High Court · 2025

The State Of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor' High Court at Hyderabad Foitne State of Telangana and A'P' ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Appellant: Ms' C Vasundhara Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor CRIMIN AL APPE AL NO: 27soF 2017 Between: Pelluri Mohan, S/o Pakiraiah, aged about 30 y99rq' Occ: auto driver' -R/o-H'No' 86-697, Sai Ram Corony,'fi.il]ieaOy-ltlgar, Hyderabad R/o' Muzafar Nagar' Kurnool. ...APELLANT/ACCUSED No'4 AND #?"tiii""BlJiiiigili;1""?#;1,fl[:"rfi IA NO:30F 2019 Petition urrde r Secti sl"t"tcatureatHyderabadrorthe ... RESPONDENTiCOMPLAINANT ili:iq?#Iff tffiT'tfi :il'T's?"fi HlH,T,ti,",T"r,r#;J#H{., perrod of two months, in the interest oi;rrti"".,, ",' ^ IA NO:20F 2021 *ffffff##a1h#gE#**ffi Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. G Jaya Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: pUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINA LAP PEALN O: 2635 0F 2018 Between: ff"'r?f "{,yJ:B16AJ1,r}.:i,.,lil,1il,3,i#il3l,a1grT"#S30years,occ:pvt AND ...APELLANT/ACCUSED No.2 The State Of Telangana, Rep by pubtic prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counset for the Appellant: SRt. y Ratna prabha Counsel for the Respondent: public prosecutor The Court detivered the fofiowing: COMMON JUDGMENT l I '1 1 TTIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K'SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAI Nos.186 275 of 20 17 and 263,5 0F 2018 COMMol{ JUDGMENT: (per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K'SURENDER) Criminal Appeal No'186/2017 is frled by Accused No'3' Criminal Appeal No.275l2Ol7 is frled by Accused No'4 ald Criminal Appeal No.2635/2oi8isfrledbyAccusedNo.2.Theappellantswere convicted by the Judge, Famrly Court' Mahabubnagar' in S.C.No.177/2O 14 for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life, each, and to pay a frne of Rs'5'O00/-' each' 2. Since the aPPellants are accused in the sarne case 1'e S.C.No.l77 12014, all the three appeals are heard together and disposed off by way of common Judgment'

3. Heard Ms. C. Vasundhara Reddy' Ms'G'Jaya Reddy' Ms'Y'Ratna Prabha, learned counsel for appellantslA2 to A4, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State' 2

4. A1 to r\4 were tried for the offence of murder of the parents of Accused Nos.l zrrd 2, however the case was split up against A1 due to his abscondernce arrd only A2 to A.4 were tried.

5. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased 1 and 2 went to the house of pW.7 on Ol.OZ.2Ol3 and stayed for 4 days. On O7.O7 .2OI3 the5, returned to Hyderabad in Thungabha.dra Express Train at 3.OO p.rn and they reached Hyderabad at g.00 p.m. A1 to A,3 and Juvenile namely Vijay Kumar (JICL), took the deceased Balaraju (Dl) a,d Esrvar,amma (D2), parents of Accused Nos. r and 2 and. paternal Uncle eLnd Aunt of A3 in a Bolero vehicle from Malalpet Railway Station on the night of O4.OZ.2O|3, when they arrived from Kurnool and committed murder on the outskirts of Kuppagandla village by bearing them and slitting their throats w.irh knives. pw.6 is the daughter c,f the deceased 1 and 2. She was staying along with the deceased L a,:rd 2 after divorcing her husband. pW.6 ald pW.7 daughters of the deceased tried to contact the deceased on 07.O7.2073 to know whether they reached Hyderabad, however, ttreir cell phones were rtot reachable. A.3 went to the frouse of pW.6 in the morning of 05.(17. j2013 ard asked about the deceased. In the evening around 4.00 p.m., A2 called pW.6 ald informed that police --.==" :. _- -._r:=:, 4 {6 3 Kalwakurthy called him and informed him that there were two dead bodies found near Kuppagandla village ' PW'6' accused and others went there and obserwed that there were injuries on the dead bodies' ThedeadbodieswerelrrstseenbyPW.lwhoistheVRoof Uppagandla village of Veldanda Mandal' On seeing the dead bodies at 7.00 A.M, on 05.07'2013, he gave report to Veldanda Police ' Ex'P1 is the rePort given bY PW' 1' 6. The Police observed the dead bodies arrd on the basis of the tailor's name and address stitched on the backside of the shirt of the deceased No. 1, the deceased were identifred after contacting the tailor- PW.9. Accused Nos' 1 and 2' PWs'6 and' 7 were contacted by the Police after taking details from PW'9' After the relatives of the deceased were identifred, the police concluded observation of scene' inquest proceedings and thereafter sent the bodies for post mortem examination. 7. Dr:ring the course of investigation' Police came to know that A1 artd A2 were frequently quarreling with the deceased couple about share in the properties and developed grudge against them' A3 who was the nephew also had disputes with the deceased No'1 regarding the donations collected for 'shaneshwararn temple'' A1 to ,,{3 were 4 \ arrested. It wars known during the course of investigation that A4 was in the compan y of A2 and ,{3 when the incident had taken place as such ,{4 war; also arrested.

