The High Court · 2025

The State of relangana, Rep- by the public prosecutor, High court of Judicature at Hyderabad ,..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Appellant 1 &3 : SRt. C.VASUNDHARA REDDY Counsel for the Appellant No.2 : Smt y. Ratna prabha Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, pUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT 1 l F I) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HON,BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1397 0F 20L7 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K Surender) This Criminal Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 31'08'2017, in S'C'No'73 of 2Ol7' on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge' Medak at Sangareddy' convicting the appellants/ accused Nos'1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 302 and 20 1 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short' 'IPC') and sentencrng them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine' to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each' for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC ald furthersentencedtosuffersimpleimprisonmentfortwo years and to pay a fine of Rs'50O/- each and in default of payment of hne, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 2O1 read with 34 IPC.

2. Heard Ms. C' Vasundhara Reddy' Iearned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused Nos'1 and 3' -'.'''''. 2 KS,J&JAK,J Crl.A.No 1397 20t7 Ms. Y. Ratna Prabha, learned counsel appea-ring for the appellant/accused No.2, ald Mr. Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State.

3. PW. 1 is tlne de facto cornplainant and brother of the deceased. According to PW.l, on 24.10.2016 at 6:00 A.M., the dead body of his brother, namely, Srihari was found in a trench, covered with mud, sticks and leaves at Budhera Shivar, near Papamma Temple, in the fields of Begari Vijay Kumar. Immediately, PW. 1 lodged a complaint with the Police. In the said complaint, PW. 1 narrated that on

22.10.2016 at 3:OO P.M., while himself, his wife, and his deceased brother were in the house, the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 came to his house and took the deceased outside. PW.2, who is the wife of PW.1, also stated that around 3:00 P.M., the appellants/ accused Nos. 1 to 3 came to her house and took the deceased outside. PW.3 is the maternal uncle of the deceased and PW.4 is the wife of the deceased. A11 of them stated that the appellants/ accused Nos. 1 to 3 went to the house of the deceased and took him outside the house and thereafter, I J KS,J&JAK,J Crl.A.No 1397 20t7 Srihari-deceased was found dead on 24.10.2016. After complaint was f,iled, the police examined pW.6, who is running a toddy shop. According to him, at about 4:OO P.M., on 22.10.2016, the appellants/accused Nos. I to 3 and the deceased came to his toddy shop, consumed toddy and left after purchasing whisky.

4. The case is one of circumstantial evidence. The clrcumstances relied upon by the prosecution are as 1 2 3 4 5 6 Appellant No.1/accused No.l,s wife had relation with Gaddam Raju. There was a fight, for which reason, a case was registered against appellant No. 1 / accused No. 1 . Srihari, the deceased, was the eye witness in the said case. The deceased deposed against appellant No.l/accused No.l about the grudge ald for the said reason, appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 went to the house of the deceased and took him to the outskirts of the village and killed him. The deceased was last seen by pWs.1 to 4 and also PW.6. After PW.6 saw Nos.1 to 3 together, the dead body was found all the appellants/ accused 4 KS,J&JAK,J C .A No.l397 2017

5. The police, basing on the complaint of PW. 1, arrested the appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 3 and MO.1 - stone, MO.2 - kerchief, MO.3 - stick, and MO.4 - ashes of burnt clothes, were recovered at the scene of offence.

6. PW.9-Doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, found the following injuries: "1. Scalp laceration 4 x 2 cm present on right parietal region.

2. Skull fracture right parietal bone. 3. Intra Cranial Hemorrhage present. 4. trft Ear cut injury 3x1 cm present. 5. Left mandible fracture present. 6. 2Ox4 crn abrasion and contusion present over the neck.

7. Both sides all ribs fracture present. 8. Scrotal Hematoma Present. g. Hemothorax present, lungs ruptured, he art ruptured. 10. Liver ruptured."

7. According to the opinion of PW.9, the cause of death was due to poly trauma (multiple injuries).

8. PWs.l to 4 and 6 spoke about the appellants/ accused Nos.l to 3 and the deceased being together on ) KS,J&JAK,J Crl.A.No.1J97 2017

22.10.2016, and thereafter, the dead body was found. In between 22.1O.2016 and 24.10.2016, no one has seen the appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the deceased together. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jabir and others v. The State of Uttarakhandl, at paragraph Nos.23 and 24 held as under: "23. This court is also of the opinion that apart from the above serious inlirmities, there is no evidence, oral or any material object, which connects the appellant- accused with the crime. It has been repeatedly emphasized by this court, that the "last seen" doctrine has limited application, where the time lag between the time the deceased was seen last with the accused, and the time of murder, is narrow; furthermore, the court should not convict an accused only on the basis of the "last seen" circumstance. ln Jasuant Gir v. State of Punjab,a this court explained the soundness of such a rule: "Without probing further into the correctness of the "last-seen" uerston emanating from P.W- 14's euidence, euen assuming that the deceased did accomponA the accttsed in their uehicle, this circumstance bg ttself does not lead to the ireststible conclusion that the Appellant and his companion had killed him and throun the dead bodg in the culuert. It cannot be presumed that the Appellant and his companions uere responsible for the murder, though graue susprcjon anses against the accused. There b considerable time- gap betueen the deceased boarding the uehicle of the Appellant and the time uhen P.W. 1 1 found the dead body. In the absence of ang other links in the chain of circttmstantial euidence it is not possible to conuict the Appellant solelg on the basis of the "last-seen" euidence, euen if the uersion of P.W. 14 in this regord is belieued. In uiew of this, the euidence of P W 9 as regards the atleged I 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 41 6 KS,J&JAK,J CrlA.No.l397 2017 ( confession made to him bg the Appellant assrrmes importance.

