Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Gounsel for the Appellant: Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1258 OF 2017 Appeal filed under Section 37 4(2) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 12-09-2017 in S.C. No 658 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Sessions Judge, at Karimnagar. Between: Guduri Raju, S/o. Sudershan, Aged about 29 years, Occ Unemployed, R/o. H.No.275, Shahajanand Society, Surat, Gujarat State, (Currently residing at Nehru Nagar, Siricilla, Siricilla Dist., T.S.) ...APPELLANT/ACCUSED No. 5 AND The State of Telangana, Rep by the Station House Officer, P.S. Siricilla, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Appellant: Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1444 OF 2017 Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 12-09-2017 in S.C. No 658 ot 2012 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Sessions Judge, at Karimnagar. Between: Kondapaka Sridhar @ Shekar @ Madhu @ Gopi @ Nagabhushanam, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Goldsmith, R/o Ashok Road Mancherial now at Shivanagar, Sircilla. Chinna, S/o H.No. 24-78 ...APPELLANT/ACCUSED No.'l AND State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor (TG) High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Appellant: Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 546 OF 2O2O Appeal filed under Section 37 4(2) ot Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 12-09-2017 in S C No 658 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Sessions Judge, at Karimnagar. Between: Kondapaka @ Kokkula Sujatha, Wo. Kondapaka Sridhar @ Shekar, Aged about 37 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o.H.No. 12$-124, Shivanagar Sircilla, Srrcilla District. ...APPELLANT/ACCUSED No. 3 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its public prosecutor High Court for the state of Telangana Hyderabad, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Appellant: Sri C. Ruthwik Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following COMMON JUDGMENT: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AlID THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINALAPPEAL Nos.1219. L25,6. L25'8. 1444 oF 2017 & 546 0F 2020 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Si Justice K.Surender) 1. Crl.A.No.12l9 of 2Ol7 is preferred by A-6, Crl.A.No. 1256 of 2Ol7 is preferred by A-2, Crl.A.No.l258 of 2Ol7 is preferred by A-5, Crl.A.No. L444 of 2Ot7 is preferred by A-1, and Crl.A.No.546 of 202O is preferred by A-3, questioning their conviction for the offences under Sections l2O-8,364-A,302, and 2Ol rlw.34 of IPC.

2. Since all the Appeals arise out of the judgment in S.C.No.658 of 2012, on the file of IV Additiona_t Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, all are heard together and disposed of, by way of this common judgment.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants, and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional public Prosecutor for respondent- State.

4. The deceased, namely Srinivas, who was the son of P.W. 1, went to Hyderabad on 20.06.20II around 2:3O p.m. As P.W. 1 did not receive any information about the deceased, 4 on the next day, P.W. I tried to contact the deceased on his phone, but his phone was switched off. On 22.O6.2011, P.W. I received a phone call from phone No.94 +OO72821, stating that the deceased was kidnapped and the person on the call demanded a ransom of Rs.2,0O,OOO/-. However, P.W. I was instructed to deposit the amount in the account of a bank. On 24.06.20 I 1, P.W. I went to the Police and lodged a complaint/Ex.P. 1. After lodging the complaint, P.W. 1 was asked to deposit the ransom amount in the account of one Geethanjali who had an account in SBH, Jagtial. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.1,50,0O0/- was deposited on

25.06.2011. On the basis of the complaint, P.W.l1 took up investigation. P.W. I provided the account number to P.W. I 1. P.W. I I then went to the house of Geethanjali (not examined) in whose account the amount was deposited. Again on

25.06.201l, a threatening call was received by P.W.1, and he was asked to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.SO,OOO/-. The call details of the deceased's mobile number and area numbers were collected. The Investigating Offrcer ana)yzed several numbers, and two phone numbers, i.e., 99497O3O9O belonging to A-6 and 9000286556 belonging to one Ranganath, a resident of Warangal, were found to be 5 suspicious P.W. 11 questioned A-6 about the suspected phone numbers, and A-6 informed that the number- 99497O3O9O was used by A-4 and A-1. The Investigating Oflicer further found that part of the amount, i.e., Rs. 1,5O,OOO/-, which was deposited into the account, was withdrawn from the ATM. The CCTV footage was collected of the time when the money was withdrawn. During interrogation, A-6 informed about the flat No.4O2 in ARK Residency, Uppal. P.W. I I then secured the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, and others, and a,lso gave a requisition to the MRO, Uppal, to break open the lock of the flat. On breaking open the flat, they found the refrigerator tied with a saree, and the body of the deceased was found in a plastic bag tied with a cable wire in the refrigerator. Inquest was conducted, and the dead body was sent for the post-mortem examination. P.W. I 1 also called a fingerprint expert to lift the chance prints from the scene.

