The High Court · 2025

4. Dodda Maliaiah, S/o. Chandraiah, Age:30 years, Occ: Agriculture. 5. Surabhi Vamsavardhan Rao, S/o. Sri Ranga Rao, Age:50 years, Occ: Sarpanch/ Agriculture. Respondents 2 to 5 are the resident of Alair Village, Telkapally Mandal, Nagar Kurnool District. ... Respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 4 Gounsel for the Appellant: Sri Nimmaraboina Naveen Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondents.No.2 to 5: None Appeared The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT 1 THE HOIilOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SUREIIIDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANTL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.718 OF 2Ol7 JUDGMENTi per Hon'ble Si Justice K.surender) 1. The presr:nt appeal is filed by the appellant/ccmplainant aggrieved by tt e judgment dated 27.O3.2017 in Spl.fi.O.No.9 of 2074, on the fi e of Special Sessions Judge-Cum-VII Arlditional District & Sessions Judge, at Mahbubnagar, acqrrit ting the respondents/a t,rused Nos.1 to 4.

2. Heard 1 :rrrned counsel for the appellzrntT de-facto complainan.t arr,1 the learned Additional Public Pros;e< utor for State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that P.W. 1 is tht, wife of the deceasecl . fihe lodged a complaint with the Pol.cr stating that on 07.I2.'.D1O at about 7 p.m., one person of her village informed that ,lead body of her husband was founrl rrear the agricultural larc of Mukurala Venkataiah (not examrnr,d). She went near the rlead body.ald expressed suspicion that Thagali Kasamma, wife rtf late Niranjan was responsible for hi,; death, since her deceirsed husbald was having illicit intirna cy with her. Previous cay i.e., on 06. l2.2OlO at about B p.m., A-2 2 took the deceased to A-4 for discussing about panchayat funds and at that time, P.W. 1 called her deceased husband on phone and asked him to come home early, however, he did not return. On the basis of the said complaint made, the Police registered the crime initially under Section 174 Cr -P -C. Scene of offence panchnama was conducted, witnesses were examined and inquest proceedings were also concluded. Thereafter, dead body was sent for post mortem examination. Pending investigation, P.W.1 submitted a request for re- postmortem. On the basis of her request, body was exhumed and postmortem was again conducted- On 26.04.2011, P.W. 14 conducted 2nd autopsy.

4. Meanwhile, on 04.05.2011, the accused/A-l allegedly confessed before P.W.S /Thagali Salnaial-, maternal Uncle of the deceased stating that on 06.12.2010, he along with other accused committed the murder of the deceased' The said murder was on account of quarrel that ensued in between them while discussing about village funds and developmental activities. On the basis of extra judicial confession made to P.W.s, the accused Nos.l to 4 were arrested and sent to judicial remand. The Police concluded investigation and liled charge sheet. I,earned Sessions Judge examined P.Ws.l to 15

4., J and marked E:l:;.P. 1 to P.20. The evidence in the present case is circumstant e 1 in nature

5. l,earn.ed Sessions Judge gave the following rea sons for acquitting l.he r:cused:-

1. P.Ws. .2 and 4 stated that they have seen A-2 and the der:ee sed, however the evidence of P.Ws. I ald 2 was an impro r:ment subsequently.

2. The orl.y witness P.W.4 who allegedly sarv the accused and the <tt:ceased consuming liquor was declare,l hostile to the lrlosecution case, since he did rLct support prosecuti cn version.

3. P. W s . ( , and 7 who were independent '"r.itn es ses also turned hrx;tile and did not support the prose,:rrti,ln case. The prosr <:ution relied on the evidence of P.Ws 6 rtnd 7 to speak at c,ut the accused and the deceased k;.st seen consumir.[] alcohol on the outskirts of Alair vill,egr:.

4. P.W.S tr whom extra judicial confession we.s made is an iiliterate person doing agricultural works. 'l'hr:re is no reason as to why A-2 would go to P.W.S after 5 months and confr:r;s about a-lleged commission of mu:d,,:r along with othe - accused. ,1 4

5. The medical evidence has not conclusively stated that the death was homicidal.

6. The Investigating. Officer except confession did not come up with any concrete evidence to support the version of prosecution regarding complicity of the accused in committing the murder of the deceased.

