The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri C. Sharan Reddy Counsel for the Respondents No-l to 9: Sri M. Ramalingeswara Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No'10: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla' Additional Public Prosecutor Criminal lNo.1282 ot 2O18 Appeal under Section 378(3) & (1) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 29-11-2017 passed in s.c.No.513 of 2012 on the file of the court of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. Between: The State of Telangana, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High oourt at Hyderabad. ...AppellanUComPlainant AND 1 2 1 4 5 6 Naiki Srinivasulu (A-1), fuo Late Bojjanna, Age:54 years occ agricult-ure and ipiC memoer, 'itlo.Shantina!-ar Village, Waddepalle Mandal' Mahaboobnagar District. Naiki Laxmi Reddy (A-2), S/o Late Bojjanna, Age:46 years, O^cc: Agriculture, R/o.Shantinagar Viltige,-Waddepalle Mandal, Mahabubnagar District Naiki Dharma Reddy @ Dharma (A-3), S/o Pedda Madanna, Age.3B.yea.rs, oaa. Agriculture,' -R/o.shantinagai Village, Waddepalle Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Naiki Krishna Reddy (A4), S/o Late Boijanna, Age.43 years, Orcc Agriculture' R/o.shantinagar Village, Waddepalle Mandal, Mahabubnagar District years,. Occ: Naiki Beechupally (A-5), S/o Cheviti Madanna' , Age:36. . Agriculture, Rio.sharitinagar Village, Waddepalle Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Naiki Renukavardhan Reddy @ Peddi Reddy (A-6), Age:49 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o.Shantinagar- Village, Waddepalle Mandal. Mahabubnagar District. 7 I I Bova Awaswamy (A-9), S/o Late Ayyanna, Age:44 years, Occ: Agriculture, nl<i.Avu(a Villag6 a'nd Mandal, Kurnool District Annepogu Chandra Shekar (A-11), S/o Ramakrrshna, Age:23 years, Occ: Privaie Sriver, Rl/o.Waddegeri, Kurnool town and District Naoadsav Mohammad Khan (A-12), S/o N Hajimiya, Age:28 years, Occ: Moiorcycie mechanic, R/o, Kanakati Street, Near Control Room, Waddegen, Kurnool Town and District. ...ResPondents/Accused (A-7, A€, A-'lO, A-13 & A-14 are not necessary parties) IA NO:,2OF 2018 PetitionunderSection3Ts(3)&(1)ofCr.P.C.prayingthatinthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court maybepleasedtograntleavetofilecriminalappealagainstthejudgmentof 'O"t"O Ze-i-ZOll-iassed in SC.No.Sl3 oI 2011 on the fiie of the 1"' ""q'ritt"t Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 9: Sri T. Ramchander Rao Criminal Revision Case No.1 138 of 2018 criminal Revision filed under section 397 & 401 of crPC against the order dated 22-01-2018 passed in crl.M.P.No32 ol 2017 in SC.No295 of 2014 on the file of the court of the lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadwal. Between: Smt.T.Rathnamma,WoLateRangaSwamy,Age62years,Occ:Housewife' R/o.Wadepalli Village and Mandal, Gadwal District ...Petitioner/Defacto Complainant AND 1 Naiki Koti @ Koteswar Rao, Rl/o.Shanthinagar, WaddePallY Ma S/o Pedda Madanna, Age:36 Years' ndal, Gadwal District. . ..RespondenUA-7

2. The state of Telangana, rep. by Public Prosecutot High c-ourt of Judicature at Hyderabad for thie State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesn. ...ResPondents/ResPondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. C. Sharan Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.175 &' l2AZ OF 2Ol8 & Crl.R.C.No.1138 OF 2()18 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Si Justice K.Surender) 1. Crl.A.No. 175 of 2Ol8 is filed by the defacto complainant lP.W.l, questioning the acquittal of respondents /A-1 to A-6, A-9, A-11, and A-12, Crl.A.No.1282 of 2O18 is frled by the State questioning the acquittal of the above accused, and Crl.R.C.No.l138 of 2018 is frled by the defacto complainant /P.W. 1 questioning the discharge of A-7 .

