The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Ap,pellant: Sri p. Shashidhar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional public prosecutor Crim inal ADpeal No.3034 of 2018 Appeal urnder Section 374(2) of Cr.p.C against the Juclgment dated 12-10-2018 passed in s c.No.42 0f 2016 0n the fire of the court cf the speciar Judge For Triar o'' cases under SCs/srs (poA) Act-cum-v Additionar District and Sessions Juder€) at Adilabad r..-:\ Between: Gali Prasanth Babu @ Babu, S/o Abraham Linkan @ Abraham, Age:37 years' auitoing Material SuppTier, R/o' Karkanagadda' dlit",'-6t-itr"afti Karimnagar :occ: ..APPellant No.3/APPellant AND' ---ih" st"t" of relangana, Rep. by its. public prosecutor, High court at Hyderabad. ...Com PlainanUResPondent lA NO: 2 OF 19 PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr.P.C.prayingthatinthecircumstances statedintheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmayb-e pi"r."U riy O" pleased to implead the Proposed RespondenURespondent No 2' lA NO: 4 OF 2019 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 C9!1- mqy b9 oieaseO to suspend the sentence imposed in SC'No 42 of 2016 dated ' \;\ohi} on tne tte of the court of the speciat Judge for Triat of cases under scs and sTs POA Act cum v Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Adilabad by orrntino the interim bail to the petitioner for a period of 3 weeks pending disposal irtn" ia.R.No. 3034 of 2018 in the interest of justice' IA NO: 2G 2021 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 qlJ-!9 pi""."a ir",,t.nd the interim bait fiom g-2-2O21 to eight weeks in lA No. 3/2020 in CrlA No.3034/2018. lA NO:1oF 2022 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. pi"r*U t" ,Lf.aie the Petitioner/Appellant herein / my husband for a period of iniee tgl months by suspending ihe s-entence dated. 12"10 2018 imposed in s.c.r.r,jlz of 2016, on the fite 6f the speciat Judge for Trial of cases under SCriSi" tpbnl Rct _cum_ V,Additionat bistrict and Sessions Judge, Adilabad p"r,oi"g oirG;t oitne crl.e.No. 3034 of 2019 in the interest of the iustice. Counset for the Appellant: Mr. P. Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor Criminal ApDeal N0.453 of 2019 App€)at under Section 374(2) of Cr.p.C against the Judgment dated 12-10-2018 par;s;ed in s.c.No.42 of 2o16 on the fire of the court of the speciar Judge For Trial of cases under scs/srs (poA) Act-cum-v Additionar District and Sessions J.rCge at Adilabad Between: Girigiri Kararchandar RJo. Karkanaoadda Warangal). I Karan, S/o.Anjaiah, Age: 47 years, Occ Bricks cumasta Karrmnagar, T.S. (Presenfly lodged jn Cenkal prison, AND ...AppellaruAccused No.2 IJi'|"'ti.iJ,l+1i33ill?ts.'{,llL:JB[IJs;:i,, j?!J:n*S",natHvderabad ...RespondenUComplainant lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition Lrnder Section 3g9(1) Rlw 492 of Cr.p.C_ pray ng that in the. circumstances stated in tne affidavii fired in support or tne petition tIe High i;rt may be pleased .o retease the. petitioner/appeliant (A2) on bait by spenein; 1;; sentence .p_assert by the Special Judge for iriat ot cases under SC,s a Sfri FCjei Act-cum- V Additi:nar District and seisions .luuge, Aoiraoao in s.o.No.42 of 2016 dt.12-10-2018 lA NO: 1 OF 202{ Petition under Section. 3g9(1) of Cr.p.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the af ilavit filed in support of the petitio;, the High C";;;;; pleased to suspend the execu-tion of sentence p"rr"d ln S.d.t,to.+Z ot iOiA, dated 12-10-2018 0n the fire_of the speciar Judge ioi ni"r ot cases under scs and srs PoA Ar:t cum v Additionar District ano Eessions Judge at Adirabad and to release the petitioner/A2 on bail pending Crf n.No.+SC ot ZOf S Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. p. prabhakar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public prosecutor The Court detivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT .: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER .:AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.29O 1 3032 3()34 of 2018 and 453 of 2O19 COMMON JUDGII4PNT (Per Hon'ble Si Justice K'Surender) These a Crirninal Appeals are filed by to 5, aggrieved appellants / accused Nos.1 on the file of the dated 12.10.2018, in S.C'No'42 of 2O16' Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (PoA) Act cum by the judgment -VAdditiona,lDistrictandSessionsJudge'Adilabad('trial CourtJ, whereby ' the appellants / accused Nos l to 5 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147' L48' 365,3O2,201, and 120-8 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC')'

