The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 389 (1) praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased that this court the petitioner seeking bail in this case with reasonable and genuine grounds the petitioner obey the orders and ready to accept and obey any conditions to release on bail the petitioner is a poor and innocent person due to imprisonment he loses his family life and very much suffer the family members and mental agony. The petitioner not able to change the evidences granting bail so please consider his request for granting bail. otherwise he suffer loss and hardship by consider ng the above facts and circumstances' lt is therefore prayed that Honottrable High court may be please to enlarge the petitio ne r/accused on bail in Crl,Appeal No. '1 336 of 2018 by suspending the judgment dated 1 1lo4l2o11 by the Honourable court of the lv Additional District and Sessions Judge r'FTC) at Mahabubnagar in SC'No 200 of 12010' pending disposal of the crirninal aPPeal. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri K Rama Subba Rao ' ' CounselfortheRespondent:SriArunKumarDodla,AdditionalPublic Prosecutor The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: ,0 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR WKANTI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1336 0F 2018 JUDGMENT: (per The Hon'bte Sri Justice K.SURENbER) This Criminal Appeal is frled questioning the conviction ald sentence imposed against the appellant/accused, vide Judgment dated II.O4.2OI1, in S.C.No.2OO of 2OIO, by the IV Additional Sessions Judge (F-TC), Mahabubnagar, wherein the appellant/accused was convicted under Sections 302 and 379 of the Indial penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 379 of Indian penal Code; to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 3O2 of the Indial Penal Code ald to pay a {ine of Rs.2OO/-. Both the sentences of imprisonment imposed on the accused shall run concurrently. 2. ' Heard Sri K,Rama Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/accused and Mr.Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. :,; , I 2

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that, PW 1, who is the wife of the deceased, namely Krishnaiah, lodged a complarnt with the polibe on 21.72.2OO7, at about 4.30 p.m. In the complaint, she n arrated that the deceased v.,as missing frorn 20.12.2007 at 7.00 p.m. He left the house on the saic time and did not return home. A11 of trem started searching for the deceased and around 3.00 p.m., the dead body of the deceased was found in between Jadcherla-Gangapur road rn the helds. He was found with bleeding injuries to the head. [n tht, complaint, however, PW. 1 narrated that on the previous night arounrl 7.30 P.M., the deceased w.enl. along with the appellant, who q'as a resident of Nagasala villag,:, for consuming liquor and thereafter. did not return.

4. During the course of trial, PW. 1 improved her version stating that, the decezrsed took Rs.5,500/- from her in the pre:;ence of the appellant and ieft the house around 7.00 p.m.. alor:.g with the appellant, but dicl not return to the house till late night. Then, PW. 1 went to the house r:f her mother-in-law arould 9.0O p.m. and enquired with her. On the same day, around 4.OO P.M., she ca:ne to knou' through the rillagers that one male dead body u'as lying at the outskirts of GzLngapur village, near a temple. A11 of them went to the place and found the dead body of the-deeeased. o 3

5. PW.2 was around 13 years old when the incident had taken place. According to him, one day at 11.00 A.M., the deceased came to his house and took him to the outskirts of the Badepally village and played cards in the forest area. The appellant and another woman also played cards, and the deceased won some amount while playing cards and the deceased asked PW.2 to keep the money with him. After playing cards around 7.0O P.M., all of them returned home and went to the house of PW.3, where they consumed arrack. Then pW.2 ald the deceased came out of the house of PW.3 to go to the house of the deceased. Then the appellalt came there and met the deceased near the house of PW.3 and asked the deceased to play cards again. The deceased asked PW.2 to re tum the arnount which was kept with hirn. However, PW.2 refused and the appellalt snatched the amount from PW.2 and gave the amount to the deceased. Both the appellant arld deceased left on a motorcycle. Thereafter, PW.2 went home. On the next day, he came to know that the dead body of the deceased was found. PW.2 informed PW. 1-Ellamma, who is the wife of the deceased.

6. PW.3 is the womal, named Lalamma, in whose house PW.2, tJre appellant, and the deceased consumed arrack, and then all of them 4 left from the place and the next day, PW.3 came to know that the dead body of the deceased was found lying near Gangapur villagt:.