2. Since both the Appeals and Revision arise out of the common judgment in S.C.No.5l3 of 2012, on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Mahbubnagar, all are heard together and disposed of by way of this common judgment. 3, Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

4. The case of the prosecution is that there was a political rivalry between the deceased, name$ Thota Rangaswamy, and A-1 in Waddepalty village. A-l had conspired with A-2, A-4, 2 and A-6, who are his brothers, and A-3, A-5, and A-7, who are his close relatives, to eliminate the deceased in order to claim supremacy in political circles. A- 1 to A-3 contacted A-8 to commit the murder of the deceased. A-8 introdu.ced A-13 and A-14 as his associates, and an agreement was made that A-1 would pay an amount of Rs.3,OO,0OO/- to A-8 to commit the murder of the deceased. A partial palrment of Rs 45,OOO/- was made. A-1 also contacted A-9 and offered Rs.3,2Ct,OO0/- to hire assassins, i.e., A-10 to A-12. A-1 initially attempted to kill the deceased by hiring assassins in the frrst week of February 2O1O; however, they could not execute the plan on account of the presence of several labourers around the der:eased at that time.

5. The accused then came together on 13.02.2010 and decided to kiU the deceased on L4.O2.2OlO. The hired assassins were called. A- 1 secured a Toofan C:ruiser vehicle owned by P.W.8, and P,W.9 was the driver of thr: said vehicle. At about 3:30 p.m., A-2 to A.-6 started towards Kurnool and stopped at the bore well shop of A-7, where A-8, A.-13, and A-14 boarded the vehicle. From there, they went trt a Dhaba at Shantinagar, where A-9 to A-12 boarded the vehicle. A-3 gave Rs.50/- to P.W.9 and asked him to get water serchets. By the 3 time P.W.9 returned, A-11 had taken the driver's seat. While P.W.9 was observing the moving vehicle, A-3 arrived on a motorcycle and asked P.W.9 to ride as a pillion. In the mealtime, the deceased left his house on his motorcycle along with one Samuel (not examined, since died). A-7 passed on the message to A-2 through cell phone, alerting them. On the instructions of A-2, A-11, who was driving the vehicle, hit the motorcycle of the deceased from the rear, causing both the deceased and Samuel to fall to the ground. Immediately, A-2, A-4 to A-6 and A-8 to A-14 pounced on the deceased and hacked him indiscriminately with hunting sickles, resulting in the instantaneous death of the deceased. The offence was witnessed by P.W.4 while he was returning from Waddepally village, Alampur. The hunting sickles were later hidden near a culvert on the road. A-3 threatened P.W,9 not to disclose the incident to anybody, and thereafter, all the accused left the place. P.W.4 informed P.W.2, who is the elder brother of P.W.4. P.W.2 went to the house of the deceased, and informed his wife/P.W. I about the death of the deceased. P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 went to the scene where the body was lying. P.W. I drafted Ex.P. 1/complaint and lodged it w"ith the Police at 8 p.m. 4

6. The Investigating Oflicer/P.W, 16, during the course of investigation, found that A- I to A- 14 were responsible for the murder of the deceased.

7. A-8, A-13, and A-14 were absconding. A-10,Jied, as such, the case against him was abated. The case against A-7 was split up, and a separate case, i.e., S.C.No.295 of 2014, was registered and is pending since A-7 was absconding.

8. A-1 to A-6, A-9, A-lO, A-11, and A-12 were tried by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Mahbubnagar. Learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused mainly on the following grounds: "1. In Ex.P.i, information was given about the death of the deceased; however it was mentioned that P.W.1 only suspected the accused as the petpetrators of the crime.

2. P.Ws.4 to 9, who are the eyewitnesses to the incident, were not mentioned in tl e <:omplaint Itrx.P.l.

3. P.W.4 rvas examined by the Police nearly 45 days after the incident, i.e., on 30.03.2010, whereas the incident occurred on 14.O2.2OlO. 5

4. P.W.g, another eyewitness, was examined on 2O.O2.2O1O, which was three months after the incident.

5. Once the evidence of P.Ws.4 to 9 is eschewed from consideration, there remains no witness to connect the accused with the crime."

9. After the acquittal of the accused Nos.l to 6, 9, 11, and 12, A-7 was apprehended. A-7 frled a discharge application only on the ground that all the other accused had been acquitted. trarned Sessions Judge discharged A-7 since the evidence adduced against A-1 to A-6, A-9, A-11, and A-12 was not found to be credible. Accordingly, they were acquitted. No useful purpose would be served, if A-7 was again tried.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the village of the appellants was faction-driven, and on account of the political rivalry, the murder has occurred. P.W.4 is an independent and chance witness who saw the deceased being murdered. It is specifically stated that due to fear of the accused, he intentionally did not state anything against the accused. Further, P.W.9, the Driver of the vehicle in which all the accused travelled before committing the murder 6 of the deceased, was examined after three months, however, since his presence at the scene was not disputed, the delay in his examination is of no consequence in the present facts.

