Allowed

Penchala Raju (A-1) Godavarikhani and 2 Otrs., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC29 Oct 2024CRLA/1149/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Criminal Appeal allowing acquittal of three appellants convicted for murder. The court found discrepancies in prosecution evidence regarding arrest dates and recovery of the deceased's body head. Relying on circumstantial evidence standards, the court held the evidence unreliable. Allowing the appeal, the court acquitted the appellants and discharged bail bonds.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal allowed, conviction set aside, appellants acquitted, bail bonds discharged, fine paid refunded.

Penchala Raju (A-1) Godavarikhani and 2… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

BAIL SLIP: The Appellants / Accused^{No. 'l to 3 weredirectedto be releasedon} bail by the Order of the High Court^{dated 02-01-2023 madein l.A. No.} I &3oI 2O22 in Crl.A. No. 1'149 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR^JUKANTI

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1149 OF 2015

¶8

Appeal filed under Section 374⁽²⁾ of Cr.P.C. against^{the Judgment dated 29-} 10-2015 made in S.C. No. 335 of 2014 on the^{file of the Vl Additional Districtand} Sessions Judge, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar^District.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Penchala Raju (A-1), Sio. Babu, Aged 21^{years,MunnuruKapu,R/o.} Krishnagar of Godavarikhani

¶11

Kunamalla Srikanth (A-2), S/o. Cheralu, Aged^{22 years, Mala, R/o. H.No.14-4-} 431/1 , Thilaknagar of Godavarikhani of Ramagundam^Mandal

¶12

Kunamalld Kumar (A-3), S/o. Cheraju,^{Aged26 years, Mala, R/o. H.No.'14-4-} 431/1, Thilaknagar, Godavarikhani of Ramagundam^Mandal

¶13

...Appellants / Accused Nos. f to³

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public^{Prosecutor,HighCourt of} Judicature at Hyderabad

¶16

...Respondent / ComPlainant

¶17

Counsel for the Appellants Ms Y Ratna Prabha

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent Mr Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor

¶19

The Court delivered the following^Judgment:

¶20

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRTMINAL APPEAL NO.1149 OF 2015

¶23

JUDGMENT i b)er lfon'ble .Sri Justice tr SLF,IENDE,R)

¶24

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

¶25

This Criminal Appeal is hled questioning the conviction imposed against the appellants/acctised Nos. 1 to 3 vide Judgment dated 29.1O.2015 passed in S.C.No.335 of 2Ol4 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Godavarikhani District, for the offences under Sections 3O2 and 2Ol read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶26

The case of ttre prodecution is that the appellants, who are arrayed as accused Nos.l to 3, committed the murder of one Sri Budida Sateesh (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased), who is son of PW. 1, by severing tris head.

¶27

The dead body of the deceased was found near Manair river of Gajulapalli Village on 23.01.2013. pW. 1

¶28

¶29

then lodged Ex.P. 1'complaint at 03.20 P.M. on the^said date. In the complaint, he narrated that the deceased was missing from the house on 22.O1,.2O 13 after he left at about O7.OO A.M. During his exarnination before the Court, PW. 1 stated that the deceased left the house at about O7.OO A.M. and did not return to the horne and he was found lying dead. He went near the dead body and found that the body was without head. The report was given under Ex.P. 1 suspecting that the accused have committed the murder.

¶30

According to PW. l4-Investigating Officer, on the basis of the complaint given by PW. 1, accused Nos. 1 to 3 were arrested on 25.O1.2OI3 from the grandmother's house of accused No.2 at Gajulapalli Village. Confession of accused was recorded and thereafter the head portion of the body was found at the instance of the accused. According to the investigation, accused travelled in^an auto after committing the murder and the head portion of the deceased body was taken to Manair River of^Odedu Village sivara and buried. Scene of offence panchanama was conducted and also the dead body of the^deceased was sent for post-mortern examination. The head portion

¶31

¶32

which was found buried and discovered at the instance of the accused was sent to the hospital for post-mortem examination along with the body. Tt-rereafter, inquest was conducted in the presence of the independent persons and the relatives of the deceased. PW. l4-Investigating Officer seized the knife,which was used to cut-off the head of the deceased in the incident, from the river, at the instance of the accused. The wearing apparel of the deceased and the accused were collected during the collrse of investigation and sent fer FSL exdrnination. After concluding investigation, charge sheet was filed. 6. Learned Sessions Jr-rdge having examined the evidence on record found that the case is based on circurnstantial evidence. Re\ring on the evidence of PWs.1 to 15 and also Exs.P. 1 to P.35 along with the material objects that were rnarked during the course of trial as M.Os.1 to 19, learned Sessions Judge found that the circurnstances proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Sessions Jud.ge held that accused Nos.l to 3 along with the child in conflict with law had committed murder of the deceased and convicted them accordingly.

