The High Court · 2025

The Staie of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor' High Court of Judicature at Uyderabad for thJ State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh' HyOerabaO, through SHO, Police Station, Itiledak Rural' ...ResPondenUComPlainant Counsel for the Appellant No.1: Sri H' Sudhakar Rao Counsel for the Appellant No.2: Sri Sridhar Lonkala Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla' Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HoNOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HOI\IOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENI.IGOPAL CII.IMINAL APPEAL No.1046 of 2011, JUDGMENT:: ()t,r Hon'ble Si Ju-stice K.surender) This rlrjnrinal Appeal is filed by the appr:llants/ accused Nos.l an,l 2. rJgrieved by the judgment dated 28 0.1. 2t)77, in SC/ST S.C Nr,.,14 of 2016, on the fi1e of the Slreci,ri J.r1ge for Trial of Offt:rL<r,s under the Scheduled Castes anci Scheduled Tribes (Pr-e'zer.r ion of Atrocities) Act, l9g9_cum,\. r\ctditional Sessions .lurlr1e, Medak at Sangareddy, wlLere bF the appellant I w,: r: convicted for the offence pu;tish abl : under Section 3J!,t -r,:;Ld with Section 34 of the Inditrn [)eni,.l Code, 1860 (for sl or 'IPC).

2. Hea:d 1r:t-ned counsel for the appellants ar: rl Sn Arun Kumar t,o<llra, learned Additional public prosecu tor for responderLt-. [].erte. Perused the record.

3. When P\y' 1, who is a resident of KondapakeL y'illage, was in his trous: on 06.02.2015, one of his villagers, ermely Lingampally '1a lagiri, informed him that one pers(,r was lying in his ag..i:ultural land and he was alive. O:r tfrat, he, along .witlL ttLr r villagers, went there and forrnd thr1t. one i 2 unidentified person was \ring in his freld with injuries around his neck. Then, PW.1 calied an ambulance, and the crew of the ambulance noticed that the said person was dead and the dead body was shifted to the hospital' Later, PW 1 went to the police station and lodged a complaint, Ex'P'17 ' In the complaint, it was mentioned that the dead body was found in the f,relds and requested to take appropriate action' PW. 14, who is the investigating officer, went to the scene of offence and called for the dog squad and also the clues team' The scene was photographed and the scene of offence panchanama was conducted. Since the identity of the dead body was not known, PW. 14 sent information to the surrounding districts of Medak. However, nobody came forward to identify the body. Further, the autopsy was concluded. PW. 14 gave requisition to the Municipal Authorities to cremate the body. After cremation of the dead body of the deceased, PW.14 sent the material objects to the FSL for the purPose of analYsis.

4. The parents of the deceased, who are PWs'5 and 6' approached. the police on 03.05.2015 and identified the dead body as that of their son on the basis of the photographs i I I i I I t i I I i I ) shown tc thLr:rn. PWs.5 and 6 informed that lhe Cec rzLsed left the hou;e orr 05.O2.2015 along with the appellants /rrccused Nos.1 and 12 and did not return home. On the ba:.;i; of the informalion provided by PWs.S and 6, PW. 14 ar.rr:sted the appellarts. ()n the basis of the conlession of the appellan ts / a:r:used, police seized M.O.9 - a Tata S:mo and M.O.10. an .)ie blade near the bushes at Kondacak,l Shivar. Accordrrg to ]:'W. 14, accused No. 1 went into the bu:;hes and brought M.O 10, axe blade. The seizures were elfe,:t:ri in the presenc€ o{ independent witnesses, and therezrf.er, they returned to the police station. PW. 14 corrclu,l ld the investigatiorL I.,1 collecting other evidence and there, rlter laid the charqe s;1rr:et against both the appellants; for th,: offence under Sec,-io r 302 read with Section 34 of IpC ancr Section 3(2)(v) of S,ls and STs (POA) Act, 1989