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos'l to 5 and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, iearned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State' Perused the record'

3. Since the appellants in all the appeals are questioning the conviction imposed by the trial Court in S'C'No'42 of 2016' ali the appeals are disposed of by way of this common judgment' 2

4. Sri R.(i,rpal (hereinafter referred to as ,the deceased,) and accused No. I were colleagues in the Office o I Deputy Commissionr: - Prohibition and Excise, Adilabad District. Accused No. L rvorked as a steno in the said ofhce and according to the prosecution case, he sold certain material which was ir. the office and also threatened his collea3ues. The deceased join':cl the Deputy Commissioner,s Office as a Senior Assistant. FI.: frled a representation before the, Deputy Commissionr:r' for the cancellation of the depulatic n of the accused No. I on the ground of the alleged act of accrtsed No. I in selling arver.r' certain material, which was in the office. On the request mad t: by the deceased, the Deputy Comrnissioner cancelled the deputation and instructed accused No. I to hand over the cha:ge to the deceased. Further, on the bas;is of the information Jr;-ovided by the deceased, the charge mernos were also issued t,t accused No.1 by the Deputy Comnrissioner. Since the dr:r:eased was the reason for the cancellation of deputation of accused No.1 and was also responsible for accused No.l being issued with charge memo, accurled No.1 held a grrrdgr' against the deceased and wanted to take the iife of the decease<l. 3 i

5. Further, accprding to the prosecution case' accused No'1 hatched a plan to kill the deceased with the help of accused No.6 (died during the trial)' However, accused No'6's attempts were futiie. Thereafter, accused Nos' 1 to 5 met on 2A 01 '2014 and all of them went to Adilabad in a car' They gathered information about the movements of the deceased and with the help of accused No.6, who kept track of the deceased' accused Nos.1 to 5 kidnapped the deceased on the road near Shivalayam Temple, Ramnagar' He was beaten' pushed into the car, and taken away' In the car' accused Nos' 1 and 2 strangulated the deceased with a nylon rope and took him to Metpalli Village. Later they went to a graveyard and found a burning pyre. The burning pyre belonged to the wife of PW'26' The dead body of the deceased was then placed on the pyre' resulting in the bodY being burnt'

6. PW.1, who is the Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Adilabad Division' filed a complaint' which is marked as Ex.Pl, with the police at about 1O'OO P'M' on 2g.O1.2O1,4.In his complaint' PW' 1 alleged that the deceased attendedtheofficeandaftercompletionofwork,heleftfor 4 home. Howe.r,:r, he was informed by some of his stalf members that the der,t:6p5661 was kidnapped in a car near Shivalayam Temple at Ramnagar. In the complaint, pW. 1 suspected that accused No.I rvas the person behind the kidnapping. 7 . The In,u,:stigating Oflicer (pW.29) received the r:omplaint and register,:,1 the FIR. He went near the Shivalayam at Ramnagar, and conducted the scene of offence pan,:hanama and a rough s;ketch was also prepared. The cali details of the accused perrl,f ns were also obtained by the Invc:stigating Officer. Accorcting to pW.29/lnvestigating Officer, accused No.l surrendered himself before him in the police Stzrtion on 13.O2.2O14 ztr.02.0O p.M. pW. 19, who is a friencl of the deceased, a1s, accompanied accused No. 1 when he canre to the police Statron 1o surrender.

8. After his; surrender, the accused No.1 was interrogated in the presence of pWs.23 and 24 and his confession was recorded. Pursuant to his confession, accused No.l 1.ook the Police Officials and the independent witnesses to th,: burial ground and showed the place where the body of the deceased was burnt. Fu r.lher, pursuant to his confession, the bone pieces 5 and some other material were also collected. The scene was photographed and also videographed. g. After the seizures of the bones and other material objects of the deceased from the place, the car in which the deceased was kidnapped and killed was also identified at the instance of accused No.l. MO.7 is the said car. On the basis of the confession of the accused No-1, accused No 6 was apprehended. Accused Nos.4 and 5 surrendered before the Police Station on O4.O3.2014. Accused No.2 surrendered before the concerned Magistrate on 24.O4.2OL4. Accused No'3 surrendered before the Police Station on O2.O5'2014' The bones recovered from the pyre were sent to the FSL for the purpose of DNA examination after taking the samples from the mother and the daughter of the deceased' After the arrest of accused Nos'2 to 5, the investigation was concluded, and the charge sheet was laid against all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 3O2, 2O1,365, and 1208 read with Section 149 of IPC.

