Allowed

Bakkolla Sathaiah, Medak Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC19 Nov 2024CRLA/1282/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Conviction under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence was challenged on appeal. Finding the motive doubtful, no last-seen evidence, and an unreliable recovery, the High Court held the chain of circumstances incomplete and acquitted the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Appellant set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case; bail bonds cancelled; fine component unaltered.

Bakkolla Sathaiah, Medak Dt., Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

134281

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE K. SARATH

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1282 OF 2016

¶7

Criminal Appeal under 372 (2) of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated^'16-05- 2016 made in S.C. No. 167 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge at Medak.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Bakkolla Sathaiah, S/o. Durgaiah, Age 41 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Shankarpally Village, H/o. Podchanpally Thanda, Papannapet Mandal, Medak District, Native of Muthaikota, H/o. Maddulwai Village, Mandal & Dist. Medak

¶10

...Appellant / Accused

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad

¶13

...Respondent

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant

¶15

Sri V Balram

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent Sri Arun Kumar Dodla

¶17

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶18

The Gourt delivered the following Judgment :

¶19

ii l i

¶20

..:,i .

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE K.SARATH CRIMIN AL APPEAL No.1282 oF 2016

¶22

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

¶23

The Criminal appeal is filed by the appellant_accused questioning the Judgment dated 16.05.2016 in SC No.l.67 of 2O15 passed by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Medak, wherein the accused was convicted for t_he offences under Section 302 of Indian penal Code (for sh,rrt "PC") and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also pay hne of Rs.2OO/- in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six monflrs.

¶24

2 Heard Sri V.Balram, learned counsel for the appellan.t_ accused and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent_State and perused the record

¶25

The deceased is the co_brother of the appellant. According to the version of the wife of the deceased and other witnesses, the appellalt and the deceased were cultivating the land of one Venu Gopal, which was taken orr

¶26

KS,J & SK,J Crl.A.No.l282 of 2016

i I

,, I

lease. There was a petty quarrel in between them. In^fact, the appellant was asking the deceased to provide water from his bore weII. For not providing water, he used to now and then threaten the deceased.

¶31

On 25-12.2014 evening around 07.00^pm,the deceased went to the fields and did not return.^{PW.3, who} is the son of PW. 1 was asked to^go to the agricultural^field and see as to why the deceased has not returned.^When PW.3 went to the agricultural fields, he^{foundthe dead body} of the deceased in the hut. Immediately,^{he came back and} informed to PW. 1, who is his mother.^{Thereafter, others} went to the agricultural frelds and^{saw the dead body of the} deceased. PW. 1 went to the^{police station and ltled} complaint, which is Ex.Pl. The^{said complaint was frled at} 1O.OO am. According to PW.^{1, duringher evidence and also} in the complaint, PW 1 stated that the appellant^and deceased dug bore wells.^{However,in the bore well dug by} the appellant, there was no^{waterand he asked the} deceased to provide water from his^{bore well. However, the} deceased did not provide water.

¶32

KS,J & SK,J Crl.A.No.l282,t[2016

¶33

¶34

On the basis of the complaint frled, the police during investigation went to the scene and conducted scerre of offence panchanama. Thereafter, inquest proceedings were also concluded. The body of the deceased was sent for post Mortem Examination. PW.7, Doctor, who conducted the Post Mortem Examination, found that there was head injury and injury to the right lung resulting in his death.

¶35

On 29.12.2074, the police apprehended the appe)lant at Podichanpally village. Pursuant to his arrest, his confession was recorded in the presence of independent witnesses. Shirt, Towel and stone which were usetl to commit murder were seized at his instance.

¶36

The wearing apparel seized at the instance of appellant were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The FSL report reflects that blood was found on the wear.ing apparel that was seized at the instance of the appellant.

¶37

On the basis of eircumstantial evidence, mainly the motive part i.e., the refusal of the deceased to provide wzrter

¶38

KS,J A, SKJ CrLANo.l282 oJ 2016

¶39

¶40

to the appellant, the trial court found that the said^dispute

¶41

resulted in appellant committing murder.

¶42

l,earned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argrred tleat there is no eye witness account to the^said murder. In the absence of any eye witness account,^the prosecution has to prove by other reliable evidence and such reliable evidence which are circumstances^{leading to} the inference of the guilt by the appellant. Except^stating that there was recovery from the appellant^{nothing is placed} on record by the prosecution.

