Allowed

Nagapuri Srinivas ,Srinu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Oct 2019CRLA/405/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against conviction and sentencing for murder, dacoity, and robbery. The High Court set aside the conviction due to lack of cogent circumstantial evidence, witness inconsistencies regarding arrest, and relatedness of co-accused's acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence of the appellant for offences under Sections 452, 380, and 302 read with 34 IPC are set aside. The appellant is set at liberty forthwith.

Nagapuri Srinivas ,Srinu Vs The State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 405 OF 2019

¶6

Criminal Appeal under Section 374⁽²⁾ of Cr.P.C., against the Judgment^dated 31.01 .2012 S.C. No. 226 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) at Asifabad, Adilabad District.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Nagapuri Srinivas @ Srinu, S/o. Shankar,29 Years, Caste. Arey, Occ: Coolieffractor Driver, Rio. Dahegaon, Asifabad, Adilabad District, Telangana State.

¶9

...AppellanUAccused No.'l

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Through Circle lnspector of Police, Kaghaznagar Rural^Police Station, Adilabad District, Telangana State, rep. by Public^{Prosecutor,High Court of} Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶12

...RespondenUComplainant

¶13

lA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶14

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.^praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the Memo of appeal, the High Court^{may be pleased to hear this Criminal} Appeal finally at an early date by fixing the date for Final^Hearing.

¶15

lA NO: 3 OF 2019

¶16

Application under Section 389⁽¹⁾ Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the lt4emo of appeal, the High Coud^{may be pleasedto grant bail to the} petitioner by suspending the^judgment and sentence dated 31-1-2012^passedin S.C.No.226 ol 2011 on the file of lll^{Additional Sessions Judge (FTC),at Asifabad,} Adilabad District^pending disposal of the Criminal^Appeal.

¶17

Counsel for the ,Appellant: MS. P. SUHASINI

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

The Court made the following JUDGMENT:

¶20

¶21

HO & AAR,I Crl A No.105 oi 2A19

¶22

JUDGMENT: @e.^{theHo^'btesn J&stice 4.Abhisttck Redcts)}

¶23

The appellant, Nagapuri Srinivas @ Srinu (A- 1) has challenged the legality of the^judgment dated 31.OI.2OI2, passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) at Asifabad, in Sessions Case No.226 of 201 1 , whereby the learned Judge has convicted the appellant and accused No.2 for offences under Sections 452,3O2, 380 read with 34 l.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo lile irnprisonment and to pav fine ol Rs. 1,000/- lbr the offence pur-rishable under Scction 302 l.P.C., and in dclault to pay the fine amount, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonmenl; lurther sentenced to undergo ollc vear rigorcrus implisonmcnt arrd to pav a o1' Rs.1,OO0/- lor thc olfence punishable under Section 380 l.P.C., in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo six months rigorous rmprrson ment. Also sentenced to undergo orle year rigorous imprisonmen t and to pay finc of Rs.1O0O/- lor the ol'fence punishable under Section 452 I .P.C., in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. It was also directed that all the sentences shall run separately.

¶24

Briefly, the case of the Prosecution is that the deceasedYashoda, who lost her husband long back, had developed illegal intimacy with Nagapuri Srinivas (r) Srinu (A- 1), her^younger st.rn-inlarv. Nagapuri Srinivas (rr; Srinu (A- 1), in order to gain the gold and silver ornaments and agricultural lands of the dcceased, hatched a plan along with Chankapuri Raj r-r (A-2) to do au,ay with the life r>1' thc deccasr:cl. Accordir-rgly, on 0,1.05.201O, A' 1 \'ent to the house ol the clr:ccerscd, and r;olrsLrr.necl liqtror, ancl hacl sexual intercourse with her.^'lhereafter, A- 1 and A-2 collected an old saree and turned it into a rope for the purpose of strangulation. On the same

¶25

¶26

HO & AAR,) Crt A Na 405 af 2419

¶27

da)' at about 8:3O^{p.m. A-2 entered the housc of thc deceased,} caught hold of both her^{legs and lifted her up. A-1 tied the saree} around her throat and strangulated^{her.Consequently,the} deceased died. Thereafter,^{both the accused took away the gold} and silver ornaments worn by^{the deceased. They also tookaway} one mobile phone, and a small^{purse containingcash of} Rs.42,500/-. It is also alleged that^{after committingthe offence,} A-2 committed rape on the^{deceased. Basedon the complaint} lodged bv the daughter ol^{the deccased, ChankapuriBuchamma} (P.w.1), tl-rc Sub-lrrspcctor ol Police, Dahegozrn^{PoliceStation,} registered an F.l.R,, narnely,^{FIR No.31/2010 (Ex.P.18)for the} olfences put'rishablc^{t-tnclcr SecLions 452,302,380ar-rd 376 rcad} rvith 34 l.P.C.

