The High Court · 2025

1. Ediga Babamma @ Bhagyasri, Wo. Krishna Kashinath Bandari, Aged about 25 years, Occ Coolie, R/o Nandipad village, Maddur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District

2. Ediga Narsimha @ Naresh, S/o Mogulappa, Aged about 22 years, Occ: Jeep Driver, R/o Nandipad village, Maddur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District

3. Nalolla Gowrappa, S/o Pakirappa, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Nandipad village, Maddur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District

4. Nalolla Jagarappa, S/o Sayappa, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Nandipad village, Maddur fulandal, Ivlahabubnagar District

5. Smt.Ediga Kamalamma, Wo Mogulappa, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Nandipad village, Maddur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District 6 Nalolla Kistappa @ Lambadi Kistappa, S/o Syappa, Aged about 54 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Nandipad village, Maddur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District ...Appellants / Accused No 1 to 6 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh I I Through the lnspector of Police, Maddur, Police Station, Mahabubnagar District ...Respondent / Complainant Counsel for the Appellants Sri Kadiyam Neelakanteswara Rao Counsel for the Respondent Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor The Court,made the following Order : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.263 OF 2OL7 JUDGMENTi @er Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) 1. The Appeal is filed by the appellants aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.11.2Q16 in S.C.No.41O of 2015, on the Iile of Family Court-Cum-VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Mahbubnagar District. The appellants were convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 rlw.34, 109 of IPC and Sections 212 and 213 of IPC for causing death of one Krishna Kasinath Bandari who was the resident of Methuku Village, Sedam Taluka of Gulbarga District.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State.

3. P.W.1 was the VRO to Pallerla village. On 16.O6.2OL4 al 4 p.m., an unknown male dead body was found. P.W. 1 went to said scene after being informed by the villagers. The next day i.e., on 17.06.2014, P.W. 1 lodged a complaint with the Police, Maddur, which is Ex.P.l stating that a dead body was lying near Gundla gattue in Nandipadu village, which was in a highly decomposed state. 2

4. The Prrlice registered the case and Inspector/P.W. 13 took up investig:rtion. In the complaint filed under Ex.P. 1, it was .only mentioned that a dead body was found and it was in a highly decomposed state and maggots were present on the body, the lace completely turned black and could not be identified.

5. A dog squad was summoned. The dog went to the house of A-5/ Kamalarnma. P.W. 13 interrogated Kamalamma and she confessed to the crime in the presence of P.W.8 and L.W. 10. Thereafter, investigation was handed over to P.W. 14 by P.W. 13. P.W.14 went to the scene of offence at Nandipadu Village. There, he examined P.Ws.2 to 5 and also conducted inquest of the dead body in the presence of P.W.8 and L.W.1O. On the basis of conl'ession of A-5, the Insirector /P.W.l4 arrested A-1, A-2, A-4 a:rd A-6 on 21.O6.2OL4. The accused allegedly confessed to the crime of committing the murder of the deceased by strangulating him. A nylon rope was seized from the house of A- i, an axe at the instance of A-2 and a knife at the instance of A-4.

6. Having recovered the said material objects, p.W.14 handed over I he investigation to P.W. 1 5. \ (-' .) P.W. 15, Circle Inspector collected the humerus bone from 7 . the scene of offence and sent it to FSL for the purpose of examination. No DNA profile was conducted by FSL since blood reiatives of the deceased were not available. On the basis of confession of accused, dead body was identilied as Krishna Kasinath Bandari who was the husband of A- 1.

8. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants mainly on the basis of their confession and also recoveries that were affected. I 9 It is admitted that (it. No DNA test was conducted on the dead body to conclude that the dead body belongs to Krishna Kasinath Bandari. (it). The material objects which were seized did not contain any blood. (iiil. Atl the witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 9 turned hostile to the prosecution case.

10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly concedes that dead body was not identified as that of the person namely Krishna Kasinath Bandari. However, Public Prosecutor submits that there was a dead body and appellants confessed to have committed the murder the deceased.

11. Firstly, the identity of the dead body was not established. Secondly, the reason for the death of the deceased, whether it 1 was a suicide, homicide or accident was not known. Unless, it is proved bv rhe prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that the death was homicidal, conviction under Section 3O2 of IpC does not arise

12. In the absence of conclusive evidence that the dead body belongs to the said person and since neither the. parents nor any relatives of the deceased were examined, the question of identifying the dead body as that of a particular person is wholly incorrect. There is not even a missing complaint lodged by arry of the relatives or parents that the person named Krishna Kasinath Bandari was missing. I 3. Learned Sessions Judge committed an error in placing reliance on the alleged confession of accused which is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Conviction of the accused was on the basis of assuming that the dead bod1, was that of Krishna Kasinath Bandari. However, no proof was forthcoming about the actual cause of death. When no scientific evidence was placed on record to suggest homicidal dearh, conviction under Section 302 of IpC does not aflse.

14. Though the prosecution has effected recoveries, it was not proved by the prosecution that the said recoveries i.e, nylon I rope, axe and knife were in any manner used in committing the alleged oflence i.e., causing death of the body that was found. There are absolutely no reasons to sustain the conviction.

15. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is a-llowed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.V.S.S.C.S.M.SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER To, 1 The Judge, Family Court-cum-Vlll Additional Sessions Judge, Mahbubnagar Diskict (with records, if any) The Vll Additional Sessions Judge, tvlahabubnagar District The Judicial lVlagistrate of First Class, Koaangall Mahabubnagar District The Station House Officer, Maddur pS, Mahabubnagar District The Superintendent, Central prison, Cherlapally, Ra"nga Reddy District The s u peri nte nde nt, women p rison, c ha nchr,rt :: :5r".t:?:i:ffi::fl :"1 rwo ccs to the pubtic prosecutor, n,nn Hyderabad [OUT] 9nu 99 to Sri Kadiyam Neelakanteswara Rao, Advocate [OpUC] Two CD Copies rlruil"tHi" #?nTgg"11 "orn ) a 4 5 o

8. o VA/plp {fl \ HIGH COURT DATED:0410212025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.263 of 2017 tt! ttr1 rS I € q f, o z o .b .:rA' t ttr01 Afl ?[25 t SOE A1 ALLOWING THE CRLA @ 6