7. PW.4, rhe scene of offence pancha and PW.S, lhe inquest pancha, both turrred hostile to the prosecirtion case. I)W.6 is the postmortem cloctor, who found the following injuries on the dead body of the deceased: " i) Fracture, Temporo Frontal bone of skull on left side ii) Fracture of left side of mandible. iii) Lasaration of jaw bone on left side measuring Yz" x Y," x Yo" iv) Lasaration 3\" x I Yz" x 7+" extending from left ear to cheek v) Laseration l" x ',/"" x V+" over right cheek. vi) Laceration \r, " >,.'/+" x 7o" below mandible on right side. vii) Laceration 1 " >l Y. " x /" " in front of neck viii) Laceratiort lr " x 2" x /." over chest. ix) Laceration ove;- right ear Yz " x /, " x Yo". x) Laceration over left ear 1 " x Yz " x Y""."

8. PW.7 is the scene of offence pancha, who witnessei. the seizure of MOs.1 to 4 liom. the scene. PW.8 is the inquest pancha, PW.9 is the witness to the alleged confession and seizure of Rs.500/- from the R 5 appellant. PW. 10 received the complaint-Ex.pl from pW.1, and he registered the complaint. pW. I 1 is the Investigating Offrcer, who took over investigation on 2r.r2.2ooz . pw. 1 1 conducted the scene of offence panchanama,, inquest proceedings, and, thereafter, the dead body was sent for the purpose of postmortem examination. According to PW. 11, the appellant was apprehended on 05.01.200g, at 06.15 P.M., near RTC bus-stand, Jadcherla. One Rs.500/- note was recovered at his instance.

9. The case is one of circumstantial evidence. The Honourable Supreme Court, in Sha:nkar a. Stolte of Maharashtrat, held as follows; "In the decision of Prakosh u. Stqte of Rajasthan (2013) 4 SCC 668, this Court took note of the following principles laid down regarding the law relating circumstantial evidence in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda u. State of Mahara.shtra (1984) 4.SCC 116:- "153. A close analgsis of thi"s decision tuould shou that the following conditions must be futfilled before a case against an acansed can be said to be fullg established: (1)The circumstances from uhich the conclusion of guilt ts to be dra u.tn should be fully estabtished. It mag be noted here thnt thi.s Court indicated that the I 2023 SCC Online SC 268 l 6 circumsttances concerrLed 'must or should' anC not 'mag be' established. T?ere is not onlg a grammatical but a legal distinction betueen 'mag be prouecii.' and 'mrlst be or should be proued' as u)as 11s1fl fu4 this CotLrt in Shiuaji Sahabrao Bobade u. State of Ma,4arashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793] where the foll,tttting obs ert,ttt i ons u.tere m ade : 19. ..... .'certainlg, it is a primary principle thot the accuseri must be and not merely mag be guiltg before a c)utt can conuict and the mental distance be;lueen 'rncty be' and 'must be' is long and dit ides uague con jechtres from sure conclusions" (2) The fz,:fs so established should be consistenl onlg uith the hypothesis of the guilt of the acased, that is to :;aA, theg should not be explainoble on ang other hg1'tothesis except that the accused is guilt.g, (3)fhe- circumstances should be of a conclu.siue tlature ond te'rtdencg, (4) Thezg should exclude euery possible hgpothesis tzxcept the one'to be proued, and (5) Th<,-re tnust be a chain of euidence so complete ,zs not to leat'e onA reasonoble ground for tlrc conclusion cor,.sistent uLith the innocence of the acansecl and must :shot-t-t that in all human probabilitg the act. must h.oue been done bg the accused. (tt 7

154. These fiue golden principtes, if tue mog saA so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case ba.sed. on circum.stantial eutdence. "

10. The prosecution has heavily relied on the last seen theory. According to PWs.2 and 3, they have seen both the appellart and the deceased for the last time around 7.00 p.M. on 20.]2.2OOT.

11. PW. I stated that around 7.0O p.M., the appellant and the deceased left from their house and the deceased had ta-ken Rs.5,50o/- from PW. 1. Contraqr to pW. 1,s evidence, pW.2 stated that he and the deceased played cards a,,d the deceased won an amount of Rs.5,500/-. The said version of pws. 1 a',d 2 contradicts one another. PW. I did not speak about the presence of pW.2 when the appellant and the deceased left the house of pW. 1. According to pW.2, the deceased was with him since 1f .00 A.M. on the said day. pW.2 did not mention about the deceased going to his house. The version of pW.2 that the deceased left the house at 11.00 A.M. in the morning is not stated by PW. I .

