The High Court · 2025

Sri Bujji Babu Davuluri Counsel for the Respondent Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor The Gourt delivered the following Judgment : ,y r\ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUI{ANTI CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 865 0F 2017 JUDGMENT: (per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K SURENDER) The appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 379 of the Indial Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo Life mprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,OOO/ for the offence under section 30-l of IPC; to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of tlrree years for the offence under section 379 of IPC'

2. Briefly, the facts ofthe case are that the appellant is lhe nephew of deceased No.1 (D 1). Deceased No 2 (D2) is the daughter of D1' They hail from Karkonrla village of Nawabpet Maldal' On 08'1tl'2o13' D2 came to Karkonda from Hyderabad' On l2'1O'2O13' in the morning' at about 8.00 hours, D1 and D2 left Karkonda vil1age, along u'ith the she buffalo of D 1, and they went to Kaurampet market catf'le sandy in Mahindra Auto Trolley bearing No'AP 22 TA 2488' belonging to LW'9- Khaja Pasha (not examined)' D1 sold the she buffalo for Rs 21'000/- in the market, at about l6'30 hours' D1 and D2 czrme to F hanapur in a passenger auto and went to the Toddy shop of I']W'7' At that shop' the appellant asked D1 to give Rs'10,O00/- as ha:rd loan as his wife I 2 was carrying a pregnancy, for which Dl refused. Then appellant picked up a quarrel w"ith Dl, and Dl and D2 left for Karkonda village on foot. The appeliant bore grudge against Dl, and hatched a plal to kill him, and also to commit theft of cash of Rs.2 1,000/- and cell phone. The appellant went to his house and collected an axe. He saw D 1 and D2 at the outskirts of Karkonda village. The appellant attacked D 1 from his back and hacked on his neck, due to which D 1 fell down. Subsequently, he hacked D2 on her neck with the axe, ald she too fell down. Again he assaulted Dl and D2 with the axe and caused injuries on neck, head, and other parts of the body, due to which Dl and D2 died, instantaneously. The appellant committed theft of cash of Rs.21,000/- from D1. He also committed theft of cell phone from D2, and decamped with booty.

3. The complaint was filed by PW. 1, who is the VRO of Nawabpet. The complaint is dated l2.l0.2ol3, however, PW. 1 turned hostile to the prosecution case. In the cross-examination, he stated in the complaint it is mentioned that on 12.10.2013, in the morning, both the deceased Dl & D2 and the appellant went to Kourampet in an Auto Trolley to sell a buffalo. On the same night, while returning, they qua-rreled and the appellalt attacked them with arr axe. 1 {^t 3

4. PW.2 is the son of deceased No' l-Maibali and brother of 2"d deceased-Shaheen Begum. The appellant is relate:d to PW'2 as the paternal aunt's son. He stated that he found the dead boclies of both the deceased. In the cross-examination, PW.2 aclmitted that there were disputes betrveen him, his sisters, aunt, rald his father in respect of the property. He admitted that the deceased received Rs.21,000/ to\^.'ards sale proceeds of buffalo. However, the details of the arnount that was with the deceased are not knou'n'

5. PW.3 is thc sister-in-1aw of the deceased No. 1. Accor<1ing to her, on the date of tbe incident, both the deceased arrd the appellant went to Toddy shop, consumed Toddy and 1eft. Thereafter, she came to know around 7.00 P.M., that both the deceased died. The witnesses were examined to depose that, hours prior to the death of the deceased, both rhe deceased and the appellant wr:re foun d together, consuming Toddy,

6. PW.4 is the daughter of D1's brother. Accorrling to her, on the day of the incitlernt, the deceased No.2 informeii her tl'Lat the she buffalo was solcl for Rs.21,000 l- and that she was returning home. PW.4 admitted in her cross-examination that there were disputes in between the rela.tives, which were in relation to sale of land.. 4

7. PWs.5 to 12 turned hostile to the prosecution case

8. PW. 13 is the VRO, who acted as Panch to the scene of offence panchanama, inquest panchanama, and seizure of the clothes of the deceased. PW. 13 is also witness to the seizure of Axe-M.O.3 at the instance of appellant on 15.10.2013. Further, PW. 13 stated that an amount of Rs.l7 ,7OO l- was also seized at appellant's instance.

9. PW. 14 is also the VRO, who was present along with PW. 13, on the date of seizure of Axe and cash

10. PW. 15 is the Postmortem doctor, who found the following injuries on D1: "1. Laceration of left side of neck L2x5x4 c.m.

2. Laceration back of left side neck 8x2x1 c.m. 3. Laceration on right of neck just below mandible 4x2x1 c.m 4. Laceration above right ear, about lxl l2xl l2 .c.m 5. Abrasion left outer canthus of eye, 2 x 2 c.m.

6. Abrasion left side forehead, 3 x 3 c.m 7. Laceration 2 c.m below right mandible about 4x1x1 c.m" ,r=r',7,t, t-\ I ,l 5

11. Injuries on D2: "1. Laceration the neck artterior part, B;<4x3, cutting through right steruocleidomartaid tendon, lrachea' large vessels. O,:sopla gus intact:

2. Laceration below right mandible, 2 x 1 x I 12 c 'rrt' .) Laceration on neck right side little posteriorly 6x 3x3 c.m

4. Laceration neck left side posteriorly 6x4x2 c'rr, "

12. In his cross examination, PW. 15 admitted that lLe did not observe any smell of Toddy during postmortem examination. However, he found semi-digested food in the stomach.