¶43

On the other hand, learned Additional^Public Prosecutor argued that the motive for murder^{is proved'} Once t1e prosecution has^proved the motive^aspect,the inference drawn by the learned Sessions^{Judge that it was} the appellant, who committed the murder,^cannotbe interfered with.

¶44

1 1. In the case of circumstantial evidence,^{the prosecution} has the burden of proving every circumstalce^{relied on the} The by the prosecution beyond reasonable^doubt' circumstalces have to make out the case^unerringly

¶45

KS,J & .\K,J Crl.ANal282 of )016

¶46

¶47

pointing towards guilt of the accused. Any suspicion in t-he circumstances projected by the prosecution, benefrt should go to the accused/appellant.

¶48

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Sharad Birclhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra" t laid down fi.ve principles 1n respect of the cases under circumstantial evidence:

¶49

3:3. Before a case against an accused uesting on circumstantiol euidence can be said to be fullg established the follouting conditions must be fulfilled_. 1 . The circumstances from uthich the anclusion of guilt is to be drantn should be fullg established.

¶50

The facts so established should be consistent uitlt the hgpothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to soA, theg should not be explainable on any other hgpothesis except thctt the accused is guilty.

¶51

The circumstances slnuld be of a conClusiue nature and tendencA.

¶52

Theg should exclude euery possible hgpothesis except the one to be proued; and

¶53

There must be o chain of euid.ence so complete as not to leaue any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent uith the innocence of the acansed and must shotl thctt in all human probabilitg the act must haue been done bg the accused.

¶54

These fte golden principles constihtte the panchsheel ol the prool of a crlse based on ItgEa ett t6z2

¶55

¶56

KS,J & SK,J Crl.A.No.l282 of 20t6

¶57

ciranlstantial euidence and in the absence of o corpus deliciti.

¶58

Firstly, coming to the motive as projected by the pro$ecution, the appellant bore grudge against the deceased for not providing the water. The said motive as projected raises any amount of doubt, in the back ground of the admission by the prosecution witnesses that both the deceased and the appellant had taken land on lease from one Venu Gopal and cultivating the same. If both the appellant and accused had taken the land on lease, question of their being dilferences arnong themselves become doubtful. The witnesses have not narrated as to how the differences arose when the deceased and appellant had taken land togetJrer from the same person. It is not the case of the prosecution witnesses that having taken the said land on lease joinfly, however they were cultivating the land separately. In the absence of any such proof that the land was not being jointly cultivated, the motive as projected by the prosecution cannot be believed. The sther lacune in the prosecution case is that the involvement of the accused is on the basis of suspicion that he must have killed the

',iJ

,::-ii'

KS,J & SK.J Crl.A.No.1282 of 20t 6

¶63

deceased for not providing water. Suspicion, hou,ever strong cannot fake prace of legar proof. In fact there is no witness who has iast seen the appellant and the deceased together. Even on the date when the deceased went to his freld, nobody had seen the appellant meeting the deceased. There is no evidence to show that the deceased was going to meet the appeliant nor anybody has seen them together prior to the discovery of the deceased,s dead body. In the absence of last seen evidence and the motive being the weak piece of erridence and not probable, in the present case, there arises any amount of doubt regarding the prosecuti.on case being correct.

¶64

The only other aspect left is seizure of blood stained cloths and stone/MO.14 which were. recovered at the instance of the appellant.

¶65

15' There were injuries on the head and arso on the chest of the deceased according to the Doctor. The recovery ,1f stone was at I he scene of offence. When the police had already conducted scene of offence panchanama three days prior, it is doubtful as to how they could not detect the

¶66

¶67

KS,J & SK,J Crl.A.No.l282 of 2016

¶68

stone. The said stone/MO.14 was not shown to the Doctor to ascertain whether the injuries that were found during the Post Mortem Examination were possible by MO.14.

¶69

16, Mere recovery of blood stained clothes, which is the only circumstance, cannot form basis to infer that the appellant was the person who committed the murder of the deceased. The appellant has denied the seizure of clothes.

¶70

L7. For the foregoing discussion, we do not find any ground to sustain the conviction.

¶71

Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. The bail bonds, if any, furnished by him shall stand cancelled. The hne component remains unaltered.

¶72

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if aly, shall stand

¶73

closed.

¶74

Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

¶75

//TRUE COPY//

¶76

To,

¶77

SECTION OFFICER