24. Recently, in Rambraksh vs. State Chhattisgarh {2016 ll2l SCC 251), this court reviewing previous decisions, stated as follows: "1O. It is trite law that a conviction cannot be reco:.ded against t1.e accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with thc deceased. In other words, a conviction cannot be based on the only circumstalce of last seen together. Norma1ly, last seen theory comes into play where the time gap, between the point of tirne when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead, is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the perpetrator of the crime trecomes impossible. To record a conviction, the last seen together itself would not be suffrcient and the prosecution has to complete the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused. I 1. In a similar fact situation this Court in the case of Krishnan v. State of Tamil (2014) 12 SCC 279, held as fol.lows:

21. The conviction cannot circumstance of last seen deceased. In fujun Marik (199a) Supp (21 SCC 3721 be based only on together with the v. State of Bihar "31. Thus the evidence that the Appellant had gone to Sitaram in the evening of 19 7-1985 and had stayed in the night at the house of deceased Sitaram is very shaky ald inconclusive. Even if it is accepted that they were there it would at best amount to be the evidence of the Appellants having bcen seen last together with the deceased. But it is settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to record the finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and, therefore, no conviction on that basis alone can be founded. 7 KS,J&JAK,J Crl.A.No.l397 2017

9. Only the evidence of last seen cannot be made basis to convict the appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 3. After admitting that the appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 3 arld the deceased went to the toddy shop, there is no evidence of the appellants/accused Nos.l to 3 and the deceaseC going towards the scene of offence. The case of the appellants is one of denial.

10. Further, the Investigating Officer recovered MO.3 stick. However, the same was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory to determine whether there were any blood stains found on the stick.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sk. yusuf v. State of West Bengal2, at paragraph No.27, held as under: "27 . No presumption could be drawn on the issue of last seen together merely on the fact that Abdul Rajak (PW.2), father of the deceased had stated that Sahanara Khatun had gone to pluck the jhinga and her dead body was recovered from there. The witnesses merely stated that the accused was present in the close proximity of ttrat area. That does not itself establish the last seen theory because none of the witnesses said that the accused and deceased were seen together. Most of the witnesses had deposed that the accused was having spade. It may connect the appellant '207L (z) ALD (crt.) 9oo (sc) I I 8 KS.J&J,1K,J (:r1..1 ,Yo 1197 2017 to the factum of digging the earth. A person going for catching fish normally does not take a spade with him. The nature of the admissibility of the lacts discovered pursuant to the statement of the accused under Section 27 of India Evidence Act, 1872 is very limited. If an accused deposes to the police officer the fact as a result of which the weapon with which the crime is committed is discovered, and as a result of such disclosure, recovery of the weapon is made, no interference can be drawn against the accused, if there is no evidence connecting the weapon with the crime alleged to have been committed by the accused. Be that as it may, the spade had not been sent for chemical analysis as admitted by ' Digambar Mondal (PW.19), I.O. himself and there was no explanation furnished as for what reason it was not sent. In case of circumslantial evidence, not sending the weapon used in crime for chemical analysis is fatal foi the reason that the circumstantial evidence may not lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the appellant was the perpetrator of the crime and none elsc and that in the absence of any report of Serologist as to the presence of human blood on the weapon may make the conviction of the accused unsustainable (uide: Akhilesh. Hajam u. State of Bihar, (19951 Supp 3 SCC 357). There is no medical evidence or suggestion by any person as to the sexual assault on the deceased. Therefore, it merely remained the guesswork of the people at large. Mere imagination that such thing might have happened is not enough to record conviction."

12. On the basis of the observations made in the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, since the only KS,J&JAK,J Crl A.No.1397 2017 9 evidence is about last seen and further, MO.3 - stick was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, the conviction imposed against the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 is not sustainable

13. Accordingiy, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The appellants/ accused Nos. 1 to 3 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending, if any, in this Criminal Appeal, shall stand cancelled. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOrNT REGISfRAR / SECTIONSFFICER \ To, 'l . The Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sang 2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special a Reddy, Medak District Mobile Court, SangareddY, tvledak District

3. The Sup erintendent, District Jail, Sangareddy 4 One CC to Smt C.Vasundhara ReddY , Advocate 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the (oPU State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

6. Two CD Copies Ks/gh { q ) o o ite e-ra r.a, o; 2 E rEA 20?5 Ot: HIGH COURT DATED:1110212025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1397 ot 2017 Allowing the Crl.A.