High Court · 2025

l1€p. by its Public Prosecutor High Court ' H'ldt:rabad ...RESPO!lE NT/ ComPlainant counserf orth:r\ppe:rra""'8Ei,Tot*To'r",\lJIl.1[BHIsl=1!t',J'J SRI P. PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: SRI' SYED YASIN MAMOON ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROS Err--l''TOR CRIMINA L APPEAL NO: 410F 2023 er Section 37a Ql ot Cr'P'C' against thr:r Judgment dated ia6-.i 2010 on ih" fit" of thJCourt ol the Metropolitan Crl.APPezil Urrd 13t0112O14 !n Si (.).No. Sessions Jrrdge . HYderabad' Between: Kare PradeeFr I Sector Vll tll\zf Peddakakani r) AND i,nrar. S/o.K.Anjaeyulu, Age.30 yrs, Occ Pvt Enrployee, R/o.Plot.28, ' (lo ony, Vizag. nlo. 27-25-1997, Venkat:r Kr shnapuram village, r r tur District ...APPELLANTI ACcUSe d NO. 4 [13 u"9* o"t, ut t t r s a n a, rep bvPubticr,::frfl,J#ff,?f t:;,0r,,,,7,,;XgTrrn Counset for the Appellant s.,gffiE,Jitt"*"",*,".,.",TTJ"^J;ff ::"ADD,,.NAL cRtMINAL APP EALNO 11600F 2017 Crl.Appeal Under Section 37g dated 13t01t2014 in S.C.No. 486 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the ( 3) & (1) of cr.p.C. agai nst the Jud gment Metrop olitan Sessi ons Judge, Hyderabad. Between: The state of rerangana ' rep by The pubric prosecutor, High court at Hyderabad ... Petitioner / Appellant AND 1 2 ,',n:',Tffi lff *"ff ,i'&ir,ffi;'#5ll?'*ff :",)i1X?:'-X:Jratrr,o404, ;",,:,#";i"tr[H}i,f]kf {fl:,:it#e3.,,i,!,,1?i:r,R;!1",t}s,?3; (A-1 and A-2 not necessary parties) ...RESPODENTS/ Respondents COUNSEI fOr thE APPEIIANT : SRI. S_Y-ED YASIN MAMOON, ADDTTIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counset for the Respondent No.1: Sri T.S.Anirudh Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Smt B. pratibh a The Court delivered the following Common Judgment : rage 1of 35 THF- I.]0NCURABLE SRIJUSTICE P'SAM KOSI'IY rHE rt': NouRABLE '*ltl"''tt N'TuKARAwlJl t ( ,RIMIN AL APP EAL NO .21 2ol 2014 ;RIMI NALA PP EAL No. 182 ol 2014 RIM INAL AP PEALN o.4 '1 of 2023 C RIM INALAP PEA LN o.1 160 of 20 17. AND coM MONJ Weh Accused Nt Kumar Red 3 in Crimir Smt. B Pri No41 of2 P rosecutor lip!) ME NT: f eer Hon'ble sri Justice N Tukaramji) a\/| ie:rrd lr,4r' P Prabhaker Reddy' learne:d counsel for )' r Criminal Appeal No'182 of 2014 Mr ' T' Pradyumna C\', ('rarrled Senior Counsel representing Acr:trserd Nos 2 and al I'rrceals Nos 182 of 2014 aod 212 oI 2)\4 respectively; rttrl lrll, iearned counsel for Accused No 4 rrr lr mlnal Appeal O,lli ernl l',,ilr Syed Yastn Nilamoon' learned lidrritional Public . itr)i. ea[ing for the State in Criminal Appeal l'1o 1 160 of 2017' Since e'l t'rese appeals arise fronr the same ludgnrert' we propose 2 to adiudicat+ t-em through this common judgment' Crirrtt.r lr A5:peal No 182 of 2014 has been pre'erre'd by Accused 3 Nos.1 an<l lZ rirerr:inafter referred to as'Accused Nos 1 ard 2); Crintinal Appeal tro 2' Z ct 2014 lras been filed by Accuseo Ncr'3 (hereinafter 'Accused lrc l' ), and Criminal Appeal No 41 ol 202l lra'; been filed by AccusedNo'1(hereinafter'AccusedNo4')Alltheseirpl'ealschallenge the judgrri: r I :f :onviction and sentence dated 1 3 0 2014 delivered in Sessions ll :r e No 486 of 2O1O by the l\4etropclrtar S':ssions Judge' Hyderabr:d 4 (hereinafler