¶28

During the course of the investigation, thc^accusedu'erc arrested; they were^put up^for trial.^{In order to supportits case,} the prosecution examined^{nineteen witnesses (P.Ws.1 to19),} submitted twenty five documents^{(trxs.P. 1 to P.25), and produced} twenty two material objects^{(M.O.1 to M.O.22l The learnedtrial} Judge convicted and sentenced^{the accused as aforementioned.} Hence, the present appeal^{before this Courtby accused No.1-} Nagapuri Srinivas @) Srinu.

¶29

Smt, P. Suhasir-ri, thc lean'rcd^{cottt-tscl for lhc appellarlt,} Nagapuri Srir-rivzrs^(a Srinu^(A- l),^{has raiscd thclollorving} conLentlons:

¶30

Firstlg, thc lcarned Judge has^{mis-directedhimsclfin} convictirrg thc appc:llalrt ats thcre^{are no eye-u'ilnessesto the} occurrence of the crimc to^{prove the guilt of the appellant.}

¶31

¶32

HC] & AAR,) Crl A.No 405 ol 2019

¶33

Secondlg, there is no chain of events linking the appellant to the crime as necessitated for rendering conviction based on circumstantial evidence.

¶34

Thirdlg, there are inconsistencies in the evidence of the Prosecution Witnesses with regard to arrest ol the appellant, which is fatal to the Prosecution case.

¶35

Finallg, the conviction ol the co-accuscd i.e . A-2, Chankapuri Raju, u'as set aside by this Hon'ble Court in Criminal Appeal No.237 ol 2012, vide judgmenr clarcd 29.06.2O18. Hence, the appe'llant, Nagapuri Srinivas (cr. Srinr-t (A- 1) hercin is also cntitlcd lbr the same benefir.

¶36

On the other hand, the lcarnccl I)ublic prosecutor hils vehemently contended that the appellant and A-2 have committed the offence; and the same is evident from the evidence of Chankapuri Buchamma (P.W.1), Elari Laxmi (p.W.2), Chankapuri Pochanna (P.W.3), Elumula Swaroopa (p.W.S) and pandwala Sai (P.W.6). The motive for the offence is also proved from the evidence of these witnesses. F urther, sincc A- t had played a key role in the commissi<;r-r of crime, his casc stands or-r a dif'ferent lboling than thc case of A-2. Thurs, the ercqr_rittal ol A-2 cannot be re ad in lilvour of A- 1. Hence, the learnr_-d l)ublic proseclltor has supportecl thc impugned judgmer-rt ancl 1;ralc<l lbr clisrnissal ol'thc appcal.

¶37

Heard the learned Counsel lbr the parries, perused the impugned judgment, and examined the record.

¶38

Mrs.Chakapuri lfuchamma (l).W. I ) and Ms.trlari Laxmi (P.W.2) are the daughters of the deceased, Mr.Chakapuri pochanna (P.W.3) is the son-in-law of the deceased, and the husband of 1

¶39

¶40

HO & AAR,] c.i A No.4A5 0a 20t9

¶41

Mrs.Chakapuri Buchamn'ra (P.W. 1), Ms.trlumula Sr,r'aroopa (P.W.5) and Mr.Pandr,".ala Sai (PW.6) arc thc relatives of the cleceasccl. Ms.Elumula Der,aj i (P.W.4), rvl-ro is stated to be an independent u,itness, had not deposed anything incriminating against the appellant. The evidence of Mrs.Chankapuri Buchamma (P.W. i), Ms.Elari l-axcmi (P.W.2), Ms.Elumula Swaroopa (P.W.5), Mr.Pandwala Sai (P.W.6) and Ms.Mittapalli Surekha (P.W.7) is only to the effect that on the date of incident during the evening hours A-1 and A-2 u,ere present at the house of the deceased. According lo them, a quarrcl took place bctr.r,een the deceased and A- 1. On the next dav, thc cleceased u'as founcl dcad.

