The accused is the husband of the deceased.
9
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.3035 of 2018
i) PW.1 further deposed that on 03.03.2015 at about 2.00 P.M.,
he and his wife (LW.2) were returning to their house after attending
the funeral of his friend (Rangaiah) and when they reached their
house, he found that the deceased was lying in front of his house and
blood was oozing from her wounds on the stomach, ear and hands and
also observed the accused running away from that place after causing
the above injuries to the deceased by throwing away the knife near an
old house which is at a distance of 50 yards from his house. On
reaching near the deceased, he found the aforesaid injuries and she
was not in a position to speak. Then, he went to Hayathnagar Police
Station and gave Ex.P1 – report. He was examined by the police. He
also deposed that the accused used to visit the deceased and her
children rarely and whenever he comes, the accused used to quarrel
with his wife and leave the home. He was informed by the deceased
that the accused went to the Court for obtaining divorce.
ii) During cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that he cannot
say the colour of the shirt and pant worn by the accused at the time of
commission of offence. He was not in a position to observe the things
at a distance of 20 meters. He also admitted that he did not state the
length and width of the knife with which the accused is said to have
10
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.3035 of 2018
caused the aforesaid injuries. His wife was not in a position to attend
the Court due to her illness and old age.
17. PW.2 is the daughter of the deceased and the accused. She
deposed that as on the date of giving evidence (13.08.2018), she was
studying in 10th Class at Sri Vivekananda Vidya Vihar, Bandlaguda
and was admitted in Kasturba Gandhi Hostel, Langar House. LW.4 is
her younger brother. She knows PW.1 and his wife (LW.2), who are
her house owners. She and her mother (deceased) used to reside as
tenants in their house at Anajipur Village. Her brother (LW.4) used to
reside with her father in a quarter at Anajipur Village. Her father and
mother were living separately for six months prior to the date of
incident. Her father (accused) used to harass her mother on suspicion
that she was talking to some other persons and as her father necked
out her mother, she and her mother started residing as tenants in the
house of PW.1. By that time, she was studying in 6th Class at
Kamalarani Sanghi Public School at Anajipur and her school timings
were 9.00 A.M. to 4.00 P.M.
i) PW.2 further deposed that on 03.03.2015, she accompanied
her mother to Rangareddy District Court at L.B.Nagar, to receive
11
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.3035 of 2018
divorce petition papers by her mother. As the Presiding Officer of the
said Court was on leave, the case was adjourned. Her father also
attended the Court along with her brother (LW.4). She and her
mother returned to their home at Anajipur at 1.00 P.M. After they
took their lunch and while they were in their house, her father came to
their house at 2.00 P.m. and quarreled with her mother. Then, he
dragged her mother outside the house and she witnessed her father
stabbing her mother on her stomach, right ear and hands. Then, her
father threw away the said knife in a dilapidated house and ran away
from that place. After sustaining injuries, her mother fell down in
front of the house and lot of blood was oozing out of her wounds and
she died on the spot. MO.1 is the blouse of her mother (coffee colour
blouse), MO.2 is the red and black colour dots saree. MO.3 is the red
colour petty coat of her mother. MO.4 is the knife with which her
father caused injuries to her mother. Later, the police officials came
there and she was examined by the police. She specifically deposed
that her mother was wearing red and black colour dots saree and black
colour blouse.
12
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.3035 of 2018
ii) During cross-examination, PW.2 admitted that she was
having grudge against her father. On the date of incident, her father
was wearing white shirt and black pant.
iii) During re-examination, PW.2 clarified that she was having
grudge against her father as he used to constantly beat and harass her
mother on suspicion that she was talking to another person.
18. PW.3 is the colleague of the accused. He and the accused
worked together at Ramoji Film City and lived in the same area. He
deposed that there were disputes between the accused and the
deceased. About three years before the date of his evidence i.e.,
14.08.2018, at about 4.00 P.M., while he was performing his duties at
Ramoji Film City, he received telephone message that the accused
killed his wife. Later, he met the accused at Hayathnagar Police
Station on the next day of the incident. Two days later, the dead body
of the wife of the accused was handed over to him at Osmania
General Hospital. He performed the funeral of the wife of the accused
at Amberpet Parade grounds as there were no relatives of the deceased
or the accused. He was examined by the police.
13
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.3035 of 2018
i) During cross-examination, no incriminating material was
elicited from PW.3.
19. PW.4 is the panch witness for scene of offence, rough
sketch and the autopsy conducted over the dead body of the deceased.
According to him, he found injuries on the left hand, stomach and on
right ear of the deceased. Ex.P2 is the scene of offence observation
panchanama dated 03.03.2015 and Ex.P3 is the rough sketch of scene
of offence. Ex.P4 is the inquest panchanama dated 03.03.2015.
