Raghu Prabhu v. The State of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 896 of 2018 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment dated 07-11-2017 passed in S.C.No.296 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge at Godavarikhani. Between: Raghu Prabhu, S/o Sadanand Prabhu, Age:25 years, convict prisoner No.8754, Central Prison, Warangal, ...AppellanUAccused AND The State of Telangana, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Mrs. Mukkera Sahithi Sri Kavya Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT t I i , THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDI:R AND THE ETON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOP, AL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.896 OF 2018 JUDGMEIYTi ! 'e r Hon'bte Si Justice K.Suren-d,er) The €rpl )(:l1ant filed the present crimin.a 1 appeal, aggrieved b1.' tre life imprisonment imposed againit him on

09.11.2O17', tb: the offence punishable under Sectior 3O2 of IPC, vide juclgrr,:nt dated 07.11.2017 in SC No.296 of t)015 by the learned Additional District and Sessior s Judge, Godavarikhzrni 2 Heard Mr s.Mukkera Sahithi Sri Kavya, learrLed :ounsel the appeJJrnt and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Iearned Additional Prrb i,r Prosecutor for the respondent/ Strel e.

#3. The comllaint/Ex.P1 was filed on i.4.O7.2OlI v,ith the PS, Kamanpur, by PW3. In the said complaint, it was mentioned rthal ',he appellant, viz. Raghu Prabhu, eurd several others were wo 1<ing in the brick making unit ownecl ty pW6. The deceased ,r'as found dead in his house. pV/l is the paternal aunt cf the deceased. According to pWl, she stated !-=-El \ \ -..S i': that the deceased, his wife, and the sister-in-law of the appellant were staying 1na separate hut. The appellalt quarrelled with Parashuram Boye (deceased) in view of his love affair with the appellant's sister-in-law. The deceased was sleeping in the open area in front of the hut. At about 4-00 AM, on the next day, the deceased was found dead Further, his nose was bleeding, and blood was oozing out of his mouth and ears.

#4. PW2 is the wife of PWl. PW3 is the mother of the deceased. PW4 is the daughter of PW3. A11 the witnesses have stated that the dead body was found, and they suspected that it was the appellant who committed the murder of the deceased..

#5. PW7 is the panch witness for Ex.P3/scene of panchanama, under which MO.1/blood-stained stone was seized. PWS is the inquest panch. PW9 is the postmortem doctor. PW1O is the Assistant Sub-Inspector who received the complaint.

#6. PW1 I is the investigating offrcer, who, on th: rasis of the complaint .liJed by PW3, interrogated the appeil, ant, and on the basis o1' his ,:onfession, a charge-sheet was laid

#7. The entir r case of the prosecution rests on the sr spicion expressed tr1' p 1r". 1 to 4. None of the witnesses hav : s een the appellant eithe - at the scene of offence or quarrellin I ldth the deceased, eit-hr r on the previous night or having arLy conflict with the de,:eas e d prior to the deceased being foun.<l dead B. Except th e suspicion expressed by PWs. I to z , -here is absolutely no :'ridence whatsoever to connect the al rpellant with the death c,f the deceased. Though the witnesse; spoke about the re e tionship between the deceased a. rd the appellant's srst: --in-law, however, the said allegatiorr i; based II on suspicion. Even assuming that the prosecutron .was able to prove that ther r was a relationship between the de,:r:a:,ed and the appellant ; sister-in-1aw, it will not atrsol.,e the l i prosecution fr, rtn proving its case against the a1:pe1lant beyond all reas, r:rable doubt. w

#9. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident, and there are no witnesses who have last seen the deceased in the company of the appellant.

#10. The suspicion, however strong, cannot be taken as legal proof. There is absolutely no proof to remotely connect the appellant with the murder of the deceased. Accordingly, the appea-l stands al1owed. 1 1 . In the result, this criminal appeal IS allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellalt, vide judgment in SC No.296 of 2015 by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Godavarikhani. Bail bonds of the appellant stand canceiled //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 I l

#1. The Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge at Godavarikhani (with records, if any) 2, The Judicial tVlagistrate of First Class, l/anthani. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Warangal 4. The Station House officer, Kamanpur Police station, Karimnagar District. 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

#6. One CC to I\Irs. Mukkera Sahithi Sri Kavya, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies Kam./gh 1 ,Yy HIGH COURT DATED:08104t2025 ) l ,- .\ l. rlrl ,tl ': /l '-+, {. $ \\ - i.'-, '-.:..-,_;,;. -- JUDGMENT CRLA.No.896 of 2018 ALLOWING I'HE CRIMINAL AI]PEAL a{