5. Learrrec Sessions Judge mainly placed reliarrc: on the evidencc o[ t r: parents of the deceased, i.e.. pWs. 5 and 6 about tLLe 11:r;eased being last seen in the r:om pany of accused Nos. I and 2 on 05.02.2015, which is a day prior to the dead bodr. [6i1g found by PW. 1 in the fields. Fur t rer, on the basis of the confession of the appellants,/ ac<:ust,d Nos.1 4 ,:, arrd 2, the material objects which were used for the commission of the offence, i.e., the vehicle ald axe blade (M.Os.9 and 1O), were seized at the instance of accused No 1' Based on the circumstantial evidence, the learned Sessions Judge deemed it appropriate to convict the appellants'

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the case is one of the circumstantial evid.ence. Unless all the circumstances are proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, the question of conviction does not arise. Learned counsel further submits that the dead body was found on 06.02.2015, whereas for the Iirst time, the statements of PWs.5 and 6 were recorded on 03.05.2015, which is nearly 3 months after the incident' The last scene evidence is a weak piece of evidence, and solely on the basis of such evidence, the learned Sessions Judge committed an error in convicting the appellant' l,earned counsel for the appellants relied on the following judgments: 1) Loxman Prasad @Laxman o. Stote of Mahatashtral; 2l Jabir and others u, The State of Uttarakhand;2 3l Shankar u. The. State of Mahara.shtra;3 ' zozi sc sst '? 2023 LIveLaw (SC) 4l 5 4) R.Sreeniuaso. a. Sto,te of l{antataka;+ 5) Kumru Si\umij Tinsukia., Assam a. The Stclte oJ Assams; 2tr,!"1!!":|,stnsh @ Rana and o,nother u. state o-f Haryana and 7) Yed.ala :;Llbba Rq.o and. oLnother o. t nior- of Indiaz. 7. On the other hand, the learned Adcliti:nal public Prose:u to - ivould submit that there is no rea,s r)n whv the pareltts lt the deceased would speak aili[nst appellarrts/ accused Nos.1 and 2, and though no :)):planation was grv(,n f,rr the delay in going to the police sitatron and not lodgin 1 t h e complaint about the missing of t heir son, howev,:r the evidence, insofar as pWs.S artrl 6 are concernt.d, ts believabie, coupled with the seizrrrel. that were effecterl :rftr:r. the arrest of the appellants.

8. The ( ead body was found by pW. 1 or. Cri.02.2015. Thougf the -r, were identification marks on the r_igh.- shoulder of the to,lr'; however, the body was not LderLtified till 03.05.20 5 rvhen both pWs.S and 6 went 10 the police station. The I identified the dead body as that oi.thr,:i: son on Li\elolr rs( tlt: r2021 ' 2023 INSC tl,l '2024 Supre rre (r i.r I I tsg " tr,t4 tNSa' \x ' '2oz: o scc 0.. I I I I I I i I I I I i qi:at \\" : '.i! - a the basis of the photographs that were taken at the time of the scene of offence Panchanama g. The conduct of PWs.5 and 6, who are the parents of the deceased, is doubtful. Though their son was missing for nearly 3 months, they did not complain to the police regarding their missing son. It is highty improbable that PWs.5 and 6 would remember the exact date as 05.02'2015 when the deceased left the house along with accused Nos l and 2. Only after learning about their son being dead, after a gap of 3 months, did PWs.S and 6 go to the police station and informed about the appellants.

10. In the normal course, when a person is not found, the parents or relatives of the missing person would approach the police to inform about the missing person. Further, if there is any suspicion regarding a person in connection with the missing of such person, the suspected person would be questioned and enquiries would be made about them' 1 1. PW. 14, having arrested the appellants, interrogate them. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded what was allegedly stated by the accused during the alleged confession , l I i i I i i t I t l I I I I a : ' I I *- .-:r' 7 made bv tlLerr Learned Sessions Judge comrnitteil ,lt error in recording the alleged confession made by the appr,llants. The confess;io I is hit by Sections 25 and 26 rf tlrc E.vidence Act, 7872. \Vhen the appellants/accused ar€ ir police custody, e rr::el rtions under Sections 2 5 and 2b of the Evidence Ac1_ :rpply only to the extent that the r.ie izures effected p ur sua nt to the confession would be aclmissit.,l,:.

