Partly allowed

Sabavath Tirupataiah v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Nov 2024CRLA/237/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the conviction for murder, finding the 'last seen' evidence of key witnesses doubtful due to discrepancies and lack of corroboration. The Court allowed the appeal partly, acquitting the appellant of murder but convicting him under Section 411 IPC for receiving stolen ornaments. As the appellant had already served the sentence, no further order was made.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside; convicted under Section 411 IPC. Sentence already served, so appellant discharged.

Sabavath Tirupataiah Vs the State of Telangana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

High 'ihe BSJrt=d};^{ll83"iJliff,*i,1:l:1 BSj?e,f a?l^:i'3'liijD;f3"' o'}

¶2

[^{341s ]}

¶3

rN rHE^{H|GH couRrl?TJEF^tJiJEoF TELANGANA}

¶4

TUESDAY,THE^{FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER} 'Yid6iHousnND AND TwENTY FouR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K'SURENDER} THE HoNouRABLE^{sRl.,t}$t%t ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI}

¶7

GRIMINAL AP^PEAL NO:23^70F2016

¶8

0, o 3 fff6"X"Xrs3d'fl1^{g sRt: t', g.t} lii :lll^{?,.;''?3"';l ll 3''"tfl :?"fl s'ii} X"oii["r'rrbiiiiia^{and Sessions Judge'wanapannv}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Cooli,^FUo. Sabavath^TiruPataiah' S/o.^Devula' Age:⁴³ vears, ' WanaParthY^Occ: Mandal' Village, Nroavaram^Thanda' Nagavaram Ma-habubnagar^District'

¶11

..'APPellant

¶12

AND

¶13

utor,^{HYderabad, ReP'bY} j?',"1'"'J'i" $"":it?31.:?\1X11t1'ft"#'H"ft^:l

¶14

...ResPondent

¶15

Sri M.^{Damodar Reddy} Counsel^{for the APPellant:}

¶16

: Public^Prosecutor Gounsel^{for the ResPondent} The Court^{delivered the following: JUDGMENT}

¶17

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER THE HoNouRABLE "**Ir'.r"rrcE^{J.ANTL KUMAR}

¶19

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.237 OF 2016

¶20

{ILDGMENT. /.D.r Flon^,ble Srt Justice K.Surender)

¶21

l. The appellant/ accused was convicted for the olfence uncler Section 302 of IpC and sentenced to life imprisonmenr. Questroning the said conviction, the present appr:al IS preferred .

¶22

2' Brieflv. the case of the prosecution is that the deceascd namell,Anke Jeiyamma, who is the mother of pWl, was a dailv rvage labourer. According to pw1, on 1s.o2.2or3, deceased reft from the house to PaY house tax at Housing C,ffice. Wanaparthy ancl did not return and they searche,l in surrounding places ald went to the police Station and gave complaint on 18.02.2013. Thereafter, on 23.02.2013, in the evening at around o5:00 pM, the porice caled pw1, since thel, discovered dead body of a lady. pWl and others went to the dead body and iclentified the decomposed body o1_decease,l. It appeared that she was strangulated with a towel. Her ornaments were missing. She a_lso had cell phone number. On the basis of sairl complaint filed, during the course of rnvestrgation, the police arrested the accused on 23.05.20 i3

¶23

¶24

¶25

The accused was identified on the basis of eviclence of pWs.4 and 5, u,ho were examine d on25.02.2073.

¶26

After the arrest of accused, he vvas interrogated and during the course of interrogation, he admitted the guilt oI committing murder of deceased and also confessed that he herd stolen gold and silver ornaments. At the instance of accused, seizure panchanama was drafted, rvhich is marked as Ex.P12 and MOs. 1 to 5, which are golcl anci silver ornaments, were seized. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused lor the offences under Sections 3O2 and 379 of IpC. Since the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate has committed the same to the Sessions Court and numbered as S.C.No.63O of 20 13.

¶27

4 . Charges were framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 379 of IpC.

¶28

During the course of trial, the learned Sessions Judge examined PWs.l to 11, marked Exs.pl to 13 and MOs.1 to 6 were also brought on record.

