The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondents: _ _ _ The Court delivered the following: Judgment I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR CRTMINAL APPEAL No.3193 OF 2018 JUDGMENT: (per ITon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) 1. The State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.06.20L8, in S.C.No.299 of 2074, on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum- VI Additional Metropolitan. Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, acquitting the respondents/ accused Nos.l to 3 for the offence under Sections 302 r/w. 34 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State. Perused the record.

3. The facts of the case are that, on 14.11-2013, around 2'.3O a.m., A-1 and A-2 went to the Market Police Station and surrendered before P.W. 16, who was the then Inspector of Police. A-1 and A-2 informed P.W. 16 that they wanted to confess about a crime. P.W. 16 took both of them into custody, and secured presence of P.W. 1 1 and another, namely Ganga Prasad. It is alleged that, in their presence, A- I confessed that he was married to the deceased (D.2), namely Padma Priya, which was an arranged marriage. D.2 2 started harassing the family members of A-1 on petty issues' The elders were called by A- I and they tried to explain to D'2, however, there was no change in her attitude ' She used to regularly pick up quarrels with the family members of A- 1' In the month of April, 2011, A-1 sent a legal notice to 4. D.2 advising her to change her attitude, if not, he will divorce her. After receiving the notice, D.2 lodged a complaint against 14 family members ol A-1. The said crime was registered, however, the case, which was Iiled by D'2, was closed for lack of evidence. A-1 filed a kidnapping case against D.2 and her family members in Agodi police station' D.2 was arrested by police and later released: Due to insuflient evidence, case filed by A-1 against D'2 and others was closed. D.2 then obtained a protection warrant from Bangalore Court and came to Hyderabad. Thereafter, D'2 started staying with A-1 in his house. She was attending job in the night hours. In the month of Ju.ly, 2012, A-1 came to know that D.2 was already married prior to his marriage with her, and the said information was concealed by D.2. A-1 filed complaint against D.2 and others for the offence of bigamy and cheating. (D.2\ and her mother (D.1) used to harass A-1 and his family members, while staying with A-1 at ) Kummarigucla. Again a complaint was lodged by D- 1 and D.2 against A-3 with the Market Police.

5. Unable to bear harassment of the deceased, A-1 along with his maternal unclelA-2, and his younger brother/A-3 planned to kili the deceased. Accordingly, A-1 and A-2 waited in the house, where A-1 and D.l were staying, while A-3 was keeping a watch outside. Both deceased went to the house and knocked on the door. A-1 and A-2 opened the door and both deceased entered the house. On that, A-1 and A-2 assaulted both deceased, resulting in their death. Thereafter, both A-1 and A-2 surrendered before the poiice station and confessed to the crime, while A-3 absconded.

6. At the instance of the accused, M.Os. i and 2 and M.Os.4 to 9, which are two shirts, two pants, one cell phone, iron rod, shawl, towel, bed sheet, chunni, and Karbon cell phone, were seized. 7 . P.W. 16, who is the Investigating Officer, went to the scene of offence at the instance of A-1. Scene of Offence panchnama was conducted and inquest proceeclings were concluded. Thereafter, the bodies were shifted to Gandhi hospital. 4 B. Autopsy was conducted by P'W'12 on both bodies' P.W.l2/the post mortem Doctor opined that the reason for cause of death of D.l was due to head injury' and D'2 was due to strangulation associated with head. injury' Having concluded the investigation, charge sheet was filed' g. Learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution relied on the following circumstances: i) Motive ii) Conduct of accused viz', surrender accused Nos.1 and 2 before the police immediately after the commission of offence seizure of incriminating material' iii) Extra judicial confession' iv) PresumPtion. of the station,

10. Learned. Sessions Judge found that the confession made by A-1 and A-2 will not fall within exception of Section 24 of ttre Evidence Act, to consider the confessions as an extra judicial confession. Since the alleged confessions were made in the police station in the presence of police personnel' the said confessions of A-1 and A.2 are inadmissible in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act' Further, the main witness P.W. 11, who was the alleged witness to the confession and I 5 seizure of M.Os.4 to 9, was declared hostile to the prosecution case. Apart from the confession and subsequent seizures, that were effected by the Police, there is absolutely no other evidence to suggest that it was the accused who had committed ttre offence.

