Allowed

Pandari Rajasekhar , Raja , Ramu v. the State of A.P.

Telangana HC19 Nov 2022CRLA/62/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Appeal challenged the trial Court's judgment convicting the appellant for murder. The High Court found that all material prosecution witnesses turned hostile and no legal evidence connected the appellant to the crime, leading to a complete acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Appellant acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

Pandari Rajasekhar , Raja , Ramu Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

SATURDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 62 OF 2014

¶7

Crl.Appeal Under Section 374 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure aggrieved by the Judgment dated 06-12-2013 in S.C. No. 202 ot 2012 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Sessions Judge ( FTC) , at Siddipet.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Pandari Rajasekhar @ Raja @ Ramu, S/o.Janardhan Raja, Occ.Hotel Worker N/o Polopally Chitwelly (M) Kadapa District, Fl/o.Sainathapuram, ECIL, Hyderabad.

¶10

...APPELLANT/ A-2

¶11

AND

¶12

The State Of A.P., rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. P. PRABHAKAR REDDY

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

The Court delivered the following: Judgment

¶17

THE HO. ICIURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SRE,E T|':IDHA

¶18

AND

¶19

THE H )NOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE D.N.AGAF.ITJN

¶20

CRI.A.No.62 of 2Al4

¶21

JUDGMENT: '.r^{Hon'bleSmt-JusticeP.Sree Su<llte)}

¶22

This Cri ninal Appeal is filed against the Ju<l11r..ent of the trial Court in i.C.No.202 of 2Ol2 datecl 06. 12.2Qla . The Circle Insiiector in Tr opran filed charge shcet against A. I ro A.7 under sections 747 ,^'. 18,364,3O2,307 and 109 r/s, 14') I)(.

¶23

The trial Court examined P.W.l to 23 and rn,rrkcd ixs.Pl to P43 on be ralf of the prosecution and M,Os I :o 18 are marked. Defer dants did not adduce any evidenc:. The trial Court considr ring evidence on record and af :r:r' t earing arguments of both sides and also t:itations filecl by them concluded tha accused A.l, A.4 to A.7 are ac<ltLittt:d^'br the offences under Section 147, 148, 3O2, 3O7, lO9 r.7'.1' 149 IPC. But, convicted accused No.2 for the offence und,:r Sc ctir,n 302 IPC under Sec ion 235(21 Cr.P.C and sentenct'd tc Lrrrde'go life imprisonment lnd also to pay a hne of Rs. IOO(),- in ct:fault, simple imprisc rment for two months and he is trls,l sentcnced

¶24

to set off for the remand period under Section 42a Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said ,Judgment accused No.2 preferred an appeal and mainly contended that though number of witnesses have been exa-rnined on behalf of the prosecution, nothing is stated by them indicating the accused with the alleged charge and absolutely there is no legal evidence on record to conviction. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is wholly insufficient, there are discrepancies in the evidence of thc witnesses on material particulars and all the matcrial r,r'itnesses turned hostile. There are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and the case is based on the circumstantial cvidence, even the motive is not proved by the prosecution. As the trial Court acquitted other accused for the same evidence, erred in convicting the accused No.2. The evidence of P.W.5 is not helpful to prove the identity of the accused and their participation in the commission of offence as the photographs were shown to them prior to the identilication even the evidence of P.W.8 is not suflicient to testi$ against him. P.W. 1 clearly stated that when he went to the police station to give report, delendant No.2 was found in the police stalion itseif. It is the case of no legal evidence on record. Though the P.W.6 is declared as hostile, still his evidence is taken into consideration to an extent that the

¶25

¶26

defendant No I rrnd 2 u,ere found at 4-0O P.M in Fragnapur Bus station. Ther :fore, requested the Court to set as de the Judgmcnt

