The High Court · 2025

AND State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Proseutor, High Court, Hyderabad ...Appellants ...Complainant Counsel for the Appellants ; Sri BH Rama Krishna Naik Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following Judgment : I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.254 OF 2OL7 JUDGMENT 1 (pe r Hon hle Sri Jusrice K.surender) 1. The Appeal is filed by the appellants aggrieved by the judgment daled 20.O2.2017 in S.C.No.2O of 2Olt), on the file of IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at H';rderabad. The appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 394 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Arun Kumar Dod la, learned Additional Public I)rosecutor' for respondent-S tate.

3. The case against the appellants is that ctn 23.1O.2OO7, around 2 p.rn., P.Ws.1 to 3 were in the house. P.W. 1 was on the first floor. When he heard shouts from tht: ground floor, P.W. 1 came clown and saw P.W.2 was tied with ,r rope and her mouth was closed. There were four persons urho threatened P.W. 1 by shou,ing guns to come down. After P.W.1 came down, P.W.3, sister of P.W.2 came out from bed room. The accused made P.Ws.1 to 3 sit on the floor and threatened them to part with the money that u,as available in the house. P.W.3 brought her savings of Rs.4,O00/- from the bed room rnd gave it to them. The persons also threatened P.Ws.1 to 3 to open the 2 locker. When they were trying to open the locker, meanwhile P.W.3 escaped from the clutches of accused and went into the bed room and locked herself. The accused asked P.W. 1 to open the main door and thereafter, they fled. When P.W. I tried to catch hold of the accused, A-4 inflicted a knife injury on P.W. 1's right elbow and on the nose. One of the passers by namely Dr.Shiva Reddy helped in catching hold of A-4. P.W. 1 went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint/Ex.P. 1. In the said complaint, he narrated that some persons entered into their house and tied P.W.2 and also threatened P.W. 1 and P.W.3. The said persons forcibly made them sit on the floor and.their savings of Rs.4,000/ was taken and also gold jewelry of 100 gms chain and 4O gms of hand ornament. The complaint was lodged at 3:30 p.m. on 23.1O.2OO7. On the very same day, another complaint/Ex.P.2 was fiied by P.W. 1. In the said complaint, he stated that, though he mentioned in the earlier complaint that 1OO gms of chain and 40 gms of hand ornament were missing, however, they were found in the locker.

4. The accused/A-1, A-4 and A-5 were arrested on the very same day by P.W. 1o/Inspector of Police and at the instance of A- 1, A-4 and A-5, one gas lighter pistol and one classic cell phone were seized. Thereafter, Police effected seizure of M.Os.5 to 1O, which are two small knives, two pairs of clothes, two l syringes, one plastlc rope' two vials of injection fluid and indicom cell phone' The accused were sent to jail after being produced before the Magistrate' P W'8' who is the Magistrate conducted Test Identiircation proceedings on 07 'll '2OO7 In thesaidTestldentiflcationproceedings,alltheaccusedwere identified 5 The learne-d Sessions Judge found favour w;'th the verslon of the Prosecution that A- 1 to A-4 committed robbery and injured P.Ws.1 and 2' However' acquitted A-5' 6. Learnecl counsel appearing for the appellants would SubmitthattwoComplaintswerefiled.InitiallyirrEx.P.l,ilwas stated that gold ornaments were lost' however' in Ex'P'2' it was statedthatonlyRS.4,00o/cashrvasmissing.P.W.lstates that A-4 was caught at the scene' But according to the Police Officer/P.W.I O, A-4 was caught along with A-1 and A-5 by the Police team. These discrepancies rvould go to the root of the case. The manner in which the incident was narrated and the manner in rvhich the accused were arrested' create any amount of doubt 7 . On the other hand ' learned Public Prosecutor would submit thal A-2 was involved in another case for the offence of T 4 cheating punishable under Section 420 of IpC. However, he was acquitted in the said case.

