In Rajeevan And Another v. State of Keralal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under

' A,'".',lnnj?,,"@.B::I;:'.,XI,?J;',?j?,.t*r::Bgh @ srinu, Age 35 vears, Methari, AND State of Telangana, Represented by public prosecutor, High Cou( at Hyderabad ...Appellants / Accused ...Respondent / Complainant lA NO:1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 438 (1) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner herein on bail by suspending the sentence imposed in SC.No.91 of 2016 dated 24t0712o17 on the file of the court of the II Addl. sessions Judge, Karimnagar at Jagital, and release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of CRLA No. 189 of 2018. Counsel for the Appellants : Sri J Kusumavathi, Legal Aid Counsel Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor Ttie Court delivered the following Judgment : C't 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.189 OF 2018 JUDGMENT:I'pcr Hon'ble Sri Justice KSurender) 1. The Appeal is filed by the appellants/A-1 i\' A-2 aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.O7 .2017 , in S'C.No.91 of 2016, on the file of II Additiona-l Sessions Judge, Karinrnagar at Jagtial. The appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 3O2 of IPC and sentenced to life irnprisonment.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla. Iearned Additiona-l Public Prosecutor for respondent- State

3. The appellants herein, were prosecuted for comrnitting the murder of Kanakaiah (D.1) and Mondawa (D.2) on

30.06.2015. A complaint was filed by P.W. 1, w'ho is the wife of the deceased (D.1), with Sub-Inspector of t'}olice/P.W. 11. In the complaint, P.W.l narrated that both D.1 and D.2 were working as coolies at the same place and use,1 to consume toddy regularly. Three days prior to the incident, both the appellants went to the house of D .2 and ac:cused her of committing theft of a celi phone, worth Rs. 19,OOO/- and a ) purse containing cash of Rs. 1O,OOO/-, and forced her to return the same. The appellants also threatened to kill her, if the cell phone and money were not returned. On

30.06.2015, both the deceased went to work, however, they did not return. The next morning, i.e., on Ol.O7.2Ol5, around 9 a.m., P.W. 1 came to know that dead bodies of her husband and Mondar,'va were found lying in front of toddy compound, and they were beaten up with stones resulting in their death. Further, P.W. 1 stated that the said incident was witnessed by Ma-llesham (not examined) and Maremma/P.W.5.

4. P.W.11, having received the complaint, handed over the investigation to P.W. 12. P.W. 12 went to scene of offence and prepared scene of offence panchnama, inquest proceedings were concluded, and the bodies were sent for post mortem examination.

5. The appellants were arrested on O4.O7.2O15. Both of them confessed to committing murders. Accordingly, the appellants were produced before the concerned Magistrate. Having concluded the investigation, charge sheet was filed. aa, 5 not help the prosecution to draw any inference of involr'ement of accused in committing the crime.

9. In Rajeevan And Another v. State of Keralal, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: " 15. As feared by the learned counsel for the eLppellanrs, the possibility of subsequent implication of t he appellants as a result of afterthought, may be due to political bitterness, cannot be ruled out. TtLis fact is fur[her bul-tressed by the delayed placing of CIR belcre the Magistrate, non-satisfactory explanation giuen by t.he Police Officer regarding the blank sheets in th e Ex. PllO counter loil of the FIR and also by the closely writtr:n bottom part of Ex.Pl statement by PW 1. A11 these factual circumstances read with the aforerrentioned decisions of this Court lead to the conclusion that it is not sale to rely upon the FIR in the instant case. The delay of 12 hours in filing FIR in the instant case irrespective of the lact the Police Station is sitr-rated only at a distance of 100 meters from the spot of incident is another factor sufficient to doubt the genuineness of FIR. Moreover, the Prosecution did not sa1-isfactor..ly explain the delayed lodging of FIR with the Mag,istrate. 16. This Court in Marudanal Augusti v. State c,f Kerala, , while decirling a case which involves a qr:estion of delayed dispatch of the FIR to the Magistrate, cautionr:d that such delay would throw serious doubt on ' (2003) 3 scc 3ss 6 prosecution case, whereas in Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar, 1994 Supp. 2 SCC 322, it was reminded by this Court that: "...the forwarding of the occurrence report is indispensable and absolute and it has to be to forwarded with earliest despatch which intention is implicit with the use of the word 'forthwith, occurring in Section 157 CrPC, which means promptiy and without any undue delay. The purpose and object is very obvious which is spelt out from the combined reading of Sections 157 and 159 CrPC. It has the dual purpose, firstly to avoid the possibility of improvement in the prosecution story and introduction of any distorted version by deliberations and consultation and secondly to enatrle the Magistrate concerned to have a watch on the progress of the investigation. . .,,

10. The complaint was frled at 1O a.m., the next day of the incident, though the incident happened on the previous day, at 11:30 p.m. Further, the complaint reached Magistrate at 5 p.m. There is not only a delay of 1O hours in lodging the complaint, there is a further delay of 7 hours in the complaint reaching the Court. p.W. 12 has not given any reasons as to why there was a delay in lodging the complaint. According to inquest report, the dead bodies were found at 9 a.m., on O7.O7.2O15. P.W. I also stated that she came to know about the death of the deceased at 9 a.m. The version " -- = .) =:=.'- "==== - 7 of P.W.s, that she had witnessed the incident and informed P.W. 1, appears to have been made up subsequently. No reasons u,ere given as to why no information was giver:L to the Poiice, in the night itself, when P.W.S have witnessed the incident. As already stated, bodies were found at 9 a.m., on the next dalr morning. In view of the said discrepancies found in the prosecution case, it calnot be said that the appeliants have caused the death of the deceased. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is extended to bo1.h the appellants.

11. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed. Since A 1 is in jail, he sha1l be released forthwith. It is informed that A-2 is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. \ To, //TRUE COPY// sd/- K. sRrNlvASA BAO JOINT REGIS R SECTION OFFICER

1. The ll Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial (with records, if any) 2. The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial 3. The Member secretary, High court Legal services conrmittee, High court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad

4. The Station House Officer, Jagtial Town PS, Karimnagar District 5. The Superintendent, District Prison, Warangal I By SPeed Post ]

6. The Superintendent, District Jail, KarimnagarSpeed post l

7. The Superintendent, District Jail, Nizamabad IBy Speed Post ]

8. One CC to Sri J Kusumavathi, Legal Aid Counsel [OUT] w" :;:t'aw CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:2010212025 I t JUDGMENT GRLA.No.189 of 2018 :--.-:- f' 2Bi['J ?t?1 1't ':) -k i--'\i-:: _=;:- ALLOWING THE CRLA \