The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri T. pradyumnakumar Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel for S.V. Rajashekar for Appellant Nos. 2 & 3 Sri S. Masthan Naidu, counsel for Appellant Nos. 5 & 6 ... RespondenUCom plaina nt Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K.SURENDER HOI{'BLE SRI JT'STICE ANIL KT'MAR JI'KANTI CRIMIIIAL APPEAL No.734 OF 20tz JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Si Justice K.Surender) 1. The appellants are questioning their conviction under Sections 302 and 3O7 r /w 34 of IPC and being sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, vide judgment in S.C.No. 186 of 2Ot2 dated LS.O6.2OL7 passed by the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant/PW1 and the deceased were brothers residing in Gate- Vanampally village. AL, A2, A5 to A7 were also residents of the same village, while A3 and A4 are the relatives of AI. The accused 3 and 4 hail from Ekmamidi and Chittigidda villages, respectively. On

7.2.2071, 43 ald A.4 joined the other appellants for a ceremony marking the fifth day of Al's grandmother's death. During this event, Al's family laid a water pipe to supply water from a nearby well. P.W. 1 objected to the pipe passing in front of his house and confronted Al's coparcener, Srinivas (not examined). The matter was later pacihed by village elders. Upon learning about the aitercation between Srinivas and PW1, A1 went to PWl's house on 2 the night of 8.2.2011 to question him. This led to a heated argument between Ai, PW1, and the deceased, which was resolved by the neighbours'inten'ention. A1 subsequently informed A2 to A7 about the incident, and they allegedly conspired to kill PW1 and the deceased. On 8.2.2011, around 10:30 PM, Srinivas visited PW7's house for a function. PWl and Srinivas quarreled over the previous day's issue, leading to a minor scuffle during which Srinivas fell and sustained injuries. He was immediately taken to the fiospital. Following this, A1 ta A7, allegedly acting on their plan, armed themselves with sticks and stones and went to PW1's house at about 11:OO PM. Al , A2,, and A3 to A5 allegedly attacked PW1 and the deceased with stones, while 44, 4,6, and A7 atlegediy attacked them with sticks.

3. PWs 5 and 6, relatives of the deceased, witnessed the incident and attempted to rescue PWI and the deceased from the attackers. After the incident, complaint was liled. Upon receiving the complaint from the compiainant/PWl, PW14, Sub-lnspector of Police, PS Nawabpet, registered a case in Cr. No. l8/2O11 under Sections 3O2, 3O7 , r lw 34 IPC and initiated the investigation. PW14 3 exarnined PW1, recorded his statement, visited Gate_Valampally village. On 1O.2.2O11, upon receiving the express FIR, pW16, the Investigating Officer, visited the scene and recorded pWl's statement. In the presbnce of mediators, pWs g and 9, pW16 conducted the parrchanama of scene of offence and under scene- cum-seizure panchanama seized, 1. Blood-stained clothes of the deceased lound on a pail near ttre scene, and 2. Two blood-stained Shabad stone pieces. Pw16 proceeded to osmania Generar Hospital (OGH), collected the death summa_ry, and visited the mortuar5r. PW16 conducted an inquest over the deceased's body in the presence of mediators, PWs 10 and 11, and examined pWs 1 to 4 and LW2 and recorded their statements. The deceased,s body was subjected to postmortem examination by pw17, the medical off,rcer, who opined in the PME report that the cause of death was due to a "head injury." PW16 revisited the scene of the offence and recorded the statements of PWs 5 to 7. On 14.2.2011, A1 to A7 were arrested. In the presence of mediators, pWs 12 and 13, their confessional statements were recorded. A1 to A7 led the police and mediators to A2's house, where the following were seized: 1) Stones used by Al, A2, A,3, and A5; \ \ 4 2) Sticks used by A4, A6, and A7 in the alleged offence.