13.01 .20 4 cruttrr,.t t,ppeat rrJo 1160 of 201T has been f:leil by the Slate t re prosecution') challenging the san e jr ogment dated l Serssrons Case No.4B6 of 2010, to il^e e(tent it acquits I i I 2 f') Accused Nos.3 and 4 of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the lndian penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ,lpC,). 5. ln the impugned judgment, Accused Nos.1 and 2 were convicted for the offence punishabre under section 302 read with section 34 0f the lndian Penar code (rpc) and sentenced to rife imprisonment arong with a fine of '10,000/- each. ln defaultof payment, thdy were to ,nO"rg;.irffJ imprisonment for six months. Additionally, they were convicted under Section 380 lpC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years each, along with a fine of 5,000/_ each, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. B read SEVEN Accused Nos.3 and 4 were convicted under Section 120_ with Section 302 lpC and sentenced to ngorous imprisonment for years each, with a fine of 5,000/_ each; in default, they were to suffer srmple imprisonment for three months. They were arso convicted under section 411 rpc and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years each, with a fine of 2,OOOI_ each; in default, they were to undergo simple imprisonment for four months 6 (a) fhe prosecution,s case is based on a report/Ex.p_1 lodged by PW-1, the proprietor of RAK Lodge. According to the report, on 20.08.2009 at around 6:00 p.m , two individuals arrived at the lodge and booked three rooms_Nos. 201, 203, and 205_under the name ,,K. Prasad, son of K. Deraj,,, stating that identification would be provided upon check-in by the prasad. Around 9:00 p.m., three men, three women, and two children (a boy and a girl) occupied the rooms. (b) On 21.0g.2009, at approximately 4:00 a.m., three men and one woman left the lodge claiming they needed to make arrangements for an additional guest and would return, leaving the rooms locked without returning the keys. ln the intervening night of 21tZ2.OB.ZOOS at aOlii 3 3:00 a.m., felll;rli ri the instructions of PW-1' a room bcy peert"d through the ventilator o' i t 'onr No 205 and observed a woman lyrng notionless with blood fron-r r' ) nose on the bed On information PW-' a so looked through the venti it'or and saw the same' (c) Suspectirrl +ortl play' PW-1 questioned his sraff and then proceeded to 1f e polrce station The Sub-lnspecto. cr Police' Gopalapurar. ; tr. serluently in the presence and as per tro o rections of (1 Flcoms 201 ' 203' and 205 using duplici:t3 lrieys lnside the police operr€ Room 201, he i ';covered the body of a male' approxinrarte y 40 years old. ln Room 2Cl 'wo suitcases were found ln Room 205 tl'e bodies of a woman (arc -rrr I ll5 years old) and two children were fo.lrrd on the bed' covered in blc'\ 3(j (d) Then h,: t),/V-1 presented the report/Ex P-1 wl^erertpon Crime No.3'1 0 of 2009 r'as regtstered' and an investigation was i'ritlated and on completion, a l'argle sheet was filed The investigatic'n rcvealed that Deceased I'Jc, :l'-Kadali Kasi Naga Sree Lakshmi Vara l)rt'sad @ K L rrasad (hereinafter 'Deceased No 2'1-was an engineer Vara Prasa<l {Ql t,ai He had married Smt Kadali Vilayaraxn'i (Deceased r rd their children were Kadali Khethan t eceased No 3) No 1) rn 19 3C, and Kadali l(:'itha (Deceased No 4) The familY f 'equ entlY visited relatives in Ear; an(i West Godavari Districts and in Visaklra )atnam emploYed irr [) - . tr/ladhavi, was the niece of Dec ezrsed No l ln (e) Accusr:,r l"lo 2, K as an lClCl Bank emplovee' shr: persuaded 2005, whrle l l-king Deceased \o i'tc nvest with the bank promising a gocd n.'aturity return into in're :st ng additional Over time, :;lr: further lured Deceased No 2 Deceas ecr No.2 made sums under t itrious pretenses Trusting her' substantial der',)sits into her bank account for investment or his behalf i I I 4 (f) However, Accused No.2, driven by greed and in collusion with her boyfriend, Accused No.1, misappropriated the funds without making any actual investments. rn the rast week of 200g, Deceased No.2 returned to lndia with his family and demanded that Accused No.2 arrange the withdrawar of the investments before his return to Dubai. Unabre to return the funds, Accused No.2 fabricated a story claiming lhat 2.2S lakhs was required to crose the insurance portforio. This amount was arranged by Deceased No.2 through his sister/pw-g and handed over on 03.0g.2009. (s) subsequently, Accused Nos.'1 to 4 conspired to eliminate the entire family before they returned to Dubai. rnitiaily, the deceased famiry,s traver plans were set for 16.08.2009 but were rater reschedured to 21.0g.2009. On 18.08.2009, they departed from Tadepalligudem and arrived in Hyderabad on 19.08.2009, where they checked into park Lane Hoter, Secunderabad. (h) Accused No.2 rnformed the famiry that the bank officer wourd meet them in Hyderabad and to personaily deriver the .cheque. Folowing their plan, Accused No.4 procured a bottre of ethyr arcohor from the coilege laboratory. On 'i 9.08.2009, Accused Nos..l to 4 boarded the Visakhapatnam Express, arrived in Secunderabad on 20.0g.2009, and booked rooms 42011125 and 42St1Og at Sithara Lodge. Later, they visited the deceased famiry at park Lane Hoter and assured them that the insurance cheque of Rs.g0 lakhs would be delivered that night. (i) Meanwhile, Accused Nos.1 and 3 booked Rooms 201 ,203, and 205 at RAK Lodge under farse identities. Accused No.1 arso procured liquor, chilli powder and a scarf (chunni). Accused No.2 convinced the victims to relocate there, craiming it was croser to the airport and the agent would deliver the cheque there. The family moved to RAK Lodge 5 by 9:00 p.m., wit'r -re':eased Nos.1 to 4 occupying Room 201 ' Nos.1 and 2 irr Fl,r: nr i203, and Accused Nos 3 and 4 in Roorn 1i105 Accused (-1) Later, Acr:ti';:d No.1 obtained a blank cheque from P\V-4' forged it for Rs.B0 lakhs :rtd 3ave it to Deceased No2, impersonatinr; it as the promised cheq'-1 -' through Accused No'3, who posed as ihe agent' Deceived, pp6s;:;eC No.2 accepted it The aibused Nc 1 invited DeceasedNo'2]rlRclom205foradrink,AccusedNo,4cfferedhiman ethyl alcohol-|all: rlr nk, and once he was intoxicated Accttst:d Nos.,1 to 4strangledhin-r.singthescarf.Followinghismurder,A.ccusedNo.,l retrieved and cie-.t-oyed the cheque and hid the body of Derct:ased No.2 under the cot r lortm 205 and they proceeded to kill the remaining family member:; (k) Accused Accused No i Deceased No :l \r')3 went to Room 201, entered it, and, along with stra,.rgled Deceased No.1. Accused No 3 murdered ryhrle Accused No.'l used the scarf tc <ill Deceased No.4. (l) They oo r: j rewellery worth Rs 3 25 lakhs, along with cash' passports, atrcl rrlbire phones belonging to Deceased Nor;1 and 2 and sprinkled chili po,vdrlr throughout the room to obscure irrlc"ls, and the liquorbottlesarclglassesinRoom205werecleaned.Theac'cusedthen locked the doc,' ri td left the lodge around 4:00 a m' T.lnfurlheilrvestigation,basingonthecalldetailsbetw':enthecell phones of decr:ls.ed Nos. 1 and 2 with yet to register SIM ,:ards' with the helpoftaskfor:r.theaccusedNo.3wasapprehendedort25.8.2009in Vizag. In the nr,:antirne, on 26.08.2009 at about 9:00 a r"r" ul)on credible information abc -1 thr: involvement of accused in Nos. 1' 2: and 4 and they are heading tr: \. iza mabad, native place of the accused N rl ' 3 and are waiting at Jrtbil:'t: b,rs station, the police in the presenr;e o' mediators, 6 apprehended them and recorded their voluntary statements of admission and on their production recovered stolen articles of the deceased Nos.1 and 2 were seized from them. From accused No.3, apart from recording his statement, Rs.20001 cash was seized from him. After judicial remand, the accused were taken to police custody and on inquiry, they made further confessional statements. Where after the accused, led the police Vizag and on showing, the belongings of the deceased were seized at the instance of accused Nos. 1,3 and 4. Thereafter test identification parade was conducted in the presence of judicial magistrates. The writing of the accused No.3 was fonrvarded for comparison along with the lodge register and signatures of accused No.3 obtained by the investigating officer were sent to forensic science laboratory (FSL). The travel data of the accused was secured from the railway authorities to show that the accused travelled in Vishakha express on 19.8.2009 in S5 sleeper coach. Therefore, concluding that all the accused conspired and took part in committing murders to avoid the repayment, the charge sheet was laid against the accused for the offence under sections 120-8, 302 and 380 of lPC.

8. Upon committal from the territorial jurisdiction, the f\/etropolitan Sessions Judge took cognizance of the matter. After examining the accused, who pleaded not guilty, the trial commenced. During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 45, marked Exhibits P-1 to P-1 16, and produced tvlaterial Objects (lVl.Os) 1 to '1 04. After a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence and materials L on record, the learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and accordingly recorded convictions and imposed sentences as noted earlier. 1

