J. ln State of Rajasthan v. Naresh R,m I laresrh

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI PALLE SRIHARINATH The Court made the following: JUDGMENT 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.941 oF 2077 JUDGMEN!: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) 1. Tht, aJrpeal is preferred by the State, aga.inst the acquittal of respondents/accused for the offencers under Sections 3O2, 2OI and 2O2 of Indian penal Code (f:r short 1PC1.

2. Heard Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar, learned Actditiona_l Public Prose,:utor appearing on behalf of appellant_State and Mr. Pal1e Sriharinath, learned counsel for respondents_ accused

3. The deceased, who is the son of pWs.3 and 4, was found deal b5. pW1 near patelguda. pW1 lodged a co:nplaint with PW2 3 Inspector of police. On the basis of conrplaint, PW23 wer rt trr the scene and conducted scene of offence panchan,ar na. The body was photographed and on the basis of tailor s} op :eame that was on the shirt collar, pW2li made enquiries rLnd identified the dead body was that of de<:eased, who was the son of pWs.3 and, 4. The call data of the deceased v as verified and then on the basis of suspicion that i i i ] 2 accused No.1 was involved, PW23 arrested accused No. 1. On the basis of accused Nos.1's confessii:n, accused Nos.2 and 3 were also indentified as involved in the murder of deceased. At the instance of accused No.l, blood stained pant, shirt, and car that was allegedly used to transport the dead body of deceased were seized. MO5/dumbbell with which accused attacked and allegedly hit the deceased causing the death, was also seized.

4. The case is one of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has relied on the following circumstances: l. Accused No. 1 and deceased are friends

2. Deceased advanced hand loal of Rs.SO,OOO/- to accused No.1 at the interest of Rs.10,0OO/-, for a period of 10 days. Since deceased was unable to repay the said amount, he was killed by accused Nos. I to 3.

3. The day prior to deceased going missing, accused No'1 ca-lled the deceased on his Phone.

4. After accused No.1 left to meet the deceased, PW14 saw the deceased entering into the house of accused. J

5. P'r\ s.6 and 7 were working in two different wine shops an,l they saw two persons coming to their shop and pu 'chasing liquor and consuming it. dumbbel that was used to murder the deceased and also the car that.vas used to transport the dead body.

6. Tht. learned Sessions Judge, however, having considert d tLLe evidence on record, found that case was one of circumstirnti:11 evidence and prosecution could not lrrove all the circr- mstances beyond reasonable doubt. Furt her, the circumst: tnces do not have any connecting link, to speciflcally say that .he ilccused are the persons who are responsible for death oL rleceased and none else. The circumstances relied on by the p rosecution are inconclusive and does not inspire confidenc e of the Court to convict the accused for tire grave offence of murder.

7. In cast:s of circumstantial evidence, the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Sharad. Birdhicha,nd Sarda u. State of Mahdloshtrar held as follows: ' lrse<; + scc tro 4 'The following conditions must be fulfrlled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on circumstantial evidence: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely 'may be' fully established, (21 tLLe facts so established should be consistent only with ' the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendencY, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be Proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused ald must show that in all human probability the act must have been done bY the accused." . l,earned Public Prosecutor would submit that the main B. evidence is that of PWs.3 to 5, who are the parents arrd brother of the deceased. They specifically stated that deceased went out with accused. Thereafter, he was found dead on the next day. It is for the accused to explain regarding the death of the deceased. g . l,earned Sessions Judge gave the following reasons regarding the acquittal: .;9: -.: 5 1 Th: Police, though claimed that call recor.ds were seized, h cwever, records were not placed before the Court. ii. Th rugh, PWs.3 and 4, parents of deceased stated that accuserl No. I came to their house and both the clecerrsed and accused No. t left, however, the said version was developed during tl e trial and at the earliest point of time, pWs.3 and 4 only sta ted that deceased received a phone c a,ii. The improven Lent made by pWs.3 and 4 is evident from the evidence f P'N23 Investigating Officer. iii. P\Mt4 though stated before the Court that he had seen the deceaseo entering into the house of accused at O6.30 p.M. However, PV/14 admitted in the cross examination that the statemenr was given to police 8 days thereafter. iv. PWs .6 ;tnd Z , who are witnesses to last see.ing the accused, stated that 2 persons visited their shop. H owever, PW6 statr:d that he did not identift the two persor:is. pW7 stated that it .,vas accused Nos.1 and 2 who went to tl.Le shop, but he rli,l not see the deceased along with accuse<l Nos.l ar,d 2 Except for the developed verslon during ttLe trial regarding the deceased being in company of accuserl No.1, 6 there is no other evidence to connect the accused with the offence of murder