4. A1 to A7 were subsequently produced before the Hon'ble Court for judicia-t custody. The seized materia-l objects were sent to AP FSL for chemical examination. LW19 took over further investigation. The AP FSL chemical examiner issued a report, confirming that human blood was detected on items 1 to 6, a,ll of which belonged to blood group "A8". PW15, the medical officer who treated PWl, issued a wound certificate, stating that the injuries sustained by P.Wl were "grievous " in nature.

5. Consequently, A1 to A7 were charge-sheeted for offenses punishable under Sections 3O2,3O7 rlw 34 lPC.

6. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants on the basis of the eye witnesses account and other evidence collected during the course of investigation

7. Heard Sri T.Padyrrmna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri S.V.Rajashekar, learned counsel appearing for A2 and A'3, Sri C.Masthan Naidu, learned counsel for A5 and A6 and 5 Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

8. P.W. 1 and P.W.2 are brother arld wife of the deceased, respectively. P.Ws.3 to 6 are relatives of the deceased.

9. The incident occurred on 8.2.2011 at 11:O0 Pffi, but lodged on 9.2.2011, around 6:00 pm Ex.P1lComplaint was According to the prosecution's case, immediately after the incident, PWl and the deceased were taken to Nawabpet PS on the night of a.2.2OL1 . PWs. 5 and 6 shifted PWl and the deceased to Vikarabad Hospital, where the doctor, after providing initial treatment, advised shifting the deceased to Osmania General Hospital (OGH). Subsequently, PWs 3 and 4 moved the deceased to OGH. However, the evidence regarding PW1 and the deceased being taken to Nawabpet PS, appears to be an improvement, as these details are not mentioned in Ex.Pl /the complaint. There is a delay of 19 hours in lodging the complaint.

10. PW16 admitted that PWs 2, 3,5, and 6 did not state about PW1 and deceased being taken to Vikarabad Hospital, and shifting of deceased to OGH, in their Section 161 Cr.P.C statements. In ExPl, 6 it is not mentioned that police referred pwl to vikarabad hospita, on the night of incident, or that pWl was / -- Lrr<'r r w 1 was admitted in Vikarabad hospitaJ. 1 1' Further' there are inconsistencies in the testimonies of pws. 1, S, and 15 regarding when p.W. I was discharged from the hospital. According to P'w. 15, p.w. I was an outpatient rvhich shows that pWl was not even admitted in the hospital for the night. While pwl testified that he 14'45 discharged the foilowing evening after rearning about the death of the deceased. pw', however, stated that PWl was discharged from vikarabad Government Hospital the next day by 10:00_11:OO am. pwl4,s testimony is also contradictory, as he claims that according to the records, n. _"."rr..;;"a the hospital and that' due to the deceased's serious condition, the deceased was directiy shifted to the hospital by his relatives. However' pws' I to 6 testi$z that pwl ald the deceased were both taken to Vikarabad Hospita.t on the advice of the police. 12. Itis not explained as to why p.W. I faJsely stated that he was an inpatient, when the Doctor/p.W. 15 specifically stated that p.W. rvas treated as an outpatient. The prosecution tried to explain the :;, ," 1 7 delay in iodging the FIR for the reason of P.W. 1 being treated as an inpatient. However, the said version is falsiJied by the evidence of the Doctor/P.W. 15.

13. According to P.W. 1, P.Ws.S and 6, came to the rescue of him and the deceased from the appellants. However, P.W.2 stated that the appellants dropped sticks and stones and teft the scene, and thereafter, P.W. 1 called P.W.s, who in turn went to their house. P.W.3 stated that around 11.00 p.m, P.W.5 informed P.VI.4 about the appellants beating P.W. 1 and the deceased. P.W.4 then called P.W.3 and informed the same. However, P.W.4 stated that he heard shouting at 11.00 p.m and went to P.W.7's house arrd from there, he heard shouts from P.W. l's house and upon reaching, he saw A1 to A7 beating P.W. I and the deceased. The said statement is contra-ry to the evidence of P.W.5, who testilied that at 1O.OO p.m, P.W.2 called him and informed that P.W,1 and the deceased sustained injuries. P.W.S stated that when he reached P.W. 1's house, only family members of P.W. 1 were present and he called P.Ws.3, 4 and 6. P.W.5 also stated that he went to P.W.2's house at

