Allowed¶38

Paligiri Vinoda v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Feb 2025CRLA/456/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Murder appeal acquittal; S.302 IPC conviction set aside; appeal under S.374(2) Cr.P.C.; total absence of evidence linking accused; unexamined informant Devulapalli Venugopal; hostile witnesses PWs.2 to 7; no last-seen evidence; spouses estranged and living separately for two years; body found tied to pole; benefit of doubt; Crl.A.No.456 of 2018; High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad; trial from Godavarikhani (S.C.No.458 of 2016).

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside; appellant/accused No.1 directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case; bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled. ¶38

Paligiri Vinoda Vs State of Telangana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside; appellant/accused No.1 directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case; bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction and sentence of the appellant/accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC for the murder of her husband were sustainable on the evidence on record.

¶32

Court's answer

Apart from the evidence of PW1, whose complaint rested on information from Devulapalli Venugopal (not examined), there was no last-seen evidence and none of the witnesses stated that the appellant went near the house of the deceased.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The deceased and the appellant were admittedly staying separately for two years, as per PW1, and there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever to find the appellant/accused No.1 guilty of the offence alleged.

¶32

Key takeaways

The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are set aside.ratio¶36
The Criminal Appeal is allowed; the appellant is to be released forthwith if not required in any other case, and her bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against conviction under Section 302 IPC and life imprisonment: HELD, allowing the appeal, the only material against the appellant/accused No.1 was the complaint of PW1 (daughter of the deceased), founded on information allegedly given by her maternal uncle Devulapalli Venugopal, who though enlisted in the charge sheet was not examined at trial; PWs.2 to 7 turned hostile; the dead body was found tied to a pole on the road; there was no last-seen evidence and no witness stated that the appellant went near the house of the deceased; and the deceased and the appellant were admittedly staying separately for two years. There being absolutely no evidence to remotely connect the appellant with the death, the conviction and sentence recorded by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Godavarikhani (judgment dated 18.01.2018 in Sessions Case No.458 of 2016) were set aside; the appellant was directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case, and her bail bonds, if any, were cancelled.

¶1

[^341s ]

¶2

I I I

¶3

il i 'I 'I 1 I j I I I

¶4

NOTE : The AppellanuAl^{was directed to be releasedon ug! by_!!t9-orderof the} High Court dated 04-07-2023^{in LA.No.2of 2023 in Crl.A No.456 of 2O18'}

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶6

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH^{DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL^KUMARJUKANTI

¶10

CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 456 of 2018

¶11

Appeal under Section 37 4(2) ot^{Cr.P.C aggrievedby the Judgmentdated} 18-01-2018 passed in S.C.No.458 of^{2016 on the file of the Court of the Vl} Additional District & Sessions Judge^{at Godavarkhani.}

¶12

Between:

¶13

Paligiri Vinoda, Wo Late Komuraiah,^{Age:43 years, Occ: Household,Rlo.4-2-} 256:n^{/C/A,Annapurna} Colony,^{NTPC, Godavarikhani, KarimnagarDistrict.}

¶14

...APPellanUAccused No'1

¶15

AND

¶16

The State of Telangana, represented^{by its Public Prosecutor' High Court at} Hyderabad.

¶17

... Respoⁿ de nUCom^{pla in a nt}

¶18

Gounsel for the Appellant:^{Ms. Y. Ratna Prabha}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent:^{Assistant Public Prosecutor}

¶20

The Court delivered the following:^JUDGMENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶22

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.456 of 2Ol8

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

This Criminal Appeal is frled questioning the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused No. 1 uideJudgment, dated 18.01.2018 in Sessions Case No.458 of 2016 by the learned VI Addltional District and Sessions Judge, Godavarikhani, wherein the appellant/accused No. 1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "I.P.C.") and to pay fine of Rs.10O0/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one (01) month. 2. Heard Ms.Y. Ratna Prabha, learned counsel for the appeltant/accused No.1 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant-State. 3. Appellant and her son-accused No.2 were tried for murdering the hirsband of appellant/accused No.1.

¶25

KS,J and JAK,J Crl.A.No.456 of?018

¶26

¶27

Learned Sessions Judge found that^{accused No.2 wasnot} responsible and accordingly, acquitted him.

¶28

PW1 is the daughter of the appellant. She went^to police station on 27.04.2016, and lodged a telugu written cdmplaint at 7. 15 P.M. In the complaint, she^narrated that she is the daughter of the deceased^and appellant/accused No.l is her mother. In the^evening around 5.3O P.M., she came to know that her^{father died} and for the past few years the relation^betweenher mother/appellant and father/deceased was not^proper and they used to fight for the^{property. Appellantwas} staying away from the deceased since two^{(2) years.PWl} furthi:r narrated that her maternal uncle De!'ulapalii Venugopal (not examined), informed her about the appellant and accused No.2 killing the deceased. 5. PW 1 came to know about the death of her father and went to her maternal uncle Devulapalli^Venugopal. Venugopal was enlisted as witness in the^{charge sheet,} however, he was not examined during the trial.^{PWs.2 to} 7 Llave all turned hostile to the^prosecution case.

¶29

¶30

KS,J and IAK,J Crl.A.No 456 ol20l8

¶31

PW9 registered FIR on the basis of complaint^given by PW 1 . PW 1O is the investigation officer who went to scene of offence and conducted^{panchanamaand} thereafter, inquest proceedings were held. The body was s6nt for post-mortem examination. PW8 is the doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and stated that cause of death of the deceased was due to asphyxia, due to strangulation.

¶32

Apart from the evidence of PWl, who lodged complaint on the basis of information given by Der,,ulapalli Venugopal, who was not examined, there is absolutely no evidence to remotely connect the appellant with the death of the deceased. As seen from the photographs, the dead body was found tied to a pole on the road. There is no last seen evidence. None of the witnesses stated that the appellant went near the house of the deceased. Admittedly, the deceased and the appellant were staying separately since two years according to PWl. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to hnd the appellant/ accused No.1 guilty of the offence alleged

¶33

KS,J and JAK,J Crl.ANo.456 ol20l8

¶34

¶35

against her. The conviction and sentence recorded by the

¶36

learned Sessions Judge are set aside.

¶37