10. The learr,r,t ,)cunsel for the accused pleaded trat ti^e ;onvictions recorded by the ?ar'ned trial court are vitiated by multiple legal and factual inflrmit e-' Tre findings are based on a misaprpr':ciation of evidence, dis'eg: rc c'f procedural safeguards' and relianc e orr nherently unreliable testrtrc r7 The primary contention is that tre t.ial ')ourt failed to properly t:v a tL lte the credibility and reliability of th': ptosecution's witnesses. Tl't: t:st monies suffer from material inconsist:ncies and suggestive bia:; IVlost tlotil: I'r the identity of the accused was rrct i;onclusively established, A l,;y prosecution witness described seeing ..tv,,o men and two women ' 3ir .lrrg the lodge where the deceased pers or s were last seen, which 6li16r ;ily contradicts the prosecution's case t'1ar lhree men andoneWCll-l..ll-_rame|yAccusedNos.lto4-wer:pesent'This discrepancy qcr , to the root of the prosecution's narta:v': and casts serious dorlbt : - :he alleged involvement of all four accused The T er; Jerrtification Parade (TlP) a critical conrprrnent of the investigatior. : t fers from signrficant procedural lapsers r'uch as' an unreasonab e I lr se of time following the incident' which ttnc ermines the reliability of lf (r w tness identification Further' the i'je rtification of Accused No 2 ry ihe witnesses ought to have been allptoached with greater scrt ttrr I He r physical condition-being pregnarrt rat the relevant time-renderr.:t i rer visually distinctive The trial court's re asoning that her pregna ril) 'vas, not medically corroborated, and th;:t the accused failed to leacl t:, dence to prove the same, is misplace J T'te burden of proof Iay w tl' : -: prosecution to neutralize such distrnguisling features' particularly '// ri rr these features may have undull n'luenced the witnesses. Prosecution witnesses claimed they were initially unable to identify the accused due to threats and intimidation. However, these ailegations are whorry unsubstantiated and were not raised at the time of the Trp, which was conducted under judrcial supervision. This omission diminishes the credibirity of the purported fear and supports the inference of afterthought. The kiar court erred in pracing significant reriance on in- court identifications made over two years after the incident. such berated identrfication, unaccompanied by prior confirmation through a properly conducted TlP, is devoid of probative value and ought to have been excluded from consideration. It is further submitted that the prosecution has faired to estabrish even a prima facie case of conspiracy among the accused. Notably, Accused Nos. 3 and 4 were acquitted of conspiracy charges based on the same factuar matrix. The reasonrng that red to their acquittar shourd logically and regaily extend to the other co-accused, given the indistinguishable nature of the allegations and evidence against them. There were serious lapses in the collectton and handlrng of evrdence, which were disregarded by the trial court, prominenfly, the items allegedry recovered from the accused are highry doubtfur. There is a strong likerihood that these materiars were pranted or fabricated to falsely lmplicate the accused. The triar court faired to criticaily examine this possibility. Key documentary evidence, such as the lodge registers (Exhibits P2 & P3) and bank documents were neither properly proved nor subjected to authentication. The rack of evidentiary rinkage between these exhibits and the alleged acts of the accused renders the circumstantial evidence weak and insufficient to sustain a conviction. * * I i I I I 9 The pros,,:r Lr icr failed to establish that these items b'elorged to the deceased. Rel a r:e \vas erroneously placed on the test nrorry of PW6 and PW7 in corr: Lrd ng this fact The trial court farled tc' zrccount for numerous miltr:r i; I c missions and contradictions in the pr'.rsecution's case, thereb)' '.r, r' lkening the continulty of the chain of ';ir';umstantial evidence. ' s submitted that the prosecution's case s iddled with '-,tcedural violations, and uncorroborat':cl r laims The apDellants rests on a tenuous evidentiary foirndation l:d principles of criminal jurisprudence in:luding the nn ocence and the requirement of ;lrc'of beyond Th erefo r:: inconsistencit::,; conviction of f h': and violates sel' presumPtion ir{ reasonable d o -ttr Accorcirlclv tire appellants pray that the impugnr:c jt dgment be set aside, the :;r I riclions be quashed, and all the appellanls lre acquitted of the charge's f ;l lreC against them' llTheLe;rtr:'iAdditionalPublicProsecutorsttbmltstratthetrial Court has riJr't' ;rppreciated the evidence led by the rros:cution and rendered a r,n,'-' l- 'easoned judgment convicting the accused However' the decision t,- ,I t ihe conviction and sentence against Acc lsed Nos 3 and 4. While t c-,r d.rg the conviction of Accused Nos ,1 anc 2. is flawed and warrantr; lnt: re.ence by this Hon'ble Court' ltiss,tr.:.lttelthatallfouraccused,actingin()Cnc3Tt,traveled covertly to t'l y r erabad and procured accommodati)rl under false identities at -q t:ra todge (as per Exhibit P51), which is p'o)'imate to the scene of thr- :.,re The prosecution established their prr:st'nce through multiple strilncs ,:f corroborated evidence, particularly tle prosecution witnesses/FV,'- I and PW-3 consistently testified that Accuse'i Nos 3 and 'ere prese n ri the lodge and that three rooms were bo cked in their 10 CX handwritin a nal sis b names These facts are substantiated by entries in the lodoe reqister Exhibit Pz The authorship of the register entries was confirmed through PW-29 whose re ort Exhibit P60 conclusivery estabrished that Accused No. 3 made the rerevant entries, thereby direcfly linking him to the booking and the crime scene, The pw_ 3 fu(her testified that ail four accused (Nos. '1 to 4) occupied the rooms alongside the deceased individuars. No other persons were seen in the rooms during the relevant period, reinforcing the prosecution,s case of exclusive presence and opportunity. The behavior of the accused at approximately 4:00 Atr/ in the morning, following the offense, all four accused vacated the lodge together. This fact is corroborated by both pW_3 (todge staff) and pW_9 (cab driver), who independenfly confirmed their coordinated departure. During the Test ldentification parade (Tlp), Accused Nos.2 and 4 were duly identified by the witnesses. Although these witnesses later failed to confirm the identification in court, such reructance was righry attributed by the Trial Court to intimidation and fear, especially considering the lapse of time and surrounding circumstances. The Trial court correctly took judiciar notice of the effect of such duress on witness testim on y. The prosecutron further relies on the recovery of valuable ornaments and belongings of the deceased were recovered from the possession ofAccused Nos. 1,3, and 4, as evidenced by the recovery and seizure reports (Exhibits p40 to p43 and p7S, p7g, and p79). The recoveries, the presence of the accused at the lodge and their subsequent coordinated actions are esrabrrshing to a shared pran and a premeditated conspiracy to commit the crime. ln light of these facts, any attempt to differentiate the curpabirity of Accused Nos. 3 and 4 from that 11 of Accused Nls common inter tro l ar-d 2 is untenable All four acted in ftrrth€rrance of a lrc must be held equallY liable' Learn prosecution necessa ry deceased circu msta nt eri lr:0itlonal Public Prosecutor further subrnitr; that the has ;rrccessfully established the chain of c irc umstances t,r socLrre conviction under well-settled prirciples of ia t,rr i: et-r ;e by proving the presence of the acc us ed with the drrrr:tiscriticalhours,coupledwiththerrtnexplained departure arc ;.- hs':quent recovery of incriminating natel ial' form a cogent and rtnlc :Kerr chain pointing unerringly to their gu lt Hence' the trial court's ac(:':'ptance of the prosecution case is suoprrted by reasoned a::cr:t iat on of facts and law Minor dis(;recancies contradictions r vitrless testimony which are natural in sLlc'l cases' not underminf, trl core narrative and are insufficienl lc disturb findings of gtri l a ln vielv r: t re overwhelming evidence, the prosectrtion respectfully prayed for dsrri;sal of the appeals filed byAccused Nos' 1o4' and the prosecution's a6' r':al against the partial conviction and s:n 'ence of the Accused Nos lr lrc 4 be allowed, and they be convicte'l anC sentenced on par with r\ ).: r- sq-'d Nos l and 2' as all accused r'l lrt ' jointly and equallY coru ( i rr he crime' 12. We itav: ca efully considered the submissions aclvernced by the learned coun:,t l: arld perused the record