According to him, the deceased died due to injuries received by her.
i) During cross-examination, no incriminating material was
elicited from PW.4.
20. PW.5 is also panch witness for confessional statement said
to have been made by the accused, and for the seizure and recovery of
MO.4. Ex.P5 is the admissible portion of confession panchanama of
the accused dated 05.03.2015. He further deposed that pursuant to the
confession made by the accused, the police led him and LW.10 to
Anajipur village to the house of PW.1 and on its left side, there is a
dilapidated house. Then, the accused went inside the said dilapidated
14
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.3035 of 2018
house and brought out MO.4 and handed over the same to the
Inspector of Police, who seized the same under panchanama.
i) During cross-examination, no incriminating material was
elicited from PW.5.
21. PW.6 is the Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic
Medicine, Osmania Medical College. She deposed with regard to the
postmortem conducted by her on the dead body of the deceased on
04.03.2015. She found ante-mortem injuries, the details of which
have been described in her evidence. She opined that the cause of
death was due to stab injuries to abdomen. She issued her report as in
Ex.P7.
22. PW.7 is the Investigating Officer. He deposed with regard
to receipt of Ex.P1 – report from PW.1, registration of Crime No.179
of 2015 under Section – 302 of IPC, sending FIR to the concerned
Magistrate, and conducting investigation and laying of charge sheet
against the accused etc.
i) During cross-examination, he admitted that as the deceased
is native of Maharashtra, he could not get any information regarding
the relatives of the deceased and, therefore, he handed over the dead
15
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.3035 of 2018
body of the deceased to PW.3, who is a family friend of the deceased
and the accused. He did not send MO.4 – knife to any finger prints
expert.
23. On consideration of the said evidence, it is not in dispute
that the death of the deceased is homicidal. It is also not in dispute
that the deceased and the accused are wife and husband, while PW.2
is their daughter. It is also not in dispute that PW.1 – complainant is
the owner of house, where the deceased was staying along with PW.2
as tenants. The deceased and the accused were staying separately and
that there were quarrels between them. It is also not in dispute that
the incident occurred in front of the house of PW.1.
24. The motive for commission of offence by the accused is
that the accused used to suspect the fidelity of the deceased as she was
talking to some other persons. PW.1 and PW.2 are the eye-witnesses
to the incident. PW.1 has specifically deposed with regard to the
incident in the manner narrated above. PW.1, owner of the house, has
specifically deposed that on 03.03.2015 at about 2.00 P.M., he found
the deceased lying in front of his house and blood was oozing from
her wounds on the stomach, ear and hands. He also observed the
16
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.3035 of 2018
accused running away from that place after causing the above injuries
to the deceased by throwing away the knife (MO.4) near an old house
which is at a distance of 50 yards from his house. PW.2, daughter of
the deceased and the accused has also specifically deposed that on the
date of incident, while they were in the house, the accused came to
them and dragged the deceased outside the house. She specifically
deposed that she witnessed her father (accused) stabbing on her
mother (deceased) on her stomach , right ear and hands, and then her
father threw away the said knife in a dilapidated house and ran away
from that place.
25. Thus, by virtue of the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, it is
clear that the injuries were caused on the stomach, ear and hands of
the deceased. The said injuries were supported by medical evidence
through PW.6 and Ex.P7 – post-mortem examination report. PW.6
has specifically deposed that she found the ante-mortem injuries, the
details of which are as follows:
i. “A Vertically placed spindle shaped stab injury of 3x1cms x
muscle deep present 8 cms below and behind the right ear with
ends pointed margins clean cut. Internally, the muscles
surrounding are confused in an area of 5×4 cms.
17
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.3035 of 2018ii. An obliquely placed spindle shaped stab injury of 3×1.5 cms x
cavity deep present 15xcms below the left nipple 10 cms above
and lateral to umbilicus. A confused abrasion of 3×2 cms above
and laterally from the upper end of the stab injury whose ends
are rounded any margins are clean cut and directed inwards,
backwards and medially with a mesenteric tear of 5×4 cms
severing the corresponding mesenteric and common iliac and
other adjoining vessels with about 1lt of partially clotted blood
admixed with stomach contents in the peritoneal cavity.
iii. A vertically placed spindle shaped stab injury of 2×1 cms x
cavity deep present 14 cms below and lateral the left nipple
with a confused abrasion of 2x2cms present lateral to and to the
upper end of it whose ends are rounded and margins are clean
cut and directed inwards. backwards and medially with
penetrating injury of 1×1 cms x cavity deep to the anterior wall
of stomach with spillage of stomach contents into the peritoneal
cavity.
iv. A spindle shaped stab injury of 2×1 cms x muscle deep present
1cm above the dorsum of right wrist on the ulnar aspect whose
ends are pointed and margins clean out with beveling on the
distal margin and undermining on the proximal margin.”