¶33

¶34

¶35

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants mainly argued that ttre statements of prosecution witnesses are self-contradictory and doubtful. The accused were arrested by PW. 14, who is the investigating offlcer, on 25.01.2013 and according to the investigating officer therhead portion of the dead body of the deceased was found on the same day i.e.,25.01.2013, at the instance of the accused. However, PW.6 narrated that the police along with the accused searched for the head portion of the deceased and it was nof found on 24.O1.2OI3 br-rt it was found on the next date. On the basis of the said glaring discrepancy of the case of the prosecution, there arises any amount of dotrbt regarding complicit5r of accused in committing the murder- Only on the basis of certain recovery of wearing apparel of the accused, it cannot be said that the accused^have committed murder.

¶36

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the discrepancies pointed out by the learned colrnsel for the accused are minorⁱⁿ nature. They do not go to the root of the case.^The evidence of last seeing the deceased and accused, coupled

¶37

¶38

with the recovery of head portion of the body of the deceased at the instance of the accused point towards the accused that they have committed the murder of the deceased. The circumstances adduced by prosecution are sufficient to find the accused guitty.

¶39

PW. 1, who is the, father of the deceased, stated before the Court that the accused did not pick up the deceased from the house on 22.01 .2013 and he did not know where thc deceased met the accused on 22.07.2013. PW. 1 also admitted that he canno't say who found the dead body of the deceased and informed to him. When the report of Ex.P. 1 was given in the police station on 23.01.2013, accused No.l and a child in conflict with law were present in the police station and the relevant portion of the cross-examination of PW. 1 which reads as follows:

¶40

"Accused did not pick up Sathish from my house on 22-7-2073. I do not know whether accused met Sathish on 22-l-2O13. I cannot say who inforrned me on 22-l-2O73 about the dead body of Sathish. I was on duty then I cannot say the exact time of my seeing the dead body of Sathish. I gave report at 6-0O pm., on 23-l-2O13. I got drafted Ex.P. 1 in the police station. Police were present at the dead body of Sathish when I went there. A-1 and

¶41

¶42

Juvenile accused Sreenu were present in the police station at the time of my giving report. I did not ta-lk to them. Prior to my giving report, police informed me that accused arrd Sreenu committed the offence. There were no disputes between Sathish and accused-"

¶43

According to PW. 1, the police informed that it was accused No. I and . "tiia in conflict with law, who had committed the murder of the deceased. PW. 1 also admitted that there were rro disputes between the deceased and the accr-rsed. The motive projected by the prosecution is that tkre deceased was having an affair with the sister of accused No.1 for which reason accused No.1 with the help of accused Nos.2 and 3 and a child in conflict with law had committed the rmrrder of the deceased. PW. 1 denied knowledge about any kind of enmity in between accr-rsed No.1 and his deceased son. 1 1. PW.2 is the sister of the deceased and she stated that on 23.07.2013 her sister informed her that the deceased did not return home on 22.01.2013 night. She went to the house and calne to know that the dead body of the deceased was lying in Gajulapalli. Then, her sister, PW. 1 and other relatives went to Gajulapalli. The accused also accompanied thern since they were friends of the

¶44

¶45

deceased. The dead body of the deceased was for.rnd without head portion. She also stated that later she came to know on 25.O1.2O13, the head portion was traced near Manairu River of Odedu Village. According to pW.2, the accused were with them a_11 along on 23.O1.2013 and spent time with them ttll 24.OI.2O13 evening. Further, according to PW.2, on 25.01.2013 the police informed that the head portion was traced as such pWs. 1, 2 and. others along with the accused reached Manairu river near Odedu Village. PW.2 also stated that the heid portion was found at the instance of the accused and the child in conflict with law.

¶46

PW.4 was the person selling toddy, who stated that he knew the accused. Two years prior to the date of his examination, the accused and another person purchased five litres of toddy frorn hirn, consumed it and went away. 13. PW.5 is the owner of Auto-M.O.14 which was seized during the investigation on the ground that the said amto was used to take the deceased before comrnitting murder and after committing the murder, the head portion of the deceased was taken near Odedu Village and buried under the river side.

¶47

¶48

PW.6 is the wiiness relied on by the prosecution to show that he acted as an independent witness during the seizure of the head portion of the deceased. In chiefexamination, he stated that on 25.01.2013 at about 11.30 A.M. police went to the village along with the accused and another pelson and based on the confession of the accused the head portion was recovered. However, in the cross-examination, he admitted that on the previotrs date i-e., on 24.01.2013 police went there and searched for head portion and they could not found it. Again they went on the next day and having searched at four or five places, police found the head portion of the deceased and the accr.rsed were enable to pin point the place.