13. ln the "rv:' lllr:adings the points arise for determinatlon are' (a) Wt1ett.. '( L)t )secutrcn is abie lo prove the charge's un( e s|ctlons 302'380 ttsecl Nos 1 ancl 2' and under 120 B r/w 302 lncl 411 of IPC of IPC again.;i I r. €.t;L agatnst the al).rt/i (' /Nlrs 3 and 4, beyond reasonable doubt? (b) Whetltt'r : t t "ir proper and 'sii:'i:,1 t t,lk ' ttort anci sentence imposed against the accrll ec Nos' 1 and 2 is t2 (.) whether the impugned judgment of convictions and sentences recorded against the accused are justifiable in the facts and taw? 14. Homicidat Death of Deceased No.s. 1 to 4 The testimony of pW_1, the owner of RAK Royal Lodge, reveals that the bodies of two children and a woman were found in Room No. 205, while the body of a male was discovered in Room No. 20.1 . pW_2, the then Manager(T. Stephen), and pW_3, a room boy, corroborated the discovery of the bodies in those rooms. pW_6, the elder sister of deceased Vijayalaxmi (Deceased No. i ), rdentified the deceased as her sister Vijayalaxmi (Deceased No. 1 ), her husband K. L.V. prasad (Deceased No 2), and their children Khethan and Kavitha (Deceased Nos 3 and 4). PW-20 (A Babu Rao), the mediator for the scene observalion report, testifred that on 22.09.2009 at around 6:30 a.m., the police inspected Rooms 2OS, 203, and 201 in RAK Lodge. The scene was documented in Exhibit p-38, and Material Objects I\I Os 4 to 46 were collected. PWs. 11 and 12, mediators for the inquest, confirmed that inquest proceedings were conducted over the bodies of one mare, one female, and two children as per Exhibits p_6 to p_8, and they opined that the deaths appeared to have been caused by strangulation. PWs. 33 and 35, who conducted the post_mortems on the deceased, confirmed in therr reports (Exhibits p-62 to p_65) that the cause of death for Deceased Nos. 1, 3, and 4 was asphyxia due to ligature strangulation. rn the case of Deceased No. 2, they opined that death resulted from strangulation in conjunction with alcohol consu m ption. 13 A cumrlil'i\e reading of the above evidence estaf)lish()s that the deaths of Dec,eia;: d lJos. '1 to 4 were homicidal in nature ar d 'lccurred in RAK Lodge, ir ll rr l,t.tr; 205 and 201 ' 15 lnvolve e' ' of the accused in the offence The prlse r: tlicn's case is resting on circumstantia rlvirience' The jurisprudence :rrl :irrumstantial evidence is crystallized n tl'e Supreme Court's decis ior t !)harad Birdltichand Sarda v Stale rrl lv aharashtra: AIR 1gB4 S(l 74.1.2. which laid down five cardinal principes (known as the Panchsh:-'l t lr erstablishing guilt based on circumstarrt al evidence: (i) Each cl L . I ': :a'r le must be f rrmly established (ii) All facr! rrt I l)e consistent only with the hypothesis of the a:cLrs':d's quilt (iii) Circumst?r r r's rtust form a complete and unbroken chain (iv) Such crer T ' lls: exclude any possible theory of innocence (v) There rn - s: i €' a high degree of moral certainty and no scope f3r conjecture' ln Kanalv. Sl:i:t' ' a:T ot Dethi) 2023 INSC 678 ln thit; r;lr -.:. ,he Supreme Court emphasized tha. 1he prosecution shall establ :;i ti€ complete chain of circumstantia e"idence that unerringly pro rt: c1 lo the guilt of the accused The Colrt r:iterated the five princlple s aic down in Sharad Birdhichancl St nta v. Slate of Maharashtra.;84forcasesrelyingsolelyoncircurrstartiaevidence ln John AnLh'.,t' : antY @ John v State 2023 INSC 542 The Surtetre Court held that based on strol(l ';ircumstantial e,,e rr though there was no direct eyewitness or definitive medicaloptnicr.onthecauseofdeath.TheCourthighlir;hte.lthatachain evidence, 74 of strong circumstantial evidence can be beyond a reasonable doubt. sufficient to establish guilt These judgments reinforce the principre that whire circumstantiar evidence can form the basis for convictron, it must be cogent, consislent, and form an unbroken chain leading to the conclusion of the accused,s '16. Further, the burden of proof lies squarely on the prosecution, which must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused ls entiiled to the benefit of doubt where the circumstantiar chain is incomprele or compatible with innocence. This princrpre reaffirms the presumption of innocence under Article 21 of the Constitutton of lndia. 17. ln the light of above setfled propositions the evidence on the record needs examinatron. The prosecution,s specific case is that in August 2009, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 conspired with Accused Nos. 3 and 4 at their residence to murder the entire famiry (Deceased Nos. 1 to 4) to avoid paying out the investment returns taken from the Deceased No. 2 in the name of investments by the Accused No,2. rn furtherance of this conspiracy, the accused on the pretext that the person concerned would hand over the cheque at the RAK lodge, made them to shift to that lodge, during the night of 20t21 .O8.2OOg '1 B. Prosecution has presented the presence and movements of the accused and deceased in the lodge at relevant period, to prove the last seen theory. The lodge manager/pW-2 testified that Accused Nos. 3 and 4 arrived at the lodge on 20.08.2009 and booked Rooms 201 , 203, and 205, paying an advance amount of Rs.2,000. when asked to fumisr.r identification, they stated that a person named K. prasad, who would be 15 arriving shortLy r')Jld provide the required proof PW-2 f 'rrthr':r identified room attendar-t; including PW-3 (Santhosh Kumar I)as @ Suraj)' Kunaldas, Slrekl r' r@ Bappi, and Deepak' as part of :he odge staff Further, on the tl ervening night of 21st and 22nd August 20C9' the son of PW-1 (Gaffar) loproached and brought him to the lodcle lvhere PW-1 inquired aborl t.r( o()cupants of the rooms He/PW-2 infornel PW-1 that the rooms har: [":er booked by Accused Nos 3 and 4 on rlehalf of K' Prasad and tl-,z' he was informed of the discovery of deal bodies in Rooms 201 an 12C5. Subsequently, PW-1 reported the natter to the police

19. PW-3 r:r,-' :f the room boys, corroborated PW-2s testimony He stated that at alrrro>imately 6:00 PIV on 20'08 2009' Accur;erl Nos 3 and 4 arrived al :n: lorlge and booked three rooms, paying F.ls'2,000/- in advance. wher ilerrtiflcation was requested, they respor<lecl that one K' Prasad (later. rl,:ntfied as Deceased No 2) would prrrlvile it PW-3 confirmedthat',:cusedNo.3madeentriesinthelodgereqir';ter(Exhibits P-2 and P-31 l\'ter about an hour and a half, PW-2 h:f.tlre premises' Around 9:0r) Pl'/, all four accused (Nos l to 4) and the fcur deceased persons (N:s io 4) arrived together at the lodge P'^i-3 and another room boy, l(Ltn: Das, assisted in carrying their luggage to the respective rooms and h;lr:ed over the room keys (Material Objer;tr; '1 to 3)' PW-3 further testtfir: j trelt Accused No. 1 later came dowrrs:ai s' gave him Rs.50/- to p-rt:rrase water bottles, and upon returninlt wilh two Kinley bottles, he rar r1:d over the bottles along wrth Rs 20/- cirange At appro <,rnately 4:00 AM on 21 08 2009, the lcur accused requested that ihe lodge shutters be opened so theS :o rld go to the railway static,r claiming they needed to pick up guests P'fu-3 informed them that t'tc sh ltters could not be opened until ror ling, but the L6 accused insisted their guests were waiting. Notabry, they reft without any luggage and did not return thereafter Later, during the night of 21slj22nd August 2009, pW_.1 asked him/PW-3 to check the occupancy status of the rooms. Upon inspection, PW-3 reported that Rooms 201,203, and 205 were locked from the outside. At PW-1's rnstruction, he checked for ruggage presence. peering through the ventilator of Room 2OS pW_3 saw a woman,s body lying on the bed with visibre breeding from the nose. He immediatery informed PW-1, who in turn called his son Gaffar to summon pW_2. Upon PW-2's arrival, he confirmed the booking details and subsequently accompanied pW-1 to the police station The police returned to the scene and, in their presence, the rooms were opened using duplicate keys. lnside Room 205, three dead bodies were found, and another male body was discovered in Room 201. Room 203 contained luggage. pW-3 identified t\Iaterial Objects 4 to 8 as the same suitcases and bags he and Gokul Das had carried into the rooms earlier. His statement was formaily recorded by porice officiars foilowing these events.

20. PW-1 corroborated these facts, stating that on the night in question he instructed the room boys to check whether the rooms were occupied PW-3 reported that Rooms 201 ,2o3, and 205 had been rocked from lhe outside. Upon instruction to verify, peering through the ventirator of Room 205, PW-3 observed the body of a woman and informed him. Following this discovery, pw-1 contacted the pw2 and there after the police, and upon arrivar, foilowing their directions unrocked the Rooms using the master key. After verifying the presence of the deceased, he filed a formal police comptaint (Exhibit p-1) He further testified that upon inquiry, PW-2 confirmed the rooms were booked in the name of*J(._ L] Prasad, son it{ [,; v Flaj, and identified the suitcases as N]ate ial objects 4toB

21.Thee,liclt:.:efromPW-2andPW-3clearlyma|<in3outthat Accused Nos, 3 and 4 booked the rooms at approximatr:|,1 (: :00 P[vl on 20.08.2009 us rrl ihe name of K Prasad The lodge register/[:xhibits P-2 and P-3 reflec'.s lrese entries. PW-3 further affirmed that a1 i'round 9:00 PlV, Accusec l'lo; 1 to 4 arrived with the deceased and ch:c'<ed into the rooms. He ancj ;j rftler room boy transferred the iuggage t( the rooms accordinglY

