Allowed

Joga Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Jun 2023CRLA/399/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal filed by Joga Srinivas challenging conviction for robbery under Section 394 IPC. High Court held that prosecution miserably failed to prove guilt due to hostile witnesses, uncorroborated victim evidence, and implausible theory regarding recovery of snatched gold chain from custody. Conviction set aside and appellant acquitted.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of Trial Court convicted under Section 394 IPC set aside; appellant acquitted and released forthwith.

Joga Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I i

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^{TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA^CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 399 OF 2021

¶7

' .. E i'.' Appeal filed unaei'sddidn'3?4Q\ o'f Cr.P C.^{aggrieved by the Judgment dated} 26 O8.2O21^passed in S.C No. 40 of²⁰¹⁶ on the^{file of the Court of the lV Additional} Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar,^{RangaReddy District.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Joga Srinivas, S/o Sri Joga Ramu Hindu, aged 25^{yea.s Occ Labour,} R/o.H.No.5-86 Ganesh Nagar, Peerzadiguda (V) Ghatkesar^Mandal, R R District Telangana

¶10

...APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep by^{public prosecutor HrghCourt, Hyderabad}

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

r.A. NO: 1OF 2023

¶15

Petition under Section 389(1) of Cr.P,C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be} p:eased to suspend the execution of the sentence of imprisonment^imposed ?oainst the appellant on 26 08.2021 in Sessions^{Case No. 40 of 2016 by the} Lcarned lV Additional Metropolitan Sessions^{Judge,Cyberabadat L. B. Nagar,} Ranga Reddy District, and to release the appellant^{on bail pending disposal of} ri:e above criminal appeal.

¶16

Ccunsel for the Appellant :Smt. Y. RATNA PRABHA

¶17

Counsel for the_Respondent : Sri S. GANESH,^ASSISTANT "rtf,a.rrarr.

¶18

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

HON'BL]3 iT{T, JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAI{I|LA/ARTHY

¶20

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.399 of 2O1t,1

¶21

JUDGME]II I :

¶22

l11 'l'lris zLppeal .lq filed against the -trrlgr-rent S.C.N,r.-111.2()16 datt:cl 26.O8.2021, on th,r fil: o1' IV Additrrna I\Ietropolitan Sessions Judgle, C '':rer,rbarl at L. B Nrrgirr. Ranga Reddy District, convicting^,..t : appcllzu'rt for th,' ol''i n:e punish:rb1e under Sectiorr l]9'l cf IPC iind scnLcr rce I o under go rigorous imprisonmcnl¹ rr l pcriocl of tcn (1 C) 1'ears and to pay a hne of Rs. 1.(,,) )/ ancl in dcfault o f^,a/ment o[ fine, he shall unc^()r-go simPle imprisori rr, nt for a pr:riod of six (06) months.

¶23

'l'ht: c rr:re of the prosecution as culled o,Lt f:^om the chargr slr,: rt is that on 20.O3.2OI5, in the ev.r-in51 hours, P.W. I re ce ived a phone call from P.W.2 r t ating that accr-rsr'd/ a1 r,:llant u,ho was the tenart in lri:; r:rother's houst' stel: lred his mother, who sustained .r uries and eidnrittc<l ir ;\dithvzr Hospital, Boduppal.⁽⁾ⁿ t 1a1, P.W.2 rushec tc t re hospital and found his mothorr" th injuries on lrt:r che: l, abdornen :rnd on her hands On ,:rrqrriry, his

¶24

¶25

mother i.e., victim/P.W.3^{revealedabout the incident to} him for which he^preferred a^{report at 6:30 p.m. and} Ex.P-l is the report.^{Basingon Ex.P-1 report, P.W.7,who} is the then Inspectorg-f^{MedipallyPoliceStationregistered} a case in Crime'No.'i97 of^{2015lor the offences punishable} under Sections 394 and 307^{of IPC and issuedFIR i'e,} trx.P-7 to all the concerned^{and took up investigation.}

