High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E'V' VENUGOPAL CRIMl NAL APPEAL NO:5 55 0F 2014 Appeal filed under section 374 (2\ of Cr'P C. aggrieved by the Judgment dated '14-05-2014 passed in S C'No 265 of 2O12on the file of the Court of the Vlll Additional District & Sessions Judge at Medak Between: --i--aotuirigamaLokesh,eo[",fi]il?"::"^i33lEi"::.:^Brll"i",rt,,". -occ:cootie' 'r-ing';''ial-'' 3 BliiillS3[3 H3[]H' ;;': iIi''ng"o 57 ve,aisi 4. Bobbiligama Eth*'J'i;h:';io"l'l*ii'r''.nstd-48 vears' occ:Agriculture' 5. Bobbilisama no''"''illtloiini'J'r'' ns"i ?6 Y:'* occ:coolie' Aged 30 vears' occ:coolie' s'i 6. Bantu Josinath e 'iijJ# 7 a"il i, i r, d; t.y "#:lrZl llitlg;l,i:: 3:"'; il:i:, "J#' cu'[u re 'ii:?:'iiJlt""x?i,::.'"iffi ;i:lil"lf ll;l["gf..li:'il"S,B,eand21 The State of Telangana' through rep by State Public Prosecutor' High Court of AND Hyderabad ...ResPondenUComPlainant Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Palle Sriharinath Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT -@-rV ,'.aL' -i- I .t HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL AppEAL No.5S5 OF 2014 JUDGMENT:

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellants/A1 to A5, A8, A9 and 42 I questioning their conviction vide judgment in s'c'No'265 0f 2072 dated 14.05.2014 passed by the learned VIII Additional District & Sessions Jucige, at Medak.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.O3.2O11 at 12.00 hours, the A.S.I, Pulkal visited the pocharam village at and recorded the statement of Grampanchayat complainant/p.W. 1. In the said statement, p.W. 1 statecl that on 22.O3.2OI1 at about 1O.30 hours, he was present at his house and he came to know that his villagers i.e., B.Lokesh,s (A1) wife Smt.B.Nagamani (hereinafter will be referred to as D1) got illegai intimacy with Edula Narsimulu (hereinafter will be referred to as D2). ,A1 is son of one Sri Bobbiligama Narayana, who is .A3. On 2I.O3.2OI1 night about 11p.m to 12 p.m, in the absence of ,{1, D1 and D2 were present at the house of A1 and participating in sexual intercourse. Meanwhile, A1 came to his house and caught hold of D2 red handedly, but he ran away from the house. Thereafter, 41, sri Manaiah (A2), brother of A1, 43, and brothe,rs /t 2 of A3 i.e., Adivaiah caught hold of D2 trshwaraiah (A4) arrd Mahesh (A22\ (As), and tied him to an electric pole beat mrrrdered. After murdet of D2' all the indiscriminatelY and accused shifted the dead body and hanged to a tamarind tree' near the house of Ramchandra Reddy (P'W'4) to screen the evidence. On coming to know about the murder of D2' the wife of A1 i.e., D1, who was having illegal intimacy with D2' felt insulted and committed suicide by consuming poison and dead' On 22.03.2011 at about OSOO hours' the accused shifted the dead bodies of D 1 and D2 Lo the outskirts of village and burnt the same with sticks and by kerosene to screen the evidence' Hence' the complaint, and requested to take action against the accused'

3. After recording the statement of the complainant' P'W'15 registered a case in Crime No'23/2011 under Sections 147' 148' 3O2,2Ol r lw !49IPC and Section 174 Cr'P'C and issued express FIRs and subsequently, handed over investigation to P'W' 16' who took investigation'

4. During the course of investigation' P'W'16 immediately mobilized the force from Jogipet circle and proceeded to the village of Pulkal ln the outskirts of Pocharam funeral place { t \ @'i; ':a - ;' ;/ Ma,dal and posted picket. when he observed that the flames of funeral are uncontrolled, he called the fire Station, Jogipet. P.W. 16 recorded details statement of p.W. I and vrsited scene of offence locatecl at Electrical pole in front of Durga Bhavani Temple at pocharam village and secured two mediators as Panchas L.W. 19 and L.W.20(p.W. 11), and conclucted scene and selzure panchanama, drawn rough sketch, seizecl one blood stained white, green a,d red lining corour tower and brood stain on electrical pole at the scene. p.W. l6 visitecl funeral place l0cated at the outskirts of pocharam village. L.ws.3 to 5 0f Fire Station, Jogipet arrived at the scene and extinguished the flames of funera_l bodies of D1 and D2. p.W. 16 securecl the presence of panchas L'ws 21 and22 and conducted the inquest over the half burnt dead bodies of D 1 and D2 and also seized dead body pieces and conclucted scene of crime panchanama. He also seized incriminating materials i.e., 1) one 1S litres capacity tin containing kerosene containing approximately 4 liters. 2) one empty white colour plastic bottle with half burnt. 3) Red gram sticks. 4) Iron wires belongs tires. 5) one half burn stick. 6) ash and cola taken from funeral place 7) one copper kadiyam attached iron kanta ald B) one silver ring (mette) which belongs 4 to D I Ngamani and same were sent for analysis and report' The half burnt bodies pieces of Dl ald D2 were sent to Government Community Health Centre' Jogipet for PME to know the identification of D1 &' D2' As per the instructions of P'W'16' L.W.2 photographer taken photo snaps at eLectrical pole in front of Durga Bhavani Temple' the house of D1 Nagamam hanging place at Tamarinci tree iocated near the house of Ramachandra Reddy and funeral place in the outskirts of Pocharam Village'