11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/accused would submit that the learned Sessions Judge had disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws.4 ancl 9 since they were planted. Further, in the inquest report, the names of P.Ws.4 and 9 were not mentioned. Further, it was stated that some persons were waiting in the pit, who were the followers of A-1 and had allegedly attacked the deceased. There is a contradiction between the version given in the inquest report and the version projected by the prosecution. Learned Sessions Judge has rightly dismissed the version of P.Ws.4 and 9.

12. Learned Public Prosecutor sailed with the arguments of the counsel appearing in Cr[.A.No. 175 of 2018, Iiled by p.W. 1.

13. The crucial evidence is that of P.Ws.4 and 9. It is admitted that P.W.4 was examined nearly 45 days after the incident and P.W.9 was examined nearly 3 morrths after the incident. The version given by P.W.9, that he was sent as a driver to different places and, for this reason, could not depose before the Police, cannot be betieved. Similarty, the version of P,W.4, that out of fear he did not depose for a peri.od of 45 days 7 is also doubtful. If at all P.W.4 had approached his brother, P.W.2, to inform P.W. 1 that the accused had committed the murder, there is no reason why P.W. I merely mentioned in the complaint that she suspected some of the accused but did not state anSrthing about P.W.4. If P.Ws.2 and 4 are to be believed, P.W.4's name should have been reflected in the complaint.

14. In cases of acquittal, the Honble Supreme Court in Rcui Shrrrtna o. State (Gouenrment of I{CT of Delh;i) and anothef, held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittat, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particulariy 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, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.

15. ln Ghureg La.l v. State of Uttar Prad.esft, the Honble 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 paraTO as follows: t (2022) I Supreme Court Cases 536 ' 1ZOOa1 tO Supreme Court Cases 450 8 '7O. In the light of the aboue, the High Coun\ and other appellate Courts should follouL the well-settled pinciples crystallized bg number of Judgments if it i.s going to ouemtle or otLeru.tise disturb the tial court's ocquittal:

1. Ttrc appellate court mag only ouefiule or otllertuise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it hos 'uery substontial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances aise in uthich the apStellate court taould haue "uery substantial and" compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compellirq reasons" exist uthen: i) The tial court's conclusion uith regard to th.e facts is polpably u.trong: ii) The trial court's decision utas based on an eftoneous uieu) of ldtx; miscarriage of justice " ; iii) The tnd court's judgment k likelg to result in "graue iu) The entire approach of the trial court in deali.ng uith the euidence wos patently illegal; u) The tial court's judgment uas manifestlg unjust and unreasonable; ui) The trial court has ignored the euidence or mi-sread the mateiol euidence or hz's ignored mateial doalments like dging declaration-s/ report of the ballistic expert, etc. uii)This list is lntended to be illustratiue, not exha ustiue. 2. The oppellate court must aLuags giue proper Lueight and consideration o the fi.ndings of the tnal court. 3- If ttuo reasonable L,telus can be reached_ one that leads to acquittoL th.e other to conulction _the High Courts/ appellate courts mtl st ntle in fauour of the accused.. "

16. The reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge is based on record. There are no compelling reasons to reverse the well reasoned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.

17. A-7 was apprehended subsequently, and based on the discharge application filed by him, the learned Sessions Judge discharged him. As rightly found by the learned Sessions Judge, the evidence that would be adduced against A-7 would 9 be the evidence that was adduced by the prosecution during the trial of A-1 to A-6, and A-9 to A-12. No useful purpose would be served if A-7 was asked to undergo the trial by examining the very same witnesses. Further, as per Section aO I (5) of Cr.P.C., the Court cannot convert an order of acquittal into conviction. There are absolutely no reasons to remand the case to the trial Court for the trial of A-7.

18. Accordingly, both the Appeals and the Revision Case are dismissed. SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 The I Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnag The lll Additional Drstrict and Sessions Jud ge, Gadwal The Station House Officer, Shanthinagar Police Station, Mahabubnagar District. with records, if any)

4. Two CCs to the Public Proseculor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. One CC to Sri C. Sharan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri M. Ramalingeswara Reddy, Advocate [OPUCI 7. One CC to Srr T. Ramchander Rao, Advocate IOPUC] 8. Two CD Copies W Kam/PSL HIGH COURT DATE D : 27 10312025 I ,4:' / .'ln' €,i 1 9 JUN il[:i I '9 ( z o A *! .:rr-\r,..., -7 COMMON JUDGMENT GRLA.Nos.175 & 1282 of 2018 & CRL.RC.No.1138 of 2018 BOTH THE APPEALS AND REVISION CASE ARE DISMISSED r:.. U, ( $.1 rI (,