10. The learned Sessions Judge examined the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, who are PWs' 1 to 30, and Exs'P' 1 to 6 P.46 were n:rirked. MOs.1 to 12 were also brought on record, among rvhich MOs.S and 6 are the burnt bone pieces. The learned Sesr;,ons Judge found the appellants guilt y, mainly relying upor the evidence of PW.19 and other corroborating evidence.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused No i argued that most c f the witnesses have turned hostil: to the prosecution t:ase. PW. 1, the witness to the confession and seizure, has turned hostile. The witness to the scene of offence panchanarna, where the alleged abduction took place has also turned hostilr:. The police failed to collect any CCT\/ footage, and the weapon with which the deceased was killed was also not ider-rtifit:rl. Although bones were collected liom the graveyard, tlLr:re is no expert evidence to suggest the eomicidal death of the cleceased. The cail recordings collected during the course of in r,estigation also do not disclose anv kind of complicity of zLny of the accused. 12 . The lee-r ned counsel further argued that the errtire case rests on the evidence of PW. 19, who, accordingl to the prosecution, is a colleague of the deceased, and the 7 appellant/accused No.1. Further the appellant/accused No'1 went to the house of PW.19 and narrated the incident of how thedeceasedwasabductedandkilled.Thesaidextra-judicial confession, without any corroboration, cannot be relied upon'

13. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Janopolly Aniilaiah tt' The Stcrte of Andhra Pradeshl, wherein it was held as follows: "9. The Hon'bte Strpreme Court in lhe case of Surcsh v State of Ilantana4 has dealt with the extra-juclicial confession Paragraph 50 of the aforesaid Judgment reads as under:- "50. Now we need to concentrate on lhe relevance of the ttf the co-accused made before Zile Singh oling"d rPLit6t. In- Periaswami Moopan, ln re lPeriaswami Moopun' in r". igso scc onLinc Mai 8o AIR t%l Mad l77l ' Reillv' J. obsen ed: -,.SCC Onttr" Mattl " whL'rP lhcre is evidence ogainst the co- 'i"rurod .rrffi"i"nt if beliet'"t\, to \upporl his conviction' thcn described in Section 30 may be thrown ti" nra oi: iinio ti" "sroli as an ad.litional reason for believing that "orf"rrions "on\"ssion evidence." Therefore, the aforesaid extra-judiciol confesston against ,l'r" co-oiruria n"ei to be taken ilto consideration d at all it is or", *ty if other intlepenrlent evidence on record have in" basic premise o-f the prosectttion The con{ession "ttnU*nla of the co- accusetl cannot be solely utilised to convicl o person' when the surrounding circumstances are improbable antl create n,,"oicion (refer to llaricharan Kurmi v Srule of Bihar "Kurmi v. Srate of Bihor' AtR 1964 SC ll84 : ) itrrirnorin 'iisai i cri Lt 3441 ). As the conkssion of a co-ac.uscd is ' zozz 1s1 l:-t lcrt ) I 13 (A.P.) 8 \l:(oti piece of evidence, we necd lo consider x,hether ollrcr ciruu'lslonces prove the prosecution case.,, llic Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afitresaid Jutlgnrcnt hx held thut extra-judicial conlession cannot be the soL basis.o/ Loni<tion and cannot he relied on when surroundi g (itct l,lstotrces are intprobable and creole suspicion. The,u,e,tk 1titc,' o.l^ cvidcnce is lhe extra-judicial confession v,hich tr,.rs rat'o ttrtl in llrc presence of the policc and the chain qf (201\) l8:(:C' 654 et'tdence is certainly not at all complete utrd tfurtfitre, lhe conviction of the accused desen)es to be ret

