In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra r, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows

The State Of Telangana, through SHO, Kukatpally PS., Ranga Reddy District, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. ...Respondent(Complainant) lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 389(1) of Cr,P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge petitioner herein on bail by suspending the sentence imposed ln S.C.No.605 of 2007 dt. 28-5-2018 on the file of the Xlll Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Xlll Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, R.R.Distridt, pending disposal of the Crl.A.No. 2095 of 2018. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri. Pradeep Kumar Kandala Counsel for the Respondents : Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: 1 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE I{"SARATH CRIMMAL APPEAL !to.2o95 OF 2018 .IIIDGMEIIT: (per Hon'ble Sn.fustice K. Su render)

1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide judgment in S.C.No.6O5 of 2OO7 by the XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge- cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. Briefly, the case of ttre prosecution is that P.W. 1 was working as sweeper in Municipalit5z, who saw the dead body of the deceased in tl:e factory premises of IDL Factory near [V Phase, KPHB Colony. The police was informed about the dead body. Ex.P5/complaint was frled by one Srisailam (not examined). P.W.6/Inspector of Police of Kukatpally Police Station registered crime for the offence under Section 302 IPC and issued FIR. According to the complainant, he also saw the dead body and others were present. P.W.6/Inspector of Police entrusted the investigation to P.W.5/Sub-Inspector of Police. P.W.s, then went to the scene of offence and conducted panchanama, which is Ex.P3. One boulder, controller earth, blood stained earth and one saree was seized from the scene. P.W.5 held inquest over the dead body. The details of the dead body after inquest proceedings are not 2 stated either by P.W.S or P.W.6 and it is not known whether body was sent for postmortem examination.

3. On LO.O2.2OO7, P.W.3, P.W.4 and others caught hold of the appellant and questioned him. The appellant allegedly confessed to have killed the deceased. Thereafter, P.W.3, Maisaiah, Gangaram, Nagender, Salgamma and Narsamma (not examined) and P'W'4 handed over the appellant in the police station and also lodged complaint. P.W.6 arrested the appellant on LO.O2.2OO7 and took him into custody. P.W.s, then interrogated the appellant. He allegedly confessed to the crime and took P.w.6 and others to tJ'e place where the deceased was murdered in IDL Factory-

4. Having concluded investigation, charge sheet was filed. Lrarned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder of the deceased.

5. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution are that: i) Dead body being found in the IDL factory premises: ii) Appellant confessing before P.W.3 and others that he had committed the crime. iii) During interrogation, the appellant took the police and others to the place where'the deceased was murdered. 3

6. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra r, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: " 153. A close analysis of this deci.sion utould strcu ttat tlte follouring conditior* must be fulfilled before a case against an acatsed can be said to be fullg establbhed: (1) lle circum"stances from uhich tlrc andusion of gailt is to be dranan should be fuug established. It mag be noted here tlat this C-outt indicated that the ciramstances concemed'must or should" and. rrct "mag be' established. Th.ere is tat odg a grammatical but a legal distinction be&teen 'mag be proued' an-d. 'nrust be or slould be proved' os tt)as held by this C.ourt in Shiuaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC @fl1033 : 1973 Crl Ll 17831 where the obseruotions utere madE: ISCC para 19, p. 8O7: SCC pfl p. 10471 "C*rtainlg, tt is a pimary principle tlnt the a.rcused must be and not merelg mog be gutltg before a court cen d)nuid and the mental distance betueen 'may be' and ''rrust be' is long and divides wgue (nnjecfires from sure anclu.siorts.' (2) the fads so establisled shoul.d. be consi,stent only uith the hgpothesis oJ tlv guilt of the acrused, that is to say, theg slbuW not be explainable on any other hgpothesis except that tle a@Eed is guiltV, (3) tlo ciratmslances should. be of a @nclusitE nature an-d. tendencg, (4) tlBg sltould exclude euery possible hypothesis ex@pt tle one to be proue4 an-d. (5) there must be a chain of evidene so @nplete as not to leaue any reasonabLe ground for the mnclusion @n-si.stent uith tle innocence of the accused and mt6t slau thrt in all tuman probability the ad nldlst haw been done bg tle acqlsed.'

7. Though P.W.3 stated that the appellant confessed to him and he along with others went to the police station and lodged compliant, however, the complialt was lodged by one Sri P.Srisailam, who was not examined by the police. What happened to the complaint filed by P.W.3 and others is not known. P.W.6 did not speak about any complaint being lodged by P.W.3 and others. '(t984], 4 SCC 116 4

8. After the dead body was found, it is not explained by the prosecution as to why body was not sent for postmortem examination. In the absence of examination by an expert Doctor to prove that the death was homicidal, it cannot be said on the basis of tlle evidence of the witnesses present, that the death was homicidal and not accidental or otherwise. Though, photographs were taken at the scene, the said photographs were not hled.

9. P.W. 1, who saw the dead body was declared hostile. P.W.4, who went to the police station was also declared hostile. The only evidence left is the alleged confession made to P.W.3. As already discussed, though P.W.3 stated that complaint was frled by him with the police, no such complaint was placed on record by the prosecution. There is no reason why the appellant would confess to P.W.3 and others about the committing murder of the deceased.

10. According to the police and the Court below, the appellant had shown the place of murder. The said scene where the deceased was murdered was already known to ttre police and others on 29.O1.2OO7 itself when the dead body was found. The appellant was arrested on LO.O2.2OO7. The question of again discovering the scene at the instance of the appellant does not arise. Such pointing out by the appellant is of no consequence and cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance. I T 5

11. There are absolutely no grounds to sustain the conviction. The judgment of trial Court in S.C.No.6O5 of 2OOT dated 28.05.2018 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted. It is informed that the appellant is in jail, he shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. L2. Accordinglv, Criminal Appea-l is allowed. //TRUE COPY// A.V.S.S.C.S.M. SARMA JOTNT-REGTSTRAR // sEcTtoN oFFtcER To,

1. The Xlll Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum- Xlll Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at LB.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. (With records)

2. The lX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally, Miyapur. 3. The SHO, Kukatpally Police Station. 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally Medchal-Malkajgiri. (Special Messenger)

5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Teiangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

6. One CC to SRl. PRADEEP KUMAR KANDALA, Advocate [OPUC] 7 . Two CD Copies DUgh YY HIGH COURT DATED:09/01/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.2095 of 20111 --i*: 1HA.5r4 ( o 2r,t, p5 z ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL \o% I L t, I