¶27

The ca e of the prosecution is that the rft:,:r:as,rd No. 1 (Jupally Mall, sham) was the owner and the drivt:r'of tlre auto. The accused are residents of different village:; zmd trey are friends. One yr:ar back deceaseri No.1 abusetl zLnd t,eat the sister of accu ;r'd A. 1 orr the ground theLt she was 3razirrg cattle in his lands. lrr that connection a Panchayat^''var; heltl in the Datarpally vi lzrge and A.1 invited A.2, A.4 anrl anotht:r. They also attende< rhe said Panchayath. There qurur:l toc,k place between the accused No.2 and deceased No.l In another occasion, on, Anil of Datarpally village took away a g,irl from Pragnapur c ossroads and went to Cudapah. U timalely, the said girl bror ght back to the village and a Pan,rh.Lvat rvas held in that conn :ction. In the said panchayat quj:u'rel took place between aco rsed No.2 and deceased No. 1. Therr:alter a-11 the accused hatc rt'd a plan to kill the deceased D I (M rlleslam). On 01.06.201O, c<:used nere searching lor deceased I)l to kill him. But, he was lrrnd in the bus stand <sup>ritll his au,-o rrt 4 - 3O p.m, the accused cngaged the auto of the deceast:c l)1 ie which

¶28

deceased D.2 was also present. All of them proceeded towards Nacharam village. When auto reached outskirts of Nacharam village, accused A.2 said to have stabbed the deceased D.l with a knife from backside. All the accused got down from the auto. When the deceased D.1 tried to escape, accused A.2 caught him and cut down his neck. When the deceased D.2 making hue and cry, accused A.3 cut down his neck with a knife. There is no motive for accused to kill deceased D.2, but they killed him to avoid their identification. As the whole incident was witnessed by L.W.7/Udutha Sathai.rh, he was chased by accused with a view to kill him. But, he escaped from them. On receiving information with rcgard Lo thc death of D.i and D.2, PWs.1 to 3 went to the scene and found the dead bodies of D.l and D.2. The scene of offence is located in between Toopran and Nacharam villages. P.W. I gave a report in the police station under Ex.P. 1.

¶29

On O2.06.2Oi0, P.W.2O received a report with an endorsement of P.W.21. Basing on the said report a case in Cr.No. 121 of 2O10 was registered under Section 364 and 3O2 IPC and issucd FIR to all concerned under Ex.P.33. On 01.06.2010 at about 8-OO p.m, P.W.2l received information

¶30

{

¶31

./.

¶32

re€{arding the death of D.1 and D.2. Basin5l <,r-r the said information h went to the scene gf offence anrl :i:,un,-l dead bodies of D. 1 , nd D.2. On 02.06.2010, P.W.22 conc u,:tert scene of olfence pat chanama in the presence of P.!v\1.9 and seized M.Os.6 to 10. lle conducted inquest over the de:xl lrody of D.1 in the presen< r of P.W.11. He also conducted inquest o.,er the dead boclv of D2 in the presence of P.W. 15. Ex. P12 is the inquest panch rnama of D.2. P.W.22 recorded the slzrtemrnts of P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 to 6. On O2,06.2010, P.W. lU Civil As;istar.rt Surgeon cond tc ted postmortem examination ove: Lhr clead boclies of D.1 z nrl D.2. Ex.P.3O is the PME report oi t). 1. lix.P3 1 is tl-re PME rc1 'rlt of D.2. Cause of death of deceast:,1 is :iue to cardio respira ory arrest due. to cut injury on nec<. On 24.07 .2OlO, P 'V.16 Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet condt cted Test Identihcation parade ('I'.J pzrrarle). In the said T.l I rrrade P.W.4 and P.W.17 did no: iJentily any suspects. P.W. i identified A.2 as the person who ptLrtir:ipz ted in the incident, b tt he did not identify accused in ttrr Oourt. On 15.06.20 1 O, P W .22 arrested A1 to A6 at MedL:lrerl r rilu,a!' station and d rring the course of interrogation tlre atcused allegcd to havr rnade a confession in presence ol' P^,L's.12 and 13. In pursu:rn c'of the said confession M.O.S Nold.r t:t:ll t hone,

¶33

¶34

¶35

blood stain shirt and a knife were recovered and after completion of entire investigation P.W .23 filed charge sheet. Prosecution witnesses P.Ws.3 to 8, P.Ws.1O to 15, P.Ws. 17 and 19 out of P.Ws. 1 to 23 have not supported the case of the prosecution and they were declared as hostile. The plea of the accused is one of total denial. When the accused was examined under Section 3 f 3 Cr.P.C., he denied the evidence of prosecution as false.