6. Learned counsel appearing appellant/complainant would submit that confession made to P.W.S ought to have been considered by the learned Sessions Judge. Right from the beginning, P.W. 1 was saying that her deceased husbald was having illicit relation with Thagali Kasamma for which reason death happened. In the said circumstances, the acquittal has to be reversed and they have to be convicted. Supreme Court 7 . The case is one of circumstantial evidence. The Hon'ble in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of laid principles as to the Acceptance of to record conviction, circumstantial evidence and the basis Maharashtrar, which read as under:- "1. the circumstances from which t}le conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be ' (1984) 4 scc 116 5 full- . established. The circumsta rc,rs con ::rned 'must' or 'should' arrd not 'mil. t e' e stz trlished; 2 . the facts so established shou1,1 I re con l: stent only with the hypothesis of the grril . of t re accused, that is to say, they should n rt be :xplained on any other hypothesis exce.;rt t ha :he accused is guilry;

3. tlr,: circumstances shouid be of a conclusLve n zrb r.-e and tendency; 4 . hyp rihesis except the one to be proved: an<l :hey should exclude every possrib .e

5. tlrr:re must be a chain of evidence so conU,le fe as , ()t to leave any reasonable ground fcrr tlr.e con{ )lusion consistent with the innocence of the accr rs;ed and must show that in all hurna n prol 'zrbility, the act must have been done. try tt e accr rsed."

8. The ini tia I theory of the prosecution is that tht: c eceased was having il1 cit relation with Thagali Kasammzr for which reason he rvar, murdered. However, during the ccurse of investigation, .he reason given for alleged murder of the deceased was on account of quarrel that took pl,lcr: about village funds a nd its utility in between the accuse,l md the deceased.

9. P.Ws. t atd 2 who are mother and daughter of the deceased have given an improved version in the Cour t below stating several aspects which were not stated at ttLe earliest 6 point of time either in the complaint or in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

10. P.Ws.4, 6 and 7, prosecution witnesses were cited to speak about the deceased being last seen in the company of the accused consuming liquor, however, all of them have turned hostile to the prosecution case.

11. Five months after the incident, A-2 going to P.W.5 and confessing about death cannot be believed. No reasons are given as to why A-2 would go to P.W.5, who was not even considered as elder in the village and confess to him. Extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and can be relied on only with substantive corroboration from other circumstances.

12. The case of death was stated as asphyxia due to lungs as air bubbles were present in the lungs. The conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge that prosecution could not prove that death was homicidal is appa-rent from the Doctor's evidence. Both the Doctors i.e, the Doctor who initially conducted post mortem examination and the Doctor who conducted re- postmortem after exhumation of body, stated that death was on account of asph5n<ia. 7

13. In cases tl acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Coltrl in Raui . Shanna o. tltate (Goaernment of NCT oJ Delhi) and. anothef , helrl that while dealing with an appreal against acquittal, the z ppellate court has to consider wheth,--r the trial Court's vieu' c an be termed as a possitile one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The rt:ason is that an order ,tf acquittal adds up to the presu m lttion of innocence in fr vour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court , has to be relati a:ly slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acqu ttal.

14. \n Ghure,q Lal a. Sto:te of tlttar pradesh'tl.e Hon,ble Supreme Court rrfter referring to several Judgments regarding \ the settled prin:iples of law and the powers of appel.ate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at paraTO, as follows: '7O In tne light of the aboue, the High Court anct. cther appellate C( Ltts should follou the u,rell_settled. pi"tct,cles crystallizeLT b,1 number of Judgments if it is going to ouetntte or othentise ,Cis t"rb the tial court,s acquittal:

1. TL'.e , rypellate court may onlg ouemtle or othttrz ise disturb the tn.al court's acquittal if it has .uery subst ar tial and compelli tg reasons,' for doing so. A nurnb,zr of instances arise in tthich the appello.te. c turt uLould haue "r ery substantial and compelling reason^s" to tlist,ard- the tial <:ou 1's decision. "Very substantial and compelting reasons" eist tuhen: 2 1ZOZZ1 a Supreme Corrrt Cases 536 '(2008) 10 Supreme G,Lrt Cases 450 8 palpablg urong: i) TLe tial court's conclusion uith regard to the facts is ii) The trial court's d,ecision was based on an erroneou.s uieut of law; mi s carriag e of justice " ; iii) TLe tial court's jud-gment is likelg to result in "graue iu) The entire approach of the tial court in dealing utith the euid-ence utas patentlg illegal; u) The trial court's judgment u-tas manifestlg unjust and unreasonable; ui) The trial court has ignored the euidence or misread the mateial euidence or Lns ignored material docaments like dging declarations/ report of the ballistic expert, etc. uii)This list is intended to be illustratiue, not extaustiue. 2. The appellate court must alutays giue proper ueight and con-sideration o tLte findings of the trial court.

3. If tu.to reasonable uieu.ts can be reached_ one thot leads to ocquifia| the other to conuiction _the High Courts/ appellate courts must rule in fauour of the accused."

15. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court.

16. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. SAILESHI JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, l.TheSpecialsessionsJudge.cum-VllAdditionaIDistrictandSessions Judge, at Mahabubnagar. (with records, if any)

2.TwoCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtforthbStateofTelangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. One CC to Sri Nimmaraboina Naveen, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies kam/gh \qr HIGH COURT DATED:02 101{2025 \ I ,!) 4 (o s s* \ .'] + 'la 9 a .l' ,: a JUDGMENT GRLA.No.718 of 2017 DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL APPEAL T&P(,4 **o