8. The ar.rests were on 1S.OT.2OI3. During interrogation by the Police A1 ard appella,ts confessed about k,ling the deceased aJong with Juvenil: blr taking them in Bolero vehicle after picking them up from Ma_laklret Railway station. It is further the .case of the prosecution rhat deceased No. I acquired immovable properties i.e. one small hc,usr: at pebbair, arrd 100 Sq.ys plot in Cherya vilage which is near to the cit5r. Since Al and A2 wanted to get the property from their parents i.e. D1 and D2, they planned to kill Dl & D2. A1 & ,{2 contacted the deceased on phone while returning from Kurnool. When Dl & D2 g:t down from the trajn at Malakpet Railway Station, on the pretext of dropping them at their house, both the deceased were taken in thr: Bolero vehicle and murdered on the outskirts of Kuppagandla village.

9. The learned Sessions Judge examined pWs.1 to 14 and marked Exs.Pl to p16. M.Os. I to 2l were also marked during tria_l. Exs.D1 to D3 are the portions of statement of pWs.6 and 7 which were marked during the cross-examination of witnesses. ? 5

10. The defence of the appellants is one of total denial' A2 stated in his 313 Cr.P.C. examination that he was married in the year 2OO7 and PW.6 got divorced and all of them were living amicably' The deceased I and' 2 were residing in a rented house along with PW'6 and A1 was also livtng with them' There are no immovable properties' There is one house in Pebbair village which is worth Rs'2 to 3 lakhs ald no one was going there since 15 years and a false case was filed' 11. 'A3 stated that he was beaten up in the Police station and case was frled against them' The deceased were paternal uncle and aunt' 12. The prosecution has placed reliance on the motive aspect as oneofthecircumstancetoprovethecaseagainsttheappellalts. Since P\[i.6 and 7 sisters of A1 and A2' expressed doubt regarding A1 and A2 frghtrng over property' that they would have committed the the investigation also murders, basing on the said susprcron' proceeded in the said direction' 13. The case rs one of circumstantial evidence' The Honourable Shcrnkcrr u- Sitate oJ Maharashtrat held as Supreme Court in follows; ' 2023 scc online sc 26E 6 "In the der:ision of prakash u. State of Raja-sthan (2013) 4 SCC 66,9, t.his Court took note of the following principles laid down rerga.ding the raw relaLing circumstantiar evidence in Sharad Birdhtchand. Sard.a u. State of Maharashtra (jg|4) 4 SCC 116:- "15:)' A crose anargsb of this decision would. show that "tollalsin, conditions must be fulfi.lled before a case again-st an accused_ can be said. to be fullg establi.shed.: (1) The tircumstances from uthich th-e conclusion of guilt i-s to be drawn should be fullg establtsh,ed. It mag be noted. h.ere tha.t thb Court ind.icated that the ciranmstances concemed. ,must or should., and not '^oA be' estobtished. There is not onty a grommatical but a legal distinction betueen ,may proued' and ,must be or should. be proued_,as uas he,ld by this Court in Shiuaji Sahabrao Bobarle u. Stctte of Mahara.shtra [(1923) 2 SCC 7931 uhere the followi.ng obseruation s were mad_e: 19. ......"ertainty, it i.s a primary pinciple that the accused must be and. not merely may be guiltg bef,tre a aurt can conuict and. th,e mental d.istance behaeen'may be' and.,must be, i-s long and d.iuid.es uague conjectures from sure conclusions" (2) TlE rfizcfs so establi.stted should be ansistent <>nly uitl,, the hgpotLesis of the guilt of tLe accused.. that 7 b to say, tleg shoutd not be explainable on anA other hgpothesis except that the acansed is guiltg' (3) The. ciratmstances slnuld be of a conclusiue nature and tendencg, ft)fheg stnuld exclude euery possible hgpothesis excePt the one to be Proued, ond (5) There must be a chnin of euidene so complete as not to leaue anA reo'sonable ground for the anclusion consistent rttith the innocence of the acansed and must shattt that in all htman probabititg the act must haue been done bg the accused.