14. Learne,l counsel for the appellants also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal So-h a. Stqte of Biharz, which reads as follows: -,lic "6. i-l c learned counscl .frtr the appellant has raised .set,crt orgtltl)nls tluring the course oltthe hearing. lt has bettt pointecl oul ll,t 1 lhere u'as absolutely no evidence to connect Gopal StLlr crime, as tlrc recoyery of the sickle made in Septemb<r 1982 i e . aboul three months a,fler the incid.enr was too iemote t ftcior. lt has olso been pleatled that lhe evitlence ol'last setn pcrru't c,l onlv to Bhushan Sah und D,rrath Sah qccrjLtitl. ,), tltq third J,erson v,itlt thent near lhe wooden bridge hntl rutt bcc,t itlenttficd as bcing Gopal Sah by any o-f the --itnessas. It lut; .[rrthtr been pleoded that the extra judicial confession allagediv nrcrtla lt, Ddsrath Sqh could not be uscd as evidence ogarnir fh: othcr ,tccused antl thut in any case lhis evidence too tttts tnbcl;t yablc. "

15. Learneci counsel for the appeilants also placed reliance upon the judSlnent of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Moorthg us. Stcte of Iamil Nadus, which reAds as foilows: ' .zoos (tz) scc t.tx '2021 SCC Orrl ne SC 1027 9 "6. Firstly, we will deal with the proseantion case aboul the extraj udicial confes sion. A s regards exlmj udicia I confession, the law has been olclt wnb lhis Court in lhe case of Pqwan Kumar Chourasia v. Stote of Bihar3. In paragraph 5 it is held "5. As far as extmjudicial codession is concerned, the law is well settled. Generally, it is a weak piece of evidence. However, a conviclion can be suslained on the basis of extra judicial confession provided that the confession is proled to be wluntary and truthful. It sho d be free ofany inducement. The evidentiary value of sttch confession also depends on the l (2011) tt SCC 111 2 (2013) 12 SCC 383 3 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2 59 person to whom it is made. Going by the natural course of human conduct, normally, o person would confide about a crime committed by him only with such a person in whom he has implicit faith. Normally, o person would not muke a confession to someone who is totally a stranger to him. Moreover, lhe Court has to be salisrted with the reliability of the confession keeping in view the circumstances in u'hich it is made. As a matter of n e, corroboration is not required. However, d an extrajutlicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on record, it acquires more credibility. " (emphasis added)

7. We heve perused the evidence of PWl Ganesan who wqs po.sted as the Village Administrqtive Offcer at the time of the commission of the olfence. He was not permanently posted in Village Seekkarajapuram as he stated lhat at the time of recordiig of evitlence, he h,as traisferred as l/illage Administrative OfJicer to Ronipet. PWI admitted in the cross exomination that he dkl not know the appellant before he came to him and allegetlly made the extrajudicial confession. The incident is of 29 th May 2006 but the alleged extrajudicial confession was made on loth August 2006. It is impossible to undersland why wottld the apPellant meet the Village Administrdtive Ofl)cer, who was a totql stranger to him, more than two months after the incident for making a confession. PWI and the appellant were not known to each other till l0 th of August 2006. Normally an acarsed will confide only with a person in whom he has implicit faith. He would not go to q stranger lo make a confesston ofguilt. The fact that lhe alleged cotession was made by him more than two months after the incident makes it more suspicious. " l0

16. Furthe,r, the learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in tht: case of Sahadevan u. State of Tamil Nadua, wherein it was held as follows "Th: Principles