11. Learned Sessions Judge found that, P.W.3 is one of the witnesses who stated about the deceased going into the house of the accused. It was argued by the Public Prosecutor that presumption has to be drawn under Section 106 of the Evidence Acl and burden shifts on to the accusecl to explain the deaths of D. 1 and D.2. Learned Sessions Judge found that, according to P.W.3, he only knew about the deceased going to that particular house, however, he was not an eye witness to the incident. Further, the Investigating Officer did not collect any call data records to prove that any information was passed on by D.2 to P.Ws.3 and 4. The witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the immediate neighbours, also did not speak about deceased visiting the house of A-1. Further, P.W.3, in his chief examination, did not support the case of the prosecution regarding the alleged confession of A-3 and recovery of M.Os.1 to 3, hence seizure of M.Os.1 to 3 cannot be believed. 6

12. Learned Sessions Judge found that though FSL report was filed, it was not marked by the prosecution. There can be no credibility attached to the prosecution case in the absence of any substantive evidence against the accused, for the Court to infer the involvement of the accused in the murder of D.1 and D.2

13. The case is one of circumstantial evidence. It is for the prosecution to prove each and every circumstance, beyond reasonable doubt. A11 the said circumstances should collectively point towards the guilt of the accused to rule out any possibility of the innocence of the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments, including the judgment in Crl.A.No.713 of 2OO4, held that, suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that 'may be proved' and fuill be proved'. ).4. The case is one of acquittal being questioned in appeal. The parameters laid down by the Hon'lcle Supreme Court in cases against acquittal, are enunciated in the following judgments: 7

15. In Rcui Shartna a. State (Gooernment of NCT of Delhi) and anothel, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while dealinq with an appeal against acquittair the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in re',,ersing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.

16. In Ghureg Lql o. Stote of Uttar Prad.esn-' the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to several 'Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70 as follows: "70 In the light of the aboue, the High Cout't ctnd other appellate Courts should follou the u-tell-settled principles crystallized bg number of Judgments if it is going to ouerrule or otheruuise disturb the trial court's acquittal: 1 . ',t'he appellote court mag only ouerntle or othenaise disturb the tiol court's acquittal if it has "uery substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances aise in uthich the appelkrte court toould haue "uery substantiol and compelling rea.sons" to (2022) I Suprerne Court Cases 536 (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 8 discard- the tial court's decision. "Verg substantial and compelling reasons" eist when: i) The tial court's conclusion Luith regard to the facts is palpablg wrong: ii) The tiat court's decision tuas based on an erroneous uiew of lau,4 iii) The trtal court's judgment is likelg to result in "graue mis cariag e of ju stice " ; euidence was patentlg illegal; iu) The entire approach of the tial court in dealing u.tith the u) The trial court's judgment utas manifestlg unjust and unreasonable; ui) The tial court hr-s ignored the euidence or misread the material euidence or has ignored mateial documents like dging declarations/ rebort of the ballistic expert, etc. uii)This list is intended to be illustratiue, not exhaustiue. 2- The appellate court must oluaAs giue proper weight and consideration o tl-te ftndings of the trial court. 3. If tLUo reasonable uieu.;s can be reached- one that leads to acquittal, the other to conuiction the High Courls/ appellate courts must rule in fauour of the accused."

17. Learned Sessions Judge evidence against the accused. elaborately discussed the The case .is one of circumstantial evidence. The main witnesses to the last seen theory and aiso the confession of accused and the subsequent seizures, were all declared hostile and they did not support the prosecution case. In the absence of any connecting link in the case of the prosecution, which depends on the alleged confession and seizures that were effected at the instance of accused, learned Sessions Judge had rightly recorded the acquittal. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, recording acquittal of the respondents/ accused. 9

18. Accordrngly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed' /ITRUE COPY// 3B5li++?t'd$# ,r"r,o*to"'"'* I 1 1 To' ':H:,XTLXii:::i-1"J,,H1'n"j"o55li3'"'ulffi ;;;;, e Two CCs to the Publlc HYderabad (OUT) ii anv) ^ , ,,: prosecutor, High court for the state of relangana at And STs (PoA) Act- l?";;;;"r'oiwitn

3. Two CD Copies ADI(DL Flr HIGH COURT DATED:04t0312025 \ 't JUDGMENT CRLA.No.3193 of 2018 t\ ,) 3 O APR ?[26 i D[s FIA-TC o -b I DISMISSING THE CRLA (" "{"1} $tr