¶36

The lcarned counsel for the appellant argues that P.Ws.S and 17 are eye witnesses to the incident and others are circumstantial witnesses and panch witnesses. Apart from the evc witnesses P.Ws. 3 to 8, 1O to 15, 17 and 19 have turned hostile. There is no evidence to connect accused with the offence or to establish the motive against him. There is no evidence to shorv that accused A.2 participated in the incidence along with others and caused death of deceased D.1 and D.2. P.W. 1 is the lather of D. 1, P.W.2 is the wife of D. 1. They did not state anything against the appellant. Both of them expressed suspicion on A. 1 and his friends. They did not made any specific allegation against A.2. The magistrate who was examined as P.W. 16 conducted Test Identification Paradc (T.l).

¶37

¶38

As the eye wi nesses turned hostile and stated th.rl tl-ret, did not know the ass rilant and they did not identify therrL in thl Court. His evidence ir ofno relevance.

¶39

The lea ned counsel for the appellant furtn,-.i i, rgr ed that T.l Parade pr< ceedings are not substantive piece ol:r,ide rce and they are relat ng to investigation as like 162 statcrrr,nts. as the witnesses P.V.8 and 17 did not identifv the a:;sai[;,Lnts in the Court, Test Id':ntification Parade proceedings Ila/r t( rci,-vance, has no value. nd cannot be relied upon. He also rrlieC rr:ton the Judgment par s<-.d by the Honble Supreme Court ir rlie' r::rse of Malkhansing h & others Vs. State oJ Madhga .,rcdcsh,^r i6 support of his contention, in which it is held as folic rvs:

¶40

"lt is u 2ll settled that the substantiue et'itL:'tce s the euidence oJ irlentiftcation in court and the test ia <rLti,fi^-ation parade prc ides corroboration to the identiftc,t 1sy1 t'f the uitness in ' ourt, if reEtired. Hou.teuer, uhat u;e:gltt mtrst be attached to tle euidence of identification in court. rul,ich is not precede 7 bg a test identification parade, it; a tnatier .for the courts o. fact to examine."

¶41

It is fo the prosecution to establish the 11r-rilt of the accused beyo ld reasonable doubt and it is ior t h^('rn t ) pro/e that except ac :used A.2 and no other person has cr:r:mi ted the

¶42

r lotn 1:1s{ t' 74rr

¶43

¶44

death of D.l and D.2. Aclmittedly, in this case, there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The actual dispute is between accused A. I and deceased D.1. As D.l beat the sister of A. 1, Panchayat was conducted befoie the elders of the community. But, A. 1 instructed to his friend A.2 to come and attend the Panchayat. As such, A.2 attended Panchayat and a quarrel took place between A.2 and D.1. A.2 along with others hatched plan to kill him. There is no evidence adduced b1. the prosecution to prove the motive for the offence, as all the material evidences turned hostile. Though, the charge sheet hlcd against A. I to A.7, the trial Court found accused A. 1, A.4 to A.7 not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 3O2, 3O7, 1O9 r/w 149 IPC and acquitted them under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The Judicial Magistrate of I - Class registered it as P.R.C.No.44 of 2O11. During the pendency of the proceedings, accused A.3 was absconding ahd N.B.W pending against him since long time. As such, the case against A.3 was split up as P.R.C.23 of 2Ol2 arrd the case is committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judgc, Mcdak at Sangareddy took up the case on file as S.C.No.2O2 of 2Ol2 and made over the case to the IV- Additional District Sessions Judge, Siddipet.

¶45

¶46

He pronounce I the Judgment acquitting the abovr: err:cur;ed and convicting tht accused A.2 alone for the charge -rncler Section 302 I.P.C. P W.1 is the complainant, he clear v strrted in complaint tha he lound A.2 in the Police StatiorL wlrt:n lre went to Police Stati rn for lodging a complaint under Ex Pl. I{e gave complaint on ll1.06.201O at 8-OO p.m in P.S.^'lo<pran and it was registere I as Cr.No.121 of 2OlO under E.x.P 34 on 02.06.2010 a rcl F.l.R rvas issued under trx.P3l. Tlrere is correction in he date ur-rclcr Ex.P.35. P.W.1 state,l that he is suspecting acr used A.1 for death of his son deceasecl D.1 in the charge sheet z r-rd in the evidence , it was clearly :nent,ion:d that there is no r rotive for the acctrsed to kill D.2. As lre was accompanying D.l to avoid identi{ication, accusec alsc killed him. As per c )ar[Je sheet A.3 kitled D.2. As thr' c rse split up against him, it cannot be considered norv.