12. Thorrgh :he vehicle was seized, however. n ttht ng was found in th,: ve ricle in support of the prosecutior. car;t:, and the Investig,ti-rr3 officer also fa ed to send the vehicr,e to an expert for the r)lrrpose of the examination. The oflrer s,lizure is the Axe blace , MO. 10. According to the prosecutlo'1 case, the Axe blarle r,,as lying at the scene for nearly 3 r nrnths near the busr:s. Admittediy, people woul<l be 1:,assing through, a s it i:i an open area. Further, the saiC s:)izures cannot forr a :lsis to infer that any offence u.as,lon nlitted when thert: is rro scientific evidence to link the saiC Sci;s1sg with the crirrLe.

13. In Shankar (cited supra), the Hon,ble Supreme Oourt held that irr ir c l:;c resting on circumstantial evidence, \.there 8 the 'last seen' theory is relied on as a link in the chain of clrcumstances, the duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove such evidence beyond reasonable doubt' Further' the sole evidence of last seen cannot form the basis to convict the accused. A similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Prasad (Cited supra)' L4. As already discussed, the case depends upon circumstantial evidence. The evidence of PWs ' 5 and 6 ' that they had last seen their son leaving with the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2' canrlot be believed, as the said statement was made after 3 months only when PWs'5 and 6 came to know about the death of their son' A complete 1u11 for a period of 3 months by them, without informing the police about the disappearance or missing of their son' cannot form the basis to believe the version of PWs'5 and 6 that their son was last seen in the compaly of the appellants on the particular day, i.e', 05'O2'2OL5, in a case of circumstantial evidence. .+- -.' ! ':;.-] :.T..:::: i?--r ] o

15. The Hor.rl,le Supreme Court, in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda u. Stttrle of MaharaslrSvaa, Iaid down prrrLciples regarding ttLe a:ceptance of circumstantial evrder:ce ,iltd the basis to rccr)rc' ,lonviction, which read as under:- the circumstances from. which th: '1. <:o nc lusion of guilt is to be drawn should b,: 1r-r11r established. The circurnstance.; rro nc:rned 'must' or 'should' ald not 'ma,, be ' t st: rl rlished; (:on s .stent only with the hypothesis of th, : gpirt of the accused, that is to say, thel,' r,hould not be explained on an]' r,ther' that the accuse1 ir; lLvpothcsrs except g:uiJt.,; I t T the circumstances should be r,f they should exclude every possibl r :i. i onclusive nature and tendency; t... lLypoLhesis except the one to be proved; and 5 . there must be a chain of evictenc: sr, corr plete as not to leave any reasonatrlt. gror rtrd for the conclusion consistent w,ith t ht ir-irr,rcence of the accused and must shou. tha'. i:-r : J I human probability, the act must .'ravt Lee r done by the accused."

16. In vi:s, o: [he above, the prosecution has fail:d t,t prove the case l-rt:r.ond any reasonable doubt an,1 the circumsta.rces :e[ed on by the prosecution are <ftru.btful. Accordingllr, rirrr: appellants are entitled to the bet rt:fit of doubt. 81ros+.y + scc io 10

17. Accordingly, the Crimina,l Appeal 1S allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment dated 28.04.2017, in SC/ST S.C.No.44 of 2016. The appellants/accused Nos.l and 2 are acquitted for the said offence. The fine amount paid by them, if any, sha1l be refunded. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shal1 stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. SAILESHI JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Special Judge for trial of Offences under the Scheduled C Scheduled Tribei (Prevention of Atrocities) Act' '1989-cum-V S"ttion" Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (with records' if any) The Judicial First Class lrilagistrate, Andole at Jogipet' The Superintendent, Central Jail' Charlapalli, Hyderabad' Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Te Hyderabad lOUTl 2 3 4 S. One CC to Sri H. Sudhakar Rao' Advocate IOPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Sridhar Lonkala, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies astes and Additional langana at Kam/gh HIGH COURT DATED:1 510412025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1046 of 2017 1H E SIE rd \! (- '.' t O i 1 3 iulr ?$i5 l.t

1. \- -i\'-"'-?' \. ' ' - :**; L?' -(1 ALLOWING THT: CRIMINAL APPEAL \ I 2 \ 1' .l I