26. In view of the above, it is clear that the evidence of PW.1
and PW.2 was corroborated by the evidence of PW.6 and Ex.P7 with
regard to the injuries that were caused on the body of the deceased,
and also the evidence of PW.4 to some extent as he being the panch
18
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.3035 of 2018
witness also deposed that the deceased died due to injuries received
by her. PW.3, family friend of the deceased and accused deposed
with regard to performing funeral of the deceased as the police handed
over the dead body of the deceased to him.
27. However, it is contended by learned counsel for the
appellant – accused that the evidence of PW.2 cannot be looked into
for the reason that she is a child and before recording her evidence,
learned trial Court did not put certain preliminary questions to her that
are mandated as per law.
28. In State of Rajasthan v. Chatra 1 the Hon’ble Supreme
Court considered the guidelines laid down in State of Madhya
Pradesh v. Balveer Singh 2 and also referred to other precedents in
State of M.P. v. Ramesh 3, Panchhi v. State of U.P. 4, and State of
U.P. v. Ashok Dixit5. Based on an overview of the afore-mentioned
precedents, the Hon’ble Supreme Court enumerated the following
principles:
1
. 2025 INSC 360
2
. 2025 SCC OnLine 390
3
. (2011) 4 SCC 786
4
. (1998) 7 SCC 177
5
. (2000) 3 SCC 70
19
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.3035 of 2018“14. The principles that can be adduced from an
overview of the aforesaid decisions, are:
a. No hard and fast rule can be laid down qua testing
the competency of a child witness to testify at
trial.
b. Whether or not a given child witness will testify is
a matter of the Trial Judge being satisfied as to the
ability and competence of said witness. To
determine the same the Judge is to look to the
manner of the witness, intelligence, or lack
thereof, as may be apparent; an understanding of
the distinction between truth and falsehood etc.
c. The non-administration of oath to a child witness
will not render their testimony doubtful or
unusable.
d. The trial Judge must be alive to the possibility of
the child witness being swayed, influenced and
tutored, for in their innocence, such matters are of
ease for those who may wish to influence the
outcome of the trial, in one direction or another.
e. Seeking corroboration, therefore, of the testimony
of a child witness, is well-placed practical
wisdom.
f. There is no bar to cross-examination of a child
witness. If said witness has withstood the cross
examination, the prosecution would be entirely
within their rights to seek conviction even solely
relying thereon.”
29. In view of the aforesaid principle, it is clear that it is not
mandatory to conduct preliminary examination to determine the
competency of the child witness. It is to be considered as a rule of
prudence and not a legal obligation. However, as rightly contended
by learned counsel for the appellant that trial Court did not pose
20
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.3035 of 2018
certain questions to test the competency of PW.2 before giving
evidence. But, it is apt to note that Pw.2 was in 10th Class as on the
date of her evidence and she was 15 years of age.
30. PW.1, who is also an eye – witness to the incident, is not an
interested witness and no motives can be attributed to him. His
evidence is fully supported by the medical evidence through PW.6
with regard to causing of injuries by the deceased with the use of
MO.4 – knife. PW.6 also specifically deposed that cause of death was
due to stab injury to abdomen. Thus, the prosecution proved the
incident and receipt of injuries at the hands of accused with MO.4 –
knife and that the deceased succumbed to such injuries..
31. As stated above, PW.1 being an eye-witness specifically
deposed that he observed the accused running away from the place of
incident after causing the injuries to the deceased by throwing away
the knife near an old house, which is at a distance of 50 yards from his
house. PW.5 – panch witness specifically deposed that pursuant to the
confession made by the accused, the police led him and LW.10 to the
house of PW.1. In front of the said house of PW.1, on its left side
there is a dilapidated house. The accused went inside the house and
21
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.3035 of 2018
brought out a knife and handed over the same to PW.7 – Investigating
Officer, who seized the said knife, which is MO.4. PW.7 –
Investigating Officer also specifically deposed that pursuant to the
confession, the accused led the police party and the mediators to
Anajipur village and took them to a dilapidated house bearing door
No.1-57 and the accused went inside the house and brought out the
knife (MO.4) and he seized the same from the possession of the
accused under Ex.P6 – seizure panchanama dated 05.03.2015. Even
Ex.P3 – rough sketch discloses the location of dilapidated house from
where MO.4 – knife was recovered and seized at the instance of the
accused, which is diagonally opposite to the house of PW.1. Thus, the
evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.5 and PW.6
with regard to seizure of MO.4 and its recovery at the instance of
accused.