5. Post mortem was conducted by P.W.7 /Narender Babu. He found the following injuries:- "1. Multiple contusion of various dimensions seen over both gleutail region. 6

2. Three linear bluish coloured marks horizontally placed on the back of chest measuring about 15 cm x 1 Yz cm., the subscutarious tissue under the mark is normal. 3. Bluish coloured mark three in number over the tateral gouter) aspect of both arms, measuring 6 x % cm, the subcutaneous under the mark is normal. 4. A ligature mark of 40 x 1 cm round the neck faintly seen on the right side andprominent on the left side, the ligature mark is l0 cm below the right mastoid region, 9 cm below the right ear, 7 cm below the right angle of the mandible, 5 and % cm below the Ieft ear, 6 and '/, cm below the left angle of the mandible, 6 cm below the left mastoid, 5 and % cm below the chin. 5. The right thumb and the left little finger amputated in the middle. 6. The hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage intact. 7. Blood stained frothy material seen in both nostrils. 8. Sub conjuntival heamorrahge seen in both eyes' Further, P.W.7 opined that the cause of death was Asphyxia due to smothering, associated with strangrrlation.

6. The information of the flat being rented out to A-1 was provided by P.W.3, and based on the information provided by 1 4'-6, P.W. 11 arrested A-1 and A-3 to A-5 on 15.O7.2OI1 at Peddapalli railway station. A-1 and A-3 to A-5 were interrogated, and pursuant to their confessions, the seizure of ATM cards was effected. On further enquiry, it was revealed that A-1 was involved in several offences, and he confessed to the murder of the deceased with the help of the other accused.

7. Cat card of the deceased-M.O.18 was recovered from A- l, and the driving license was recovered from A-3. An amount of Rs.5O,O0O/- was recovered from A-2, and Rs.a8,SOO/- was recovered from A-6. The CCTV footage, which was filed in the form of CD/Ex.P.32, was collected to show the withdrawal of the amount by the accused.

8. On the basis of the evidence collected during the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against A- I to A-6. A- 4 died during tJle trial, and the case was abated against him.

9. Learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution, found favour with the prosecution case, and conrricted the appellants on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. lO. The prosecution relied on the following circumstances:- 8

1. The deceased went missing on 20.06.2011, ard on 22.06.2011, P.w. I received a phone call from the phone of the deceased, and a report was given to the Police on 24.06.2011. On 25.06.2O11, the amounts were deposited by P.W. 1 and withdrawn by the accused. During the investigation, the amounts were seized at the instance of A-1 and 4-6.

2. On analysis of the area call details by P.W. 1 1, A-6 was apprehended.

3. On the basis of the information provided by A-6, the flat at Uppal was identified.

4. When the flat was broken open, the dead body was found. 5. A-1 had taken the flat on rent from P.W.4, who is the owner of the flat. P.W.3 is the watchman who gave the key of the flat to A-1 on behalf of P.w.4.

6. P.W.3 saw A-1 getting the deceased to the apartment two days prior to 26.06.2011.

7. On 26.06.201 l, A-l and A 3 to A-5 left the apartment and went away.

8. P.W.3 identified A-1, A-3, and A-5 during the Test Identffication Parade. 9

11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants argued on the following grounds:-

1. There is no evidence regarding ttre kidnapping of the deceased by the accused.

2. The evidence of P.W.3 is suspicious since there is no lease deed executed by A-1 to take the flat on rent.

3. Nothing was produced by the prosecution to show that P.W.3 worked as a watchman in the said flats.

4. There is a delay of nearly 3 months in conducting the Test Identification Parade, which is fatal to the prosecution case.

5. P.W.3 admitted in his cross-examination that he was shown the photographs of the accused before the Test Identification Parade.

6. The CCTV footage that was filed cannot be considered- firstly, due to tJle absence of 65-8 certificate, and secondly, because the CD was disbelieved by the Court, stating that none of the accused were seen in the CCTV footage. l0 7 . None of the circumstances projected by the prosecution make out any case against the appellants.

12. On the other hald, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that the flat was taken on rent by A-1. The burden is on A-1 to prove the reason for the dead body being found in the flat. Further, the accused absconded after 26.06.201. Mer-e abscondance can. be treated as a circumstance in the chain of circurrstances to establish the case against the appellants.