22. L'pon a proper onalysis of the above-referued jrulgments of this (.ourt, it will be appropriate to state the prhrciples whtclr woull make an extra- judicial confession an admissible piecc o.f eiaence capable of forruing the basis of convtction of an acat:ctl. These precepts woukl guitle the judicial nind wltile dc:aiiitgttith the veracity ofcases v'here lhe prosecution hectt ily reli's upon an exlra-judiciol confession alleged to ltdve btett matie bv thc acatsed. i) thi cxlra-judicial con"fession is o wetk et'idence by itsell [t hu,s trt be examined by the coutl with greuler care onLl coulio . ii) I' .;hould be made voluntarily and should be trurhJiL iii) rl should inspire conJidence iv) 4r extra-judicial confession attains greater cretlibilih, t,nd eyi(,t.t1liaty value, if il is supported by a chain oJ cog::nt cir(uut.\lances a d is furlher corroborated by other prosecttl,on et,itttn<e. v1 I\.r an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of cort.vichon, it :htruld not suffer from any rualerial cliscrepancie.s r,nd inh0 ent intprobabilities. vt) S rch statement essentially has to be proved likc un)) ol er fact trul in accordance b'ith la\'. " o zoru 1e; scc +r: 1l lT.Learnedcounselfurtherrelieduponthejudgmentofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrapal u' State of Chhattisgarhs, which reads as follows: " l I . At this iuncture, it may be noted that as per Section 30 of the Evidenci Act, when more persons lhan one are being iiied iointtv f,-,r the sdmt'oIfence, and a conlession made b-y one ';i;;;i ;r;ttrt allecting himse{ on<l some orher of such nnrrorc i, proved, the court m(ty tdkc inlo (onsideralion suc.h 'confersinr'a, against such olher person as well a.s qgainsl lhe iliton *n, *ik"s ,u,h conles'sion Hov'ev'r' rhis court has 'rcnsislenlly held thot an extra julicial c<-'nles'sion U'*:?! kirul ol ciitlencc rtntl unlcss inspircs conJi'lcnce or is Jully corroiorated by some other evidence of clinching nature' not b,e, ,rair"rii conicrion frtr the ol.fence of murder on the eviience of exto ittdicial confession As h,eld ;;;;";i, S*" of M P Thriugh Cltl & Ors' Vs Paltan Mallnh ,, ,rt" 'i-O^ ;: ii" exrro jutlicial cuil"ssion matle by tht co ttccuscd "i louH be admitted in cvilence only as a ('orr()boratiw piece of eviclence. In ubsence of any suhstantive evi'lcncc ogotnsl thc oi""t"a, ,n, uo" iudiiial ionfession allegedly made by the-co- trt* its S (ZOOS) 3 SCC 169 signiJicunce and there. """ri"i ;;'r:;;; ;; any cont'iction b,sed on such ertra judicial co n fess i on of t he co-Qct' us ed' -should .

12. In Sohadevon&Anr Vs. Stote of Ttt mtI Nadt 4 it was observed in Para 14 as under: " 14. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprutlence that is tt weak piece of evitlence ll/herever "xtroTudiciol "or\"rstin i"-"r*r,. ttpon tlue LlrPreciotion of the entir" proslct:!i?n, cvidence, inicnds to base a conviclion on on L'xlro-Jttdtctal ;;;;i;;;t;",;;;"tt ensure that the same inspires confidence and by other prosecution evidence lf' however' the i, 'n*tra-iuaicial coifcssion sullers lrom moreri' tliscrepancies or iri"nn, i*prot it iliti, s and clocs not appear rc he cogent as 'nio, the nrosecution vcrsion, it nay be 'liflialt for lhc courl Io ior" n iorui"tion on such a conlession' ln such cirltmstonces'. the court would be fully iustified in ruling sut'h cvtaence out oJ consideration. " "orroto,rot"a 5 2022 SCC Ontine 705 T2 ) rrsrt Stala "or" West B n I 3. The said ratio was also reiterated aml follov.,td ,it courl in ca,ses of Iryrooo Singh l/s. State o-f purlia! 5, by tl .!'.li 16 and Pancho Il Sntr, f l!tt4l,-t11, wherein it has been specifca lly laid dov,n tlnt tne t'xtrc ., nlicial confession is q weuk evi(lence by itselJ arul tt hr to bt -'xanined by the court v,ilh greuter ond caution. It shoutt' he truthful and shoukl inspire confdence. An efita -itulic rtl" confession a ains greater creclibility and eyitlentiary ralut 'f it is supported by chain of cogent ciicumstances and i.; .furtlt:, corroborated by other prosecution evidenca. In ti c insta,l, case it is lrue thal the co_ accused Vicleshi had allegecliy nrude self-inculpatory extra judicial 4 (20t2) 6 SCC l"OS \ rl(tl.'t ll SCC 7686e0 ) lt SCC 75a Z (20 ) t0 S(. t(. j confes;ion before the pfi/-4 Bhola Singh, and hid made, exna jttdic cil confession before the othei witnesses i.e.. p r-j C-hend,oshekhar, PW-6 Baran Singh .l.hakur and pllr T Dukqlurqnr staling, inter olia, that the other three accus(,(l i.L , Ilhugitotlli, Charulrapal ancl Mangal Singh had conuuittcd tlt! utttr,l , tttd hc (i.(. yidcshi) was uski,l to orsist tltct4 t t diqnttttg the dead bodies arul concealing thc t:vidertc, Howtrar. the High Court, considering the inconsistcttcv bettten the suid lw<t ertra juclicial confessktn mqde bv the, ct,_ d, Lu\. I t/iLl"shi, did notfind it .sale lo.onvid rhc ctrlrc, ,r.c,ts. I i.c., llhagi'athi, Mangal Singh and Videshi himsell. anrl th,t lligh r ottr .surprisingly con.tilcrccl thc sai<l ettt.o judiri,.l atn-/-e,;sir.tn made by Videshi as qn incriminqting circulntskrtrc,: agoln\t the appellant Chandrapal for convictiig hint for tht oJfe nce,; charged against him. In our opinion iy sih w,ik pi"r., of eil,:nce of lhe co-accused Videshi w,a.s nlt duly prorll o,. found iru.shuorthy.for holding the otherco_orrur-"i gutlt), o. conln;ttitlg nntrcler of the deceased Brinda and Kanhitya, tttt ITigh lout cotrld not have usetl the said evidence ogrrinsit th, pr,csat, t. ap.pcllant for the putpose of lnlding him guiirv.[or tht ollegel oljtence.