¶42

Hor.r'cver, thc tcsl.intonics ol Mrs.Chankaprtn [Jur:hantm:r (P,W. 1), X.4s.lilari Laxcmi (P.W.2), .4s, lflr:mula Su,aroopar (P.W.o), and Mr.Pat'rdu'ala Sai (P.W.6) canrlot be rclied upon for rendcrir-rg corrviction ol thc acr:used as tl'rcv are all rclated to thc deceascd. and intcresLed s'itnesses. Dvcn Mr.Chankapuri Pochanna (P.W.3), who is the husband of Mrs.Chankapuri Buchamma (P.W.1), and son-in-law of the deceased, has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. According to him, he was not present on the date of incident as his father died and he was attending the funeral of his father. But, it is pertinent to mention that Mrs.Chankapuri Buchamma (P.W.1), Ms.trlari La-xmi (P.W.2), Ms.trlumula Srvaroopa (P.W.5) and N4r.Pandu,ala Sai (P.W.6) have categorically deposed about thc prese ncc of Mr.Chankapuri Pochanna (P.W.3) at thc time ol quarrel bet',r,ecn thc dcceased and A- 1 r,,,,hereas Mr.Chankapuri Pochanna (P.W.3) in 1-ris cviclcncc, der.ried thc same. The samc is latal to thc prosccuLion casc,

¶43

¶44

HO & AAR,] Crl.A.No.4AS af 2019

¶45

¶46

That apart, the motive attributed by the prosecution in the present case is also not sr-rpported by the evicience available on record. The evidence of Mrs.Chankapuri Br-rchamma (P.W,1), Ms.Elari Laxmi (P.W.2), Ms.Dlumula Su,aroopa (P.W.5), Mr.Pandr,r,ala Sai (P.W.6), Ms.Mittapalli Surlckhzr (tr.W.7) and Mr.P.Santosh (P.W.B) is to the cll'ect that A- l visited the house ol the dcceased lbr a spc.cilic pLtrposc uiz, lor Kctclise poruka to be llllcd in his tractor and .lt thalt time an erltcrcatior-r tr.r<;k place. Except the above, thc prosecution has not examincd any witnesses to prove the motive for commission of the offence. In the absence of the same, the motive attributed by the proseclltion that there is animosity between the deceased and accused also cannot be relied upon.

¶47

Coming to the arrest of the accused, the evidence of Chankapuri l3uchamma (P.W.1) is to the elfect rhat on the drite of incident itself, the Police have shown her thc stolen articles. lilari I-axmi (I'].W.2) during her cro ss-cx:lminatio n has stated that orr 05.05.20 10 Police took the accuscd to thc ltrlicc Station v"'hcreas the prosccution has projectcd that thc l)olicc ltavc arrcstcd the accused on 10.05.2010. 'l'hus, therc is inconsister-rc1r in thc cviciencc ol' the witncsses u,ith rt:g;irrc1 to :u rcst ol tltc accused, and tlrc samc is arlso lhtal to tltc prosccLltion casc.

¶48

1i. Further, the evidence oi' Dr.13.Vishwanarh (P.W.13), whcr conducted Post-Mortem Dxarnination of lhe dcceased, reveals that there was no evidence of rape. Even though no conviction was rendered on the accused by the learned trial Judge for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C., the evidence of Dr.B.Vishwanath

¶49

¶50

Hal L aAR l Cti 4 t!.445.i 2n)9

¶51

(P.W.13) crcatcs zr doubt o t-t lllc veraciLv oI thc case ol thc prosccution :rs :r rvholc.

¶52

Adrnittcdlr', the conviction rs based on circumstantial r:r,idence. Nccdlcss to sar', in cverv criminal case basccl on direct evidence, thc prosecution mllst establish its case^bel,ond reasonable doubt b1'producing cogent and convincing evidence;ⁱⁿ cases where the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence,^the Prosecution is required to establish its case through preponderance of evidence by linking all the circumstances, which complete the chain of events and^point unerringly to the^guilt of the accused.

¶53

ln Padaala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and othersl, thc Horj l;1e Suprcn'rc Court held tl'rat rvl-ren a case^rcsls upon circumstar-rtiarl cr.'rdcr-roc, thc lol1or,r'ing lcsts mLlst^{bc satisiicd:}

¶54

il thc circlrmstances from uhich an^inference of^guilt ls soughl^{to be} dra!'n, must bc cogcntlv and firmiY cstabllshcd;

¶55

2l those circumstalrces should be of a definite tendenc-v unerringlv pointing tou,ards guilt of the accusecl;

¶56

the circumstances, taken r:umulatively, should form a chain^so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that^{within all} human probability the crime was committed by the accused and^none else; and

¶57

the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must^be complete and incapable of explanation of any other^hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only^be consistent $'ith the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent^$,ith his innocence.