¶47

The cast of the prosecution is that P.W .22 ,rre sted A. 1 to A.6 on 15.O6.i^tl lO and at the instance of the confr:ssior. given by them, they Llso seizecl ccrtain material objects Ir vie'a of the evidence of P. VI, the said arrest and confessi,tn appears to have created b the policc for thc purpose of the crrr;e. Tl:e trial Court did not I elieve the evidencc of the defendant r:rtrrnsel and

¶48

()

¶49

wrongly held that P.W. 1 might have stated wrongly regarding the presence of A.2 in the Police Station. P.W. 1 is no other than the father of deceased D.l. When Panchayat was conducted in their village, there '*,as occasion for him to see accused A.2. As per the case of the prosecution, quarrel took place between A.2 and D. 1 and there is no reason for P.W. I to state falsely about his presence in the Police Station when he went to the Police Station for giving complaint.^'l'hcrefore, the trial Court erred in rrot believing the fact rcgarding presence of A.2 in the Police Station on 01.06.2Oi0. P.W.4 is the eye witness to tJle occurrence. Hc was at a distance ol 40O - 5OO Sq.yrds from the scene of offencc. Hor.r,ever, he turned hostile. P.W.S is the Manager of the Vinayaka lodge at Gajwel and he did not identify the accused. The register maintained in the hotel was seized by the police after 6 or 7 days undcr Ex.P4. P.W.6 stated that he found D. I and D.2 at Pragnapur auto stand at 4 p.m. P,W.7 stated that he knows A. i and D.1. As he worked as Sarpanch, he kept as signatory for the inquest Panchanama. But, he stated that Panchayat was conducted between A.1 and D.l about one month back though it u,as conducted about 1 year back. P.W.8 is the Auto person supplying water. He stated that he was proceeding on Auto, he noticed two dead bodies. But, he

li)

t I

I I

turned hostilt and he identihed the accused in the -1a--,i1, lut not in the Court nd il was suggested that he was sh:,vrn,:ulprits photographs I elbre identification. P.W.9 is the w-tn :ss fc r scene of offence pa rchanama, under MO - 1 beer bol.tle vras seized. P.W.10 ancl '.W. 1 I are panch mediators on in,luest of the deceased No. I . P.W. 12 is the mediator for confr:ssior of six persons and sr:izcrname of A.2 and he identi[rerl A.2 in the Court. P.W.3 is also another mediator fir corrfession panchanama r-rnder r,r'hich MO- 2 to 5 of A.2 wer€' re,rovered. But, he tun c,.l hostile regarding location of rr:r:oveiy spot. P.W. 14 is tht rncdiator for seizer of an auto unde: lIx.l)l7 and declare<l as rrstile. P.W. l5 is the mediator for rrr,l,:est of D.2 under Ex. P 1 B ar-rcl declared as hoslile. Exceo - the ofhcial r.r,itnesses zrll other witnesses turned hostile to th.' "^=. of th" prosecution.^).W.1 also expressed suspicion ag€dnrit A. I but not against A.2 vhen the trial Court clearly held thrit the re is no evidence aga nst A. I and others and acquitted lhrln. Blsing on the same e vi lt ncc holv can A.2 be convictecl rrray be ir r view of MOs.2 - 5 p, rlaining A.2 were recovered at the sc{)ne o: offencc. But,^(he rlitncsses clearly stated th:rt ,lonlessional panchanamr s^.,r'erc drawn not at the scene of ,tlft:nce, but thev \lrere drawr at the railway station. Even irL the Test

¶55

¶56

¶57

Iclentification Parade conducted by the Magistrate one Ch.Kanaka Raju identified A.2, but he failed to identi$ in the Court. It is for the prosecution to connect accused with the offence. A.2 was convicted for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C which is a grave offence, as all the material witnesses turned hostile the triai Court erred in convicting the A.2 for the said offence. Therefore, the Judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

¶58

In the result, appeal is allowed accused A.2 is found not guilty for the offence under Section 3O2 IPC and acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C, bail bonds of accused A.2 shall stands closed. M.Os.l to 17 and other properties shall be destroyed and M.O. l8 auto shall be returned to A.5.

¶59

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶60

closed.

¶61

//TRUE COPY//

¶62

Sd/- B.S. CHIRANJEEVI, JOINT REGIStrRAR / sEcrloN^drrtcea

¶63

¶64

¶65