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pulicherla Nagaraiu Alias Nagaraja Reddg rt. State of Andhra Ptadesh2 held. as follows: " 15. It is now well settled that the power of the High Court in an appeal from acquittal is no different from its power in an appeal from conviction. It cal review a;rd consider the entire evidence and come to its own conclusions by either accepting the evidence rejected by the trial court or rejecting the evidence accepted by the trial court. However, if the High Court decided to depart from the conclusions reached by the trial court, it should pay due attention to the grounds on which acquittal was based and state the reasons as to why it finds the conclusions leading to the acquittal, unacceptable. It should also bear (i) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is fortrfied by the frndings of the trial court; (ii) the accused is entitled to benefit of any doubt; arld (iii) the trial court had the advantage of examining the demeanour of the witnesses. The crux of the matter, however, is whether the High Court is able to give clear reasons to dispel the doubt raised, and reject the reasons given b. y the trial court."

11. In cases of acquittal, the interference by the appellate Court can only be in compelling ci-rcumstances. The z (2006) 11 scc 444 '; j.! 7 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babu a. State of Keralas held as follou s: |J. ln State of Rajasthan v. Naresh @ R,m I laresrh [(2009) 9 SCC 368], the Court again examined tre earlier judgments of this Court arrd laid down that € n ",trder of acquittal should not be lightly interfered l ,ith even if the court believes that theie r.s so ane r yidence pointing out the finger towards the accuseC.,

13. IrL State of Uttar Pradesh v. Banne alias BaijneLth 8, On;. [(2009) 4 SCC 2711, this Court gave cJrtr:dn il lustt ative circumstances in which the Court rvor.tld b s justified in interfering with a judgment of acquit tal by thr: High Court. The circumstances includes: i) The High Court's decision is based on totallv e ronoous view of law by ignoring the settled le51al p rsitir>n; ii) The High Court's conclusions are contraly- to e 'ider ce ald documents on record; _ ilil The entire approach of the High Coum in d,:a1ing with the evidence was patently ili,egal leadir-rg tr grave m iscarriage ofjustice; iv) The High Court's judgment is manifesrlv u:rjust and unreasonable based on erroneous law ani fa:ts on the record of the case; vt This Court must always give proper weight at rd cc nsideration to the findings of the High Courtf vi) This Court would be extremely reluctalt :n in,erfering wittr a case when both the Sessions Court ar d the High Court have recorded an order ,:f ac quit1.a1. I I

72. The main argument advanced by the learned public prosecuto| is that deceased was seen in the coml)any of accused l 'o. l. However, the said version is beliecl by the 3 crl.n.No.1oql( 9, dated 11.08.2010 { I l l .l To, 1 E Investigating Officer who admitted that at the earliest poiht of time, PW3 and PW4, parents of deceased did not speak about accused No. 1 ald deceased going together. Further, the prosecution has failed to file the telephone records to suggest that accused No. 1 called the deceased. PW23 admitted that cell phone call records were collected, however, the same were not placed before the Court below. No reason is given as to why the document which was already available with Investigating Officer was not placed before the Court to substantiate the version of prosecution that accused No. I had called the deceased one day prior to the incident.

13. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge.

14. Accordingly, the criminal aPPeal is dismissed. Sd/- I. NAGA LAKSHMI TY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER The Judge, Family Court Cum Vll Additional District & Sessions Judge' Medak at SangareddY.

2. One CC to SriFalle Sriharinath ,Advocate (OPUC) 5. i*o CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court ior the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.(OUT) Two CD Copies 4 kS e I I HIGH COURT' DATED:30 t0112025 JUDGMEN T CRLA.No"941 of 2017 Dismissing the Crl.A. HF- l; l'476 ,-s. :) a\ t .q<./ 01 irl:1i.5 P .9 .> ,,i ---:- b0 OL