The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondents: Sri R. Giri Kumar The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL 'CRIMINAL APPEAL No.l247 OF 2018 WDGMENTi lper Hon'ble Sri Jusrice K.Surender) 1. The State is aggrieved by the judgment dateC 29.11.2017, in S.C.No.554 of 2Ol5; on the Jile of Judge, Family Court-Cum- VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Mahbubnagar, acquitting the respondents/accused for the offences under Sections 3O2,4O4, 2Ol, & 109 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State. Perused the record

3. A-1 is the resident of Masigudlapally Village: and is eking out his livelihood by doing agriculture work, and A.-2 is his wife. D.1 was his 2"d wife and D.2 (Pallavi) was the daughter of A-1 and D.1. The marriage of D.l was performed with one Pentoji from Kavernnapeta of Jadcherla Mandal, 11 years ago. Thereafter, D. 1 split up with Pentoji and started liwing with her parents. P.W.2 is the witness, who had married the sister of A-

1. A-1 used to visit Chinna Adirala village. Due to such frequent visits, he developed intimacy with D.l arrd had sexual relationship.. with her. A-2 is the 1"t wife of lr.-1, and had objected the relationship between D.l and A. 1. There were 2 quarrels in between A-2 and D.1. A panchyat was held at Kavermmapet village, during which A_l agreed. to look after both D. 1 . and A.2. It is the further case that A- 1 decided to kilr both D. I andD.2 since there were differ6nces. On 23.O5.2O.I3, A-1 went to Chinna Adira_la village and met D.1, and watched her movements. On 24.05.2013, A-1 called D. 1 and asked her to come to Jadcherla, and again two days thereaJter, i.e., on 26.05.2013, A-1 called D.1 to Jadcherla, and at that time, D.2 also accompanied D. 1. A-1 took D.1 andD.2 from Jadcherla to the agricultural field situated at Vemula villagd, and strangulated both of them, set their bodies ablaze ad took away their gold and silver ornaments as wells as D. 1,s cell phone. The missing complaint was initially filed by the brother of D.1. According to the prosecution, on 02.06.2013, A_l made an extrajudicial confession before p.w. 12 about committing the murders of D. 1 and D.2. Thereafter, the Section of law was altered by the Police. The porice went to the scene of offence and found burnt human bones. The police conducted inquest, and thereafter, Medical Officer (p.W. 15) visited the scene and conducted post-mortem examination. Mainly, on the basis of the confession of A-1, a charge sheet was laid against A_1 and against A-2'for abetting the murders of D. 1 and D.2. 3

4. Learned Sessions Judge examined the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution, who are P.Ws.1 to 22, and also marked Exs.P. I to P.29. M.Os.l to 10, which are the ornaments of D.1 and D.2 and their phorles, were seized at the inStance of A- 1. Further, M.O. 1 l/scooter, on which A- 1 allegedly took D.1 and D.2 to the field ald strangulated them, was also seized.

5. Learned Sessions Judge having examined the evidence found that the prosecution failed to prove their r:ase based on the following: 1 2 3 4 5 That the bones found were those of D.,[ and D.2. No DNA test was conducted. The extrajudicial confession made to P W. 12 was not proved. An Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, ald without corroboration of surrounding circumstances, the convic:tion cannot be recorded. There is no evidence to show that D.l and -D.2 left for Jadcherla after A-1called th.em. Though P.W.8 was cited as a witness by the prosecution to speak about the last ser:n dircumstance of A-1 w"ith D.1 and D.2, however, he did not fully support the 4 prosecution. It was stated that D.1 accompanied A-1, but he did not mention. D.2.

6. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution did not form a complete chain, except for raising suspicion about A-1 and A-2. However, suspicion cannot form the basis to convict the accused.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that D.l and D.2 are the 2.a wife and daughter of A-1, respectively. If at all they were missing, it is A-1 who had to explain, and in the absence of any explanation regarding their missing, it could only be inferred that it was the accused who had committed the murders.

7. In Raui Shanna a. State (Goaernment of NCT of Delhi) and anothel, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while ,." dealing with.an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to considei whether ttre trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when the evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, I (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 535 5 the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.

8. ln Ghureg Lat a. State of tlttar Pradesh', the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70 as follows: "7O. In the light of the aboue, the High Court and other appellate Courts shouLd follottt the uLell-settled pinciptes crystallized bg number of Judgments if it is going to oueftule or othenuise disturb tLrc trial court's acquittal:

1. The appeltate court mag onlg ouemlle or othenuise disturb the tial court's acquittal if it has 'uery s,ubstantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances ari.se in uthich the app'?llate court toould haue "uery substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the tial court's decision. "Very substontial and compelling reasons" eist tuhen: palpoblg u-trong: I The fial court's conclusion uLith regard to the focts is ii) Tle trial court's decbion uas based on an erroneous uietu of laut; iii) Tle trial court's judgment is likelg to resull in 'graue mi scarriag e oJ justice " ; iu) The entire approoch of tle tial court in dealbrg tuith the I I evidence utas patentlg illegal; u) Tlw trial court's judgment u,as manifestlg unjust and unreasonable; ui) The tiat court has ignored the euidence or mi.sread the mateial euidence or has ignored mateial documents like dging declarations/ report of the ballistic expert, etc. I I uii)Thi.s list is intended to be ilfustratiue, not exhnu.stiue. 2. The appellate court must alwags giue proper aeight and cortsideration o the findings of the tial court.

3. If tuto reasonable uieuts can be reached- one that leads to acquittal, the otler to conuiction _the High Court:;/ appeltate courts must rule in fauour of th.e accased-" (2008) 10 Supreme court Cases 450 'z 6

9. The initial burden of proving a criminal case is on the prosecution. In the present case, which is a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is. bound to prove each and every circumstance relied on by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The witness to whom the extra- judicial confession was made turned hostile. Similarly, the witness cited to speak about A-1 being last seen with D.1 and D.2 did not support the case. Though human bones were found, no DNA test was conducted to conclude that the remnants of the burnt bodies were those of D.1 and D.2. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- I. NAGA LAKSHMI R JOINT R rf- SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judge Family Court-cum-Vlll Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. (with records, if any)

2. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy' 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri R. Giri Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Kanr/gh HIGH COURT DATED:1110312025 l a( 1q \ trtr€ 5 f,4 (, t 1OJUil M ! o * 1),- _ /',r rcHED .a + JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1247 of 2018 DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL APPEAL ?d 6\ 0