5. After completion of the investigation' the Circle Inspector of Police, Jogipet has laid charge sheet before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jogipet against A1 to A6' AB to A23 in Cr.No.23 l2O1 i of P'S'Pulkal for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 3O2' 2Ol rlw 149 IPC and Section 174 of Cr.P.C, whereas A24 was shown as 'dead' on 3O'O7'2011' 6. After taking cogrrizance by the learned Magistrate for the offences mentioned supra' committed the case to the Court of Sessions as per the orders dated 01'05 '2012 in PRC No'64 of 2011, wherein S'C'No'2 65 of 2Ol2 was assigned and the same was made over to III Additional District & Sessions Jqdge (*"'.)- I I 5 Medak and after transfer, the same was disposed of by the learned VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, at Medak.

7. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined p.Ws.1 to p17, got marked Exs.p1 to p35 ald MOs.1 ro 8 0n its behalf' Neither oral nor documentary evidence adducecl on behalf of the accused.

8. The learned trial Court, after considering both oral and documentary eviclence adduced by the prosecution, convicted A1 to AS, AB, Ag ancl A21 and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under Section 143 of IpC and further sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of three years and sharl pay fine of Rs.S,oo./- each for the offence under Section 207 rpc a,d rurther sentenced to suffer imprisonment for six months and shall pay fine of Rs.S,OOO/_ each lor the offence under Section 202 IPC, in default of payment of fine, each accused shall suffer simple imprisonment rbr three months on each Count. However, A1 to A6, AB to A23 are acquitted for the offences under Sections 148 and 302 of IPC. A6, A1O to A2, A22 and A23 are acquitted for the offence under Section 2O1 of IPC. 6 Aggrieved bY the said conviction' and A21 filed the Present aPPeal' appellants/Al to A5' A8' A9 1\-- g. Sri Palle Sriharinath' learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that after thorough trial' the trial Court acquitted A.1 to A6, A8 to A23 for the offence under Sections 148 and3O2oflPCandalsoacquittedA6'A1OLoA2O'A22andA23 for the offence under Section 20 1 of IPC' He further submits that the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that A1 to A5' A8, A9 and A21, with an intention to disappear the evidence, had taken the dead bodies of D1 and D2 ancl set fire to them' but they failed to furnish information to the police under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The trial Court further held that it is an obligation of every person, who came within his knowledge to furnish such information as to unnatural death to the police' Police ought to have enquired about unnatural d'eath which was taken place' Since the aforesaid accused have not informed about the death of Dl&D2,thetrialcourterroneouslycametoconclusionthatAl to A5, A8, A'9 and A21 have committed the offence punishable under Section 2OL IPC and also under Section 2O2 IPC' He further submits that the trial Court held charge need not be framed in respect of offence punishable under Section 2O2 of'lPC' . ,/ 7 since it is not a wa,rrant case and it is a simple offence and that accused are aware of said facts, for which they are tried.

10. Learned counsel for the appeilalts would lurther submit that the appellants were convicted without there being any reason' He submits that since the triar court having clisbelieved the statements of Al , A2, .A9, A1O and, A2I to the extent that they catching hold of D2 (Narsimlu), tying him to electric pole, beating him till death and hanging to Tamarind Tree by any of the accused, as no evidence to that extent, ought not to have convicted them under Sections I43, 2Ol and ZO2 of IpC. However, the trial Court took cognizaace for the offences punishable under Sections I43, 2Ol and 2O2 of IpC for not furnishing inrormation to the porice as required uncler Section 774 of Cr.P.C. He also submits that while it is an admitted fact that the hrst complaint has been made by the defacto complainant 1'o the Inspector of police/p.w. 16 complaining about the involvement of the appellants, the question of giving information by the appellants to the police, Section I74 of Cr.p.C, does not arise. as required under I I 1 1r. Learned counsel for the appelrants further submits that, based on tkre prosecution evidence' it cannot be inferred' even by any stretch of imagination' that A1 to A5' A8' A9' and A21 had assembled on the intervening night or that A1 noticed aly alleged illegal intimacy between D 1 and D2 in the presence of others' None of the statements indicate that A1 was accompanied by the other accused; therefore' the question of unlawful assembly does not arise. He further submits that the learned trial Court erred in concluding that the appellants had committed the offence' while acquitting the other accused of the same charge' and accordingly' he prays that the appeal be allowed'