1.00 a.m. 8

14. It is doubtful whether p.W. 1 or p.W.2 cailed p.W.S, since P.W.S stated that p.W.2 ca.lled him at IO.OO p.m, but p.W.2 stated that P'w'1 called P.w.S after the appelrarrts left the scene. p.w.S did not state about witnessing the incident. Ilowever, p.w. 1 craims p W S has witnessed the incident. Though, p.W.3 stated that :at ne wltnessed the incident, his name is neither mentioned in the complaint nor did p.W. 1 state about p.W.3,s presence in his statement before the Court. Further, p.W.4,s name is a_lso not mentioned by p.W. 1 or in Ex.pl complaint regarding p.W.4 witnessing the incident, even though p.W.4 O.r"".O- .Oora witnessing the said incident. 15. p.W.6 testified that p.W.5 called him on the date of the incident a'd he went to the house of p.w.S at 5.oo p.m. The said time does not tally with the timing given by other witnesses p.ws.1, 3 ard 5. p.Ws. l to 4 stated that the incident happened at 11.O0 p.m on Og.O2.2O1l. However, p.W.5 stated that ar lO.0O p.m, p.W.2 ca-lled him and informed that p-w. I a,d the deceased sustained injuries a,d had to be taken to the hospital. contrar,z to the said testimony, p.W.6 stated that at 9.30 p.m on O'.O2.2O11 , ali the l I 1 I t, appellants went to the house of P.W. 1 and beat P.W. 1 and the 9 deceased.

16. The complaint is silent about the place where the offence had taken place. Though, P.W.2 stated that appellants entered into therr house and beat the deceased and P.W. 1, however, P.W. 1 did not specihcally say that the incident happened inside the house. L7. None of the witnesses stated about the specihc overt acts of the appellants. The complaint also does not specifu .the acts committed by the appellants specifically.

18. P.W. l7/Doctor conducted autopsy. He stated that the injuries mentioned in the postmortem examination Ex.P54 could be caused by stones and sticks.

19. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are brother and wife of the deceased, respectively. P.Ws.3 to 6 are relatives ol P.W.1 and the deceased. Not a single independent witness was examined though P.Ws.1 ard 6 admitted that at the time of the incident, several villagers gathered at the scene. The independent witness P.W.7 did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. 10 ;

20. The Honble Supreme Court in Hiralal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chattisgarh)r found that the evidence of witnesses was discrepalt and that the witnesses were not speaking the truth In the said circumstances, the appeal of the accused was a_llowed

21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balaram v. State of Madhya Pradeshz held as follou's: " 1 1 . It is tuell settled, as laid doun in a loats cltr^ssians case of V<tdiuelu TLteuar u. State of Madras, there are three tgpes of uitnesses. uthtch are (i) tuholly relnble, (ii) tuhollg unreliable, and (iii) neither uhollg reliable nor uholly unereliable. The latu laid doun in Vedivelu Theuar (supra) is consistentlg Jollou.ted by this Court in a catena of ludgments. It can thus be seen tltot, there are three types oJ unrnesses. If the uitness b wlallg reliable, there is no dffianLty inasmuch as relgin.g on euen the solitary testimonA of such a Luitness anuiction could be based. Again, tlere is no dfficttlty in the cose of tuhotlg unreliable uitnesses inasmttch as his/ her testimonA b to be totallg discarded. It is only in the cose of the third category <tf uitnesses tuhich is partlg reliable and partly unreliable that the Court fares tle diffiatlty. The Courl is reEtired to separate the cl-nff front tle grain ta find oul the true genesis of the incident."