32. It is also not in dispute that the injuries caused on the dead
body of the deceased were caused by the MO.4 – knife used by the
accused. Therefore, the prosecution also proved the cause of death
on account of injuries caused by the accused with MO.4 – knife,
recovery of the said knife and its seizure at the instance of the
accused.
22
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.3035 of 2018
33. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that
the knife allegedly used in the commission of the offence was not sent
to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination to ascertain
whether the bloodstains found on it belonged to the deceased or the
finger prints on it belonged to the accused. According to the learned
counsel, such omission creates a serious gap in the prosecution case
and, therefore, is fatal to its credibility. However, we are unable to
accept the said contention. Mere non-sending of the knife to the FSL
does not, by itself, render the prosecution case doubtful or fatal. The
evidentiary value of a criminal case cannot be judged solely on the
basis of forensic examination when there is otherwise cogent, reliable
and convincing evidence establishing the guilt of the accused. The
prosecution is required to prove its case on the basis of the totality of
the evidence available on record and not every lapse in investigation
necessarily results in acquittal. It is well settled that defects or
omissions in the investigation do not automatically enure to the
benefit of the accused unless such lapses go to the root of the
prosecution case and cause serious prejudice to the defence. If the
ocular testimony of trustworthy witnesses is found to be credible and
is corroborated by the medical and other circumstantial evidence, the
23
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.3035 of 2018
absence of an FSL report regarding the knife does not materially
weaken the prosecution case. Forensic evidence is corroborative in
nature and is not an indispensable requirement in every case involving
the use of a weapon. In the present case, there is no material to show
that the omission to send the knife for forensic examination has
created any reasonable doubt regarding the identity of the weapon or
the manner in which the offence was committed. The prosecution has
otherwise established its case through reliable evidence, and the
failure to obtain an FSL report on the bloodstains found on the knife is
merely a lapse in investigation. Such a lapse, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, cannot be treated as fatal to the
prosecution.
34. During the course of hearing, it is contended by learned
counsel for the appellant that this case squarely falls within the ambit
of Section – 304 Part-II rather the offence under Section – 302 of IPC,
and, therefore he sought to consider the same. As discussed above,
there was motive on the part of the accused in commission of offence
i.e., the accused suspecting the fidelity of the deceased as she was
talking to some other persons. There were disputes between them and
they were staying separately. They also decided to obtain divorce.
24
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.3035 of 2018
On the date of incident, the accused came to the house of the deceased
with MO.4 – knife. The incident did not take place on the spur of
moment. All the way the accused came from his house with knife and
stabbed the deceased by dragging her outside the house and ran away.
Therefore, this case does not fall within the ambit of an offence under
Section – 304 Part-II of IPC, and accordingly the said contention of
learned counsel for the appellant is untenable.
35. In view of the aforesaid discussion, PW.1 has specifically
deposed with regard to the commission of offence by the accused and
the same is supported by PW.2, the daughter of the deceased and the
accused. They also further deposed with regard to causing injuries by
the accused with the help of MO.4 – knife on the body of the deceased
and the same is corroborated by medical evidence through PW.6 and
Ex.P7 – post-mortem examination report and the cause of death was
due to stab injuries to abdomen, and also the evidence of PW.4 –
panch witness, who deposed that the deceased died due to the injuries.
With regard to using MO.4 by the accused, its recovery and seizure is
also corroborated by the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 5 and 7. No motive
can be attributed to PW.1 as he is an independent witness and not an
25
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.3035 of 2018
interested witness. Therefore, the prosecution has successfully
established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances apart
from examining two eye-witnesses i.e., PW.1 and PW.2. There is no
missing link in the chain of events and the cumulative effect of the
evidence leads to the irresistible conclusion that the accused alone
committed the offence. Accordingly, the chain of circumstances
stands fully established warranting the recording of conviction against
the accused.
36. Learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence
on record and rightly convicted the accused for the charge under
Section – 302. There is no perversity, illegality, or mis-appreciation of
evidence warranting interference by the High Court. Accordingly, the
conviction and sentence imposed by learned trial Court deserve to be
confirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
37. The present Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed
confirming the conviction and sentence of imprisonment recorded and
imposed against the appellant – accused vide judgment dated
17.09.2018 in S.C. No.773 of 2015 passed by learned VIII Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar.
26
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.3035 of 2018
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending
in this appeal shall stand closed.
____________________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
____________________________
B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
23rd July, 2026
Mgr