22.PW-3r:,t"el;oledirectwitnesswhosawbothtl'ealcusedand deceased atrrrte-- together and occupied the rooms His 1e';timony not only corrobc,rat:s' tl^ at of PW-2 regarding the roonr bookin 3s but also provides a :olc'ent narrative of the sequence of everts He further detailed thal th: acr;used departed at 4:00 AM on 21 0B 20rl9' claiming they were gorr 1l to receive guests from the railway station' never to return. Durirl; h s cToss-examination, the defence failerl 1o elicit any material contrarlrlion or discrepancy in PW-3's account 23-Theac:.seJcontendedthatthereexistsasignificant inconsistenr;5 i- ther prosecution's case, pointing out trztt 'he de facto comp|ainan, , r I le initial police report (Exhibit P-1 ), referrec to the entry of three w )ltlr)- , three men, and two children into tlre lodge. This assertionwa:;r:teratedduringhisdepositionasPW-lFulherthePW- 3 deposed tl- a wc men and two women left the lodge n he morning ' The defence 3 ,'];er1 that these versions contradicts the c:re' prosecution narrative arr: ririses a material improbability, therebv rve:akening the prosecution's c :t,;e. Howev,-' itpon close examination of the evtden;e il becomes clear that F Vrr- 1 v,ras not an eyewitness to the arrival ot <lep arture of the 18 n individuars at the rodge. Rather, the onry direct eyewitness to these events was PW-3, a room boy employed at the lodge. pW_3 unequivocarry stated that Accused Nos. 1 to 4 entered the rodge arong with the deceased individuars. He further crarified during cross- examination that he does not recall making any statement to the polce to the effect that two men and two women reft the"rodge durrng the earry hours. lmportantry, pw-1 was not present at the time when erther pw-3 or LW-4 (another potential witness) observed the check-in or check-out of the accused or deceased. Therefore, the statements made by pW_1, who was not an eyewitness to the material events, cannot be relied upon to establish a materiar contradiction or variance in the prosecution,s version of facts. Arloreover, the evidence of pW_3 remains consistent and credible. He categorically stated that ail four accused entered the rodge arong with the deceased. His testimony remained largely unshaken even under cross-examination, where no substantiar contradictions were errcited beyond mere suggestions. ln the absence of any substantive challenge to his account, PW-3's positive identification and narrative remain regaily probative. Consequently, the alleged discrepancy in the account provided by PW-1-who lacks firsthand knowredge of the entry or exit of the accused and the deceased-cannot be treated as a material inconsistency capable of undermining the otherwise credibre and consistent testimony of PW-3. As such, this point raised by the defense does not suffice to discredit the prosecution's version of events. As the testimony of the pw3 is credibre and constitutes substantive evidence, the chain of events - including the room bookings, the \,{ 19 accused anc l.(;eased occupying the rooms, and the l:'ubsequent departure of th:: : ')llused - stands prima facie establisherj 24. ldentifi tttli' t-o;'the accused in the Test ldentificatioiL?p ,ade (TIP) To fix tfr€ derrtities of the accused during investlgati:n the test identification t;r.ad,:: (TlP) was conducted. The a cc,lsed have that the challenged tlre < rtrdiirility of the prosecution's case by cont€'ncring identities of th:: ;r ;cused were not established beyond reas'oIable doubt' the accused \ ie.: srrown to the witnesses in the police ccrrtr'>l room, the prosecution wlt'tt'ssr:s failed to identify certain accused irdlviduals and identifled the ac: r rsed No.2 due to her pregnant condition cur ng the TIP'

25. ln thir; te tl'lrd, the record reflects that PW-24 the ltilarlistrate who conducted the f.I I f rr Accused No 2, testified that PW-i ';l 'oom boy at the lodge), a-c !i3ll as PWs.9 and 10 (both taxi drivers) successfully identified 46sr.15t-'J Nio.2 during the identification process' FurtherrrrePW-25,anotherMagistrate*66sendur':tedtheTlP for Accusec t'J:l 1 3, and 4, stated that PWs 2 and ! 1-W-4 (Kunal Das).andF'V\/')iclentifiedAccusedNo.4butfailectocertifyAccused Nos.1 and ! Additonrl /, PW-8, the sister of Deceased No 2' dap'lsed that on O2.0B 20Og fc r ivirrg a phone call from her brother ()':ccased No 2)' shewasins,trl:l':dtohandoverRs2,25,000ltotwolCLC['iankofficers According lc 'r r lestimony, Accused Nos 2 and 3 ca rte to her and collectedttre,:;idamount.SheidentifiedbothAccusel|..los.2and3 during the test i: entification parade and in the Court 26. ln regar: tc the failure to identify Accused Nos l ard 3, PWs 2 and 3 offer:C lr e>:planation during trial, stating that they w':re subjected 20 to threats by Accused Nos..l and 3 and, as a result, refrained from identifying them during the Tlp out of fear for their safety. 27. Upon careful scrutiny of this expranation, it is evident that it racks persuasive value. The identification parade was conducted under judicial supervlsion by a Magistrate, and the witnesses remained silent about the alleged threats until they were examined in court. The belated nature of this disclosure significantly weakens the credibility of their explanation. 28. Regarding the defence argument concernrng Accused No.2,s alleged pregnancy at the time of the Tlp, pW-24, the lVlagistrate who conducted the identification parade, stated durrng cross-examination that he was unaware of the accused being seven months pregnant on that date. This statement clarifies that there was no discernible physical distinction between the suspect and the non-suspects participating in the parade. Thus, the contention that her pregnancy would have made her easily distinguishable, thereby compromising the validity of the Tlp, is unfounded.

29. The defence also alleged that the suspects were shown to the witnesses in the police control room prior to the Tlp. However, if this assertion were true, it raises the question of why pws. 2 and 3 failed to identify Accused Nos.'1 and 3. This inconsrstency lends some credence to the prosecution's argument that the witnesses may indeed have been threatened, making such an explanation plausible rn the circumstances. 30. Nevertheless, even assuming the failure to identify Accused Nos.1 and 3 during the TlP, this omission cannot be overstretched to undermine the entire evidentiary framework, particularly the credible and consistent identification of Accused Nos.2 and 4. The testimony of pW-3, who unambiguously identified Accused Nos.2 and 4, remained firm and unshaken. Similarly, PW-10, the taxi driver who claimed to have 21 transported tl-e z c;lsed to Vi.iayawada' corroborated PW-3's version by also identifyir-Q lr:ouried Nos 2 and 4 during the TIP Tl-e;e consistent identifications le'(l strong support to the prosecution's' ac:ount and reinforce the cre rl hilrty of PW-3's testimony regarding the p'esence of Accused Nos ll z tr i 4 at the lodge Therefort: . r,'e r if Accused Nos l and 3 were not ilent fied during the TlP, this aro t', does not render the witnesses unreliabltl c r invaltdate the testimon)' ri lat ng to Accused Nos 2 and '1 iile consistent identification c,i r\ccttsed Nos 2 and 4 by both PW-3 arcl FrW-10' and their corroborati /( a()counts, sufficiently establish the presen:e of these two accused a r : ': lr:dge with the deceased' both at the tirne of check-in . arly morning departure Accordingly tc the extent that and during th€rrr the presenct: :ri i c;c lsed Nos 2 and 4 at the lodge' irr th': :ir';unlstances narrated by Ir /,-3 is concerned, the prosecution har; ';uccessfully established this rrct beyond reasonable doubt' 3'1 Dlsc O /(tr/ L)i L)eceased's belonqinqs from the accu sed Anothe' . i lniticant aspect of the prosecution's lzLs€ lies in the recovery of p'::t:r'tral belongings of the deceased from tlte p'lssesston of the accuserl r;. i:h, in the opinion of this Court' const tules a crucial evidentiary irrr ,; lnnecting the accused to the commissic'n rf the offence' It is ttrer ir I se of the prosecution that, following the apF rehension of theaccusecial-r-,bileeBusStation,secunderabad'sevetalrncriminating articles were (rcovered. These recoveries were mace pursuant to voluntary d scl : i rtTr:s by the accused and were duly record':d under the appropriate r ,: Jiators' reports (panchanamas) in thr: [ndependent I r.' ] ia tors/witnesses. 'resence 22 (a) From Accused No.1, the foilowing items were recovered under the cover of a panchanama, marked as Exhibit p-40: . One black bead gotd chain (N/.O.9), . One gold mangalasutram chain with black beads (M.O.10), . Cash in the sum of Rs.10,000t (tV.O 49), and . One cetl phone (lV.O 5O). (b) From Accused No.2, five gold bangles (lV O. j1) were recovered and seized under Exhibit p-41. (c) From Accused No.4, the foilowing were seized under Exhibit p-42: . One gold ring with a yellow stone (tM.O 12), . One pair of gold earrings ([/ O.13), . One gold doilar with Trishul (tU.O.14) . One gotd "Om" locket (tM.O .15), . One Taweez locket (1V.O.16), and . Cash amounting to Rs.3,000/- (l\I O.Si) (d) ln addition, Accused No.3 was found in possession of Rs.2,000/- (M O.52), and he made a statement to the effect that one long gold chain, one small gord chain, and a gord ring with red stones were rocated at his residence. This statement was reduced into writing under the mediators' reporl marked as Exhibit p_43.