22. In Harbeer Singh v. Sheeshpal and others3, the Hon,ble Supreme Court held as follows: - 75. We haue giuen careful ansideration to tle submission s made bg the parties and ue are; inclined to agree u_tith the obseruations of the High Court that PW 3 and PW 9 were not u.titnesses to th,e alleged anspiracy between th,e accused persons since not onlA the details of the conuersatton giuen bg these tuo prosecution uitnesses uere different but also tlzir presence al the alleged spot at the releuant time seems unnatural in uieut of the physical andilron of PW 9 artd the distance of Slrceshpal,s Dhani frcm Sikar Road. t 2023 sCC OnLine 5C 1124 ')2023 LrveLaw (SC) 980 '(2015) 15b Srp."-e Court Casps 418 1: 11 Besid.es, it oppears thnt tlere haue been improuements in the statements of pw 3. rhe Erytanation to section 162 CrN prouides thot an omission to state a fact or ciritmstance in th.e statement recarded bg a police offier under S;ction 161 CrPC, mag amount to controliction if the same appears to be significont and otherutise releuant hauing regard to the d)ntext in uhich such omission ocotrs and. uhether ang ombsion amounts to a contradiction in the partianlar antext stnll be a question of fact. Tluts, uthile it is tnte that euery inlprouenont is not fatal to the proseantion cose, in co,ses where an improuenent creates a seious doubt about the truthfulness or credibilitg of a uitness, the defence may take aduantage of the same. (See Ashok Vishnu Dauare u. State .of Maharashtra [Asl:rft Vishnu Douare u. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 9 SCC 431 : 20O4 SCC (Cri) 14681 ; Radha Kumar u. State of Bihar fRadha Kumar u. State of Bihar, (2OOS) 10 SCC 216 : 2OO5 SCC (Cri) 15071 ; Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupla u. State of Maharashtra [Sunil Kumar Sambladagal Gupta u. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 3751 and Baldeu Singh u. State of Punjab [Baldeu Singh u. State of Punjab, (2014) 12 SCC 473 : (2ola) 6 SCC Pd 81Ol .) In our uieu, tlrc High Court had ighllg annsidered th'ese omissions as mateial omissions amounting to contradidions couered bg the Explanotion to Section 162 Crrc- Moreouer, it has a,lso ame in euidence that ttlerg LUas a delag oJ 15-16 days from the date of tLe incident in rearding th.e statements oJ PW 3 and PW 9 and the solle u)os sought to be unanvincinglg explained ig reference to the fact that the famitg had to sit for andotence fiif, 1 meetiigs for 12 to 13 dags. Needless to saA, we are tat impressed bg this explanation and feel that the High Court utas right in entertaining doubt in this regard. "16.As regards the incident of murder of the deceased, the Prcsecution has produed six egeuitnesses to the same. The orgument raised against the reliance upon tle testimong of these uitnesses Peftains to tle delaA in the recording oJ their stqtements bg thi potice under Section 161 CIPC. In the present co.se, the date of occurrence ruas 21- 12-1993 but the stotements of PW 1 <tnd PW 5 were recorded afier tuo dags of incident Le. on 23-12-1993. Tle evidence of PW 6 uas recotded on 26' 12-1993 while the euid.ence of PW 11 was rearded. qfTer lo dags of incident i'e' on 31-12-1gg3. Further, it is tuell'settled lqw tfat delag in rearding the stotement of the urirnesses does t:,I/t necessaily discredit their testimony. The coutt mag relg on such testimonl if tlag are cogent and credible and the delag is explained lo the caurt. satisfacioi Mahbrashtra [Ganishld u. State oJ Maharashtrd, (1992) 3 SCC 106 : 1993 SCC (Cfl a35l ; M;hn. Kralid u. State of W-8. lMohd- Khalid v. State of W.8., (2OO2) 7 SCC 334 : 2OO2 SCC Pd 17341 ; Prithvi u. Mam Roj lPrithui u- Mam Rai' (2OO4) 13 SCC 27g:20O5 SCC Pd 1g8l and Mqnu Sharma u- Slate (NCT of Delhi) [Manu Shanma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2O1o) 6 SCC 1 : (2O1O) 2 SCC Pd 13851 f lsee Ganeshlal u State - of

