The High Court · 2025

2. Hezrrd ll.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appeilant-acc,rsed and Sri M.Vivekanalda Recldy, learned Assistant Pultlic Prosecutor representing Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learn ed Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondt:nt-S tate and perused the record.

3. Thc case of the prosecution, in brief, is that pWl, the wife of the deceased, went to the police station and lodged a complaint o n 03 .72.2012 , stating that her husband, K.Srinu, was found dead at the quarry where he was working. She suspected that some unknown person might 2 have killed him. The said complaint was registered by PW1O, and the investigation was handed over to PWl1. PWll went to the scene of offence and took the photos of the dead body. A rough sketch of the scene. of offence was drawn, and inquest was also held. After the inquest proceedings, the body was sent for postmortem examination. During the course of the investigation, on

23.12.2012, PW4, who was the Village Revenue Officer, took the appellant to the police station and surrendered him. According to PW4, the appellant confessed before him about causing the death of the deceased on 03.12.2012. PWll interrogated the appellant in the presence of independent witnesses. Having recorded the confession, PWl 1, along with independent witnesses, went to Jetturu Vagu, situated at the outskirts of Karankote Village. There, the appellant retrieved a weapon, which is a hunting sickle, from the sand. According to them, the hunting sickle (M.O. 10) was used to cause injuries to the deceased. Further, the appellant confessed that his blood-stained clothes were thrown into the water after being placed in a plastic cover along with stones. Since the water was deep, the recovery could not be effected. 3

4. During the course of the investigation, P\.I,'l 1 further identihed the toddy shop of PW5. According to PWS, a towel was used by t l-re appellant to sit and consume toddy. The appellant forgot the towel at the shop, and it was identified as belonging to the deceased, during the investigation. The material obje<:t that was seized at the instance of the appellant wa:i sent for FSL examination. Thereafter, a charge sheet r,,'as laid against the appellant.

5. Learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the circumstantizrI cvidence adduced by the prosecrrtion, found that the appellant had committed the murder of the deceased, :rnrl accordingly convicted and senten<:ed him.

6. Learnerl counsel appearing on behalf of tl-u: appellant would submi: that though the prosecution alleged that a knife was use d to commit the murder, however, the weapon actually seized was a sickle. The other evidence is of PW4, who is the V.R.O. According to the prosecution, the appellant confessed before PW4, however, V.R.O., in his cross examination, stated that the appellant wa.s a stranger to him. The said extra-judicial confession and the seizures effected cannot form the basis to convict the appellant. 4

7. The Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would submit that PW4 is a responsible person, and for the said reason, the appellant had gone to him and confessed to the crime. Pursuant to the said confession, there is corroborating evidence in the form of seizure of the sickle and also the towel belonging to the deceased. The irresistible conclusion is that it was the appellant who committed the murder of the deceased. B. The appellant was identified as the assailant on the basis of the alleged confession made to PW4. According to PW4, on 23.12.2012, the appellant came to the Gram Panchayat Office at around 2:O0 P.M and confessed before him, stating that he had taken a hand loan of Rs.6,000/- from the deceased as the said deceased was not paylng wages properly. The appellant's wife was quarreling with him for getting lower wages, for the said reason, he developed a grudge against the deceased and attacked him with a sickle. On the basis of the said confession, PW4 took the appellant to the police station and handed him over to the police. F.r 5

9. In the r:ross examination, PW4 admitted that he did not know tl.re accused prior to the confession. The prosecution lras failed to come up with any reasc,ning as to why the appeLlant would go before PW4, who is a stranger, and confess l:elbrc him when he was not even zr suspect in the case. It is not as though the police were behind him or that he was :ruspected of committing the murc[er by PW1. The Hon'brle Supreme Court in case of Sahad.eu and. Another u. State of Tamil Nadu,) held as und<:r:- "22. Upon o proper analgsis of the aboue-refened .judg,ncnl:; of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the pinctples tuhich unuld make an extra--iu.dicial confessiort an adm.issible piece of euidence capable of fonninq tire basis of conuiction of an accused. These precepts ut:tLLd guide the judicial mind u-,hile dealing with the t,eracitA of co.ses where the prosecution heat'ilU rt lies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to haue been made by the accused. The Pin<' ples (i) The extra judiciaL confession is q. weak euidence bg itself. It lras to be examined by the court with greater care' ond caution- (ii) It should be made uoluntarily and should be truthful. ' Arn 2cI2 scc 2r:ts 6 iii) It should inspire confrdence. (it) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and euidentiary uaLue, { it supported bg a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution euidence". "