¶26

During the course of investigation,^{he recorded the} statement of P.W.1, visited^{the scene of offence i.e. house of} P.W.3, secured the^presence of^{panch witnessesi.e. P.W.4} and P.W.5 and in their^{presence,examined the sceneof} offence and prepared crime^{detailform and rough sketch} i.e. Exs.P-8 and P-9. The^{scene of offencewas situated at} Veranda of house of P.W.3 and^{M'Os.2 to 5 werecollected} from the scene of offence^{i.e. blood stainedmarble stone,} blood stained mat, one knife^{and one pair of plastic} slippers and made seizure under^{Ex.P-8. He also noticed} blood stained foot^prints, but^{did not obtainfoot prints,} though he has collected^{M.Os.2 to 5 whichare alleged to be} blood stains of P.W.3.^{The Investigating Officer did not}

¶27

¶28

sencl the r., nle to FSL. Latt:r, he a"661d,:d thr sLatemcnts ol P.\/.2 :r;',1 L.W.f, (O.\iasavi). Further, he vi,;ited Adithya Nurrsir-Lg I I nre, Uppzrl u-here P.W.3 wes a - l 1it1ed :u]cl rccrrrdecl lcr- stalctnent. On 26.O3.2O)lj at alrout 1 I :30 a.rn, l- e along u'ith his staff and pirn(:^- <sup>, tnesses nanrel','^r.'r,/.6r an(l L.W.B (V.Bheemudu) <,^- r:ceiving reliabl-' iri rrration proceeded to Boduop:rl, r,'here thet, appreh er1.l€ I the irccused and return€'d to the Police Statror, ar <^,rn interrogation, the accused ct>rrlessed his guiit in th.: presencc of panchas and producerl ons rollcd gold cLrari .e. M.O. I . He seized M.O.1 rrncler ..)x.l).6 :rnd effecte<l th€ irrrest ol the zrccused and sent him to the judicia cr-rs oC1, ancl ,rn completion of entire irrves-igation laid ctLarll ' ,.heet. trx.P- 1 1 is confessional-:t m-seizure panchrran)ir o' the accused dated 26.O3.2OI5. l he crucial q,itncss ir- I his case is P.W.3 who is the inju:':,l and the vlctlm

¶29

4 . Hear cl earne(l counsel for the app( i tarrt and Sri S.^(l ar t''l l-r , learned Assistant Public Pro : t:cut.or for responclent

¶30

¶31

¶32

It is contended by the learned coun sel for the appellant/ accused that^{prosecution has miserablyfailedto} prove the guilt of the accused and inspite of it, the^trial Court has convieted th'e accused/appellant^{for the offence} punishable under Section 394 of IPC, which^{is liableto be} set aside. It is the specific contention^{of the learned} counsel for the appellant that confession^{made by the} appellant is hit by Section 25 of the Indian^{Evidence Act.} The accused has not given any information^{as to the} recovery of M.O. 1 , but the szune was^{producedby the} accused when he was in the police custody'^Therefore, Section 27 of tine Indian Evidence Act do not^{playany role} in this case. Furthermore, it is the contention^{of the} learned counsel for the appellant that M.O.1^{was not} identified as per Section 34 of the^{CriminalRulesof} Practice. It is further contended that^{the Court has} disbelieved the evidence of^{prosecution witnessesand} acquitted the appellant for the^{offence punishable under} Section 307 of IPC arrd therefore^{prayed to set aside the} judgment by acquitting the accused for the^offence

¶33

¶34

punishirb (. Lln(ler Section 311.1 of iPC zrlso. tt.; tl.rc trial Court rii; r lieved t}'r<, s;antc evidence for tl c offence punishirb)c rr rder Section 307 ol IPC

¶35

On lre other hancl, learned 1\ssistrurl publtc Prosecrrto- r rrrrtcnded that P.W.3 is the vir:tirn ru this case, '*,ho^{has ic r r-r,ified materialobject. Therr:} is rr) n( cessit-, for test idcr- titlcation parade of the person or p:op:rty as the appelJlr t qas knos.n to the injured as :t, n,as the tenant of Ir V/.li anci therefore, prayed to corrfirm the judgment rr^- he trial Court.

¶36

It is r:.,' :lt:nt that on behalf of the prosecuti)-r, l).Ws. 1 to 8 u,ere cxz rrined ancl Ex.P- I to P-11 were mat.<:d. 8. Thc pc ints for consideration in this c. j() .re as under:-

¶37

" 1 . \V rt:ther the prosecution is .tble :) prove h^, 3uilt of the accused for the ofler r::: punish irl k under Section 394 of IpC?