77. Houeuer, Ganesh Bhauan Patel u. State of Maharasfura lcanesh Bhauan Patel u. State of Mahara.shtra, (1978) 4 SCC 371 : 1979 SCC pfl 1l , is an autharitV for the proposition tlu delag in recording of statements of the prosecution uirnesses 'unde, -seition 161 CrpC, aithough those u)itnesses ruere or could be available for examination uhen the investigdting olficer uisited the scene of ocatrence or soon thereqfrer, uould ca.st a doubt upon the proseculion case' (*e also Bo,lakrushna Swaii v. State of Ori.ssa [Balokrushno Swatn u. State of Orissa, (1971) 3 SCC 192 : 1971 SCC Gd 3131 ; Maruti Rama Naik u. State of Mctharqshlra fMaruti Rama 'J.2 Naik u. State of Mahorashtra, (2003) 10 SCC 670 : 2OO4 SCC (Cn) 9581 and Jagjit Singh u. State ol'Punjab [Jagit Singh u. State of Punjab, (2005) 3 SCC 6a9 : 2OO5 tl93l .) Thus, we see no reoson to interfere uith the obseraations of the High SCC C Court on tlrc poinl of delaA and its conesponding impact on the prose'attion case.'

23. In Sekaran v. State of Tamli Nadua, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows " 74. We start with th,e FIR, to uhich exception has been taken by the appellant urginll that there lus been no satisfactory ezrylanation lor its belated reg[stration. It is trile that merelg because there b some delag in lodging an FIR, the same bg itself and u.titlaut angthing more ought not to ueigh in the mind of the courts in all c-oses as fatal for th.e proseattion. A realistic antl progmattc approach lns to be adopted, keeping tn mind the peotbariti<ts of each particular case, ao assess ufetter the unexplained delag in todging rhe FIR is an afterlhought to giue a aloured uersion of the incident, tuhich is suffcient to corrode tle credibilitg of the proseantion uersion. '

15. In ca.ses urhere delanl ocatrs, it has to be tested on the anvil of other attending cira,tmstances. If on an ouerall ansiderotion of all releuanl ciralmstances il appears to the aurt that tLe delay in lodging the FR ha-s been explained, mere delay cannot be sulfi.cient to disbelieue the proseantion case; howeuer, { the delay is not satisfactoilg explained ond it appears to the court that cause for the delag had been necessitated to fro.me anAone as an arcused, there is no reason as to tuhg tle delay slauld nol be considered as fotat fonning port of seueral factors to uitiate the atnviction.

76. In the present case, ute hnue noticed that tlrc FIR u-ta-s admittedlA lodged on 15 3-1996 at dbout 9.OO a.m. although the incident was of 12-3- 1996 and in betueen PaLas uLas treated initially in a piuate nursing home and then in th.e gouernment hospital uhere he passed away on 14-3'1996 around 7.15 p-m. From the euidenc:e on record, uhnt ue find is that the crime u)as not reporled to the police because, fi.rst, none of the doctors utho lnd attended to Palas had aduised PWs 2 and 3 to so report; seondly, PW 2 did not report out of .fear as the appellant Lnd threatened PWs 2 and 3; and thirdly, PW 3 Luanted to soue her husband. It is the oral euidencp of a head cnnstable uho uos posted at Arumanai Police Slation (PW 10) that PW t hnd uisited the police station on 15-3 1996 and giuen o statement (Ert. P 7) bosed tuhereon tl-Le FIR (Dx1. P 8) tuas prepared. He admitted that no message was receiued prior to the FIR (Drt. P-8) and that one police outpost ts there within the compus of the Tiuandrum Medical College. He also admitted thot generallA an FIR should be registered at the police outpost pior to ad.nitting tfrc patient for treatment and that such FIR slnuld. be foru.nrded to the police station. It is also in the euidence of the In^spector of Police, Arumanai Police Station (PW 1 1) that the- place of occurrence is at o distance of 15 km from his police slation. " {2024) 2 Supreme Court Cases 176 13

77. Upon -consideration of tfle other ciranmstances, belated reporting of the cime to tLrc police resulting in undue d.elay woutd bear releiance ond. *. need to aniue at o conclusion as to whether u)hat pWs 2 and 3 d.eposed. rnuld be regarded as explanations uorthA of acceptance for not reportiig the cime to th,e poli@ betueen 12-3-1996 (euening) and tS-3-1996 (before 9.bO a.m.)."