¶49

PW.S is the witness to the seizure of M.Os.S to 13 which are rold-gold ornaments. PW. 10 is the witness to the seizure of knife used by the accused. PW. 1 I is the independent witness to the inqr.rest proceedings.

¶50

In the present case, there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and it is only based on circumstantial evidence. It would be apposite to refer the law regarding reliability of circumstantial evidence to acquit or convict

¶51

¶52

an accused. The iaw regarding circumstantial evidence was aptly dealt with by the Honlole Supreme Court in Padala Veera. Reddg a. State of A.P.I2 wherein this Court has observed as under: (SCC pp. 7l0-ll, para 1O)

¶53

"1O.⁽¹⁾ The circumstances from uthich^{an inference} of guilt is sought to be dra u.tn, must be cogentlg and fnnlg^{estabtishe d;}

¶54

(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendencg unerringlg pointing toutards gttilt of tle accttsed:

¶55

(3) the circumstances, taken cumulattuelg, should fonn^{a chain so completetLwt thereis no escape} from the conclusion that u.tithin all human probabilitg the cime utas committed by the accused and none else; and

¶56

(4) the circumstantial euidence in order to sustain conuiction must be cornplete and incapable of explanation of ang other hgpothesis than tlnt of tLe guilt of the accused and such euidence should not onlg be consistent u.tith the guilt of the accttsed but should be inconsistent tuith his innocence. "

¶57

As seen from the evidence of witnesses, contradictory versions were given regarding the arrest of the accused. PW. 1 says that accused No.1 along with the child in conflict with law was present at the police station wtren he lodged the complaint on 23.O1.2013 at 06.30

¶58

I 1989 Supp (2') SCC 706

¶59

¶60

P.M. PW. 1 lodged cornplaint and he had no proof to suspect the accused to have committed the murder of the deceased. PW.2 states that the accused were also in the village on 23.OL.2O13 and 24.07.2013 and they were along with them.

¶61

PW.2 says only on,2S.01.2O13 at the instance of the accused the head portion was found. However, the version of pw2 is contradictory to the version of pW.6, who was the independent witness to the recovery of the head portion. PW.6 stated that on 24.Ot.2OlC itself the police a-long with the accused went there and searched for the head portion. The accused could not pin point the place where the head was buried and police searched on 24.01,.2013 and 25.07.2013 at several places. The said version given by PWs,l, 2 and,6 is contradictory to the version of the investigating officer.

¶62

According to the investigating officer, the accused were arrested on 25.OI.2O13. If the version of the investigating ofircer has to be believed, the evidence of PWs.l, 2 and 6 cannot be considered. There was no explanation given by ttre prosecr.rtion regarding the said d.iscrepancy which crept in and goes to the root of the

¶63

¶64

case in respect of the identity of the accused, their^arrest, motive and also recovery of the head^portion-Itis apparent from the evidence that the^{prosecutionhas} suppressed the actua-l version and^{carneup with a tainted} version, which was proved to be false^as discussed^above, during trial, as admitted by the^witnesses.

¶65

In view of such discrepancies,^{we do not find any} substance in the case of the^{prosecution.Accordingly,} benefit of doubt is extended to the accused.

¶66

Criminal Appeal is allowed, setting^{aside the} conviction imposed against the appellants/accused^Nos.1 to 3 vide Judgment dated 29.1O.2O15^passedin S.C.No.335 of 2Ol4 by the trial Court.^The appellants/accused Nos.l to 3 are acquitted^{for the said} offences. Since the appellants are on bail their bail^bonds shall stand discharged. The fine arnount^{paid, ifany,} shall be refunded.

¶67

I Sd/- K. SRINIVAS RAO JOINT REGI RAR

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

One Fair^{Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice K' Surender} 1f6i^{uis LordshiP's Kind Perusal)}

¶72

One Fair^{Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti} ' (For His LordshiP's Kind Perusal)

¶73

To, The Vl Additional^{Districtand sessions Judge, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar} District (with records.^{if anY)} 2 ii" Cf,"ir*un^{lndustrial iribunal-cum-LabourCourt-cum-Vl Additional} District & Sessions^{Judge, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District}

¶74

	3. 4. 5.	TheJudicial Magistrate of^{FirstClass,Manthani, KarimnagarDistrict} TheStationHouseOfficer,^{Manthani PS, Karimnagar District} '11 LRCopies
\|6. 10 11 7 8 o	TheUnderSecretary,Unionof^{lndia Ministry ofLaw,JusticeandCompany} Affairs, NewDelhi TheSecretary, Advocates Association^{Library, HighCourtfortheStateof} Telangana,HighCourt Buildings^atHyderabad TheSuperintendent, Central^{Prison,Warangal} TwoCCsto the Public Prosecutor,^{High Courtfor theStateofTelangana,} Hyderabad[OUT] OneCCtoMs YRatna^{Prabha, Advocate}[OPUC] Turo CDCopies