¶38

rvy' rc.ther the lou,er Court is right ir convicti:r 1 the appellant for the above se rr offencc'r "

¶39

¶40

For better appreciation of facts and in order to avoid repetition of facts, the evidence necessary only will be discussed, while appreciating the evidence of^prosecution wltnesses.

¶41

P.W. 1 is the son of the victim, who preferred the complaint/Ex.P-1 at about 6:30 p.m. on 20.03.2015. After registering the compliant, FIR/Ex.P-7 was issued and criminal law was set into motion.

¶42

I 1. P.W.2 is also one of the tenants of P.W.3. His evidence is a hearsay evidence as the statements given by him to the Police are based on the information given to him by P.W. 1. Admittedly, P.W. 1 is also not the eye-witness to the case. The incident took place at about 3:30 p.m. on 20.O3.2015 and Ex.P-1 report was given at 6:30 p.m., thus, there was delay of three hours in preferring the report.

¶43

The evidence of P.W.3 is very crucial in this case Her evidence reveals that tl.e appellant stayed^{in her house} as a tenant for a^period of two months and^{thereafter,he} vacated. She testified that at about two years back^at

Tl .-;

about I ll noon. onrr dat'. rvhile she u'ls irl^{r he hall, the} trccusei⁽ iune to her hor-tse and :rskel^{lrt't toet llouse} portion 1c lrim, for w'hich P.W.3^{ir-rforme(ltl)irt ro house} portiol.rs, \ 'e re. yac.zrlttr Latcr she served teil t-^{th€ act:used} and aftel aking 1e:t, al1 ol a^{sudden,the ,r<-r:} -tsecl^stabbed her rvittL I n le on l-re'r chest, abdomen,^{hatrcl:; arro pit and} all over h'r bodl'. Wherr she raised^{ht'r r1;1 'rls to dcfend} herself, srl e sustained injur-ies on her^{llarr<lr; ln<l fingers'} FurtlLer s rc testificd that the accused^{snatc -t.d her rolled} gold cha rr,/M.O.1., on u,hich she ralse: ct'ies^and immedi:Lte ly, P.W.2 zrnd others^{cameantl shiltcdLLer to the} hospital ,r rcl she was treated as in-patient f,rl a^{period of} 15 davs

¶48

The 'vidence ol P.W.2 clisclose that^{he u,l; tlre tenant} of P.W..l f,rr a period of three^yeirrs itnd that^on 2O.O3.2O I i, he heard galata at the hc,use :1^{P.W.3 and} rushed tt he house^and bv the time^{he :-eacht', I tLe house,} l-re founrl l'.\V.3 in a^pool of blood with^se\rcrztin uries^all over her' 'l ,oly. On enquir,y as to hol, P.V'..i sustair-red injuries, t \V.3 inlormed l-rim about the int:,derlt.^The

¶49

¶50

also^{prcsent at the spot by the time' he} accused^was reachcd^the house,^{surroundedbYneighbours'} Immediately,^{P W 3 rvas taken to Adithya Hospital and she} informed^about Jh.e^{incident to P W ' 1 'P'W 2 identifiedthe} accused^{in the oPen court'}

¶51

L4.^{P.W.4 is the panch rvitnessto the crime detail form} and^{rough sketch, but he turned hostile' His signatures on} crime^{detailform and rough sketch are ma'rked as Exs'P-2} and P-3^{resPectivelY'}

¶52

P.W.5^{isalso the panch witness to the sceneof} offence.^{He also turned hostile' His signatureson crime} detail^{form and rough sketch are marked as Exs'P'4 and} P.5 resPectivelY'

¶53

16.^{P.W'6is the panch witness to the confession and he} too turned^{hostile'His signature on the confession} panchnama^{is markedas Ex'P-6'}

¶54

P.W'7^{isthe InvestigatingOfficer'His evidence} disclosesthatheregisteredFIR/Ex.P.Tandlaterreached the house^{ofP'W '3} '^{observedscene of offence inthe}

()

