Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Counsel forthe Appellant-1 : Sri D. Bhaskar Reddy Counsel for the Appellant-3: Sri K. Neelakanteswara Rao Counsel forthe Respondent: Sri D. Arun Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor NOTE : The AppellanUAccused No.4 was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 17-1O-2O22 in l.A.No.1 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.2479 of 2017. Criminal Appeal No.2479 ot 2017 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 24-07-2017 passed in S.C.No.'191 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Sessions Judge, at Karimnagar, Between: Moluguri Sadi @ Sadanandam, S/o Komuraiah, Age:37 R/o. Jukallu, Chityala Mandal, Warangal Diskict, now at R Adilabad District. years, Caste: Madiga K 6 Colony; Srirampur, ...AppellanUAccused (A4) AND The State of Telangana, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP at Hyderabad. ...RespondenUComplainant Counsel for the Appellant-4: Smt. J. Kusumavathi Counsel forthe Respondent: Sri D. Arun Kumar, Additional Pubtic Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT 4 THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE.K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMIilAL APPEAL Nos.l 280 ()F 201 7 and 2479 0F 20L8 COMM ON JUDGMENT: (per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER) Criminal Appeal No.1280 of 2Ol7 is llled by the appellalts/Al to A3 and Criminal Appeal No'2479 of 2018 is frled by the appellant/A4, aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the IV Additional Sessions Judge at Karimnagar, in S'C'No'191 of 2013' dated, 24.07.2017, for the offences under Sections 302' 2Ol rlw'34 of the Indian Penal code; and sentencing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a hne of Rs'10,O00 l- each for the offence under Sectio n 3o2 r / w.34 of IPC; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years each, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,O00/- each, for the offence under Section 201 of IPC'

2.HeardSriD.BhaskarReddy,learnedcounselforAl;Sri K.Neelakanteswara Rao, learned counsel for A3; Smt'J'Kusumavathi' learned counsel for A4, and Sri D'Arun Kumar' learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State ' 5

3. Accused No.2 was released on remission by the Government. The learned Counsel submits that their arguments are confrned to 41, A3, and A4.

4. PW.1-Swaroopa, is the wife of the deceased, namely Avula Srinivas. She stated that around 12.30 hours, on 09.09.2012, the deceased went out on his motorbike. In the evening, around 4.30 p.m., when PW. 1 called the deceased on phone, the deceased informed her that someone was trying to kill him and immediately, the phone was switched off. At about 8.O0 P.M., PW. I came to know that the deceased died with a cut injury to his throat. Then she visited the Government Hospital at Peddapalli and found a cut injury on the throat of her husband. She came to know that her husband was killed at Jaffarkhanpet village. Accordingly, she drafted Ex.Pl complaint and halded it over to PW.16.

5. PW. 16-Sub-inspector of Police stated in his examination that on 10.09.2012, at about 2.OO A.M, PW. I came to the police station and lodged u,ritten complaint Ex.Pl, and then he immediately rushed to the scene of offence and shifted the dead body to Government Hospital, Peddapalli. The investigation was then handed over to PW. 18. , ." 6

6. According to PW' 18, on lO 'Og '2012' having received the information from PW.16 Sub-inspector' he went to the mortuary of Peddapalli government hospital and found the dead body with an injury on his throat. The body was photographed and the wearing apparel of the deceased were seized' He also seized one motorcycle bearing No.AP 15 AD 6153-M'O '7 at tt:ie scene' PW' 18 sought details of call data of phone number of the suspect, i.e., 9a66494o67 alrrd other suspects' phone numbers, which are' 9177368884 and 8106292525 - According to PW' 18, the call data information provided pima facie evidence of involvement of A1 to A4 in the offence' On l8.Og.2O12, Al to A4 were arrested and in the presence of independent mediators, PW' 12 and another' the accused were interrogated. In pursuance of their confession' mobile phones of A10 and A3 were seized. Al further led the police to bus stand' where the motorcycle bearing No'AP 15 AC g7A7' which is M'O'3' was seized' A1 further led the police party to the scene of offence' where the knife-M.O.S was seized' M'O'6-blood stained shirt of the accused was also found at the scene and seized' 7

