Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants : Sri V. Sravan Rao Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT ,87 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.51O OF 2OL7 JUDGMENTi /per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.surender)

1. The Appr:a1 is hled by the appellants/ accused Nos.1 and 2, aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.03.2017 in S.C.No.273 of 2071, on the file of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, at Asifabad. The appellants were convicted for the offences punishable urLder Sections 341 and 3O2 rlw.!\,| of IPC and sentenced to undergo iife imprisonment.

2. Heard le,erned counsel for the appellants and Sri Arun Kumar Dod1a, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-StzLte.

3. P.W. 1 is the defacto complainant. He lodgecl a complaint on 22.O8.2O\O at 10:45 a.m., with the Police. According to P.W. 1, his brother was caught hold of by these appellants, A-3 and A-4. P.W.1 requested the accused to leave trim, But the accused took t:re deceased towards the house of P.W.5. There, A-1 was holding a knife and threatened P.W. i not ro follow him. All the accuserl caught hold of the deceased, anct A-1 cut his throat and ran away. When P.W. 1 tried to rescue the deceased, he was also attacked. After the attack, P.W.4, who was present 2 at the scene, took P.W. 1 to the Police Station, where the complaint was filed, which is Ex.P. 1. Though P.W.3 tried to catch hold of the accused, they rern away.

4. P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased. Acc_ording to her, she stated that at about 9 a.m., when she was going to the frelds, she saw the deceased being brought by the accused, and deceased's hands were tied behind his back. There were injuries on his face and other parts of the body. P.W .2 questioned as to why they were abusing her husband, and then the accused asked her to go to the Police Station. Then P.W.2 went to the Police Station, which is 4 km from the village, and brought the Police back to the village. By the time P.W.2 and the Police reached the village, the dead body of the deceased was found in a pool of blood. According to P.W.2, there were Iand disputes between the accused's family and the deceased's family, for which reason, the deceased was attacked.

5. P.W.3 is another eyewitness. He stated that, on the date of the incident, he came to know that the accused were abusing the deceased and they were quarreling with one another. Then, P.W.3 interfered and asked them to settle the disputes before the elders or the Police. The accused then warned P.W.3 not to interfere in their family affajrs and they went away. At that 3 time, the decc ased was found with injuries on h.is chest and face. The accused then tied the hands of the rleceased and brought him to the village. P.W.3 followed them, and meanwhile, hc met P.W.L P.W. 1 asked P.W.3 about the quarrel and P.\{I.3 narrated the entire incident to him. Then the relatives ol' the deceased came there, including p.Ws.1 and 2, ard all of tl'rem went into the village where they saw A-1 cut the throat ol the deceased. Again, the accused took the deceased to the nearby culvert and cut his throat. Though P.W. 1 tried t(r rescue the deceased, A-l and r\-5 threatened P.W. 1. P.W.2 rook the police to the village.

6. P.W.4 is, another eyewitness. According to him, he observed A- t hacking the deceased from a <Iistance of 15 meters. P.W. t and others came there and triecl to rescue the deceased; hoq,ever, the deceased was hacked to ctezrth.

7. P.W.s is zrnother eyewitness, who st:rted that the appellarts/A- I and A-2 and A-5 brought the deceased by tying his hands, an,l there rvere injuries on the face, and mud on the body of the de.ceased. Then P.W.5 requested tht: accused to let off the deceeLsed. The deceased informed P.W.5 that the accused want(:d to take him to the Police Station and requested P.W.5 to accompany him. However, P.W.5 replied that he was 4 having some work at home and went away. l.ater, he came to know that the deceased was killed by the appellants and A-5. B. P.W.6 speals about the death of the deceased and mentions that there were differences between the families of the deceased and the accused.

9. P.W.7 stated that on 22.08.2010, at about 8 a.m., when he went to the field, he saw A-1 to A-3 catching hold of the deceased and beating him. From the field, the deceased was brought back to the village, where he was hacked near the culvert of the viilage. The deceased was taken a distance by A-1, and his throat was cut, with A-1 stating that the deceased was still alive. According to P.W.7, P.W.4 admonished the accused and went away.

10. P.W.8 is also another witness who stated about all the five accused bringing the deceased into the village and beating him. Immediately, P.W.8, who is the brother of the deceased, informed his parents/P.W. I ald P.W.2. According to him, he questioned the accused about beating the deceased. and left to the field, and thereafter he did not know what happened. 5

11. P.W.9 is another villager, who is the witness to the inquest that u,a.s held on the dead body on 22.Oa.2OlO at about l:30 p.m. 1,2. P.W. 10 i:; another independent witness, who speaks about the differences between the accused and the deceased.