D t t I

I I I

prcsc'llcc ,)1 P.W.4 ancl p.W.S, pr(,p rr((l ( r-nl r(, cletail forrn/li-r.^r g antl rough sketch/trx.p 9. S evidence furthcr. ti r;r loses that he seized M Os.2 to 5 and confessicrr r:ttrn_ ser:ure pancl-rnama/ Ex.l). I 1 .Jrrr e of thc panch u'itr erjses hat.e supported the cr.inre :ietlril form, scene of :r'le n<;e or confession. Admitterlty corrfession recordcd i>. police is hit b-r,Section ZJ of rhe Indian Evidenr:e \ rt On one hand, the ev denc: ol p.W.2 disclos<.s llt:t ths erccusecl r\ras surroultde.cl lt., ncrqbours and have l;:: ,n apprehendecl on the date ol iur:i: ( nt i.e. on 2O.03.2O|t r nd on the other hand, rt is tlte conlcn ion of the Investil;r rg Officer that the accusecl ., as af l) -ehendecl on 26.O.3.2(t 5 at I I :OO a.m. in the presence of_ panch r.rrrtnesse s rL^. I brought him to the police stertic, : arrd on lnterrogatio'l. the accused confessed lris llLrilt and produced roll,,d gold chain i.e M.O.1. The ev r lence of P.W.2 is ,lorrlt.uy to the evidence of p.W.7 irnrl r::,t of the wltnesses turr r:<l host.ile and did not suppc)rt fl_rr. car;e of the prosec.ut:c,r

<br>

The^{left overwitne ss is the Medicai Officeri'e' P'W'8'} His evidence^{discloses that l-re is u'orking as Consultant} Surgeon in^{AdithyaHospitalsince 2Ot4and} L.W.9/^{Dr.Vgrod-was 41so '"r'orkingin the same hospitalin} 2014 but^{left in the year 2077-2018and he can identifythe} signature^{of Dr.Vinod'Admittedly'P'W'S is not the Doctor} who has^{treated P.W 2His evidencecan only be relied on} as to the^{identificationof signature of Dr'Vinod'He has} deposed^{the evidence basing on the record's available in the} hospital.^{His evidencefurther disclosesthatP'W'3} sustained^{multiplestab injuriesover chest'abdomen'both} upper limbs^{and left lower limb and Dr'Vinod/L'W'9gave} her first^{aid and referred to Surgeon for further treatment'} P.W.3 was^{also advised to undergoCT scan of chestand} abdomen.^{Ex.P10 isthe woundcertificate issuedby} Dr.Vinod/L'W.9.^{ln this case' apart from Dr'Vinod'some} other Doctors^{have treated P'W'3 and she also underwent} surgery in^{the same hospital'But the prosecution failedto} examine^{the Doctorwho conductedsurgery over P'W'3'} TheevidenceofP.W.Sisnowayhelpfultotheprosecution to prove the^{guitt of the accused' Except the evidence of}

I llllI I I I

i i i I I I

P.W.3, tl'r rc is no other corroborating ,,vidt:nt c r o belicve

¶67

ire r- evirlr': r e

¶68

ln t rc other hand, the dates o[ appr-l cn:ling rhe accustcl i.r .: :ontrdrv to .oah other. As per tl- r: cviclencc of P.W.2 r,rlrr ri.as the immediate witness ro rhr nr.idcn1. i.c. he sal, I) '/.3 in a pool of blood and reltor I r d hat r l-re incidenl tc trL: place at 3:30 p.m. and .rcclls;rtrl rgas still presert i, t 1,t spot, even though neighbours hrL,.e r.ome. If zrt all, a c r rrre has been committed by }-rirn, I : r r-rght to have fled ,r^,rzLy immediately as the victirr u as l,,in11 in the pool ol blcc:l rvith grievous injuries. No persor s cxpected at the crinl r;cene even after committing crim( As surch, cvidenr:e ,ti I).W.2 as to the presence of the acr:r,rserl at tlte crime s ce;te c:lnnot believed.