¶29

The evidence of pWs.4 and 5 is crucial. According to PW4, she stated that two years prior to her deposition in the

¶30

,:.frFFJ.Fj.

¶31

Court, u.hen t her u.ere searching lor coolie work, accused went there on motor bikr- anci took awav the deceased with him stating thal she u as in neecl ol a worker. On the same day, as PW.l coulcl nor qcr anv u.ork, she returned homr:. pW4 informed the samc to the son of deceased, son_in_law and daughter, regarciing the deceased being taken away by the accused for coolie u.ork.^.fhereafter, pW4 came to ]crour about the dead borlr br:ine found. However, in chief examination itself, PW4 statecl that she clid not have prior acquaintance with the accused anr.l for the frrst time, she had seen the accused rvhen he has taken atvay the deceased wit}l him.

¶32

PW5 also staterl that he used to see the deceased at Junior College Centre, during her visit, for doing coolie work. He saw the accusecr taking away the deceased on his scooter and 3 to 4 clavs thereafter, he came to know that deceased died and her boclv was found on the Hillock situated at Jagathpaily Village.

¶33

Learnecl Sessions Judge mainly placed reliance on the evidence of pWs.4 and 5, who have last seen the deceased with the accused and also the recovery of gold and silver ornaments i.e., MOs. 1 to 5. According to prosecution, the said ornaments were identified b_v pW 1 in Test Identification of property

¶34

¶35

Proceeclings^{conductedb--v PW9, u'howas Tahsildar' Tahsildar} issued llx.P9^{certillcate,certifving that PWl has identified} MOs.lto'1.u'hichweretheornamentsofhismother'inthe said procecdit't^{gs conductcd'}

¶36

g. Learned counsel^{appearing on behalf of the accused} would submit^{that flrstl)', the names of PWs'4 and 5 were not} mentioned^{in the complaint/ExPl' If at all' PW4had informed} PWlandothersaboutherseeingaccusedtakingthedeceased on the^{scooter,her name rvoulclhave been mentioned in the} complaint.^{l'he deceasedlr'as found missing from 15'O2'2013'} However,^{complarntwas ltied on 23'02'2073'Even the name} of PWS is^{also not mentionedin the complaint'In the said} circumstances,^{the last seen evidenceof PWs'4 and 5' without} there^{being any corroboratingevidence casts any amount of} doubt regarding^{the prosecution version beingcorrect'}

¶37

Learned^{counsel reliedonthe judgment of Hon'ble} Supreme^{Court inShankoiru'State ofMaharashtrat'} wherein, the^{Hon,ble Supreme Court, whiledealing with the} evidence^{of last seen versionof witnessesfound on the facts of} the case,^{such evidence could not be relied uponand} accordingly,^{extended benefrtof doubt in favour of accused'}

¶38

t 2023 Lawsuit(sc) 236

¶39

¶40

,,Y

¶41

1 1. SimilarJy, rn the case o1. R. sreeniuasq u. state of Kq.rnqtaka2, the Flon,ble Supreme Court, u_hile clealing with a case where the trial Collrt hacl acquitted the accused, however, the High Court reycrsed t he judgment of acquittal and convicted the accr:secl rnainlr on the last seen the ory. The Honble Supreme Court lbuncl that th e trial Court was correct, since evidence of last seen could not be believed as there was no corroboration and thc evicience of last seen v/as not probable.

¶42

Learned counsel further relied on Jabir and others a. State oJ Uttarakhqnd3, rvherein, the Honble S upreme Court, under similar circumstances, r,,.hile dealing u,ith the tes timony of last seen rvitnesses, found that snch evidence cannot solely be based on, to convict the accuseci.

