Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: Judgment THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.825 OF 2018 JUDGMENT:. (par Hon'ble Sri .hrstice K.Surender) l. This.lppeal is liled by the appellant/ accusecl, aggrieved by the judgment, dated 05.01.2018, in Spl.S.C.No.01 of 2015, passed by the learned Spl.Judgc For Trial of Czrses Under SCs/STs (POA) Act -cum V Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Adilabad, convicting the appel lant/ accused for the offence under Section 302 ol IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment

2. Heard Mr, C.Damodar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent - State.

3. The case of ,the prosecution is that PWl, who is the father of the deceased-Karthik, went to the Police Station and lodged complaint Ex.Pl. In the said complaint, he. narrated that, on 20.O2.2011, PW5, namely Mekala Kishan, informed PW 1 on phonc th:rt some identified person hacke d the deceased at Lony C)hou,rasta, Sirpur Kagaznagar, and fled from the scene. Thc botly was shifted to Vijaya hospital, 2 Kaghaznagar. PWl then went to Vijaya hqspit4l and by the time he reached the hospital, the deceased was found dead. The said Ex.Pl was lodged at 04:00 P.M. onl2O.O2.2OV. I

4. The complai,nt was registered, and PW2O-lnspector of Police took up investigation. He went to the scene of offence and photographed the scene in the presence of PWs.9 and 11. The next day, inquest proceedings were concluded in the presence of PWs.l2 and 13. The body was then sent for autopsy. PW 16 conducted autopsy and found the following lnJ1rrres " 1. Lacerated wound measuring 4x2 inches at the nape of the neck

2. Lacerated wound measuring 4x1 just above the left

3. Three lacerations measuring 4x1x31cm over left wrist region. The btood vessels at the lower waist are found severed.

4. Exploration of skull, a subdural haemotoma found in frontal region. This might be contracoup injury."

5. According to PW16, the death was on account of head injury leading to heamorrhagic shock. Ex.P7 is the post mortem report.

6. The accused was arrested on 22.02.2014, at 07.30 A.M. at the Railway Station, Kagaznagar. He was interrogated in the presence of PWs.14 and 17 (indcpendent witnesses), and consequent to his confession, MOs.9 and 10, which are, a -l shirt and a pair of pants of the appellant worn during the incident, were seized. Further, MO.8, i.e., blood stained knife was seized unrler the cover of panchanama.

7. Having completed the investigation, chargt: sheet was laid against thr: appellant for the offences punisl-rable under Section 302 ol IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SCs/STs (POA) Act,

8. The learned Sessions Judge mainly placecl reliance on the evidence of PWs.6 and 7 and convicted the appellant. llhe evidence of PWS, namely Kishan, whose name was mentioned in the Ex.P1 complaint, was disbelieved on account of the statement made before the Magistrate under Secrion 164 of Cr.P.C. PW5 stated thal he does not know who murdered the deceased. The said staternent made before the Magistrate was marked as Ex.D 1. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would submit

9. that - l. The injuries found on the dead body are not tallying with the eye witness account. Though there is no mention of' any heacl injury being caused, however, the death occurred on account of head injury. 4

2. No Test Identihcation Parade was conducted and admittedly, the appellant was a stranger to PW5. Both PWs.6 and 7 stated that they know the appellant, who is working as an auto driver.

3. The complaint was filed at 04:00 P.M. on 20.02.2074, however, the complaint reached the Magistrate on the next day, i.e., 21.02.2014, at 10:30 A.M. There is an unexplained delay of l6 % hours.

10. On the other hand, Iearned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of PWs.6 and 7, who are having push carts in the said area, where the incident happened, have deposed about the incident. In fact, it was also stated that appellant was known to them, therefore, their evidence cannot be disbelieved.

11. According to PWl, i.e., complainant and father of the deceased, it was PWS, who informed him 4bout the incident that the appellarit attacked the deceased with the knife used for chopping coconuts. PW5 in his evidence stated that he saw the appellant hacking the deceased. However, in his cross-examination, PWS admitted that he does not have any shop in the place, where the incident happened, and he did not have any work in the place at thc time of the incident. He ) is a chance witness and his presence at the scene is doubtful. Moreover, in tl-re statement made under Section 164 Cr.p.C., which was marked as Ex.D 1, PWS clenied knowledge of the incident itself.

12. The other witnesses are pWs.6 and 7. pW6 stated that he does not know who the deceased is, however, he knows the accused- According to him, he was running a chat business on push cart since l0 years. On 20.O2.2O14, pW5 did not set up his business on the road, and he was present along rvith PW7. Whi1e, pW7 was going to attend lhe natures call, he asked PWS to look after his coconut push cart. At time, the incident happened. The appeltant, who was present at the side of coconut cart, hacked the k:ft hancl of the deceased withi the coconut chopping knife, and then the deceased fell down. Meanwhile, a call was marle to iog ambulance, ancl ltherealter, the deceased was shifted to Sirpur hospital in 1 the ambulance. In the cross-examination, PW6 stated that he usecl to prepare mirchi bajji at the place and that he was busy most of the time. 13 . PW7 also stated about asking pW5 to stay near his coconut push cart, and seeing the appellant hacking the deceased with the chopping knife, which was taken from his 6 cart. The appellant hacked the left side of the neck of the deceased and blood was oozing. Thereafter, PW7 left the place. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he was not present when the incident happened and he did not see what happened. In view of the admission of PW7 in his cross-examination, his evidence cannot be believed. PW6 is the only witness who speaks about the incident. PW6 was examined by PW20 on the day of thc incident. Howevcr, the name of PW6 is not reflected in the inquest proceedings, as an eye witness to the incident. The inquest proceedingj were concluded in the hospital. Though, PWl stated that he enquired about the incident, however, the name gf PW6 as an eye witness was not mentioned in the complaint that was frled by him.