754. Th.ese fiue golden principles, if ue may sag so' constitute th.e pancltsheel of the proof of a case based on ciranmstantial euidence."

14. The main argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that witnesses have totally come up with an improved version during the course of trial and the basis for conviction was also the improved version' The said conviction on the basis of an improved version from their 161 Cr'P'C' statements and developed at a subsequent date during trial has to be set aside ' 8

15. The impr.ved version of the witnesses pws.6 and 7 wourd be relevarrt. PV/. 1.1 is the Investigating offrcer who was questioned regarding the irrLproved version of the witnesses.

16. PW. 14 ,stated is as follows; "It is tr,,t e PW.6 not stated. to me tn her 161 Cr.p.C that on O4.O7.2O1:1, h.er father call her on phone and, informed-.that he u.ill ,.etu.ming from Hgderabad. in Ttumgabhadra tratn at 3.OO p.n. lt is ttue pW.6 not stated- to me in her l6,t cr.p.C. that on 04.07.2013 at about g.OO p.m. hi.s father called. her phone irrformed that h.e uas coming in Bolero uan along uith his sons; and also infonned. there utas dispute arose in the hause of A3 between parents of 43 and_ he attencled the same antd 4e uill com.e tohome and. asked. her to prepare food. It i; true that pW.6 has not stated. to me that uthen his father antd :;ons did not retum she continuously callerl to hb father orL phone and it uas switched. off, she also called_ to the cell ,ohone of 43 in the moming at 5.O0 a.m. and. A3 came to ,l.hetr house along witlt his motlrcr informed. that tte parents uere not come to hi.s lause and. again she co_lled. to tLrc cell ph<tne of 42 and. enquired. and LLe d-enied, the presence of his parents and. tota that we d.id. somet thing ogainst thent and he did. not turn up and. they searched. here and there along uith A3. It is true PW,.6 has not stated to me that in th.e euen.ing at about 4.00 .p.m. A2 called h.er and. informed. that police ; 9 Kaluakurthg called' lim' informed' him that there u)ere tTao dead'bodiesfoundnearKuppagandlauitlageandleuent thi,re and id.entified the dead bodies as of his parents and also obserued. injunes on th'e d'ead bodies' some bodg kills his parents due to propertg disputes ' It is true PW'6 llrzs not stated to me that ttere uas interference of A3 in their disputes and le took awag her father to collect donations for the construction of ShaneshularamtempleatSiddipetallageandinthisregard there is di.spute arose bettaeen Ler fatLer ond A3 and the said" fact tttos informed to her bg his fatler' PW.7 ruot stated before me that on 4'O7'2013 theg refitn to Hgderabad in Thungabadra train at 3'00 p'm and teldphaned me at 8'0O p'm' thcLt theg haue reached Hgderabad and told that heA uill come again after 10 dags and after reaching the home mg father informed ttwt he will called again. But he did not call to me' Wten I teleplaned to him he did not respond and' I called mg sister PW'6 she told that mg parents did not hfinup' on that dag and abo till aftemoon on the next dag no replg utas recciued about our parents- Mg sister told in tle euening at 3 or 4'00 p'm' about raticingoftuodeadbodieslyingatKuppagandlauillageof Veldandamandaland.shereE,testedmetocom.etothere and PW-6 also going there' Immediatetg I reached Kahualatrthg in the euerung and' uent to police statioru' Police took me to gouernment hospital' Kolwatatrthg and shoun me 10 the sa,,d clead bodies. I identified. said_ both d.ead ltodies as mA parents. I obserued cut injury on the necks of mg father and n'.oth.er. Bg seeing the said. injuies some persons murdered mA parents and also pW.7 not stated_ before me that A3 in.tended, to construct Shaneshu.tara temple qt Siddipe't as such he took the Lelp of mg father for collection of doncr.tiorts for the construction of temple in Bokero uehicle and thetg callected amount, A3 used. to call my father when he u,tas stag in Kurnool. "

