The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.691 of 2Ol9 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) This Criminal Appeal is frled by the appellants/ accused Nos.2 and 3, aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.08.2O19, in S.C.No.411 of 2015, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, whereby the appellants/accused Nos.2 and 3 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'lPC').

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants / accused Nos.2 and 3 and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the record.

3. The appellants/ accused Nos.2 and 3 were tried along with accused Nos.1, and 4 to 7. The learned Sessions Judge found that on15i accused Nos.2 and 3 were complicit in committing the murder of the deceased. A11 the other accused Nos. 1 and 4 to 7 were acquitted.

4. The prosecution version is that on 08.01.2015 at about

09.00 A.M., who is the Village Revenue Officer of IJ I I 2 Maddulapalli Village, informed the police that there was an unidentified male dead body of male on the bank canal road of NSP canal. A written complaint, which is marked as Ex.Pl, was given by PW.l to the police. PW.27-Station House Offrcer issued FIR, and the investigation was handed over to PW.28- Circle Inspector of Police. PW.28 then went to the scene of offence and found the dead body at the distance of two feet from NSP canal at Maddulapalli. On requisition of PW.28, LW.33/N.Raghu (not examined during trial), along with clues team and dog squad, went to the scene of offence and picked up the frngerpiints from the two beer bottles which were present at the scene. The photograph of the dead body was published in the local newspapers and was also shown on the television. The material objects, including two beer bottles/MO.4, were seized from the scene of offence. PW.2B then concluded the inquest proceedings over the dead body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was shifted to the Government Hospital, Khammam, for the post-mortem examination. The dead body was identifred as that of S.Rajashekhar Reddy.

5. According to the case of the prosecution, the deceased married PW.4, who belongs to the Yadav Communit5r, while the 3 deceased belonged to the Reddy Community. The family members of PW.4 did not consent to their marriage, ald for the reason of the deceased marrying PW.4, the other accused and these appellants planned and killed the deceased.

6. These appellants / accused Nos.2 and 3, along with accused No.1, were hired killers. According to the prosecution, accused No.4 hired accused Nos.1 to 3 to commit the murder of the deceased. The amount was also given to accused Nos.1 to

3. Further, according to the prosecution, PW.4 eloped with the deceased and married him. They started living together in Gattusingaram, where the deceased established his practice as a Registered Medical Practitioner. Upon learning the whereabouts of the deceased and PW.4, the family members, including the accused Nos.S to 7, went to the place where PW.4 and deceased were residing. There was an altercation and the deceased threatened accused Nos.S to 7. Then accused Nos.S to 7 contacted accused No.4. Accused No.4, in turn, contacted accused Nos.2 and 3 to take the life of the deceased. 7 . On O6.01.2015, accused Nos. 1 to 3 went and contacted PW. 17 for a car, but he did not provide it. Thereafter, PW.18 was requested to provide the car. On the assurance given by PW. 17, PW. 18 handed over the car to accused No.1. Accused 4 Nos.1 to 3 proceeded to Gattusingaram and requested the deceased to accompany them to a party. The deceased accompanied accused Nos.1 to 3 and the same was witnessed by PWs. 13 and ,14 (hostile witnesses). On the next day, i.e.,

07.OL.2OL1, the deceased and accused Nos. 1 to 3 went to Cure Hospital, Khammam, and met PW.25. From the hospital, they reached Srinivasa Petrol Bunk around 07.00 P.M. PW.6 was passing by the ipetrol bunk and stopped upon seeing the deceased. He spoke with the deceased, and according to PW.6, u,hen he inquired, the deceased mentioned the names of accused Nos. 1 to 3. Then, accused Nos. 1to 3 and the deceased went near the bunk side of the canal and purchased beer bottles, ald. from there, they went to the NSP Cana1. After consuming liquor, accused Nos.2 and 3 assaulted and caused the death of the deceased. The injuries inflicted on the deceased were caused using a stone. PW.2 1 / Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination, found the following inj uries:

1. Laceration above right eyebrow of lxl /4xl l4 2. Two laceration right eyebrow of 7/2xl/4x7/4 3. Laceration right upper eyelid lxl /4xl /4 5

4. Laceration above left eyebrow 5x1x3, skull is opened and brain exposed and all skull bones fractured.

5. Blood and blood clots present in the braln.

8. The Investigating Ofhcer, having concluded the investigation, filed a charge-sheet on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. The learned Sessions Judge mainly relied on the following circumstances: "i) Motive part. ii) Evidence of last seen theory. iii) Recovery of blood stained clothes of Al to .{3 from their possession on the basis of their disclosure statements. iv) Matching of chance finger prints on MO3 (empty beer bottles) with the hnger prints of A2 and A3. v) The circumstance of accused taking vehicle uscd for the commission of offence from PW.18 on the recommendation of PW. 17."

9. According to the learned Sessions Judge, the above circumstances were sufflcient to make out a case against these appellants. However, the other accused Nos. I and 4 to 7 were acquitted.

10. The learned counsel appearing for appellants/accused Nos.2 and 3 would submit that: i) The only evidence is that of PW.6, whom the prosecution projected as the witness who last saw the deceased in the company of accused Nos.l to 3. 6 ii) PW.6 is a chance witness, and his evidence cannot be believed since he identified the appellants after seeing them in the newspaper and later, during the test identification parade. iii) The other circumstance is the presence of thumb prints on the beer bottles found at the scene of offence. iv) However, the experts who collected those prints were not examined. v) the cirance prints that were collected were not deposited before the court below before being sent to the FSL. It is the defence of the accused that the fingerprints were taken from the bottles after their arrest on 19.O 1.2015. 1 1 . On the other hand, the learned Additional , Public Prosecutor Would submit that the Investigating Ofhcer is not an interested witness who would falsely implicate the appellants herein, and there is no reason why the thumbprints of only accused Nos.2 and 3 were taken when there were 7 accused in the case. The non-examination of the person who collected the fingerprints from the beer bottles at the scene is of no consequence, as the thumbprints were taken and kept with the Investigating Officer, and thereafter sent to the FSL for analysis and report.