12. PW.3 and PW.2 speak about the presence of the deceased and the appellant in the trouse of pW.3 for consuming arrack. Thereafter, both the deceased and the appellant left on a mortocycle. The dead body of deceased was found on the next day around 4.00 p.M. The I t 8

1.. time gap in ber-ween the last seen and the dead body being found is around 21 hours. After the appellant and the deceased 1e1t the house of pw.3, there is no evidence to say that both the appellrrnt a]1d the deceased travelled together to Galgapur village,'where tht: dead body was found.

13. The Honour:able Sr.rpreme Court, 1n Surajdeo Mahto and another a. The State oJ Bihar,2 held that: "3O. The case of the prosecution in the present case heavily banks upon the p1in.ip1" of "last seen theoq/. Bricfly pr t, the last seen theorr is applied where the time interval betwei )n the point of when the accused artd the deceased were lasl seen together, and rvhen the victim is found dead, is so small that the possibility of any other person other than the accused beilrg the perpetrator of crime becomes impossible. Elaboraling r;n the principle o1 "l:Lst seen alive", a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Satpol v. State of Haryona l(2O181 6 SCC 610l has, however, cautionecl .that unless the fact of last seen is corroboral-ed by some other evrclence, the fact that the deceased was last seen in the vicinity of the accused, would by itself, only be a weal< kind of evidence. Tht: Court further held : "6. ... l]uccinctly stated, it may be a weak kind 'lf evidence l-ry itself to found conviction upon the san te singularll'. But when it is coupled with otht:r circrtmstarces such as the time when the deceast'd ' izozzy r t scc eoo I I ) ,., ( 9 absconds motive is established u/as last seen with the accused, and the recovery of the corpse being in very close proximit5r of time, the accused owes an explanation under Section 1O6 of the Evidence Act with regard to the circumstalces under which death may have taken place. If the accused offers no explal ation. or furnishe's a wrong exnlalation there is corroborative evidence available inter alia in the form of recovery or otherwise forming a chain of circumstances leading to the only inference for guilt of the accused, incompatible with any possible hypothesis of innocence, conviction cat be based on the same. If there Lre aly doubt or break in the link of chain of circumstances, the beneht of doubt must go to the accused. Each case will therefore have to be examined on its own facts for invocation of the doctrine."

14. It is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant absconded after the incident. Though, suspicion was expressed by pW. 1 in her complaint since the appellant and the deceased were last seen together, however, no efforts were made to apprehend the appellant. The Investigating Officer does not say that . the appellalt had absconded or that the Investigating Officer made any efforts to apprehend the appellant. The arrest was after 16 days of the incident. When it is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant had I I 1U absconded, the evidence of last seen, which was 21 hours prior to the dead body beirrg found, cannot form basis to convict th e appellant without any cor-roborating evidence.

15. As already tliscussed, the evidence of PWs. 7 and' 2 contradicts one another, and the time gap in between the last seen arld the dead body being found is 21 hours, ald there were no rvitnesses to state that the appellant and the deceased travelled together to the Gangapur village, which is a-t a distance of nearly 7 /" kms. from the house of PW.3, r,r.here the1. ',17"." last seen together. The time of derlth was not conclusively stated by the post mortem doctor. Accordir rg to PW.6- postmortem doctor, who conducted postmortem on 22. l2.2OO7 , at

12.30 p.m., the death must have occurred approximate iy 24 to 36 hcurs prior to the post mortem examination. If 24 hours is taken for consideration, the death must have occurred around 12.30 p.m on

21.12.2007. Then, the approximate time of death does n,rt ta1ly with the time of last seen evidence.

16. Taking into consideration the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court, in the above cited Judgment, when the circumstances do not form a complete chain, the only evidence of last r;een cannot L1, form basis to convict the appellalt. In the said circumsta-nces, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant/accused. 17 . Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed, setting aside the conviction recorded vide Judgment dated l1.O4.2}ll, in S.C.No.200 of 2010, by the IV Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Mahabubnagar, The appellant is acquitted. Since the appelrant/accused is on bail, his bail bonds shall 'stand discharged. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO J INT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER To,

1. The lV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Mahabubnagar 2. The Station House Officer, Jadcherla Police Station, Mahabubnagar 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally, [\Iedchal District. 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. One CC to Sri K. Rama Subba Rao, Advocate IOPUCI 6. Two CD Copies VH/DL N. HIGH COURT DATED: 0610312025 , \ ':\'r \ l; t\ .,ll < /,/ - - rnftl [ ['.r r t':..' t1r:,:t: : i 'l\ ",- '.. :.::- -_ -::.- .)1 i, \..i., '-- t . -:.- ORDER CRLA.No.1336 of 2018 ALLOWING THE APPEAL \1, r0