17. Having gone through the triar court findings, heary rerialce was placed on the improved version of the witnesses as extracted above. 18' The Police crid not co,ect the ca, data of the deceased phones or the details ol cell phones of Al, A2, pW.6 and pW.7. The alleged phone calls nrade by pWs.6 and 7 as stated before Court ought to have been substantiated by collecting the .cell phone numbers of pW.6 ad 7 to shou'that they called the deceased or A1 and A2 called the deceased whikr they were in Kurnool or in the train while coming back from Kurnool. There are no witnesses who have seen the appellants at Malakpet Railwa5, Station. Though, CCTV is alhxed at Malakpet Railway Station, pW. 14 admitted that he did not collect the CCTV footages at Malakpet Railway Station and cross roads on the said -t 11 date. PW. 14 further admitted that he did not collect any evidence to show the movement of the Bolero vehicle from Malakpet to Kurnool' lg. The appellants, A1 and the Juvenile were arrested on I5.O7.2013. At the instance of A2 a paper cutting blade M'O'11 was seized and A2's shirt-M'O'20 \Mith blood stains was also seized' M.O.21 is shirt of A3. Though the seizures were made neither the shirts of A2 and A3 nor the paper cutting blades-M'O' 11 and 12 were sent for FSL examination to know whether there were blood stains on the shirt of the accused 2 and 3 and whether the blood belongs to the deceased.

20. The conviction of the appellants alleged confession and the irnproved version that was given during the entirely based on the course of trial bY PWs.6 and 7' 27 . The prosecution did not frle any documents to show that the deceased owned immovable properties to substantiate the version of killing the deceased for properties' In cases of circumstantial evidence, every circumstance has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and such circumstances should make out complete chain of the case which would rule out the possibility of innocence of the accused and such circumstances should point only \ 72 towards the accused as the perpetrators of the crime with no place for

22. The prosecution was not able to prove; i) that the deceased owned any properties ald there were any fights between therr for the properties. ii) The appellarts were present at Malakpet Railway Station to pick up the deceased. iii) that Bolero vehicle was used to take the deceased by the appellants zrnd travelled from Ma-lakpet Railway Station to Kuppagandla village, from Ma-lakpet Kalwakurthy, nearly g0 k.ms. Railway Station. iv) that there,,vasr calls in between the deceased, pWs.6 ard 7 ald the appellarrts or: 04 .OZ .2O 13 by collecting the call data and also collecting their. cell phone numbers. v) that anything incriminating was found in the Bolero vehicle. vi) that M.Os. I to 14 including shirts of ,{2 and A3 contained blood stains by sending them to FSL. 13

23. As discussed above, the prosecution has failed miserably to make out a case against the appellants and all the three appeals deserve to be allowed.

24. Accordingly, all the three Crirninal Appeals are allowed setting aside the conviction recorded by the Judge, Family Court, Mahabubnagar, in S.C.No.l77 /2014. The appellants/A3, A4 &' A2 are acquitted. Since the appellants/A3 and A4 are in jail, they sha-tl be released, forthwith, if not required in any other case. Sd/. C.V.MALLIKARJ JOINT UNAVAR GI A R //TRUE COPY// s TION OFFICER To PR Soecial Messenger) Mahabubnagar (With Records if any)

1. The Judge, Family Court-Cum-Vlll Additional Sessions Judge' Z. if,"naAltioriat LuOiciat Magistrateof FirstClass, Kalwakurthy. . .^ 5. +il; iil;;;ti"na"nt, cuniilJ"ii-ctturlapallv' Ransa Reddv District (Bv 4 Yfi,;"cc;'i;int "pr6ri" Prosecutor, High Court for the State of relangana at 5 di';"bCi.; b-n-i.'6 Lnvn REDDY, AdYgcJg [oPUC] 6 5ii" 66 i; Eiii. c VnsurloHAnA nroov' Aovocate^[oPUC] i. 5ii!;; i; s'Ci.V nninA pneBHA, Advocate [oPUc] 8. Two CD CoPies Hvderabad (OUT) HIGH COURT DATED:07101t202s COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA.No.18G, ZtS ot 2011 AND 2635 0F 2018 1 dE riTA f c' 0 ! ,li i.i 20?5 e t (.) a*l *^-\:\ - si,., 1' ALLOWING THE CRL.APPEALS \\