12. The motive suggested by the prosecution is that accused Nos.S to 7, wlro are related to PW.4, were not happy with the 7 marriage of PW.4 and the deceased. In turn, they contacted accused No.4, who engaged the services of accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 and 3 for the purpose of killing the deceased.

13. According to the prosecution, the deceased was last seen in the company of accused No.1 and these appellants by PW.6. PW.6 is a chance witness who knew the deceased. According to him, one day he saw the deceased in a car along 'a'ith three persons. He interacted with the deceased, who informed him that he had to take his patients to the hospital and would return in the car. When PW.6 questioned him about the names of the three persons, he mentioned Naresh, Suresh ar-rd Srinu. PW-6 later identifred accused Nos. I to 3 as the three persons seen along with the deceased in the car.

74. During the cross-examination of PW.6, he stated that the accused's photographs were published in the newspaper after their arrest. The arrest was on 19.01.2015, and the test identification parade was conducte d on 24.04 .20 I 5. PW.6 was examined by the police on 08.01.2015, i.e., on the day when the dead body was found. Admittedly, the appellants were strangers to PW.6. It was around 07.00 P.M. u.hen PW.6 saw the deceased along with three persons in the car. According to 8 PW.2B, 1n his'cross-examination, the Investigating Offrcer admitted that PW.6 did not state that the deceased was practicing in Perikasingaram as a RMP and that PW.6 did not specifrcally mention that he calied the deceased at the petrol bunk. Further PW.6 did not state about him questioning the deceased about the three persons who were with him.

15. The conduct of PW.6 in questioning the deceased about the persons in the car and asking their names is apparently al improvement. In fact, the entire version regarding the presence of accused Nos.l to 3 in the car and PW.6 questioning the deceased about lthem is a complete omission in the earlier statement.

16. The version given by PW.6 appears to have been fabricated for the purpose of the case. His version in the Court that he enquired about the three persons in the car is a complete improvement from his earlier statement to the police, which was admitted by the Investigating Offrcer. Another importarrt circumstance is the presence of thumbprints on two beer bottles seized from the scene of offence. LW.33-N.Raghu, who is a frngerprint expert, has developed the chance prints at the scene and he has issued the report. According to the ! ! t I I I I I 9 prosecution, tho ugh he was cited as LW.33, he was not t examined beforel the Court. LW.34 is the Scientific Ofhcer of I RFSL, who issued the FSL report regarding the tests conducted on the wearing apparel of accused No. 1 and these appellants, which was seizei during the course of the investigation. The said expert was dlso not examined. 17 . There is also no reason as to why the Scientific Officer and other experts who conducted the tests on the wearing apparel of ali the appellants were given up.

18. As argued by the learned counsel for the appellants, the seizure of the beer bottles and the manner in which the prints were taken were{not stated in the course of trial by the expert in the witness b6x. This has caused prejudice to the accused, as they were not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The custody of the beer bottles or the chance prints taken at the scene are not explained by the prosecution. The duty of the prosecution is to explain the manner in which the beer bottles were seized and prints were taken. According to the prosecution, when the appellants, accused No.1 and the deceased were present, the presence of hngerprints of only the appellants creates doubt. l0

19. Another ciicumstance relied upon by the prosecution and the learned Sessions Judge is that the car in which the deceased and accused Nos.l to 3 traveled belonged to PW. 18. , However, PW. 18 iturned hostile and did not even state that he owned a car. He stated that he was a car driver and that he neither knows the appellants nor is acquainted with PW. 17. According to theiprosecution, PW. 17 introduced the accused to I PW. 18.

20. For the reasons discussed above, the circumstances of the last-seen theory and the Iingerprints found on the empty beer bottles cannot be believed. Further, it was not proved by the prosecution that the vehicle belonged to PW. 18 or that, at the instance of PW. 17, PW. 18 gave the vehicle to the accused. These circumstances cannot be believed. The only remaining circumstance is the motive. i I 21 . Only the motive projected by the prosecution will not suffrce. The prosecution must prove that the accused had the intention to murder the deceased, along with the other circumstances, beyond a reasonable doubt. As already discussed, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and the evidence of PW.6 regarding the last-seen theory cannot 1l . be believed. In ttie said circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a reason:rble doubt. I I

22. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allorved by setting aside the judgmbnt dated O8.08.2O19 in S.C.No.411 of 2O15, I I on the hle of the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam. The , appellants/accused Nos.2 and 3 are acquittecl for the said I offences and thef shall be set at liberty, if they arc not required I in any other cases. 'lhe fine amount paid, if :rny, shall be I returned. Miscellaneous l'}etitions pending, il' ar-rt,. slrall stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/-K J o R \i }J SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Session Judge at Khammam (with records' if any) 2 The Supeiintendent, Central Jail, Warnagal' S fn" tt Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class' Khammanr. 4. The Station House Officer' Khammam Rural Police Station' Khammam 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana 6. One CC to Sri Lakshmikanth Reddy Desai' Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies at HYderabad IOU1 ] District. kanVDL t I tT4 ,/-';, \). . () ((\ t' ? u' t:; m5 HIGH COURT DATED:01 10412025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.691 of 2019 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL \a ".tdk,