Paritala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana

Held: To begin with, PW3 had stated that a few days prior to the incident, there was hot talk between the complainant-PW1 and the appellant, and in fact, PW3 had reprimanded the appellant for quarrelling with PW1 – However, the High Court has disbelieved this aspect without assigning any reason(s) for the same – On perusal of the Judgment(s)/Orders(s) of the Courts below and the material on record, it transpires that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses – From all the official versions of the witness’ depositions before the Trial Court, the claimed/projected sequence of events by the prosecution-respondent, of both (i) * Author [2025] 6 S.C.R. 181 the money being placed in the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of the appellant’s bike, and; (ii) its recovery as also whether the same was in the presence of the appellant, does not seem to inspire confidence – The same cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt – As far as presumption u/s.20 of the Act is concerned, the factum of demand, in the backdrop of an element of animus between the appellant and complainant, is not proved – In such circumstances, the presumption u/s.20 of the Act would not militate against the appellant – Thus, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant is set aside, extending to him the benefit of doubt – The judgments of the Courts below are quashed. [Paras 17, 19, 21, 22] Case Law Cited