Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI GRANDHI GOPALA KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court delivered the following Judgment: THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K.SURENDER THE HON'BLE SRI .IUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL AND CRIIVIINAL APPEAL No.1667 OF 2018 JUDGMENT: per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ksurender) The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the present appeal is filed.

2. Heard Sri Grandhi Gopala Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State.

3. According to the prosecution case, PW3, who worked as a Field Assistant in Junior Civil Judge's Court at Sulthanabad, went to serve proclamation notice to the appellant at his house on 08.04.2O13, along with PWs.4 and

5. When the appellant refused to receive the same, they pasted the same on the door of the house of the appellant and returned to the Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, thrr--s ef ltrsm went to the frelds of the appellant to serve the notice. After reaching t}re fields of the appellant, PW3 pasted the proclarnation notice to an electric pole and PW4 signed on it. Then PWs.4, 5, and tlle deceased left on separate motorcycles. The deceased and PWS were on one motorcycle and PWs.3 and 4 were on another motorcycle. According to PW3, while they were returning, the appellant hit the deceased with a stick on his head. When the deceased fell, the appellant hit him again with an axe on his head, resulting in his death. Thereafter, all of them ran away from the place. The information about the attack was given by one Srinivas/PW6 to PWl. PWl lodged Ex.Pl / complaint with the police. In Ex. P1/complaint, PW3 narrated about the differences between the deceased and the appellant and also about the Court case.

4. The appellant was apprehended on 15.O4.2013. Pursuant to his confession, during the interrogation, the police seized MOl/axe and MO2/stick from the bushes, where the offence was committed and the same were recovered under a cover of panchanama. The investigation was concluded and a charge sheet was laid.

5. The learned District Judge, having framed the charge under Section 302 of IPC, convicted the appellant on the basis of the evidence of t}le eyewitness/ pW3 and other corroborating evidence.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would s;ubmit that the testimony of PW3 cannot be believed. The erppellaat is stranger to PW3 and there was no test identification parade to identiff the appellant. In the chief-examination, though pW3 identifred the appellant, however, in the cross-examination he stated that one person wearing a monkey cap attacked the deceased. As such, the presence of the appellarrt \f,,as not proved. The learned counsel further argued that there was a delay in Iodging the complainant with the police and in the complaint reaching the Court. The complaint reached the Court at around 10.30 pM, and the said dela1. was not explained by the prosecution. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in p.Sasi Kumar Vs. State. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held *rat not conducting a TI parade was a flaw in the police invr:stigation, since the eyewitnesses and the accused therein were i strangers. The accused was a stranger to the eyewitnesses therein.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, argued that PW3 is an independent witness and there is no reason for him to speak against the appellant.

8. The crucial testirnony is that of PW3, who was the solicitor eyewitness to the incident. Though PWs.4 and 5 were present at the scene, they tr.rrned hostile to the prosecution case. PW6, who passed on the information to PW1, also turned hostile to the prosecution case.

9. Though the evidence of the solitary eyewitness can be considered, however, that evidence shor:ld be believable and should not create any doubt regarding either the presence of the eyewitness or the identihcation.

10. PW3 stated in his chief-examination that the deceased and PWS were going on one motor cycle and he and PW4 were going on another motor rycle. The appellant then attacked the deceased, and after the deceased fell down, tlle appellant hit the deceased with an axe. However, in cross-examination, PW3 admitted that while he was proceeding on his bike, one person wearing a monkey cap attacked the deceased. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of pW3 is extracted hereunder: . " I was proceeding a little distance forward to the bike of LW7 and deceased and in the meanwhile the person wearing monkey cap attacked the deceased.. I have not observed after beating the deceased in which directicn the assailant went. Even upon our rising cries not to injure the deceased the assailant beat the deceased. ny seling that the Upadi Hami Pathakam labours, ran away ald we also escaped from there due to fear. It is true the.t the police station is situated in pothakapally. I did ntc, give any information in Pothkapally police Station rega.dl.rg the alleged incident. Then I returned to Sulthanabicl and r:turneq my warrant incorporaLing all the particulars of the incident to the Nazarath Section. I reachec ttre Sulthanabad at about 1.0O p.m., or 1.30 p.m. At artund 1 90 p.q , or 4.30 p.m., on the date of incident I gave oral r1f_on11tion to the C.t., of police, Sulthanabad, ulon that C.I. of Police, Sulthanabad instructed me to file complaint before Pothkapa.lli Police Station. As it becarne night, on the next day of the incident I went to pothakapall/ p,olice station ard the police pothkapa_lly, examinei me ala recorded rny statement. I stated in my statement to t}Ie police that even upon our objecting t.I.e assailant attacked the deceased."

11. As seen from the cross-examination of pW3, he did not state that the person who wore the monkey cap was the appellant. He further stated that when he reached Sulthanabad at around 1 pM or l-30 pM, he did not grve any complaint to the police. Though he gave oral inforrnation, no written complaint was filed, and he went to the police station only on the next day. The evidence of pW1 becomes doubtfut for the reason that PW3, being a Court employee, went to his workplace after witnessing the incident of murder. Though he stated t1lat he had given oral information to the circle inspector, however, no such information was recorded by the Circle Inspector. The Investigating Offrcer did not state that he received any information from PW3 on the date of incident. The hrst information was provided by PW1 to the police, and that too on the basis of the information given by PW6. As already stated, PW6 has turned hostile to the prosecution

12. The evidence of PW3 is wholly unreliable for the above discussed reasons. There is absolutely no corroboration from any quarter to rely on the evidence of PW3. His conduct is also not in consonance with that of a person who had witnessed the murder. Once the evidence of PW3 is eschewed from consideration, there is no other evidence to connect the appellalt with the assault on the deceased.

13. According to PW3, a person wearing a monkey cap had assaulted the deceased. Admittedly, the appellant was a stranger to PW3. The police ought to have conducted a test identifrcation parade to identify the appellant, however, no such step was taken by the prosecution. Once the evidence of PW 3 is disbelieved, there is no other evidencp to connect the appellant with the assault on the deceasqd. r\ccordingly, benefrt of doubt is extended to the appellant. Appeal is allowed, acquitting the appellant.

14. In the result, this criminal appeal is allo',ved, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant vide judgment dated 07.06.2018 in SC) No.609 of 2013, on the hle of the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of offences under SCs/STs (POA) Act-crlm-\' Additionat Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. Bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled. //TRUE COPY' SD/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR (., FICER SECTIO To 1. The Special Sessions JudgeforTrial of Offences UnderSCs/ STs(POS) Act -cum- V Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. ( with records) 2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sultanabad, Karimnagar District. 3. The Station House Officer, Sultanabad Police Station, Karimnagar District.

4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Warangal. 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

6. One CC to SRl. GRANDHI GOPALA KRISHNA MURTHY, Advocate loPUcI

7. Two CD Copies Kul/gh HIGH COURT DATED:01/04/2025 JUDGMENT CRL.APPEAL No.1667 of 2018 lHE Sr4 rs Bo o o (). ,y 10 ilju zlE t r)esn I rcr{r,D I ,ir i rl i.::t ALLOWING THE CRL.APPEAL. ,// ,/At .- 4,/5-,43