8. Having gone through the record, p.Ws.l and 3 stated that A-4 was apprehended at the scene and handed over to the Police. However, the police Officer/p.W. 10 contradicts the version of P.W. 1 and states that A-4 was arrested by police team' Another aspect which has to be considered is that initially P.W. I filed a complaint stating that 14 gms of gold ornaments were missing. However, on the same day, he lodged a second complaint stating that gold ornaments were found in the house.

9. The prosecution examined p.W.9, Doctor from Osmania General Hospital. The Doctor who treated p.Ws.l and 2 is one Dr.Krishna Kishore- Since Dr.Krishna Kishore attendance could not be secured in the Court, the prosecution examined P.W.9 in the place of Dr.Krishna Kishore. p.W.9 identified the signature on the injury certificate of p.Ws. I and 2. According to P.W.9, there was swelling and tenderness over the upper lip, and tenderness over the left shoulder of p.W.2. Ex.p23 is wound certificate issuecl by Dr.Krishna Kishore in respect of P.W.2. Further, he found 5 x1 abrasion over right arm and 2 x 1 abrasion on left side of nose of p.W. I. Ex.p24 is the wound certificate of p.W. 1. During the course of cross examination, it l. I i Il, 5 was eliciterl that P.W.9 has not filed any arrthorization in writing, issued by Superintendent of OGH to depose in the Court. He categorically admitted that injuries received by P.W. 1 and P.W.2 may result due to fall on the ror.rgh surface. i0. The allt:ged injuries were caused by A-4 evr:n according to the witnesses. However, though it is stated by P.Ws. I and 2 that A-4 was caught at the scene and handed ov€ir to the Police, the same was denied by the Police. The Doctor who treated P.Ws.l and 2 was not examined. According 1o Ex.P23 and Ex.P24, wound certifit:ates, it is not mentione,l whether the injuries are simple or grievous in nature.

11. Insofar as A-4 is concerned, the evi,lence of the prosecution is doubtful. As already discussed, though it is stated by witnesses that A-4 was caught at the soene, the same was contradir:ted by Investigating Officer. For the said reason, the conviction of A-4 under Section 394 of IPC is hereby set aside. Insofar as A- 1 to A-3 are concerned, P.Ws;. 1 and 3 have identified thcm in the Test Identification Parade. Even according to the case of P.W. 1, A-1 to A-3, did 1ot cause any injury either to P.W. 1 or P.W.2. Since iniuries were not caused by A-1 to A-3 they are not convicted with the aid of Section 34 of IPC. In the said cir<-'umstances, individual overt acts have to be considered. A-1 to A-3 cannot be convicted under Section I 6 394 of IPC. However, they are convicted for the offence under Section 392 of IPC. Though jewelry was available in the house, an amount of Rs.4,O00/- was taken from P.W-3 on the said day. As already discussed, A- 1 to A-3 did not cause injuries in the said incident. When questioned, learned Public Prosecutor stated that there are no cases against A-l and A-3. Insofar A-2 is concerned, there was one case of cheating and the same ended in acquittal.

12. As seen from the record, A- 1 to A-3 were in jail from 2O.O2.2O17 to 24.O9.2O1a i.e., for a period of one year and seven months. Considering that there are no criminal antecedents, the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them for the offcnce under Section 392 of IPC.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. //TRUE COPY// A.V.S.S.C.S.M. SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR frt'--- SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lV Additi,onal Metropolitan SeSSionS Judge' Hyderabad (with records, if any)

2. The Vl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad 3. The Station House Officer' Asifnagar PS, Hyderabad District 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad 5.TwoCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

6. One CC to Sri BH Rama Krishna Naik, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies VA/sh R- HIGH COURT DATED:1 110212025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.254 of 2017 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLA \o *tq"a Hr- --{^t"-> I\E STA, t t ?1 l{Afl 2[25 !) t ,o t -cF:r. i :--' L',Y >il, :l C:i -t- 'i