13. The basis of identiffing the appellalt as accused, is the alleged confession of appellant made to PW. 1 I . According to the Investigating Officer-PW. 17, PW. 11 took the apperllant to the police station on 14.10.2013, at about 10.3O a.m, arld informed that the appellant had confessed to him that he committecl the murder of D 1 & D2. Hou'ever, PW. 1 t has turned hostile to the prosecution case, and did not support the version that he had taken the appellant to the police station. 6

14. The entire evidence of the prosecution rests on the circumstances of seizure of Axe and cash of Rs.17,700 l-, at the instance of the appellant. Further, PW.3's evidence is also significalt for the prosecution. According to PW.3, the appellant ald both the deceased went to Toddy shop and consumed toddy. When the statement of PW.3 is viewed with the admission of postmortem doctor, that there was no smell of Toddy during postmortem examination, creates aly amount of doubt arises in the version of PW.3, of having seen the deceased and the appellalt together in the toddy shop consuming toddy. In fact, semi digested food was found during postmortem examination. Normally, semi-digested food would be found if the deceased had consumed food approximately two hours prior to the death. The prosecution has not come up with any evidence to show that, two hours prior to the death, the deceased consumed ,food. On the contrar5z, the evidence of PW.3 is that the appellant and the deceased consumed toddy, which is negatived by the evidence of the postmortem examination doctor.

15. The Honourable Supreme Court in Shankar u. State o;f Mahara.shtrar, held as follows; | 2023 SCC OnLine SC 268 ,,. - 1\ 1 "ln the decision of Prakash u. State of Raja:;than (2013) 4 SCC 668, this Court took note of the following principles laid down regarding the iaw relating circumstantral evidence in Sharad Bird-hichand Sarda u. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116:- ' 1 53. A close analysis of this decision uould shou, that the folktuing conditions must be fulfilled L,efore a case against an accused can be said to be fully ,zstablished: (1)The circumstances from tuhich the conclusion oJ guiLt is to be dratun should be fu[g established. It moy be noted here that this Court indicctted thal the circttmstances concerned 'must or sho';tld' anrl not 'maA be' established. There is rtot only a grammatical but a legal distinction betuteen 'mctg be proued' and 'must be or should be proued' cts was held by this Court in Shiuaji Sahabrao Bobade u. Stctte of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793] uhere the following obseruations u.tere mode : 79. ......"certainlg, it is a primary principle thot the accttsed must be and not merelg mog be cluiLty before a court con conuict and tLLe mental dislance betu,een'mag be' and 'must be' is long and diuides uague conjectures from sure conclusions" (2) The .facts so established should be consistent onlg utith the hgpothesis of the gttilt of the ctcansed. that 8 6 ls lo soy, tlrcy should not be explainable on anA other hgpothesi.s except that the accused- i"s guiltg, (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusiue nature and tendencg, (4)They should exclude euery possible hgpothesis except the one to be proued, and (5) There must be a chain of euidence so complete as not to leaue anA reasonable ground for th.e conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilitg the act must haue been done bg th,e accused.

154. These fiue golden principtes, if uLe mag soA so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial euidence.'

16. The seizure of Axe and cash is ofno consequence, when it is not proved by the prosecution that the deceased sold the buffalo for Rs.21,0O0/-. There is no evidence on record to show that the deceased received Rs.21,000/- on the day of incident. In the said background, the seizure of Rs.17,7O0/- is of no significance and ca.nnot be treated as a circumstance which points towards the guilt of the accused. Though, the axe was sent for FSL examination, the blood stains found on the axe could not be determined, as per Ex.P22-FSL report. ---:7' I 9

17. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution, insofar as last seen evidence alcl seizures are concerned, cannot be made basis to hnd the appellant guilty. As already discussed, the prosecution has faiied to prove beyond reasonable doubt that, the deceased and the appellalt consumed toddy and were seen together prior to the death. In the said circumstances, benefit of doubt is extencLed to the appellant/ accused.

18. Accordingl5., Criminal Appeal 1S allowed, setting aside the conviction recorded by the Judge, Family Court, Mahabubnagar, in SC.No.392 of 2014, dt. 19.05.2016, and the appellant/accused 1S acquitted. Since the appellant/accused is in jail, he shall be released, forthwith, if not required in any other case //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. SRINIVAS JOINT REGI AO RAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judge, Famiiy Court-cum-Vlll Additional Sessions Judge, N/ahabubnagar (with records, if any)

2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar 3. The Station House Officer, Nawabpet PS, f\/ahabubnagar District 4. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Nagarkurnool Jail, Nagarkurnool I By Speed Post ]

5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the litate of T'elangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

6. One CC to Sri Bujjibabu Davuluri, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:2710212025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.865 of 2017 ----::---- - 1l-tr; 51 4 lq- o 2 S Fi3 AT5 Li ,,'. ,2? )l / 'ri : t I I I I I ALLOWING THE CRLA