The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants : Sri C Darrrodat'Reddy representing Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Arun Ktttnar Oodia, Additional Publir; Frosecutor Sri C Ruthwik Retldy The Court delivered the following: Judgment t.t THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.49 OF 2OI7 JUDGMENT: (per I lon'ble Sri Justice K.surender) 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants /accused, aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.72.2016 in S.C.No.190 of 20 15, passecl by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial, convicting the appellants/accused for the offience under Section 3O2 r/w 34 of IpC and sentencing lhem to unrlergo life rmprisonment.

2. Heard Mr. C,Damodar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. C.Ruthwik Reddy, learned counsel for appellants ancl Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of responden t-State.

3. An application was filed by the counsel for accused No.3 on the ground that the accused No.3 was a Juvenile when the rncident occurred. In support of the claim, certificate issued by the concerned Head Master of MppS School, Maddunoor Mandal, Jagtial District was hled. The said certificate reflects the date as 15.05.1998. We have asked the concerned School Head Master to be present in the 'l Court along with Register of Admissions to verify correctness of the issuance of certificate. Head Master of the School appeared before this Court on O2.O1.2O25. His appearance was recorded and he has produced orilinal recorcl whrch is Register of Admissions. Having noted that the date of birth jn the said Register was recorded as 15.05.199g, this Court returned the said Register to the Head_Master.

4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 04.lO.2Ol2, accused Nos.1 to 3 chased the deceased namely Buchaiah who was the husband of pW1, and maternal uncle of the eye witness/PW4. The deceased was chased in the SC colony from the house of Gajjela Nagamallu and he was killed near the house of Madasu Kalavati. pW4 immediately gave information about the attack to pWl/wife of the deceased. PWs.l, 2 and others went near the body, thereafter, Telugr_r written complaint was hled at 00: 15 hours on 05. l O.2O 12.

5. The .motive for the alleged assault on the deceased was a rumor that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with wife of accused No. i. The said rLlmour resulted in suspicion and accused Nos.l to 3 came together to attack the deceased late at night on 04.tO.2072. -3

6. PW2 1 received the complaint at Maddunoor police station. He registered FIR and sent copies immediately to the concerned authorities, including the Judicial Magistrate of First Class. lnr.estigation was handed over to pW23, Inspector. of Police. PW23 went to the scene of offence at 05.30 A.M. on 05.).O.2O12 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and blood stained controllecl earth was seized from the scene of offence. One scootcr which belongs to deceased was also found at the scene.

7. Inspcctor examined and recorded the statements of PWs.S, 6, 9 and 1t to 16. On 23.70.2012 at 06.30 A.M., PW23, with the assistance of police personnel, apprehended accused Nos. 1 to 3 and confession of accused Nos.l to 3 was recorded. Pursuant to their confession and at the rnstance of accused, MOs.7,8 and 9 which are sticks allegedly used in assaulting the accused were recovered. 164 Cr.p.C. statements of pW4 and other witnesses were recorded. Having concluded investigation, charge sheet was lodged against the three appellants.

8. The entire evir.lence rests on the statement made by PW4, who is an eye witness to the incident. Deceased is the maternal uncle of pW4. The other eye witnesses i.e., pW5 and i1 4 PW6 turned hostile to the prosecution, however, they mentioned about the presence of PW4 at the scene of offence. In the.complaint/ Ex. P 1 which was hled by PW1, the name of PW4 was mentioned. Learned Sessions Judge was convinced that the appellants had beaten the deceased to death, on the basis of the eye witness account of PW4.

9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of appellants would submit that though solitary testimony of eye witness can form basis for conviction, however, the said eye witness account should be reliable and trustworthy. PW4 was planted at a subsequent date. Though the incident happened at O9.30 P.M., the complaint was filed at 0O:15 hours with a delay of three hours.

9.1. In the cross examination, PW4 admitted that by the time, he wcnt to the scene, the deceased was already found dead.

9.2. The complaint reached the Magistrate at around 11.15 A.M., as such, it can be safely inferred that after due deliberations amongst themselves, PW4 was shown as eye witness to the incident, though he was not present. ,') l. I v ) -

9.3. Learned Senior Counsel retied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amar Singh u. the Storte (NCT of Delhi)], wherein, the Hon,ble Supreme Court, while dealing ',vith similar circumstances of solitai testimony of eye witness, on the basis of contradictions found in the said case, extended benefit of doubt to the accused. Learned Senior Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Perigasamg v. the State2. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that when no independent witnesses rvere examinecl, it is not fatal. However, the. eye witness was lound to be interested in the case, as such, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allorved the appeals and set aside the conviction.

9.4. Learned Senior Counsel finally relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khemq (@ Khem Chand.ra, etc. u. State of Uttar Prad.esh3, wherein, it is held as follows: "This Court, in thc cclebrated case of Vad.iuelu ,Iheiar u. State of Mad.rasa, has observed thus: "......Hence, in our oprnion, it is a sound and well-established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. t crt.A.No.335 of 20l5 2 2024 tive law sC 244 r crl.A.Nos.1200 L202 0f 2022 o 5 (1957) scR 981 .,,.t //' 6 2,, ,1, ,/. Generally speakrng, oral testimony in this context mav uc ( laSSIIled tnto lhre(. catcBories, namely: (t) Wholly reliable. (2t Wholly unreliable. (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable In rhe-^first category of proof, lhe court should l]1". ": rlllllculty in coming to its conclusion either way - rl may convict or may acquit on the testimonv if a slngte wltness, i[ it is found to be above ."p.or.li or. - suspicion of o, subornation_ In the second category, the court equaliv has no difficulry in coming to irs"conclusion. ii f" i" ifrl tnrrd calegory of cases, that the coun has to b; clrcumspect and has to look for corroboration in mat€rial. particulars by reliable testimony, di;i ;; crrcumstantial... ,, interestedness, in"ornpatanc"