¶43

Learned public prosecutor would submit that once PWs.4 and 5 have stated that they have seen the acrlused takjng away the deceased on his scooter and thereafter-, the deceased was found missing, the onry conclusion that cou.rd be drawn was that the accu secl had committed murd<:r of deceased for gold ancl silver ornaments, which were seized at the instance of accused and they were found to be that of

¶44

'?^{2023Lawsuit(sc)} 891

¶45

' 2023 SCC Online SC 32

¶46

¶47

¶48

deceased.^{The identihcationparade of oLnaments rvas done tn} the^{presenceof Tahsildar and the same cannot bc disputed'}

¶49

examined^{in the Court on18,12.2O15. Her} 74.^{PW4 was} she^{had seen the accusecltakrng the deceased} evidence^{is that} She^{stated in her chicf examination that she} on 15.02.2013' does^{not have prior acquaintalcen'ith the accused and for the} first time,^{she had seen him' on the 63v' rr'rhen the accused} has taken^{away the deceased \Yith himThereafter'PW4} identilied^{the witnesses in the Court'a{ter a gap of nearly two} years and^{ten months' if at all' accused u'as stranger' it is} highly^{improbablethat PW4 wouid have iclentified the accused} as the^{person who has taken the deceased' on the sard day'} Admittedly,^{thename ofPW4 \ ''as notmentionedin} Ex.P1/Complaint'^{thoughPW4 stated that she informed PWl} regarding^{theaccusedtaking a\vay thedeceasedon} i5.02.2013'^{PW4was planted in the present case only to} speak^{against the accused' Her testimony regardingseeing the} accused^{takingthe deceased on his scooter'cannot be} believed.

¶50

PWS^{is another witness who had stated that he has seen} the accused^taking away^{the deceasedon thescooter'} However,^{he did notspeak about the date, on whichhe had}

' :av'

seen. According to him, 3 or 4 days after she u.ent \,rth the accused, he learnt about death of the deceasecl. Thc case of the prosecution is that she was missing on 15.02.20I3 :rnd louncl on 23.02.2013 i.e., after B days of her missing. The evidence ol pWS is that he learnt about the deatlr of the deceased 3 or 4 days, after she went with the accuscd. Such evidence cannot be believed and apparently, pW5 is; also a u-itness planted by the prosecution

¶55

The other circumstance, trial Court relied on is the recovery of MOs.1 to 4. No reason is given as to \,hv the Test ldentification of the ornaments was not conductecl be{bre the Jurisdictional Magistrate and services of the Tahsilciarr/pW9 .,r,ere taken to identify the gold and silver ornaments. Firstly, only witnesses who saw the deceased being taken arvav by accused are pWs.4 ald 5. Their names are not mentioned in the complaint nor any descriptive particulars oI-accused or the scooter on which she was taken away are given. II_at all, they are daily wage labourers, they would be taken everyda1, by person whoever needs their service. In fact, in the comltlaint, son of the deceased stated that at around O9:00 A.M., the deceased went from house for paying Housing Tax at Tax Office, Wanaparthy. Further, PWs.4 and 5 spoke abotrt the

¶56

I I

¶57

¶58

seafch^{of coolie Nork ilt} WanaParth-vdeceased^{waltlng ln} Cen tre

¶59

17 .^{The description of the gold and silver ornamentswere} not^{given by PWl' However' even acceptinggolci and silver} articles^{were recovered at the instanceof the accused'the} offence^{is one underSection 411 of IPC'}

¶60

18.^{Absolutely,there is no evidence to remoteh suggest that} it was^{the accusedwho had committedthe murder of the} deceased^{and accordingly' convictionunder Section302 of IPC} rs hereby^{set aside'However'the accused is convicted under} of IPC^{and sentencedto undergo two years} Section⁴¹¹ . Since^{the accusedhad alreadr'-served out two} imprisonment nce,^{no furtherorders are requirecl to be passed} years^{of sente} The aPPellant was enlarged^{on bail on 27 'O9 '2027'}

¶61

Criminai^{APPeal is PartlYallowed.Bail bondsshall stand}

¶62

discharged^' MA sd,-^{c.v.MALLIKA RJUNAV} TRAR Jol^{NT REGI} /ITRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶63

To,

¶64

ji,','1J""''1

¶65

r+l:[$:iffi iill::r:t;'r:3i$i:{ffi,#il"1'l};i,, i iflffilT:""^{;;Peddamandad} ::::_:.= s'ia'ie'r Jl:il#,^{re ansanaa'i} t ffi,$"6;51fl;;-:x^[il$:::;

HIGH COURT

DATED:0 St11t2O24

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.23t of 2016

( o \t{ 1i-rE s 14 '
4,
o
l-
L) l-. ,.i
1 I ilot/ zmi :,
/
D..

¶72