32. further Subsequently, during the course of police custody, pursuant to voluntary staternents, the accused accompanied bV JI,g, 23 lnvestigating (f i ler and mediators proceeded to t'rer r respective residences ar'. :'ected further recoveries' (i) At the re s Jence of Accused Nos l and 2' the ar'dlord/PW-5 conftrmed th,: t r'rarrcy From that premises' Accusecl Nc '1 p oduced: . Three k i)' r, co 'responding 205 (N1 () I ' to 3), to RAK Lodge Room Ncs 2t 1 ' 203' and . One lr if,lr' :igital camera (l\n O 78) . One S arr r trg IMP3 player (tV O 79)' . One golt :rain (Nn O'17) and . One Pa I r' ;c,ld ear studs (lM O 18) These it:r'r; v/ere recovered and documented under lranchanama Ex P-75. (ii) From thr: recovered: esrdence of Accused No.3, the following 'lrticles were One b:; :old chain (M O 19) One ;rn.t 1lcld chain(tt/.O.20), One tr-,| 1 irg wrth a red stone (tV O 21), and One Ha - cl'.et bearlng No-070277172 (Ex P-76) Note bc:i cf accused No.3, page Nos 19 to 2'1 , The abc,vr-r ' )rtlri were seized under Exhibit P-78 (iii) Fronr t r: premises of Accused No 4, a whitr: :lastic bottle containing ap r.:rirnately B0 ml of ethyl alcohol (rM o.53 w'as voluntarily produced ern J r, : zr:d under panchanama Ex.P-79 24

33. With specific reference to the seizure proceedings, pW_23, the mediator present at the time of the initial recoveries, deposed that on 26 08.2009, at the Jubiree Bus Station outpost, the items seized from the possession of the accused persons in confirmation with the seizure panchanamas/reports marked as Exhibits p_40 to p_43 respectively. During cross-examination, pw-23 majntained that the seizure proceedings were conducted in his presence and denied the suggestion that no recoverres took prace or that no panchanamas were prepared in his presence However, he did concede that simirar items courd be found in the open market, though such generar avairabirity does nor negate the evidentiary value of properry recovered articres, especiaily when direcfly linked through identification and chain of custody. 34 Further corroborative evidence was provided by pW_38, who deposed that on 05.09.2009, Accused No.1,3 and 4led the police and the witness to their residences at Chaitanya Nagar, Kommadi, and lVVp colony, Visakhapatnam, and voruntariry handed over the materiars, which was formally recorded under Exhibits p-7s, p-7g and p-7g. During cross-examination, PW-38 firmly denied defence suggestions that no recoveries were made and that the mediators' reports were fabricated. He reiterated that the articres were seized pursuant to voruntary disclosures made by the respective accused. 35 The testimony of mediators pws. 23 and 3g arrgns coherenfly with the overall prosecution theory. No material contradictions or discrepancies have been elicited during cross-examination, other than mere denials. The panchanamas executed contemporaneousry and dury attested by the mediators further corroborate the fact that the articles in question were indeed recovered at the instance of the accused. Thus the independent witnesses and documentary evidence, materially support 25 the prosecuticr'; rersion The nature of the articles recover:ld and the circumstances i l".ounding their seizure strongly indicate th': involvement of the accusec the commission of the offence These fa:ts acquire probative sign fi ;; nc': and form an integral component o' tlre chain of circumstantia I e r t lertce. The consistent nature of these rt icoveries- across multi6rlc " t'resses. locations, and the documentatic n rre forming a compelling h,r j, :f evidence linking the accused with the cri'ne 36 ldentif 'c'-ii ', t accused tf afticles of the deceased feCO\te ftr.1 f rom the PWs 1 t: lr. who are owner and staff members cl I:iAK Lodge' that they identified Material Objects 1 to 3' which unanimously ::rlrls€:d are the keys cl responding to Room Nos 201' 203' ard 205 of the lodge. These t't' rs, typically issued to customers upon ;hi':ck-in' were recovered fr)Tr 1'r: Srossession of the accused No '1 '