24. As already discussed p.W. I has stated that he was an inpatient to obviously explain ttre delay in lodging the FIR. However, P.W. 1's version is falsihed by the evidence of Doctor, who stated that P.W. 1 was treated as an outpatient. The detay in lodging the complaint was attributed to the treatment of p.w. 1 as a', inpatient, which is palpably false. The witnesses p.ws. 1 to 6 are all related to the deceased. The testimonies of the witnesses p.Ws.3,4, 5 and 6 is contradicting one another regarding timing of the incident and also the information given to one another and their arrival at the scene. Such discrepancies would arise only when the witnesses are speaking false. The testimony of the witnesses is not truthful. The presence of P.Ws.3 and 4 is not stated in the complaint and no reasons are given for omitting their names.

25. In view of the discussion regarding the discrepant and doubtful evidence of witnesses and the delay lodging the 1n 1,4 complaint, conviction cannot be based on the alleged recoveries from the appellants.

26. F-urther, there are discrepalcies even in the recovery of MOs 1 to 7, which are three sticks and four stones that were allegedly used by A1 to A7 in the commission of the offence. According to PW16, after the arrest of A.1 to A,7 on 14.2.201,1, MOs 7 to 7 were seized from A2's housc. However, PW2 deposed that after beating the deceased and PW1, A1 to A7 dropped the sticks and ston6s at the scene of the offence and left. Furthermore, P.W.2 stated that the police seized these sticks and stones from the scene on 17.2.2017, a-fter the death of the deceased. PW1, similarly deposed that after the accused beat him and the deceased, they left the sticks and stones at the scene and went away. PW1 further deposed that on 1I.2.2O11, after the deceased's funeral, the police se2ed the sticks and stones lrom the scene of the offence. From the above testimonies of P.Ws. 1,2 and 16, it is clear that the recovery aspect is discrepalt :rmong the witnesses regarding the date when MOs.1 to 7 were seized, i.e., whether on ll.O2.2O1 1, as deposed by p.Ws.1 and 2 or on 14.O2.2O 1 i as deposed by P.W. 16. The mediators, pWs. 15 12 and 13, who were present at the time of the seizure of the weapons, turned hostile. The said discrepancy goes to the root of the prosecution case.

27. Further, though the prosecution,s case is that MOs 1 to 7 contained blood stains, they were not sent to the FSL to find out whether they contained blood. 24, Accordingly, Criminat Appeal stands allowed. Since ttre appellants are on bail, their bail bonds sha_ll stald discharged Sd/- A.V,S.S.C.S.M.SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER One Fair Copyro the HON'BLE SRt JUSTTCE K.SURENDER ^ (For His Lordship,s kind perusali Lrne Farr uopy to the HON'BLE SRt JUSTTCE ANtL KUMAR JUKANTT (For His Lordship,s kind perusil) To, Hyderabad. [OUT]

1. The Xll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy _ District. (with records, if any) 2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The Superintendent, Central prison, CneAapatiy, nanga Reddy District. 4. The Station House Officer, Nawabpet poflce St'aiion, Ranga Reddy District. 5 Two ccs to the pubric prosecutoi, Higrr corrt ioi the siate or ilr""grn; ,t 9 9n" !! Jo ^sf ^s ! Rajashekar, Advocate [opuc] /. One CC to Sri S. Masthan Naidu, Advocate 1opUil 8. 11 LR Copres 9 The Under S_ecretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company 10. The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of . . ]elan-gang. High Court Buitdings at Hyderabaj ' 1 1. Two CD Copies Affairs. New Delhi kant/D o HIGH COURT DATED:3010112025 . , I I ( JUDGMENT CRLA.No.734 of 2017 ( t) Co ct{1 Ts A 14, 0 7 i,ii1 2[25 C .l a t o € s (., ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL ,l 0A{ \P