10. Firstly, PW4 is a stranger to the accused. The appellant retracted and stated that he had never confessed to PW4, and that a false case was filed against him. One fails to understand why and under what circumstances the appellant would be compelled to go before a stranger and confess to him about the murder. As seen from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, extra-judiciai confession is a weak piece of evidence, and it must inspire confidence in the Court that it was made voluntarily. All the said aspects are missing in the present case.

11. After the confession of the appellant, the seizure of the sickle was effected. According to the case of the prosecution, the clothes of the appellant were kept in a plastic bag and thrown into the river. If, at all, the clothes were kept in a plastic bag and thrown into the river, one fails to understand as to why the sickle was kept separately in the r7 1 bushes. The said recovery does not inspire conhdence in the present facts c,f the case

12. Another connecting evidence is that of PWS. According to PW5, the appellant went to his toddy shop an<l placed the towel on the lloor to sit on while consuming toddy. He left the towel beLLincl, and when PW5 asked him to take the towel, the appellant replied that he would come back and take it later, br-rt he did not return. The evidence of PW5 is absurd. The ,,crsion is that the appellant left ttre towel in the todd.y shop, and when he was asked to take the towel, he went awar', stating that he would return aftei sometime to take the towel back. The said evidence cannot be believed.

13. The Ilonble Supreme Court in case of Naaaneethakrishnon Another u. Sto,te bg Inspector of Police,z helcl as under:- "ln the present case, there b no u-titness of the occurrcnce and it is onlg ba.sed on circumstantial euiden,:e. Before mouing further, it unuld be apposite tct ref<,r the law regarding reliabilitg of circumstantial euidert ce to acquit or conuict an accused. The lau_t - POlq 16 SCC 16 t 8 regarding circumstantial euidence uas aptlA deaLt utith bg thb Court in Padala Veera Reddg u. State of A.P. wherein this Court has observed as under:- " 10-..(1) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be dranun, must be cogentlg and finnly estabLi-shed; (2) those circumstances should be of o defintte tendencg unerringly pointtng touards guilt of the accused; (3) the circum,stances, taken cumulatiuelg, should fonn a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that uithin oll human probabilitg the cime wos committed bg the accused and none else; and; (4) the circumstantial euidence in order to sustaln conuiction must be complete and incapable of explanation of ang other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such euidence should not onlg be consistent taith the guilt of the accused but should be inconsi.stent utith his innocence".

74. The extra-judicial confession made to PW4, who is a stranger to the accused, cannot be believed. The version of PW5 does not inspire confidence. The seizure of the sickle is also doubtful. There are no reasons to sustain the conviction. t' i I i I I I I I 9

15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the Judgment datcd 22.12.2015 in SC No.3O of 2Ol,l, passed by the XII Addit.onal District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, and the conviction of the appeliant is hereby set aside. Appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not reqr.rired in any other case. The bail bonds, if any, furnishecl by him shall stand cancelled. The fine component remains unaltered. Miscciler neous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/. C.V. MALL //TRUE COPY// / // IKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REG6TRAR \i\\/ SECTION OFFICER ,// \\ To, District(With records, if any)

1. The Xll Additionar District and sessions Judge, at Vikarabad, Rangareddy 2. The statior House Officer, Marpally police Station, Ranga Reddy District 3. The Superintenrlent. Central pnson, Cherlapally( Ay speLO postj 4. One CC to SRt rl SURENDER REDDY, Advocate tOpilCt 5. Two ccs lo the Pubric prosecutor, High court for t'he state of rerangana at 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad (OU T) ADK I l I I I l I i I I I I I I I lrt\ I HIGH COURT DATED:1510412025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.721 of 2018 t, (. :/, \- ,Sr:i.. r ..\\::___-_ i 1 I I l i I i I I I I ALLOWING THE CRLA 4 ,a + lHE STA 14, (,(' ;l 2 APH 2025 ). + i, * I I