The High Court · 2025

State of Telangana, rep by its Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad ...RESPODENT AppealunderSection3T2/374(2)137s(4)ofCr.P.CprayingthattheHigh court may be pleased t"'i;;;;"iirris memorandum of grounds of crrmrnar aooeat before tnis nonouriltJ ;il ;;;rt ,_g^"lnst the conviction and sentence ;;'; o'iJ rz-o+ 2"018 on the fite of the Vl Additional oassed in SC.No 124 "f rh'ni for the following among other bistrict and Sessions J'd;:; grounds. i;"'a IANO :1O F 2020 PetitionUndersectionlslCPCprayingtha.t.in.thecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in suppori ;i G ;li;;: ih" Hish court mav be pleased to enlarqe the Appellant/Ac"d;'t.il; [tr."' Lt a'il ii s c uo'tz+ of 2o15 dated 17.o4.2o18 on the filt # ';;; 'r7i-noJr District & sessions Judse at Godavarikhani' Karimnagar District- EIr"!} t.r,te Appellant :SRl V' RAGHUNATH Counsel for the Respondent :SRl RAVI KUMARDODLA " eriiiiiionHL PUBLIc PRosEcuroR (rG) CRIMI NAL APPEAL NOi 22420F 2018 Appeal under section 372!?74J2)t378(4) of cr.p.c against the Judgment dated 17-04-2018 oassed in s.c.r.to. iz'+ .tloi s on the .fire of the Vr Additional District and Sessions Judge at CoO"rrritn"-ni. Between: Asadi Ranjith, Rl/o. somagudem of Beilampaili Mandar in Adirabad Diskict AND ...APELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 19 Sqt: of Telanagana, Rep., by its pubtic prosecutor, High Court of for the State of Telangana and the Stab;f nnOt o pr"o"-.-fl, ilyderabad Lhrough Station House Office, potice Station, coOava;A;_i i;;". ...RESPODENT/COMPLAINANT lA NO: 1 oF 2022 Petition under section .1s1 _cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in rhe affidavit fited in support of the peiirio;, ih; ii; Courr may be pteased to enlarge the petitioner/Appellant on bail by ,rrp.noi,io tne senteice irlp;;d; the learned Vr Additionar District and su.".-,ir LrJie at Godavarikhani dated 1714t2018 in SC No. 124 or 2O1s p"nOing JirJoraiJiin" ,ooru Criminat Appeat. Counsel for the Appellant : SRI V. RAVI KIRAN RAO Sr. Counsel Representing SRI V. ROHTTH Counsel for the Respondent :SRl ARUN KUMAR DODLA ADDtTtoNAL pUBLtC pRosEcUTOR (TG) The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT 1 I ...r, ,r1_\ :, THE HON'BLE SRT JI,STICE K'SURENDER AND TTIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICD E'V'VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1528 oF 2014 & 2242 of 2018 COMM ON ENT: (Per Hon'ble Si Justice K'surenfls) Criminal Appeal No'1528 of 2O18 is frled by the accused No.2, and Criminal Appeal No'2242 of 2Ol8 is hled by the accused No.1. since both the appeals are filed questioning the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in SC No'124 of 2015 dated 17'O4'2O1B' on the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Godavarikhan' they are disposed of by this common judgment'

2. Heard Sri V'Raghunath' learned senior counsel for the appellant in Cr1'A'No'1528 of 2018' Sri V'Ravi Kiran Rao' learned senior counsel representing Sri V.Rohith, learned in Crl.A.No.2242 of 2018' and counsel for the aPPellant Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the resPondent/State'

3. PWl is the husband of Sulochana (the deceased) ' PWI was working in Singareni Coiiieries' Accused No'2 is a poojari by profession, and accused No'1 is a friend of accused No'2' On OI.ll.2OI4, at about O7.OO AM, pWl left the house while the deceased and the housemaid were present in the house. When he returned to the house at aroUnd 03.25 pM, the front door was closed and when he went inside, in the hall he found that the almirahs were opened and the articles in the almirarr were ransacked. Then he foynd the dead body of his wife in the kitchen in a pool of blood. Her legs and arms were tied with a rope. PWl noticed a cut wound to her neck, arld when pW1 sta-rted shouting, the neighbours gathered in his house. He found some of the gold ornaments missing from the a_lmirah. Gold ornaments of the deceased were marked under MOs. I to 9. PWl went to the police station arrd filed a complaint at OB.3O PM. In the complaint, he narrated that some unknown persons have entered into his house ald attacked the deceased, resulting in her death and took away the gold ornaments.

4. On the basis of the said complaint, pWl l registered the FIR. On the night of that day, pWll rushed to the spot and arranged for guards. Since it was night, he conducted the scene of offence palcharrama and the inquest the next day, and he got the scene photographed. The blood_stained clorhes of the Fqwr.- deceased, the doormat, the plastic mat' two white coloured threads, cement flake, controlled earth' etc., were seized under MOs. 14 to 20.

5. During the course of investigation, on 04.11-2014, r'e', three days after ttre incident' both the appellants were arrested' MOs.1 to 9/gold ornaments were seized from the Pockets of tJre appellants. They were interrogated in the presence of PW9 and another independent witness' Thereafter' at the instance of the appellants, the police went to a pond near the banks of Godavari. There, they found a knife and clothes of the accused' which are MOs' 11 arrd 12' A panchanama was conducted' 6. On the basis of the evidence collected during the course of investigation, both the appeltants were charge-sheeted for the read u'ith Section 34 offences punishable under Section 3O2 and Section 380 of IPC' 7. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants relying on circumstantial evidence' which is' PW8' who saw the appeilants on the date of the incident' i'e'' on O1'11'20 14' and the recovery of the gold ornaments/MOs' 1 to 9 at the instance of the aPPellants Pagc 4

8. Both the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the case is one of circumstantial evidence. The only circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the evidence of pWg, who saw the appellants walking hurriedly near the Hanumal temple, Godavarikhani. The said evidence cannot form the basis to convict the appellants, as it is unreliable, and so is the recovery effected at the instance of the appellants. The learned coursel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Shq.nkar o. State of Maharashtrcr, wherein it was held as under. . "In the decision of^ prakash u. State of Rajasthan iile roilo*ing l;; relating ^in sn"roi eiriiichulnd sarda u.