¶69

On lhr c,ther hand, it is specifically restifi:r, b-,, p.W.S that when I r: questioned P.W.3 as to lvheit ltasr ltappenecl, P.W.3 exJrJ; ined the incident that one Srini v i s :ausecl injuries to rer and b1, the time he rear:hgd .rc hous.. neighbcur; glthered at that place. In t1 e cross examiniili()n lt is specifically stated by p.W.2 .,rat he cli<j

¶70

¶71

not state to the Police that^{neighbours have surroundcd} the accused and that he can identify^the accuscd.^{He aiso} testified in the cross examination^{that he inlormedP.W.1} about the incident oqe-r the^{phone b1'4 p.m., whocame to} the hospital at about 5:3O P.m

¶72

2l . It is the specific case of^{the prosecutionthat the} accused has snatched rolled^{gold chain of P-W'3. on} 2O.O3.2O15 and he was^{apprehendcdby the Policeon} 26.O3.2015 and on interrogation,^{theaccused has} produced the rolled gold chain of P.W.3.^{If at all, a chain} has beeri snatched/committed^{theft by any person, they} would not carry the chain^{alongwith themas it is a stolen} article. Otherwise, if at all^{the accused was trying to sell} the rolted gold chain to the^{pawn broker,he wouldhave} informed him that it is a^{rolled gold chain and after coming} to know that it is a rolled^{gold chainwhich is not valuable} property, no person will carry^{the same in his pocket,for 6} days. The theory of the^{prosecutionthat the Police have} apprehended the accused^{ald oninterrogation,the}

¶73

¶74

l I I I I I

¶75

.lccllsr'd l-: ;^{confesse d his guilt and hanrlet[() ' ( r t]l'' l-ol1c(l} golcl t'i-rart r.^{c 1n not bc believecl '}

¶76

I'1-r,:^{rial Cottrl- has acquittedthe aup'rlletn- for []'rc} offencc^{]r_ rTish?.blter,indt,r Scction 307 of II)-) t'Cntending} that 'llers^{reeL is lt:ga1ly unproved'TlLere[brt} '^{l'ellelit ol} doublhrrstr,beextr:ndedfortheappellantfotlhesameset of facts ar^{11 same evidenceand the accuserlczrtrttt t be helcl} gutltv utnc,:t^{Sectiotr 394 of IPC as evid':nt:r: :1 P} 1 and "Vs' 3 is nc,l^{'r,rlievablc and is not corrot)ora1i rL;i r"ith each} oth e r'.

¶77

In r^e "v^{of thc above circumstances' 1lt 'i Court is of} the r:ors;i^{lered vies' that prosecutionhas Irls;erz'blyfailed} to bring t,lme^{the guilt of the accused f'rr tl'Le o{fence} punisl-iai: le under^{Section394 of IPCHolv':r'er' the los'er} Cou^{'t t:r't .'ci in convicting the appellant for llt : sa td offence'} Therefot t there^{is every necessity tc' illteliere urith the} judE,me;r c,f the trial^{Court and the judgmenl is liablt: to be} set^{r r} si,l^t:

¶78

In .he resulr,^{this Criminal Appeal is rrllcrvedThe} appcllirr is^{founcl not guilty of the oifctrr:epunishable}

¶79

¶80

under Scction 394 of IPC, and accordingly, thc convictiori ald sentence imposed on the appellant vide Judgment dated 26.O8.2021 in S.C.No.4O of 2016 on the file of IV Additional Metropo[tan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, is hereby set aside and the appellant IS acquitted of the charged offence Consequently, the Superintendent, Central^Prison, Cherlapally, is directed to release the appellant forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. M.Os. 1 to 5 shall be

¶81

destroyed after the appeal time is over.

¶82

Sd/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII Cru SECTION OFFICER

¶83

¶84

The lV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶85

One CC to Smt. Y. RATNA PRABHA, Advocate IOPUC]

¶86

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶87

4 Two CD Copies

HIGH COUR

DATED:06 t'fi )t2023

j-'?"

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.3ll'l of 2021

¶93

.1 -'' - -':- .
:,,1::::ir-i,I.i
4 lt ,}<br>l./'l, Il tlrl. ?til:
i','-

¶94

ALLOWING THE^(}I IIl\IINAL APPEAL. ...A I ,

Joga Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joga Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Advik Laboratories Limited, Vs State of Telangana

Mohammed Abdul Aleem Vs The State of Telangana and another

Mohd Hafeez and 3 Ors. Vs Mohad Yousff

T.Hari Prasad Rao and Anr. Vs the State of Telangana and Another

K. Gopala Krishnan Vs The State of Telangana And Another

Bommakanti Yadagiri, Vs The State of Telangana