Allowed

Golla Mogulaiah, Mahabubnagar Dt and 3 Otrs., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC30 Jan 2025CRLA/392/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction under Sections 450, 324, 302 read with 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA) Act for a fatal beating over suspected illicit intimacy. All eyewitnesses turned hostile and no evidence linked accused No.2 to the crime; the High Court allowed the appeal as regards accused No.2.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and life sentence set aside in respect of accused No.2; appeal abated against deceased accused Nos.1, 3 and 4.

Golla Mogulaiah, Mahabubnagar Dt and 3 Otrs., Vs the… — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

BAIL SLIP: The Appellants / Accused No. 1 to 3 were directed to be released on bail by the Order of the High Court dated 21-09-2022 made in l.A.No.1 o'f 2022 in Crl.A.No.392 of 2017

¶2

IN THE FIIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 392 OF 2017

¶8

Appeal under Section 374⁽²⁾ of Cr.P.C. againsl the^{Judgmentdated 31-03-} 2017 made in Spl.S.C.No.64 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Special^Sessions Judge-cum-Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge^{at Mahabubnagar.}

¶9

Between:

¶10

'l . Golla Mogulaiah, S/o. Yellappa Age 38 year, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Burgupally Village, Koilkonda Mandal, Mahabubnagar Distrtct

¶11

Golla Keshavulu, S/o. Yellappa Age 35^{years, Occ Agriculture, R/o.} Burgupally Village, Koilkonda lvlandal, Mahabubnagar District

¶12

Golla Laxmaiah, S/o. Yellappa Age 33^years, Occ Agriculture, R/o.^Burgupally Village, Koilkonda Mandal, Mahabubnagar District

¶13

4 Golla Yellappa, S/o. Buchanna Age 63^years, Occ^{Agriculture,R/o.Burgupally} Village, Koilkonda Mandal, Mahabubnagar District

¶14

.,.Appellants / Accused No 1 to 4

¶15

The Appeal against Appellants I Accused Nos 1 & 3 stands abated as^per C.O. dated 17-12-2024

¶16

AND

¶17

The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor,^{High Court at} Hyderabad

¶18

...Respondent / ComPlainant

¶19

Counsel for the Appellants Sri M Achuta Reddy

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor

¶21

The Court delivered the following Judgment^:

¶22

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR

¶24

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.392 OF 2017

¶25

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.surender)

¶26

This appeal is filed by the appellants, aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.03.2O17 in Spl.S.C.No.64 of 2O14, passed by the Specia-l Sessions Judge-cum-Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar, convicling the appellants/accused for the offence under Sections 45O,324, 3O2 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SCs/STs [pOA) Act, 1989 and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment.

¶27

Heard Mr. M.Achutha Reddy, learned counsel for appellants and Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent- State.

¶28

The appellants are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4. During the pendency of appeal, accused Nos.l, 3 and 4 died. L,earned counsel argued on behalf of accused IrIo.2 since accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 died. The case stands abated against accused Nos.l, 3 and 4. The present appeal is not pressed against accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and is heard in so far as accused No.2 is concerned.

¶29

¶30

The case of the prosecution is that PW8, who is sister of aciused Nos.l to 3 and daughter of accused No.4, was having illicit intimacy with deceased. The deceased is the husband of PWl. She lodged a complaint/Ex.P1 with the Police that her tleceased husband was having illicit intimacy with PW8. In the midnight on 07. 1 1.2013, deceased went to the house of PW8 ald she came to know that accused Nos.l to 4 beat^the deceased with sticks and caused severe injuries. She^{went to} the house of PWS and found her husband dead.

¶31

On the basis of complaint, which was lodged at 06.00 A.M. on 08.11.2013, the Inspector of Police PW13 took^{up the} investigation. He went to the house of PWS and conducted the scene of offence^panchanama. There, one bamboo^stick, and blood stained earth, were collected. PW13 also^concluded the inquest proceedings. Thereafter:, the body was sent for post mortem examination.

¶32

On the basis of suspicion expressed by PW1, accused Nos.l to 4 were apprehended on 16.11.2013 i.e., 9 days after the incident. At the instance of accused^No. 1, a^{pestle was} also seized, which is MO5.

¶33

7 . During the course of trial, PW¹ , wife of deceased,^PWs.

¶34

2, 3 and 4, who are residents of village, PW5 is the cousin^of

¶35

¶36

the deceased, PWs.6 and 7 residents of village and also pWg with whom the deceased had the illicit intimacy have all turned hostile to the prosecution case. pWs.l to 7 stated that the dead body was found near the tank of the village. The 'same is the version of pWg.

¶37

PW9, rvho is the VRO and acted as independent witness to conduct scene of offence panchanama, spoke about the scene, blood stained cloths of the deceased and their seizure along with controlled earth at the scene. pW10 is the witness to the alleged confession of accused Nos.l to 4 and seizure of MOS pestle.

¶38

PW I 1 is the post mortem examination doctor who stated that on account of head injury, there was respiratory failure, resulting in death

¶39

PW12 is the person who registered the crime on the basis of complaint given by pwl. pW13 is the investigating officer who stated about going to scene on receiving Ex.p1 and conducting scene of offence palchanama, inquest proceedings and thereafter, sending the body for post mortem examination. pW13 also stated regarding the arrest of accused and recovery of MOS at their instance. Other than the recovery of MOS, there is absolutely no other evidence on

¶40

¶41

I I I

¶42

record. The post mortem doctor has^{not statedin his opinion} whether MO5 could have caused^{injuries that were foundon} the dead body.

¶43

I 1 . There is absolutely no evidence^{in the case to remotely} connect the appellant/accused^{No.2 with the crime.}

¶44