12. On the other hand' ttre learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that P'Ws'4 and 9 are independent witnesses' and their evidence is corroborative insofar as the appellants are concerned' P'W'4 deposed that he found the dead bod'y of D2 hanging from a tree near his house' by the side of the road, alld that he saw people taking away the dead body of D2 on a tractor' He further submits that P'W'4 categorically stated that both D 1 and D2 died on the day of the incider\t. In his cross-exarnination, P'w'4- deposed that about $O to 100 people had gathered at the scene, which was at a distance of 4 to 5 kilometers from their village. He also mentioned that Bobbili Grama village is the native village of the maternal grandmother of D1 (Nagamani). After seeing the deacl body, he went inside the house, and later, the police asked him to appear before the Magistrate to give his statement.

13. P.W.4 iclentifierl A2 1 _ Sangera Srinivas _ as the owner of the tractor involved' According to the evidence of the independent witnesses, 42i, who is the son of p.W.9,s brother, was driving the tractor bearing registration number Ap 23 go1g. The learned Assista,t public prosecutor further submits that the evidence of P.W.4, an independent witness, corroborates with that of p.W.9, alother inclependent witness, particularly regarding the tractor bearing No. .^p 23 g019, in which, the dead bodies were transported to the outskirts of pocharam village. Additionally, P.W.9 stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.p.C that ,A.4 had asked him to pa1.Rs.5,000/- towards funerar expenses, and he complied. Finally, the learned Assistant public prosecutor submits that, in view of the corroborative evidence of p.Ws.4 and 9, who are independent witnesses, the trial Court rightly I 10 convicted the accused' and the said conviction does not warrant interference bY this Court' heard learned counsel for the appellant and the 14. Havtng learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State' and after perusing the material placed before this Court' it is evident that none of the witnesses stated in their depositions that the appellants had assembled together with others at the same place and time. The question of the appellants reporting the incident to the police does not arise' as ordinarily' an accused would not provide information to the police that could incriminate them under Section 174 Cr'P'C' That apart' the trial Court disbelieved the statements of the appellants to the extent of their deposing that they catching hold of D2' tying him to electric pole' beating him till death and hanging to Tamarind Tree by any of the appellants

15. That apart, a careful perusal of the evidence of independent witnesses, P.Ws. 4 and 9, reveals that their testimonies do not corroborate each other' The claim of P'W'4 having noticed the dead body at around 8:30 a'm' in a neighbouring village' located 4 to 5 kilometers away, is not believable' as no plausible I I \ \ 11 explanation has been offered by th.e said witness regarding his presence in that viilage at the relevant date and time. Furthermore, the complainant, in his complaint, stated that he came to knolr, about the incident onl5r at arouud 10:30 a.m., making it improbable that p.W.4 could have seen the dead body at 8:30 a.m. \{rhile convicting the appella,ts under Sections 143, 201, and 2O2 of the IpC and acquitting the other accused, the learned trial Judge fa,ed to provide any convincing reasoning in the judgment and proceedecl against the appe,ants without there being suffrcient evidence, which is contrary to the settled principles of law. Under these circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow the appeal and acquit the appellants

16. In the result, this Criminal Appea,l is allowed setting aside the judgment in S.C.No.265 of 2Ot2 d,ated 14.OS.2O]4 and the appellants are acquitted. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous SD/- B. SATYAVATHI applications, if any, shall stand closed. JOINT REGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPY// SECTIO he, ICER I I ? The Judiciat liitagistrate of First Ctass, GiEi l ' The Vril Additionar,District & sessions Judge at Medak. (with records, if any) 3. The Station House Officer, putkat potice Siation, Medak 4. Two ccs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

5. One CC to Sri Palle Sriharinath, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies kam/gh HIGH COURT DATED:22 t}tt2}2s JUDGMENT CRLA.No.SSS of 2014 \. r: J o l-) I I \ 16 SEP 206 * O5 '9r,l.l-C Fi ALLOWNG THE CRIMINAL APPEAL