10. Learned Senior Counsel argued that blood stained earth which was col]ected at the scene by pW23, while conducting scene of offence panchanama was sent for FSL. However, FSL report does not reflect that the soil contained human blood. Further, 164 Cr.p.C. statement of pW4 given to Magistrate is silent about involvement of accused No. 1. The said statement made before the Magistrate is contrary to the version given by PW4 in the complaint. 11- Learned Public prosecutor opposing the argument of learned Senior Counsel for appellants, submitted that the name of PW4 was mentioned in the FIR, which was registered at the earliest point of time. Only on account of pW4 being ,d a 7 sketch and related, rt would not mean that he was planted after due deliberations In fact, house of pW4 was also shown in the according to the prosecution version, the deceased was chased nearby from the pla"e r_r.r. the house of PW4, til, the place where the dead body was found beside the house of PW6. Minor contradictions during the course of examination of the witnesses, will be of no consequence, since the testimony of pW4 is reliable and truthful

12. The crucial rvitness is pW4. It has to be lool<ed into whether his testimony inspires confidence and his solitary testimony can be relied on to sustain conviction.

13. The two eye witnesses, pWs.S and 6, turnr:ci hostile to the prosecution. The other witnesses, pWs.1l to 16 have all resiled from their earlier statements and were declarerl hostile to the prosecution. The panch witnesses for conression and recovery panchanama were also declared hostile to the prosecution case, since they did not support the confession of accused and the subsequent seizure at the instance of accused.

14. According to pW23, CI of police, he went to the scene of offence for the lirst time on 05. 1o.2012 at o5.30 A. M. The d a IJ complaint was received by pW2 1 at 0O:I5 hours. According to PW4, the body of the deceased was shilted from the village to the hospital at 0O:30 hours. However, pW4 stated in his cross examination "within half an hour after the incident the potice . ariued to the spot. SI, CI and_ tluo constables came to the place of incident. " Similarly, PW3 stated that "1OO people gathered. at the time of our uisit to the place of incident. By IO.OO p.M., Police came to the place of incident. I cannot saA the police personnel designation tuho came to the place of incident".

15. The said version given by pWs.3 and 4 regarding.the arrival of Police to the scene of offence was contradicted by PW23 who stated that he visited the scene at O5.3O A.M., on

05.1O.2012. The witnesses PWs.3 and 4 were not examined by the Public Prosecutor regarding their admission about presence of the Police at the scene at 10.00 p.M. on the said day. PW4 further stated that he himself wrote the report, however, Police obtained signature of pWl on Ex.p1 at Maddunur -Village. The said version of pW4 preparing the complaint is contradicted by the evidence of pW2 1, who stated that Telugu written complaint was signed and filed in the Police Station at O0: I 5 hours. ,-,iJ d 9

16. Though complaint was liled at 00:15 hours wrth the delay of 2 hours 45 minutes, it is not explained as to why the FIR reached the Court at l1;3O A.M., on O5.1O.2012. when PW21 specifically stated that he immediately dispatched the FIR to the concerned Court and concerned officials.

77. In the absence of any reasons given regarding the delay in lodging the complaint and also delay in complaint reaching the court, as rightly argued by the learned Senior Counser, there arises any amount of doubt regarding the actual happening and projection of the prosecution case, being correct. There is no reason why the complaint was lodged in the Police Station when police were already present at the scene at 10:00 p.M. The said discrepancy is not explained by the prosecution. In the said circumstances, the logical conclusion is that the actual happening has been suppressed by the prosecution and after due deliberations, the name of PW4 was stated in the complaint and the incrdent was narrated in the complaint.

18. In the evidence ol pW4, he stated that on O+.1O.2O12, at around O9:30 p.M., he was attending to a project work of the private school in his house. When he heard someone shouting "sister, sister,,, he went out and saw thar accused J{ .1 t0 Nos.1 to 3 were chasing his uncle Buchaiah (deceased). pW4 followed the accused tilt the house of pW6, where the deceased was allegedly attacked. However, PW4 did not intervene- Contrary to his version in the chief examination, PW4 stated that incident occurred at 09:30 P.M. which was at night and by the time he reached Nagamma's house, his maternal uncle Buchaiah died and his corpse was lying on the ground. If at all, PW4 had followed the accused when they were chasing Buchaiah, the admission of PW4 that by the time he went to the scene, he found the corpse lying on the ground, contradicts his own version in the chief examination.

79. In view of the discrepancies found in the case, it can be safely inferred that actual version is suppressed by the prosecution and subsequently, the witnesses have come up with a false version, implicating the accused and also showing PW4 as an eye witness to the incident. As already discussed, PW4 in his 164 Cr.P.C statement did not speak about involvement of accused No. 1, which again contradicts his earliest version. PW4 is wholly unreliable. For the said reasons, beneht of doubt is extended to the appellants.

20. In view of the findings that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the appellants, no findings are J{ necessary in the petition filed by accused No.3 to decide about his juvenility.

21. Accordingly, criminal appeal is allow'ed Sd/. C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, I 2 3 4 5 6 ADK The ll Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial. (with records, if any) The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jagtial The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri C Ruthwik Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies w ${ HIGH COURT DATED:2310112025 o JUDGMENT CRLA.No.49 of 2017 \a 1HE l;i o 7' 2 r,) 05 rlAr 2t6 t*t i .n r -r.t_C ALLOWING THE CRLA q.od4 W"