7. On 2O.1O.2O12, the Test Identification Parade of 42 was conducted at District Judge, Karimnagar. PW. 17 is the Magistrate, who conducted Test Identihcation Parade

8. Having concluded investigation, charge sheet was frled by PW. 1S-lnspector of Police

9. The crucial witnesses, who were exarnined by the prosecution and relied on bt'the learned Sessions Judge to record conviction, are PWs.3,4, and 5

10. PW.3 stated that he found three male persons and one female person nearby the bushes at the side of the road in Jaffarkhanpet village. He found a person in a pool of blood, stmggling for life. He also found a motorcycle next to the dead body. The number of the motorcycle is AP 15 AD 6153. PW.3 then informed PW.4 about the body being found. Immediately, PW.4 went to ttre scene and found the dead body rvith an injury on the neck. According to PW.4, he informed Sub-inspector on phone. 1 1. PW.3, in his cross-examination, stated that he has seen the accused for the hrst time and they are all strangers. He was examined before the Court on 21.04.2015, which is nearly 2 t/z yeans a 8 after the incident. According to PW'3, he saw the accused near the place of the incident. However, he did not give any descriptive particulars of the accused, when he was examined by the Police' The identilication of PW.3, 2 V" years after the incident, without any Test Identifrcation Parade, raises doubt regarding his identification for the frrst time in Court. Further, PW'3 stated that he informed PW'4' who came to the scene. PW.4 stated in his cross-examination that he informed the Sub-inspector on phone and immediately' the Police came to the spot at 6.O0 P M', after receiving information about the body being found, and body was shifted to hospital after arrival of the Circle InsPector. |2.ThesaidversionofPw.4iscontradictorytotheversiongiven by PW. l6-Sub-inspector. According to PW' 16' after he received complaint at 2.OO A-M., on lO 'Og '2012, he rushed to the scene of offence and shifted the body to the Government Hospital. According to PW.4, he gave details of the incident, when the Police arrived at the scene. One fails to understand, as to why the information' that was given to police at 5.00 P'M' itself by PW'4' was not acted upon by the Police. The Police pleads ignorance and denies having received any such information, or going to the scene at 6'00 P'M' on I 9 O9.O9.2O12. The very frrst information, which was received by the Police, was by PW. 16 at 2.OO A.M., after the w.itten complaint was frled. Either PW.3 and PW.4 are speaking false about the incident, or PW. l6-Inspector statement is false.

13. PW.5 is another rvitness who saw ,{2 proceeding along with the deceased at Kunaram X roads. According to pW.S, the deceased introduced A2 as his cousin and both of them left on the bike. pW.5 further identified A2 in the Test Identification proceedings conducted in the jail. PW.5 in his cross-examination state(l that on the same night, he saw news about the death of accused on Television. Immediately, he and his relatives went to Government Hospital, where the circlc Inspector was present. The lnquest took place after he went to the hospita,l. The police examined pW.5 and relatives of the deceased at the time of inquest. The inquest was conducted in the hospital on 1O.09.20 12, at 8.00 A.M., and concluded at 10.00 A.M.

14. PW.6 speaks about the seizure of M.O.3. M.O.3 was marked during his evidence. According to PW.3, the vehicle r.r.as seized by the Police from his house. However, Inspector-pW.lg, stated that M.O.3 was seized from the bus stand, at the instance of A1. 10

15. The prosecution relied on the statements of PW'7 and PW'1l that were made during the course of investigation, regarding the accused confessing before them' about committing the murder of the deceased. Both PWs'7 ald 11 turned hostile to the prosecution case and did not support the version of the prosecution that the accused had confessed before them about committing the crime' 16. The evidence of PW'3, who saw the accused at the scene' become doubtful, in view of his statement that he was identifying the accused for the hrst time, before the Court' 2 Yz yeats after the incident. Admittedly, no Test Identification Parade of all the accused' was conducted for the purpose of PW'3 identifying the accused' In the inquest report-Ex'P3, neither the name of PW'3' nor PW'4 is mentioned as witnesses to the incident' In the inquest report' it was mentioned that the frrst person who has seen the dead body' is PW.5. As already discussed' the evidence of PW'S is falsified by the evidence of PW. 16-Inspector' 17. The evidence of PW'3 is doubtful since his name is not mentioned in the inquest, and identihcation of accused by him was altet 2 Yz years of the incident' In the inquest report' PW'S though stated that he called the Police and at 6'00 p'm'' and the police 1t arrived, however, PW. 10 stated that he went to the scene of offence aJter receiving complaint from PW. 1 at 2.00 A.M., on 1O.O9.2012