13. P.W. 1 I is the inquest panch, who stated about the inquest being conducted, and p. W. 12 is the witness to the confession an<l seizure from the accused.

14. P.W. 15 is the Inspector of police, who took up the investigation r,f the case. P.W. 14 received the <:omplaint from P.W.1 on 22.O8.2O1O at lO:45 a.m., ancl dispatched the complaint to the concerned Magistrate.

15. The corrLplaint was hled on 22.Og.2OlO a.t 10:45 a.m. According to F).W. 14, the scene of offence was 4 kms. from the Police Station and the Magistrate Court was at a (iistance of 12 kms. The cornplaint reached the concerned Magistrate Court on the ncxt day, i.e., on 23.08.20f 0 at 1t:4S p.m., which is with a delay oi-37 hours.

16. As narrated above, the eye-witness account of p.Ws.1 to 6 reveals dlffere nt versions regarding the incident and also about the accused. P.W. 14, though he received the complaint at 6 1O:45 a.m., has not provided any reason for the delay of 37 hours in the complaint reaching the Court.

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeevan and Another vs. State of Keralar, was dealing with the case. involving delay of 12 hours in Illing the FIR. The delay in placing the FIR before the Magistrate, coupled with unsatisfactory explanation given by the police oflicer, was held to adversely affect the prosecution's case.

18. In Suresh @ Subhash & Ors vs. State of Keralaz, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the delay in the FIR reaching the Magistrate was not properly explained by the Investigating Officer. In Teja Singh aad Ors vs. State of Rajasthans, the Hon,ble Supreme Court held that there was a delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate. The explanation given was that the delay occured due to holidays. The explanation was found to be neither convincing nor acceptable. In Buta Singh vs. State of Punjabe, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case where there was a delay in lodging the report and the FIR reaching the Junior First Class Magistrate Court' In Thulia ' 2oo3 (3) scc ass z zoog(1s) scc 121 3 2oo1(3) scc 147 o 1991 (z) scc 612 7 Kali vs. The State of Tamil Nadus, the Honble Supreme Court held that the delay in lodging the :'eport raises considerable doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence of the two witnesses It points to an inhrmity in their evidence and renders it un:;afe to base a conviction of the appellant upon such evidenco

19. It is an rdmitted fact that there were disputes between the accused's fanr iiy and the complainant's famiiy. 'though p.W.2 stated that she had gone to the Poiice Station and brought the Police to the r illage by 9 a.m., however, P.W. 14 and p.W. 15 did not state anlrhing about P.W.2 going to the Poli<:e Station and bringing the Police to the village. Even accorcling to p.W. 1 , P.W.2 went 1r the Police Station at 9 a.m., an,l brought the Police to the scene of offence where the dead body was lying, The said evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and other witnesses is totally contrary to tlLe evidence of P.Ws. 14 and 15. Afler receiving the complaint, P.W. 14 went to the scene and guarded the scene till the arrir.al ol the Inspector/P.W. 16. According to p.W. 16, he went to the sr:ene of offence at 1 p.m.

20. The eviCence of the eyewitnesses is entirely inconsistent and contradicts one another. Such evidence ca.nnot be reiied s 1972 (3) scc a9r I I t I 8 :r: upon. There is no explanation for the delay of 37 hours in the complaint reaching the Court. Apparently, the complaint was after due deliberations, implicating the appellants and the other accused. 2l- In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited judgments, and since there is no explanation for the delay in the complaint reaching the Court, we deem it appropriate to set aside the conviction. Accordingly, the appellants succeed.

22. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Since A-1 is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled, and since A-2 is in jail, he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other CASC sd/-cv .^"is[+,tt/$xt / //TRUE COPY// \ sECTtoN OFF|CER \ To. anv) oistrici. iay speciat Messenger)

1. The lll Additional District and Sessions Judge' at Asifabad'(with records' if z. in'J.rroi"i"l First Class Magistrate' Ch"nnll -,-^.,,', wle.chal-Malkaig ' 3. The Superintendenl:"d;*i";;is-on-' cherlapallv' Medchal-Malkalgiri -' J-ail"Karimnagar- (By Speed Post) 4. The Superintendent' 5. The Station Horr" Oili""i,-koi"priii p"ri"" Station. Asifabad' 6. Two ccs to the pr;i'" il;;;;ioi, uign court for the state of Telangana ?. o;;ta i" SriV' sravan Rao' Advocate [oPUCl 8. Two CD CoPies at HYderabad' [OUTI 'disirict kam,DL HIGH COURT DATED:1 010412025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.510 of 2017 ,/., , ,-.1 ULir5 \ , 22 APB 2tr25 t A.,; i .-.-d11r' ',,,,..,r.'i))1" ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL V) V