The High Court · 2025

Sri Md Sadath Hussain Legal Aid Counsel Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following Judgment : $ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR CRIMTNAL APPEAL No.614 OF 2OL7 JUDGMENTi (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.surender) This criminal appeal is fi1ed by the appellant/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.08.2016 in S.C.No.265 of 2014, on thr: fi1" of Family Court-cum-Additional SeSsions Judge, Karjmnagar, convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 45T and,3gO of Indian penal Code (for short 'IpC).

2. Heard Mr. MD Sadath Hussain, learned legal aid counsel for the appellant/accused and Mr. Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional public prosecutor for respondent_ State.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 13.06.201 1, PW. I who is the younger brother of the deceased namely Mallamma lodged a Telugu written complaint which is Ex.Pl. In the complaint, it is stated that on the same day i.e., 13.06.2O1 i, his sister was found dead in her house and suspected that some unknown persons had killed his sister and stolen her jewellery. The crime was pending 2 investigation. On 21.10.2013, the appellant was arrested by Investigating Officer/PW. 14. The appellant was also arrayed as accused in two other cases (i) S.c.No.17l of 2Ol4 (subject matter of Crl.A.No.739 of 2Ol4) and (ii) S.C.No.l9O of 2Ol4 (subject matter of Cr1.A.No.775 ot 2Ol4l

4. According to Investigating Offrcer/PW.l4, he sought the assistance of PW.9 namely Komarraju Srinivas Rao (who is also witness in the other two cases) as an independent witness. The independent witness /PW.g was summoned by Investigating Officer/PW. 14 to an Iron Shop at Indiranagar, Sulthanabad. At the said Iron Shop, the gold jewellery, which was subject matter of S.C.No. 190 of 2014, was recovered. According to Investigating Officer, from there the appellant took them to another Iron Shop in Elkathurthi Village, where he had shown a box containing the jewellery relating to the present case and also S.C.No.17l of 2014.

5. The Test Identification Parade was held on 25.11.2013 by PW. 15 and PW.5 identifred the appellant. According to PW.S, he saw the appellant for the first time in jail i.e., after two years. The appellant was thereafter charge sheeted by Investigating Officer/PW. 14 in three cases, including the 3 present case, after conclusion of investigation. All the three sessions cases were tried by the same Session s Judge simultaneousll..

6. The judgments in Cr1.A.No.775 of 2Ol7 and Crl.A.No.739 of 2Ol7 sha-ll be tagged along with the present appeal, since the appellant is the same in all the three cases, who was arre,sted on 2I.IO.2O 13 and recoveries were effected on the same clay. 7 . In the lf,resent case, it is highly doubtful as to how appellalt, who allegedly committed the theft of gold jewellery on 13.06.201t, had kept the jewellery in an Iron Shop for two years. The place where the recovery was made is open. It is highly doubtfirl as to how the jewellery was concealed in the shop for a period of two years without being seen by anyone. The owner of the two scrap shops or persons running the shops where the recoveries were made in the three cases were not exarnined. It appears that the appellant, who was arrested, was shown as accused in an unsolved two year old crime. Even during the recording of evidence of independent witness and Investigating Officer, though on different dates, learned Sess.ions Judge has copied the eyidence from 4 .:! depositions, S.C.No.190 of 2Ol4 in the present case' The evidence of both the Investigating Officer and the independent witness was recorded in two different cases i'e" S'C'No'265 of 2Ol4 and S.C.No.190 of 2Oi 4 on two different dates' On comparing the it appears that the Presiding Officer had mechanicallY copied the entire evidence of independent witnessandalsolnvestigating.officer,exceptchangingthe exhibit numbers in both cases' The act of copying and pasting the entire evidence' both in chief and cross- examination, would go to show the lethargic attitude of the Presiding Offrcer in mechanically recording the evidence' The by learned Sessions Judge 1S said Procedure adoPted deprecated.

8. The narration given by Investigating Offrcer/PW'l4 is wholly unconvincing' tt is not specifically stated by Investigating Officer as to where the appellant was found or arrested. The independent witness/PW'9 was straight away calledtoanoldlronShopatlndiranagar,Sulthanabad. Neithertheowneroftheshopnoranyoftheworkerswere examined, when the proceedings had taken place' According to Investigating Ofhcer, the appellant had taken them from IronShopatlndiranagartoElkathurthiVillage'wherethe * ,/, 5 , I ornaments irr the present case were seized. The gold jewellery subjected to theft in three different crimes, which were registered over a period of three years, were recovered on the very same day.

9. As seen from the photographs in the present case, silver kadiyams (anklets) and silver toe rings were founcr on the body of the cleceased and the same is not explained by the prosecution. [t is not convincing as to why the person who had committed theft of silver bangles and ear studs had not taken the othr:r silver jewel1ery worn by the deceased. 10. The investigation is shoddy and no steps were taken by Investigating Officer to convincingly prove that the recovery was made at tl-re instance of the appeilant. 11 As already discussed, the appellant was shown as accused in three different cases and on the very same day, recoveries werr: shown in al1 the three cases, which is not only doubtful or suspicious, but appears to be fabricated. 12. The prosr:cution has utteriy failed to prove the case against the appellant in view of the discrepancies discussed above. I 6

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The appellant/accused shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. M. VIJAYA BHASKER JOINT REGISTRAR SE ION OFFICER To,

1. The Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge' Karimnagar (with records, if anY)

2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Sultanabad 3. The Member Secretary' Telangana State Legal Services Authority' High Court " tJitilij-sirti, of relang'ana at liyderabad ( By speciat Messenger ) 4. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee' State of Telangana' ( By Special Messenger) Hyderabad

5. The Superintendent, central Prison, warangal ( By speed post ) 6. The Station House Officer' Sultanabad PS' Karimnagar District TTWoCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana, HYderabad [OUT]

8. One CC to Sri Md Sadath Hussain' Legal Aid Counsel [OUTI 9. Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED:2810112025 e STA l-E o 1$ r<: a) () 31 l[N ?$6 \ ;,\\ ?\ r:

1. .:t' i oESt,a.i (, '-t)j JUDGMENT CRLA.No.614 ot 2017 ALLOWING THE CRLA \

7.o