18. PW.6 stated that M.O.3 was recovered frorn his house at the instance of the Poiice, however, PW. l6-lnvestigation Officer states that M.O.3 was recovered at the instance of A1, from the bus stand. The witnesses, PW.7 and PW.9, on whom the prosecution relied on, to speak about the extra judicial confession of the accused, have turned hostile to the prosecution case. The only evidence left is that of PW.5, who has seen A2 and the deceased at around 4.30 p.m., and thereafter, the deceased was found dead. Though, caII records were filed by the prosecution, it does not connect the accused to the

19. The Honourable Supreme Court in Musheer Khan alias Badshah Kha,n and. another u. State oJ Madhga Pradesht, held that: "39. In a case of ciranmstantial euidence, one must look for compLete chain of circumstances and not on snapped and scattered links tuhich do not make a complete sequence. This Court finds that this case is entirelg based on circumstantial euidence. While appreciating ciranmstantial r (2010) I Supreme ( oun a ases 748 t2 eudence, the Court must adopt a cautious approach as ciranmstantial euidence is "inferential euidence" and proof is deriuable bg inference from in such a case ciranmstances."

20.Inthecasessuchasthese,whenthereisnoeye-witness account and the prosecution relies on the circumstantial evidence' the circumstances relied on by the prosecution, have to be convincingly established, and there should not be any room for doubt. The link between the circumstances should be so interconnected, that it should rule out the possibility of the accused determine the involvement of not being guilty and conclusivelY I I accused in the offence. I I

21. As already discussed, except the evidence of PW'S seeing A2 along with the deceased, few hours prior to his dead body being found, all the other circumstances are doubtful' and cannot be relied on to prove the case insofar as A1 ald A3 are concerned'

22. In view of the foregoing discussion' benefrt of doubt is extended to A1, A3, and A4. Since A2 was released on remission' no frndings are given against J{2 l 13 \

23. Accordingly. Criminal Appeal No.2479 of 20 18 ard Criminal Appeal No.12B0 of 2Ol7 insofar as Al ald A3 are concerned, are a,llowed, setting aside the conviction recorded b5' the IV Additional Sessions Judge at Karimnagar, in S.C.No.191 of 2013, dated

24.07.2017. A1, A3, and .A4 are acquitted. Since A1, A3, and A4, are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharu"O. //TRUE COPY// One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble SRI JUSTICE K.SURENOER (For His Lordship's kind Perusal) ,rr_ K. SRINI,ASA RAo ,,sl T1.']Tl slicrroru oFFrcER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI (For His Lordship's kind Perusal) To,

1. The lV Additional Sessions Judge, at Karimnagar. (with records, if any) 2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sulthanabad. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Warangal. 4. The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Chanchalguda. 5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad. 6. The Station House Officer, Srirampur Police Station, Karimnagar Division. 7. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the SHe of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] B. One CC to Sri D. Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to Sri K. Neelakanteswara Rao, Advocate IOPUC] 'l0.One CC to Smt. J. Kusumavathi, Advocate [OPUC] 1 .1 1 LR Copies '1

12.The Under Secretary, Union of India Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

13.The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad.

14.Two CD Copies Kam/plp +yE-, -{iL*'s:.!a :itqra" i HIGH COURT DATED:2010212025 COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA.Nos.1280 ot 2017 & 2479 of 20 18 ) i'lf. 1t't s t 2 i fi,1fl IAI| .o 4, ii .',,,, THE CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2479 of 2018 IS ALLOWED CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1280 ot 2017 IN SO FAR AS A1 & A3 ARE CONCERNED IS ALLOWED @ &t b 2'5