¶58

1 ,\uR l,tllal sc i,l

¶59

¶60

HO & AAR,) Crl.A.Na.40S af 2019

¶61

Similar view has bcct't r-citerattccl in Ramreddy^Rajesh Khanna Reddy and another V. State of A.P.2

¶62

ln Balwinder Singh V. State of Punjab3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court hers laid clou,n that tht: circLlmstances from u'hich the conclr:sion of guilt is to bc clrau,n shor.tlcl bc lr-rlly'^provecl and those circumsLances must bc conclusivc in nature to connect the accllsed r,l,ith the crime. All the links in the chain of events must be established beyond reasonable doubt and the established circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis oI the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the Court has to be.on its guard to avoid the danger of allowing suspicion to take the place of legal proof and has to be watchful to avoid the danger of being swayed by emotional considerations, however strong they may be, to take the place of proof.

¶63

The Ilon'ble Supremc Court in State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastavaa, crnphtrsrs has been laid that it is the duty ol' the Court to take carc while cvaluating circurtstantial cvider-rcc.^I1 Lhe evidence adduced by thc prosccLttion is reasonilbly capablc ol' two inlerences, the one in l'avour of the accuscd must be accepted. That apart, the circumstances relied upon must be established and the cumulative elfect of the established facts must lead to a singular hypothesis that the accused is guilty.

¶64

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Singh v. Sonia and Orss, while relerring to the settled proof^pertainit-rg to

¶65

'z^{1zooolro SCCr72:AIR 2006 sc1656}

¶66

3 ,qtR t99ri sc 607 : 1995 AIR SCW 4555 4 AIR 1992 scw 640 : AIR 1992 sc 840 t.ttn:07 sc 12t8 r2007 Allt scw l27rJ

¶67

¶68

HC] & AAR,J Crl.A.Na.405 ot 2419

¶69

circumstantial evidence,^{this Court reiterate the principlesaboul} the caution to be kept^{in mindby Court. It hasbeenstatedthercin} that in a case depending^{largely upon circumstantialevidencc,} there is alwal,s a dangcr^{that conjectureor suspicion may take the} placc of legal proof. Thc Court^{musl satisfyitseif that variotts} circumstances^ir-r the^{chainof events have been established clearly} and such completed^{chainof events must be such as to rule out a} reasonable likelihood^{of the innoccnceof the accused lt has also} been indicated that^{when the important link goes, the chainof} circumstances^{gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot} in any manner, establish the^{guilt of the accused beyond all} reasonable doubts.

¶70

F:or the above^{mentioned reasons and in view of the law laid} dor.vn by the llon'blc^{SupremeCourt in the above referred} .jurlgr.nents,^{wc arc ol thc corlsiclcrccl vicu that thc prosecutiot.t} failccl to pror,,e tl-tc^{gr-rilt ol thc appcllant belond al1 reasorlablc} doubts conncc[it-tg^{him to the c;rime. It ls pcrtinentto noLethalt thc} conviction of Char-rkapuri^{Ralu (A-2) ','a s set asidc b-v this Court ir-t} Crl.A.No.237 ol 2012.^{'l'herc is no other incriminatingcvidct-tcc:} against the appellant,^{Nagapuri Srinivas(a) Srinu(A- 1) to establish} his complicity in the^{crime.On the very same evidence,the} conviction of the^{appellant,Nagapuri Srinivas} @^{Srinu (A- 1) cannot} be sustained.^{Therefore,the conviction and sentence renderedon} the appellant^(A. 1-Nagapuri^Srinivas @^{Srinu) cannotbe sustained} and the same is^{liable to be set aside.}

¶71

The sentence and^{conviction of the appellant(A'1), Nagapuri} Srinivas @ Srinu, S/o.Shankar,^{lor the offences punishable under} Scctions 452, 380,^{302 rcad u'ith 34 I P.C.,rendered in Sessions}

¶72

¶73

HCt & AAR,I Crt.A.No.405 ot 2At9

¶74

¶75

Case No.226 of 201 I on the file of the learned III Additional Se-ssions Jurdge (FTC) at Asif.rbad, dared 31.O l.2Ot2, are hcreby set aside. 'lhe appellant (A. 1-Nagapuri Srinivas (r, Srinu) shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not rvarranted in anv other case.

¶76