The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradt:sh .RESPODEN I/ Complainant Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. P. PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Bail Slip: The petitioner /accused No.3 was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 15-12-2022 in l.A.No. 2 of 2019 in Crl.A.No. 878 of 2019. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 878 OF 2019 Crl.Appeal Under Section 374 (2) of Crl.P.C. aggrieved by the Judgment dated 25-04-2018 in S.C.No. 331 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad Between: Voriganti Balraj, S/o. Voriganti Balaiah(Late), aged about 26 years, Occ. Private Erhployee, Rl/o. H.No.C/3-1-196, Opposite Noma Kalyana Mandapam, Old Mallapur, Hyderabad. AND ...APPELLANT/ Accused No. 3 State of Telangana, rep. by its P.P. High Court at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana ...RESPODENT/ Complainant Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. PONNAM ASHOK GOUD Counsel forthe Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court delivered the following COMMON JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPA,L AND CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1721 OF 2018, 2420 of 2Ol8 & 878 0F 2019 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Si Justice K.Surender) Crimina Appeal No.1721 of 2018 is filed by the accused No.2 Criminal Appeal No.242O of 2018 is filed by the accused No.4, and Criminal Appeal No.878 of .2019 is hled by the zLccused No.3. Since all the three < riminal appeals are fiied questioning the hndings of the learned Sessions Judgr: in SC No.331 of 2018, all the appcals are disposed of by 'way of this common judgment.

2. Accused No. 1 is the wife of Marisheetty i.iusheel Chakravarthy ithe deceased). The deceased was s,.rffering from a mental rlisorder, as such, accused No.1 desertr:d him. Later, accuserl No.1 developed intimacy with the accused No.2. Accused No.2 was residing in the house of the deceased at Narayana Enclave, Bakaram, as a tenant, along with one of his friends. The deceased was also livinS:, in the very same building in another apartment.

3. On 27.12.2014 at about 11.00 AM, PW1, who is the younger brother ofthe father ofthe deceased and residing on the second floor, found that a foul smell was emanating from the portion occupied by the deceased. He found the door open and went inside. Upon entering, he found the deceased lying on the floor in his bedroom with a head injury and a tailor's scissor pierced into his mouth. PWl informed about the death of the deceased to accused No.l. Thereafter, the information was also given to the father of the deceased. PWl lodged trx.Pl/complaint with the police. In Ex.Pl, PWI narrated that some unknown persons committed the murder of the deceased.

4. The police went to the scene of offence, conducted the scene of offence panchanama, and thereafter, the body was sent for autopsy. The autopsy doctor/PW9 opined that the death was on account of crush injury to the head. PWg found the following injuries: "( 1) A steel scissors (MO 1) measuring about 1 8 cms inserted into the mouth up to 11cms injuring the palate of the mouth. The tip of the scissors was touching the Uvula with the surrounding tissues injured and clotted blood present around the wound. (21 Multiple ,:ommunicated fractures of the vault and the base of the skr.rll on left side associated with crush injury of the head on the left side. (3) Brain matter liquefied which is pinkish in colour. (4) A11 internal organs pale." PW9 also opined that the time of death was 5 to 6 da'7s prior to the post-mortem examination. The panchananla was conducted on 28.72.2014.

5. The police, during the investigation, found that accused No. 1 was having an affair with accuserL No.2. Thereafter, thev planned to kill the deceaQed. The motive for murder is the alleged illicit relationship between i'tccused No. 1 and accrrsed No.2. Further, accused No.2 enteled into an agreemenl. of sale with the deceased on O9.O3.2O12. However, acc used No.2 failed to sell the land to the deceased. The agreement was that if the accused No 2 failed to sell the land, he would have to repay Rs.8,00,000/- to the deceased, rvhich he had taken from the accused No 2. The Investigating ()fficer collected the details of the phone number of the accused, and according to the investigation, the cell phone of the deceased was found to be missing from his house. The investigation revealed that incriminating material was found near the scene of offence,

6. The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 is to the effect that accused Nos.3 to 5 were found in the complex, asking about the deceased on 20.12.2014. During the test identification parade, PW3 identifred accused Nos.3 to 5.

7. After the arrest of accused No.1, accused No.2 was identilied. Accused No.2 was interrogated and he led the police to the house of accused Nos.3 to 5. From the house of accused No.3, Rs.13,5OOl- cash was recovered. From accused No.4, Rs.6,500/- cash was recovered. Accused Nos.3 and 4 had very limited sources of income. The cash found with accused Nos.3 ald 4 was not explained.

8. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants on the following circumstances : (1) Accused Nos.l and 2 had. an illicit relationship. 12) Accused Nos.3 to 5 went to the apartment complex and enquired about the deceased. (3) After the arrest of accused No.2, MOs.3 and 4, which are a hammer and a screw driver, were recovered. MOs.S and 6, which are a cotton full-sleeves shirt and I a cotton sleeves shirt in light blue colour, wert) found near the railway track of Moula-ali. (4) MOs.3 to 6 were sent to the FSL for opinion, arrd they were found to contain blood stains. (5) Recovery of Rs.13,5OO/- from accused No.3 and Rs.6,500/- from accused No.4 was not explainod, and accused Nos.3 and 4 did not have aJIy such source of income tc, possess such an amount.

9. The main circumstance that the learned Sessions Judge relied upon is the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, who stated that on 20.12.2074, accused Nos.3 to 5 were askin5l about the deceased and they visited the apartment comple:<. If at all, accusecl Nos.3 to 5 killed the deceased in collusirln with accused No.2, the question of accused Nos.3 to 5 goi.ng and enquiring about the deceased in the apartment p:emises does not arise. Further, the said enquiry was made on

20.12.2014. Neither PW2 nor PW3 spoke about t,tccused Nos.3 to 5 entr:ring the apartment of the deceased. .None of the witnesses have stated anything about seeing an.r/ of the accused near the apartment of the deceased.

10. According to the evidence of the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination, the death of the deceasied was five to six days prior to the post-mortem examination, which was conducted on 28.12.2014, This places the approximate time of death around the 22^a or 2Sd, when the incident is presumed to have occurred. None of the witnesses have stated that any of the accused were seen near the house of the deceased on either t]ne 22^d or 23.d of December 2014. 1 1. The implication of the appellants is mainly on the basis of suspicion. Suspicion, however strong, cannot be a basis to convict the appellants. Merely because accused Nos.3 to 5 were found at the apartment complex on 2oth, this itseif cannot form the basis to infer that they have committed the murder of the deceased.

12. The other circumstance relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge is the recovery of the amount from accused Nos.3 and 4. The complaint does not mention any theft having been committed in the house of the deceased. It cannot be assumed that the amount recovered was either the subject matter of theft or related to any payment made by accused Nos.1 and 2. Such a presumption is far-fetched. In the case of circumstantial evidence, the Honourable Supreme Court in Shankat v. State oJ Mdharashtrat, held as follows;