13. Prosecution has liled the cell phone records. Though the Investigating Oflicer collected the call records pertaining to the deceased, A-6, and A-1, the location of the said cell phone was neither found out by the Investigating Ofltcer nor reflected in the call records. The Nodal Officer of the service provider was not examined before the Court. In the absence of any certificate under Section 65-8 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the non-examination of the Nodal Officer, who had provided tJle call details, the cell records cannot be Iooked into.

14. Ex.P.32 is the CD frled by the prosecution to show that accused had withdrawn the amount from the ATM. The said 1l CD was marked subject to objection. Admittedly, there is no 65-E} certificate provided by the person who transferred the contents of the CCTV footage onto the CD. No witness was examined who had collected the CCTV footage or copied the CCTV footage onto the CD.

15. The Honble Supreme Court in Chandrabhan SudamSanap v. State of MaharashllEt, held that, in the absence of a 65-E} certificate or Erny other evidence requiring certification under Section 65-El of the Indian Evidence Act, such evidence cannot be looked into.

16. The crrcia-l evidence that has been relied upon by the prosecution is the evidence of P.W.3. P.W.3, in his evidence, stated that oo 77.06.201 l, A-1 took the flat on a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- with Rs.5O0/- as maintenalce charges. In advance, Rs.5,OOO/- was paid. A-3 is the wife of A-1, A-4 is the brother of A- I , and A-5 also resided in the same Apartment. According to A-3 to A-5, A-1 left the house on 26.06.201I in the afternoon, which was a Sunday. The Police went to the Apartment on Thursday, i.e., on 30.06.2011. According to P.W.3, A-1 took the deceased to ' 2025 Lawsuit 1SC1 ttz t2 the Apartment two days before leaving the Apartment, i.e.,

24.06.20Lt.

17. In the cross-examination, P.W.3 stated that the Apartment has 5 floors consisting of 17 flats. He could not provide the details of the occupants of the flats. There is no register for visitors ald he could not give any particulars of the persons who had visited the flat on a given day. He also admitted that he had no prior acquaintance with A-l but still leased out the flat, and no lease deed was executed.

18. The test identilication of A-1, A-3, and A-5 was conducted on 01.10.2011 by P.W.S/Magistrate. The Test Identification was conducted after a requisition was given by P.W. l l ot 17.O9.2O11. P.W.3 admitted that the Police have showed him the photographs of the suspects at his apartment before he was taken to the jail for the purpose of identification. I9. P.W.3 did not speak specifically about the accused as to when he found A-3 to A-5 living along with A- 1. According to P.W.3, A-1 brought the deceased to the flat on24.06.2Oll. lt is not the case of P.W.3 that A-3 to A-5 were in the house when A-1 took the deceased to the flat. It is strange that the 13 Investigating Officer did not take any steps to examine any of the neighbours of the flat. The examination of neighbours or neighouring flat owners would have lent credibility to the version of the prosecution that A-1, A-3 to A-5 stayed in the said flat.

20. The statement of P.W.3 that A-3 to A-5 left the flat on

23.06.2011 becomes doubtful in the background of the admission in his cross-examination that the photographs of the accused were shown to him prior to the test identifrcation parade. Admittedly, several persons stayed in the apartment complex. A- I had leased out the flat 1O days prior to

26.06.2011. In the background of the extent of stay and P.W.3 not specifically speaking about A-3 and A-5 being present in the apartment on 24.06.2071, the date on which the alleged murder of the deceased took place, the inference of complicity of A-3 & A-5 cannot be drawn. As assessed by the prosecution, on the basis of the approximate time of death given by the postmortem Doctor, the time of death was around 24.O6.2OL1. On that day, according to P.W.8, A-l brought the deceased to the apartment. t4

21. A-1 was found in the possession of the cat card of the deceased. An amount of Rs.50,000/- was seLed from A-1, and an amount of Rs.48,5OO/- was seized from A-6. A-6 had given a cell phone to A-1 for use. 4-6 was nowhere seen in the apartment by P.W.3. There was no Test Identification Parade in respect of A-6. However, the flat was discovered by the police at the instance of A-6, where the dead body was found. Only for the reason of A-6 showing the flat to the Police, it cannot be inferred that he was complicit in committing the murder of the deceased, especially when A-6 was not seen anywhere near the apartment where the dead body was found.