37. PW-6 tl^t the mother r-'f Objects 9 t:; investigatiotl hrother of Deceased No.1 (Kadali Vijay'alexmi)' PW-7' {):c eased No.2 testified to havinq iderrtif ed ltlaterial t1 which were recovered from the acc rsed during Accotcltrr tc PW-6, these articles belonged to the d:)ceased He affirmed that l: lacl seen these items on the deceased irldi,'riduals when they depar:el 'ont his house in Tanuku He further steted that the clothing (M Os 1to B) and the gold and silver ornaments It/ Os 11 to 31) were the pers;'al belongings of the deceased ln cross-e;'amination ' it was suggesl?r ': F'W-6 that he had not previously inforrred the police of his ability t: rr:rtily the belongings of the deceased While' he admitted that he haJ rr provided specific details of the a(icles cilrried by the deceased. l-rcr,.:,rer this omission does not detract from tl^e evidentiary 26 She value of his in-court identification, pafticularly given the familial relationship and the familiarity it entails. 38 PW-7 identified l\4aterial Objects 9 to 13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 specifically testified that the gold mangalasutram chains and bangles (tV.Os.'l 0 and .l .l ) belonged to her daughter_in_law (Deceased No.'l ), the gold ring and taweez locket (lV.Os.17 and .i6) belonged to her son (Deceased No.2), and the earrings (l\/l.O.13) belonged to her granddaughter (Deceased No.3). ln cross-examination, it was suggested that she had not stated to the police that the deceased were jn possession of such articres or that she courd identify them, whire she conceded that simrrar gord ornaments are avairabre in the open market, such a general statement does not negate the probative value of her specific identification made before the Court 39 The defence contested that the identification of the recovered articles was made for the first time during triar, and no Test rdentification Parade (TlP) for the property was conducted during the investigation, hence the reliability of the recovery should be questioned. It is well-established in criminal jurisprudence that a Test ldentification Parade (Trp) for the person or the property is a part of investigative procedure and rs primarily conducted to ascertain whether a witness is capable of identifying specific person or article allegedly connected to the offence. Further it is arso setfled raw that a test identification parade does not constitute substantive evidence; rather, it serves to lend additional assurance to the testimony of witnesses. lmpo(antly, neither the criminar procedure code nor the rndian Evidence Act mandates the hording of a Trp, whether for suspects or for property. )1 Test icle r ii calion parades are typically held when :here is a genuine disp.r1,: :garding identity or when a witness is urs lre of their ability to recogn 1) the items or individuals in question Eve I if such a paradeisnctc.rldr.lcted,itdoesnotrenderthein-cor.lrliclentification inadmissible c" r'rreliable per se The identification marle before the court, unde' .:;tl-t and subject to cross-examinatior conStitutes substantive e'r,,ict r,;e and occupies a higher evidentiary value than a test identification Pia i' ie Further.il;p=rtinenttonotethat,merelapsesori"reSularitiesin the investigaticlr -']o\VSoeVer grave, by themselves do not,litiate the trial, nordotheycrll:tttlteagroundforacquittal,providedtl.ecrosecution has otherwiser -:. (rcileded in proving the guilt of the ac:ur:;ed beyond reasonable clcl:t through cogent and reliable evidence Thel-lcnl,e]upremeCourtoflndiahasconsistrlntyheldthat deficiencies iu ves;tigation do not avouch the benefit t : I re accused unless they :;rL:,r serious pre.iudice or result in miscarriaqer o' iustice' ln C Muniattt'a' t State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 55'' h::ld that' investigation is defective, the Cor'rt has to be "Whe;c: I € circur,l::cr_ :t It evaluating the eviclence, but it tvoutd nct be iustified in relet.t ). tt-te prosecution case solely on the grctttno of defective investigre I L 'rt 'f the case ls othenuise proved b.v creclib'e evidence " And irt ln Karan Sirtttt' S ate of lvt P (2021) 1 SCC 184 obsr:rvei that, "lt is wet s'e,tled that irregularities or illegatities irt t,rc course of inveslir',t i' tt would not affect the trial unless stich llegalities or ,,.irregt'li.,r I ) i ,'rave caused serious preiudice to the acc tsed." 1a Therefore, the absence of a Tlp of the property in the present case cannot be a sore ground for discrediting the substantive evidence on record. Further, the positive evidence of seizure of these items from the accused, coupred with the absence of any expranation from the accused as to how they came into possession of such articles, strengthens the prosecution's case. Notabry, the defence has not made any asserlion that the seized property belonged to them or that they had any laMul entitlement to it. Accordingry, based on the totarity of evidence, it can be safely concluded that Accused Nos. .l , 3, and 4 were found in possessron of the ornaments and personar effects beronging to the deceased. The court is, therefore, .1ustified in pracing reriance on the recovered articres by the close reratives of the deceased and drawing appropriate inferences from the same. The possession of such items by the accused provides strong corroborative evidence of their presence at lhe location at relevant time crime. 40. Other incriminatinq material aq ainst the accused No.3 Additional incriminating evidence has been brought on record against Accused No.3, primarily through documentary and expert testimony. As per the deposition of the lnvestigating Officer (pW_44), the Lodge Register of RAK Lodge (Exhibit p-2) was seized on 26.08.2009 Furthermore, the register of sitara Lodge was obtained from that rodge receptiontst on 08.09 2009; however, the receptionist could not be examined during trial as he had since passed away. ln continuatron of the investrgation, the officer arso procured the account opening form submitted by Accused No.3 to the state Bank of lndia to facilitate forensic comparison, and also obtained specimen signatures of Accused No.3 (Exhibits p-56 to p-59) and forwarded them, along with the disputed writings and signatures from the roogeElisters l l . A li. : &&;- .,S 29 and bank forrn ll the Forensic Science Laboratory (t'S;l-) for expert analysis. The r:cr':sponding FSL reportwas marked as E<l-ibriP-60' The S;ie'r'tic Officer (PW-29), who conducted the e<amination' deposedtha:tl^esignaturefoundintheregisterofRAKl-ot:geregister and the signatt r: o'l the account opening form submitte'i t r the State Bankoflndiav,:t:allexecutedbythesameindiVidualBasedonthis finding, he is:;t( lthe expert report under Exhibit P-6C' Dttring cross- examination, a ;r neral suggestion was put to the witness thirt signature analysis lack-' :;; errtific basis. However, no substantlal r'rvidence or expert contracli( li )1 r'uas presented to discredit the expert s firdings It ls rrct:rrolhy that Accused No 3 has not d sputed the authenticityc.,illa:countopeningformsubmittedtotheS.ateBankof lndia, which cc-tlins his admitted stgnature lt has also beerr argued on behalf of th€) Jo I lrce that there is no credible evidence o' ti e seizure of the lodge reg is r: . l lowever, this contention stands rebutt':d by the clear and consislen teStimony of PW-44, the lnvestigating t)fficer, who confirmed tl-'e s t' zute of the register during investigation' lmportari..i:isnolthecaseofAccusedNo'3th;rtllissignature was forged :r o:tairted under coercion on the lodge'egist-'r ly the police or any third : i rty Thus, even assuming the specrnrelr signatures collected dtrr n: the investigation (Exs. P-56 to P-59) anc tt e register of Sitara Lodge, : |3 1o be excluded from consideration thr. undisputed signature or t t: bank account opening form (Ex P-.1 ) t'ro rides a valid benchmark io' corrparison. The forensic conclusion thi'rt the same individualstgr:lbr>ththeRAKLodgeregisterandthel-arkformlends substantial we (l'r: t,) the prosecution's claim Acco-drn I y it register wr-.re rade ln ,\r < MUSt be held that the entries in the RAK Lodge the handwrrting of Accuse,i N0.3, thereby 30 confirming his physical presence at the lodge during the booking of rooms This finding direcfly implicates Accused No.3 in the events leading to the commission of the offence and corroborates his presence alongside the co-accused at the relevant time. 41 The evidence demonstratina conceied acts of the accused Another rerevant piece of evidence corroborating the presence of the accused together is the testimony of pw-4, who was a crassmate of Accused No.1. PW-4 deposed that on ,l9.0g.2009, Accused No.i approached him over phone and requested for a unsigned blank cheque. On the following day, ZO.0B.2009, again on phone call from Accused No.1, he visited Sitara Lodge Although he initially enquired about the purpose of the blank cheque, Accused No.1 gave him a verbal assurance that there would be no issue since his signature was not required. Relying on this assurance, pw-4 handed over a brank cheque bearing No.'102944 to Accused No 1 . Further he confirmed the coilectrve presence of the accused Nos,1 to 4 in Sitara Lodge on 2O.Og.2O0g. During cross-examination, pW-4 remained firm in his testimony, reiterating that he had indeed given a blank cheque to Accused No.i. He further stated that Accused No.1 was married to Accused No.2, and that he had been introduced to Accused Nos.3 and 4 by Accused No.1 during this visit His statement rends further corroboration to the prosecution's case, establishing not only the interpersonal connections between the accused, but also their coordination immediately prior to the incident, thereby reinforcing the chain of circumstantial evidence. 31

