The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Md Sadath Hussain (Legal Aid) 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 ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI c zuMINAL APPEAL No.749 OF 2OLz JUDGMENT: (per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER) This Criminal Appeal is ftled questioning the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/ accused vide Judgment dated 12.08.2016, in S.C.No.4B4 of 2OI4, by the learned Judge' Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the appellant/ accused was convicted under Sections 302 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Lile and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence under Section 3O2 of IPC; to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10O/-, for the offence under Section 380 ofthe Indian Penal Cocle.

2. Heard Mr.MD.Sadath Hussain, learned legal aid counsel for the appellant/accused and Mr.Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. I

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 09.06.2012, PW.l who is the defacto complainant, went to the police station and liled { I I I 2 complaint at 00.30 hours informing the Police that, on the previous day, i.e., on 08.06.2012, around 3.00 p.m., his mother was found dead in.the house. Immediately, PW. I and others went to the house and found the dead body of his mother in the room. Gold Ornaments were missing from the dead body and there were injuries. PW. I suspected that some unknown person killed his mother and committed theft of gold ornaments.

4. The appellant was apprehended in Crime No.26O of 2013 by {-" ,, P.S., Sulthanabad. In the said crime, the Police came to know that the appellant had confessed regarding committing the present crirne. The Investigating Officer, having received the information on

22.10.2013, took independent witnesses along with him for the purpose of investigation. The interrogation of the appellant was in the presence of mediators, PW.s and another. Pursuant to the confession, the appellant produced MOs. 1 and 2, which are, ear studs and gold ear tops, respectively. Admittedly, none of the witnesses have stated any.thing about the appellant being seen anywhere near the scene of offence. Only on the basis of confession in another crime, the appeilant was identified as the person who committed the murder of PW.1's mother/ deceased, and pursuant to I 3 his confession, MOs. 1 and 2 were seized' The said seizure of MOs' 1 and 2 formed basis for conviction of the appellant in the present C SE.

5. This Court had dealt with Crl'A'No'739 of 2017 and also Cr1.A.No.614 of 2Ol7 - In the said cases also' the appellant was shown as accused, and convicted on the basis of the alleged recovery in the said case on the same daY'

6. The property, i.e., MOs'1 and 2 shou-ld have been identified in accordancewithRule-35oftheCriminalRulesofPractice'however' the said procedure was not followed' The only evidence is that the appellant confessed to committing the crime' when he was questioned in the other crimes' Though the sard confession was recorded in tkre presence of PW'6 and another witness' the manner in which the appellant was arrested and the recoveries were effected create any amount of doubt regarding the implication of the appellant. An5r amount of suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof. The trial Court got carried away by the fact that the appellant was involved in 2 other cases' There is no reliable and admissible evidence to convict the appellant in the present case' The duty of the "d I I I I I 4 .,.) prosecution is to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

7. The Honourable Supreme Court in Shcrnftcrr o. State oJ Maharashtrar, held as follows;