14. The complaint was lodged at 04:00 P.M. on 20.O2.2014, however, the complaint reached the Court only on the next day, i.e., 21.O2.2074, at 10:30 A.M., with a,delay of nearly l6 Yz hours. The said delay was not explained by the Investigating Ofhcer.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Perigasamg a. Stdte Rep- bg the Inspector of Policel, held as follows: I 2024 Livelaw (SC) 244 7 "The delay therefore renders circumstances questionable. Also, as we have allucled to earlier, there is a significant gap in the examination o[ PW2 as well. For all the aforesaicl reasons, it cannot be said that the prosecution had succeeded rn establishing its case against the two accused persons beyond reasonable doubt warranting a conviction under Section 302 lpc."

16. The Honble Supreme Court, in Perigasamg's CASC (supra), also helcl as follows: "Various lapses such as these cumulati,,.ely aff-er:t the over:rll sanctity of the prosecution <:ase, making it fall short of the threshold of beyond reirsonrble doubt. lt is in such circumstances, on analysis of the record, that we are unable to sustain the con\.iction handed down by the Courts below to A-1 and A-2. The injured witnesses and the Investigation Officer in their testimony together are not inspiring confidence, and in our own estimation the prosecution case stands shaken beyond a point to which no convlction restlng thereupon can be said to be just in thc eyes of law_ We sustain tl're challenge on the grounds, among otl-rers that, (a) examined private persons were interested witnesses, with inconsistencies amongst them; (b) no independent witnesses were examin"i (c) therr.was a delay in filing the FIR; (d) there w,ere interpolations on record; (e) there were numeroLrs lapses in the investigation; and (f) ttre medical and scientific evidence on record does not support the prosecution's version of events.',

17. PW6 speaks about the assault by the appellaht on the Ieft hand of the deceasecl with the chopping knife. There is no mcntion about any injury on the head. According to post mortem Doctor, the fatal injury was injury No.4, rvhich is an injury to the skull.

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, IN Krishneg o wda and others a. Stote of Kq.rrr.o.to,ka bg Arkalgud Police2, held as follows: "Medical Evidence: When we look at the medical evidence, the Doctor (PWiO) has categorically stated that the weapons were not sent to her. In the chief examination, it was stated that the injuries 1&4 on the body of the deceased are possible with chopper and club. But in the cross examination it was deposcd that evcn if a person falls on a sharp obJect these injuries could happen. According to PW3, the deceascd fell into the drain."

79. As already discussed, the name of PW6 is not mentioned in the complaint, which was sent to the Court with a delay, nor was his name mentioned during the inquest proceedings. The ocular evidence of PW6 is corltrary to the medical evidence. PW6 did not state anything about the attack on the head or the neck of the deceased. Injuries Nos.l, 2, and 4 are on the neck, skull, and above left ear. Lacerations were found on the left wrist region of the deceased. Not mentioning the manner in which the deceased was attacked, coupled with the other circumstances as discussed above, makes the evidence of PW6 doubtful.

20. In a case, all the circumstances and the events narrated by the prosecution have to be looked into. When the 2 crl.A.No.635 of 2006 E 9 I events are (-ollectively looked into, the presence of pW6 becomes doubtful.l For the said reasons, the benefit of doubt l is extended to the appellant. In view of the'.above discussion, this Criminal Appeal is allorve d, and the sentence and conviction imposed against the appellant i n the judgment, dated 0S.01.2018, in 2015, are hereby set aside. Since the appellant is in jait, he shall be released forthwith. if he is not r-equired in an.y other case. Spl.S.C.No.01 of //TRUE COPYII SD/. K SRINIVASA RAO. JOINT REGISTRAR: \l\t 5 \_ ECTION OFFICER To, 1 The speciar Judge for cases under scs/srs (poA) Act cum V Additionar District and Sessions Judge, at Adilabad 2. The Superintendent, Central prison, Warangat 9. 9n" CC to Sri C Damodar neooy, novocitJibpuct 4 Two ccs to the pubric prosecut6i, nigr' cori ;itn" st.t" of rerangana at 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] ADK e HIGH COURT DATED:0610312025 / JUDGMENT CRLA.No.825 of 2018 E ,i l- Al"€ 1 !'. <L (() /i /, 5 rJ 12 ltiAfl zffi k /)l.a;r..; i.,r ar9 P *L' -,1 ALLOWING THE CRLA {