42. Motive i;r c1 ()rt minal Cons p ITACV ln proser:r iln:; based on circumstantial evidence' :roci of motive' although not i-c isF,ensable, significantly strengthens :he' charn of circumstance's 5 o ntir-tg to the guilt of the accused As cbse ved by the Hon'ble SuFrrer^r oourt in Sharad Birdhichand San/a r Slate of Maharashtra it l')41 4 SCC 1 16, motive is not a stne lltla noil but an additional lirrk ,'I cir, when established, reinforces the p osecution's case. ln the prc;:nt case, the prosecution alleges that Dec3ased No 2 had transferr.e,l ; rbs,tantial amounts of money from the (Jr\,E to Accused No.2 with the,' rrtent of investing for returns Howevr-rr' instead of investment. Acrr I secl No.2 is alleged to have misapprop.iate I the funds' To escape lialri i:,,for repayment and avoid confrontation s;ht' is stated to have consptrec , r th the other accused to eliminate ps6s 1sr'rd No 2 and his family. ln sup,p,: - :f this claim, Exhibits P-10 to P-26, cons stirlg of money transfer recr:rp1s ,,vere placed on record. These documerts substantiate multiplerefflttr€Il;esfromDeceasedNo.2toAccusedNo2Additionally, PW-8, the s s l: r of Deceased No 2, deposed that prlrs uant to her brother's trstr t: torts, she handed over Rs 2,25 000i- tc' individuals posing as l() c I 3a,tk officials. she later identified Accused Nos.3 and 4 as the persons 'ho collected the amount under that prete;<t' Furthernr:'e, PW-4, a friend of Accused No 1 lesl'fied that on 19.08.200g ,1\t:;.ts€rd No.'1 requested a blank cheque r't'hlcl he provided the following c :r I a: Sitara Lodge, where all four accuserj lvere present' This testimo.rr cc)nfirms that Accused Nos l to a wr:re together immediatel'r lri :' tc the commission of the offence, therekry ;orroborating their coordi rat:t actions and common intention. 3) while the internar dearings and misappropriation between Accused No.2 and Deceased No.2 may rie within their excrusive knowredge, absolute material to prove the motive in such cases is often unattainable. ln Slale of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr Sanjay Srngh, (1994) Supp (2) SCC 707 the Hon'ble Supreme court herd that even if motive is not firmry established, its presence can reinforce other incriminating circumstances. The collection of funds through misrepresentation, financial transactions, co-location of all accused, and misuse of trust, form a cohesive and credible narrative that indicates concerted action and a meeting of minds, satisfying the requirements of Section .,l20B (Criminal Conspiracy) lpC The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kehar Singh v. State (Dethi Administration), (1988) 3 SCC 609, clarified that conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence showing unity of purpose and common design. Thus, the cumulative evidence on record supports a clear inference of criminal conspiracy among the accused, driven by a financial motive and executed through deceit and planning. 43. Presumption under Section 'l 06 of the lndian Evidence Act It has been firmly established through the testimony of pW_2, pW- 3, and others that the accused were present with the deceased from the time of check-in at RAK Lodge until their departure. The deceased were last seen alive in the company of the accused, who later left the premises without explanation. ln such circumstances, where facts are especially within the knowledge of the accused, the burden of proof shifts onto them under Section 106 of the lndian Evidence Acl, 1872, which provides: -4' 33 "Wherr iarr fa:t is especially within the knowledger :rf any person' the burden of p':vrn'q that fact is upon him " The l-lon h e liupreme Court in Trimukh Maroti K;ri<a v State of Maharashtra, (2ctg6; 't O SCC 681, held that when the a:;c tsed fails to offer an exola'ratrotr for incriminating circumstances' and he facts lie particularly rrutttr r their knowledge, adverse inferenee may be drawn' Similarly r' Gyan Chand v. Sfate of Anclhra Pra'7e';tt' (2018) 1 SCc633,reiterateothatfailuretoexplainlastseencirctir,rs|ancesunder Section 106 perrrits the court to draw adverse conclusiolts; ln the J t r:se rt case, the accused have offered rro plausible or credible erpla rr ttion as to the fate of the deceased nc r have they rebutted the ,r'esumption arising from their last k ncrn'n proximity' Therefore, the f'lrlure to discharge the burden under Ser;ticn 106' when coupled with : orr')borative circumstantial evidence arld absence of alternative tl'e o'ies, justifies drawing an adverse infere'lce against the accused regetrclrng their role in the commission of the ofterc::' Ther:s;r:iblir;hedfinanciallinkbetweenAccu:;erlNo'2and Deceased l.lO ll the presence of all accused at S tara Lodge as confirmed by r'\'V-4, and the laslseen theory prover thrcugh PW-3's testimony. cc le'ctively reinforce the prosecution's case T he concerted actions of tlre acc:used, their failure to explain critical r'a:ls' and their collective l)re';enco during the crime window, are rlon-ci(;te-rt with a pre- planned cc,n s lirac'y' and motive to eliminate the deceaseci 44 Conctu )!')n and Fin al Disposition: ln vierv rr' the discussion and findings recorded ab';vt'r, this Court is of the c,rnsi:eted opinion that the prosecution has successfully established t'c guilt of the accused beyond reaso r;rbl': doubt. The 34 0 material on record clearly reveals that all the accused acted in furtherance of a common intention and criminal conspiracy to commit the offences of murder and theft.

45. Consequently, Accused Nos..l to 4 are found to be independenfly and jointly liable for the commission of offences punishabre under Sections 302, 120-8 and 380 of the Indian penat Code (lpC). Thus, the findings recorded by the trial Court in the impugned judgment, in so far as the accused Nos. I and 2, are based on sound reasoning and supported by credible evidence. The conviction recorded under Section 302 read with 34 IpC is modified to Sections 302, 120_8 lPC. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence recorded against Accused Nos.1 and 2 deserves acceptance. With respect to Accused Nos.3 and 4 upon reappraisal of the evidence and in light of the reasoning discussed herein, this court finds that they were also active participants in the criminal conspiracy and directly involved in the commission of the offences of murder and theft. Therefore, the finding in the impugned judgment, which did not fully record their culpability in line with the prosecution,s case, is held to be unsustainable. ln accordance with the tindings herein, Accused Nos.3 and 4 are also held liable for conviction under Sections 302, .120-B and 380 IPC Consequently, their convictions are modified to bring them in parity with the other co-accused.

46. ln light of the above, all the accused Nos.1 to 4 are hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-8 lpC and 380 lPC, and are sentenced as follows: For the offence under Section 302 and 120-8 lPC, each of the accused is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a , 35 fine of : ;.10.000/-. ln default of payment of firre each shall undergr: r; nrple imprisonment for a period of six m':rtth;. FortherlfenceunderSection3SOlPC,eachoithtaccusedis sentent;t:-^ to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a le iod of seven years ar (l to ,lay a fine of Rs. 5,0001 1n defatrlt o1 trra1'ment of fine' each sl-';t I undergo simple imprisonment for a i;eriod of three month-". 47 ln the res t lt The Crir"iral Appeal No.'182 oI 2014 filed by 4669sr:d Nos l and 2' The (lrir iral Appeal No.212 of 2O14 filed by Accus':d No 3, and The lrirrr nal Appeal No.41 of 2023 frled by Acctrsed Nc 4, are all founrJ tc :e devoid of merit and are accordingly di: -ris seC Con\/ers,(ly, the Criminal Appeal No.1160 ol 2X17 filed by the prosecut on r:hallenging the improper conviction atnd :"entence with respect 1r Ar;cused Nos'3 and 4 is found to be rnr':ri''orious and is therefore allc,wed in the terms stated above. As a rre,r Jel pending miscellaneous petitions, i' r;n r, sha!l stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. K.SAILESHI 'J,f tt',lt REGISTRAR ,,, siE'l)TloN OFFICER + To, One iair Copy t,:, h -' H:n'ble Sri Justice P SAIVI KOSHY- One Fair Copy t:r : - ? Hon 'ble Sri Justice N TUKARAMJI ,F r lli' LordshiPs Kind Perusal) 1i:o His LordshiPs Kind Perusal) ' \ To w1!n recorJs r 1. The tr/letrolr: itarr Sessions Judge, HyderataO J 2. The Xll Ai:lrional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate' Hyderabad 3. The Statio t lcr se Oficei, North Zone Team Police Stati:'n CCS' DD' 4 ii; S;;;,,' tr endent' Central Jail, Cherlapally' Ranga Rr:ddv District ( By Hyderabz',c SPecia ti,lt I ; ;enger) I I I I I i i t I l 1 : (!.

5. The Superintendent, Central Prison for Women, Chenchalaguda, Hyderabad (By Special [\rlessenger)

6. Two CCS to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

7. 11 LR Copies 8. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

9. The Secretary Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High Court Buildings Hyderabad

10. One CC to SRI. T S ANIRUDH REDDY Advocate [OPUCI '11.One CC to SI\4T. PRATHIBA BEJJARAIV, Advocate (OPUC)

12.One CC to SRI P. PRABHAKAR REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) '13.Two CD Copies kut W \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:1 2/06/202 5 I-.R. Copy to be tt lt i I C0MN4ON .TUD(i\1I 'l CR IMINAL APPEAT . No.212 OF 2014 c RIMINAL APPEAL NO. 182 0F 2014 CRIMIN AL APPE,AT. NO .41 0F 2023 AND cnrut INAL APPEAt. NO .1160 0F 2017 4 r/r- '1 ;1,'i ?025 i I u': ) 'll ' DISMISSING I II l' CRIMINAL APPEAL No' 212 OF 2014 CRIMINAL APPEP.I- NC). 182 OF 2014 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.41 OF 2023 rltlD ALLOWING THE CRL'APPEAL NO. 1160 0F 2017 rA ..' ?Cc'l :'' : v t: '1 < '