18. The lealned Additional public prosecutor would submit that the comprlcity of the accused is based on circunlstantiar evidence. Accrrsed No.t had gone to pW. 19 and inforr ned him about his involvement and that of accused No.2. Th,ereafter, during the corr:se of the investigation, the police came to know l3 about the involvement of the other accused also and accordingly, all of them were charge sheeted. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge is based on the circumstantial evidence and all the circumstances proved that it was the appellants who had abducted/kidnapped the deceased arrd caused his death.

19. PWs.l and 4 to 8, who are the trxcise Officials and spoke about the disputes between the deceased and the appellant/accused No. I during investigation, have turned hostile to the prosecution case. PWs.2, 3, 15, and 22, who are the witnesses to the alleged kidnapping of the deceased, have also turned hostile to the prosecution case. The person, who was present at the burial ground at Metpally village, also did not support the case of the prosecution. PW.26, who is the husband of the person who died on 29.O1.2014, stated that he iit the fire on the body of his wife and, after the cremation, he left the graveyard. PWs.2O and 27 , who were the panch witnesses of the scene of offence, have also turned hostile to the prosecution case. PWs.23 and, 24, who were the witnesses to the seizure panchanama, also turned hostile. l4

20. PW.2B Ls the Doctor who examined the burnt skeleton, and accord ttg to him, the bones were of hur:tan, and thereafter, he sent them for DNA examination. Ex.P.45 is the DNA prohling report. According to trx.P.45, the bones that were found at ttLe instance of accused No. 1 were tho se of the deceased. A,::ording to Ex.P.45, the samples of the daughter and the mother of the deceased were taken for the purpose of DNA profiling.

21. The evi,lcnce of PW.19 has to be looked into to determine wirether it lerits acceptance. PW.19 is the colleague of the appellant / ar:r:used No. 1 and the deceased. According to PW. 19, accused No.I came to him and gave specific details about how the deceaserl was abducted with the help of his friend, accused No.2, and ho''v the deceased was murdered.

22. The rrurnner in which the deceased was taken in a car, subjected to assault resulting in his death, and the:eafter his body being t aken to the burial ground and thrown into the burning pyrr: of the wife of PW.26 has been narral-ed. Later, PW. 19 took accused No.1 and handed him over to the police. 15

23. The incident happened on 29.01.2014, and 14 days thereafter, the appellant/accused No.1 met PW. 19 and narrated the entire incident with minute details. Accused No.1 was the suspect even according to Ex.P1 complaint. Even according to the prosecution case, he was absconding till the date of his surrender before the police on 13.O2.2014

24. As seen from the evidence of the Investigating Officer/PW.29, after the surrender of accused No. 1, he took accused No.1 to the burial ground, where accused No.1 pointed out the burnt pyre and the spot where the deceased was thrown after the murder was committed. The bones that were collected from the burial ground were subjected to DNA examination and were identified as those of the deceased.

25. Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 on information given by accused No.l, the Investigating Officer discovered the bones of the deceased. Accused No.l had exclusive knowledge about the burnt bones of the deceased. It is not the case of the prosecution that prior to the confession of accused No.1, the Investigating Officer had identifred that the l6 deceased hacl died or that he was burnt. Only at the instance of accused No.1, the Investigating Officer came to know about the death of the rleceased and the body being burnt

26. The cc,nfession made by accused No.1, in respe3t of other accused's in'rolvement cannot be treated as eviden ce, in the absence oL any independent corroborating evidence. However, to the exten', of the recovery of the bones at the instance of accused No. J , can be treated as a strong circumstance against

27. Ser.eri ludgments were relied upon by the <:ounsel to buttress thr:ir argument about the solitary testimonl' of PW. 19 to whom tlLe extra-judicial confession was made and his evidence cannot be relied upon to form the basis to ccrnvict. 2a. In the ,rresent case, the extra-judicial confession made by accused No. I to the extent of the death of the deceasr:d and the body being burnt is corroborated. The bones of the deceased were found at the instance of accused No.1. Until thr: pyre was pointed ou1 by accused No.l, there was no clue about the whereabouts of the deceased and his fate. To the ex,:ent of the "\ 17 death of the deceased and the subsequent recovery of the bones are circumstances that can be read against accused No. 1.

29. The other accused were found to be complicit along with accused No.1 only on the basis o[ confession of accused No.1 to the police and the extra-judicial confession made to PW.19. Neither the confession of A 1 to police nor to PW. 19 about the involvement of accused Nos.2 to 5 can be taken into consideration as there is no independent corroboration.

30. The police had already discovered the fact that the deceased died and that he was burnt at the instance of accused No. 1. Thereafter, the other accused were arrested. The recoveries effected or the confession cif other accused is of no consequence in the present case. There is no reliable circumstance adduced by the prosecution against accused Nos.2 to 5.

31. In. the present facts, the prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of accused Nos.2 to 5. However, for the reasons discussed, the involvement of accused No. I can be believed, \ I t +-- {cr @ l8 ald accordingiy, the appeal preferred tiy accr-rsed No.1 is dismissecl, while the appeals preferred by accused Nos.2 to 5 are allorvecl

32. Acco rlingiy, the Criminal Appeal No.3032 of 2018 is dismisseci, ,vhile Crimina-l Appeal Nos.29Ot, 3034 of 2018, and 453 of 2O',') are allowed by setting aside the judgreent dated L2.1O.2OI1\ in S.C.No.42 of 2016, on the file of the Special Judge for lria1 of Cases under SCs/STs (PoA) Act cum V Additiona l l)istrict and Sessions Judge, Adi-1abad, as against the appell.rnts/ accused Nos.2 to 5- The appellanl s/accused Nos.2 to 5 tLre acquitted for the said offences and they shall be set at liberty. if they are not required in any other cases. The fine amourLl. paid, if any, shall be returned. Misc,: laneous Petitions pending, if any. shall stand ciosed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- M. VIJAYA BHASKER { OINT REGISTRAR ro, . $ec,rroru oFFlcER 1. The Special Judge For Trial of Cases Under SCs/STs (P,OA) Act-Cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge at Adilabad (with re(:ords, if any) 2. The Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mobile (pCR), Aditabad. 3. The Super ntendent, Central Prison, Warangal. 4. The Superrntendent, District Jail, Karimnagar, Karimnagar t)istrict. 5. The Station House Officer, Adilabadr ll Town police Station, Adilabad. 6. Two CCs to the Public prosecutor, High Court for the Stale of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] -.R 7. One CC to Sri V. Raghunath, Advocate [OpUC] )P - ! one CC k) Mr. P. Pra-bhakar Reddy, Adv;cate [bpUC] 9. One CC to Sri P. Shashidhar Reddy, ROvocate ppUCj 10. Two CD C:c,pies i HIGH COURT DATED:0310412025 ;.rHEi s14 ,6. C)( o^ 11 APR XE $ v a .i- tJ i ,-..- r r'1-l i- a< :) l-) \ .-,; \\ COMMON JIUDGMENT GRLA.Nos.2:901, 3032, 3034 of 2018 & 453 of 2019 CRLA.No.3032 of 2018 IS DISMISSI=D CRLA.Nos.i:901, 3034 of 2018 and 453 of 2019 ARE ALLOWED 1