22. The circumstances indicate that (if A-1 had taken the flat on rent, lii) A-1 brought the deceased to the apartment on 24.06.201 1, (iiil A-l was absconding from 26.06.2011, and (ivf the cat card of the deceased was seized at the instance of A-1, a,long with cash, for which no explanation was provided.

23. The circumstances relied on by tJle prosecution, insofar as A-2 and A-3 to A-6 zrre concerrred, are doubtful- As already discussed, the presence of A-3 to A-6 on the date of t5 death of the deceased was not stated by any of the witnesses. Mere assumption that they were responsible for causing the death solely because they were living with A- 1 cannot form basis to infer guilt of A-2, A-3 to A-6.

24. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for A-l submits that none of the ingredients of Section 364-A of IpC are made out. Section 364-4 of IPC reads as under:- "3646, Kidnapping for ransom, etc.- Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or aIry foreign State or international inter-governmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shatl also be liable to firne."

25. P.W.3 stated that it was A-l who had brought the deceased to his apartment on 24.06.2011. Admittedly, the deceased went missing from 20.06.2011. Though there is no evidence regarding the whereabouts of the deceased from l6

20.06.2025 to 24.06.2025, however, the deceased was brought to the flat on 24.06.2011 by A-1. Pursuant to the phone calls made to P.W. 1, the amounts were transferred into the account and subsequently withdrawn. P.W. 1 was threatened, and pursuant to the said threat received over the phone, the amount was deposited into the account.

26. The ingredients of Section 364-A of IPC are:- (i) Any person being kidnapped, abducted, detained. (iil Threatening to cause death or hurt to such a person. (iiil Conducting in a manner that gives rise to apprehension that the abducted person may be hurt or killed. (iv) Such act or conduct, which is deliberate urith the intent of compelling any person to pay ransom or abstain from doing some act. 27 Admittedly, after the deceased went missing, he was found in the company of A-1, subsequently, the dead body was found in the flat leased out to A-1 and there was ransom call made to P.W.1, pursuant to which, amount was deposited. All the ingredients of Section 364-A of IPC are made out. t7

28. The prosecution has laid the foundation regarding the deceased being taken to the house rented by A-1. Since the dead body of the deceased was found in the flat ofA-l, the burden is on A-1 to explain how the dead body was found in his flat. A1though, the general burden in a criminal case rests on the prosecution to prove its case, however, in the present circumstances, it shifts onto the accused under Section lO6 of the Indian Evidence Act. A- 1, except for denying his role in the homicidal death of the deceased, has not placed anything on record to discharge the burden shifted onto him.

29. Accordingly, all the offences alleged against A- I are confirmed.

30. In the result, Crl.A.No. 1444 of 2Ol7 is dismissed. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1219 of 2017, 1256 of 2017, 1258 of 2OL7 and 546 of 2O2O preferred by A-6, A-2, A-5, and A-3, respectively, are allowed. Since A-6, A-2, A-5, and A-3 zrre on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. //TRUE COPY// SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR r\L i i =-:- , I sEcroN oFFrcER J One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Surender (For His Lordship's kind Perusal) AND One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice E.V. Venugopal (For His Lordship's kind Perusal) To,

1. The lV Additional Sessions Judge, at Karimnagar '/ I I I I I i I I I I I i !

2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class' Sircilla 3. The Superintendent' District Jail' Karimnagar' 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison' Cherlapally' Medchal' Malkajgiri District 5. The Superintendent, Central Prrson' Warangal 6. The Station House Officer' Sircilla Police Station' Sircilla 7 11 LR CoPies I The Under Secretary, Union of lndia' Ministry of Law' Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi The Secretary, Telangana High Court Advo-cate's Association Library' High I Court for the State ot retanganta' il6ii'c"'"t eJildings at Hyderabad' 10,Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 1'l .One CC to Sri Pappu Nageshwar Rao' Advocate [OPUCI '12. One CC to Sri P Prabhakar Reddy' Advocate [OPUC] 13.One CC to Sri C. Ruthwik Reddy' Advocate IOPUC] 14. Two CD CoPies VHighf( HIGH COURT \ \ DATED:1310312025 t- t oB ]--'. \. o f)'t 0 5 f,lAY 2025 /),- - (, / ( COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA.Nos. 1 21 9, 1256, 1258, 1444 0F 2017 AND s46 0F 2020 DISMISSING THE CRLA.No.1444 ot 2017 AND ALLOWING THE CRLA.Nos . 1219, 1256, 1258, oF 2017 AND 546 0F 2020 cuPfuri >\ Ba-