Allowed

Kandikanti Manikata Goud, Saroornagar and 2 Otrs., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC7 Nov 2024CRLA/324/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal against two appellants convicted of murder. The court acquitted them as the sole eyewitness was an interested brother who materially improved his statement in court, failing to initially claim he was an eyewitness, and his version was uncorroborated. The court rejected the prosecution case relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding solitary testimony.

What did the court decide?

Appellants Kandikanti Shiva Goud and K. Madhu Goud acquitted; conviction set aside; bail bonds discharged.

Kandikanti Manikata Goud, Saroornagar and 2… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

BAIL SLIP : The Appellant / Accused No. 3 was directed to be released on bail by the Order of the High Court dated 1'l-01-2023 made in l.A. No. 1 of 2023 in Crl.A. No. 324 of 2016

¶2

BAIL SLIP : The Appellant / Accused No. 2 was directed to be released on bail by the Order of the High Court dated 05-07-2023 made in I.A. No. 3 of 2023 in Crl.A. No. 324 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 324 OF 2016

¶8

Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment and Conviction dated 08-03-2016 made in S.C. No. 456 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Vlll Additional Sessions Judge FAC, lX Additional Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District Court at LB Nagar.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Kandikanti Manikata Goud, S/o. Late Mallesh Goud, Age 25 years, Occ. Automobile Business, R/o H.No. 1-2-107, Near Priyadarshini Park, Saroornagar

¶11

Kandikanti Shiva Goud, S/o. Late lt/lallesh Goud, Age 27 yearc, Caste Goud, Occ. Automobile Business, R/o H.No. 1-2-107, Near Priyadarshini Park, Saroornagar

¶12

K. Madhu Goud, S/o. Late Mallesh Goud, Age 26^years, Caste Goud, Occ. Automobile Business, R/o. H.No. 1-2-107, Near Priyadarshini Park, Saroornagar

¶13

...Appellants / Accused No. 1 to 3

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and A.P.

¶16

...Respondent / Complainant

¶17

Sri S Ram ReddY

¶18

Counsel^{for the APPellantNo..2 & 3} Counsel^{for the ResPondent}

¶19

Sri Arun Kumar^Dodla Additional Public^Prosecutor

¶20

The Court delivered^{the following Judgment:}

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRT JIISTICE K.SURENDER

¶22

AND

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A1IIL KUMAR JT'XANTI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.324 OF 2016

¶24

JIIDGMENT: (per The Hon'bte Sri Justice K.SURENDER)

¶25

Heard Sri S.Ram Reddy,'learned counsel for the appellants/A2 and A3 ald Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional public Prosecutor for the State.

¶26

The appeal is filed by Accused Nos.1 to 3 who were convicted for the offence under Section 3O2 r/w.34 of the Indian penal Code. Along with Al to A3, A4, A5 and A6 were also tried and convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 3O2 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶27

This Court vide Judgment dated 25.06.2018 allowed tJle appeal insofar as appellant No. 1/A1 is concerned and accordingly set aside the conviction and the sentence irnposed against him as A1 was found to be a juvenile. This Court while setting aside the conviction against the juvenile did not get into the facts of the case to decide the complicity of the accused.

The case of the^{prosecution is that the deceased namely Sunil} Goud was^{the yorrnger son of PW' 1' PW'2 is the elder brother of the} deceased.^{The de,:easedwas given in adoption to the matema-luncle} of PW. 1 namell'^{Venkatesh Goud-PW'3'It was actually decidedto} take A3 in^{adopti-on,however:; A3 was not adopted for the reasonof} A3 having criminal.^{antecedents'Since the property of PW'3 wouldgo} in favour of the^{deceased-sunilGoud, A1 to A6 have come together} and committed^{murder of the deceasedSunil Goud near his house'} The said incident^{happenedon 27} 'O2^{'2012 around 9:50 p'm' The said} information^{regardingthe murderof the deceasedwas by PW'2 to his} fatherPW.l.PW.l,thenwenttothePolicestationandlodgedEx.Plcomplaintatll:iiOp.m.Onthebasisofthecomplaintfrled,thePolice conducted scene of^{offencepanchanama and the body rvas sent for} postmortem exanination.^{After concludinginquestproceedings'} postmortem proceedings were^{conductedby PW'Swho found 44 ante-} mortem injuries^over the^{dead body. According to PW.8 all the said} injuries were^{caused by a sharp edgedweapon'}

¶32

During the course^{of investigation, the InvestigatingOffrcer-} PW. 11 recorded^{t-he statements of PWs.1} ,2^{and others. He also visited} the scene,^{collectedcontrolledearth a;rd sent for FSL examination'}

¶33

¶34

On O3.03.2O12, the Constable-pW.9 and pW,1O_S.I. of Police along with other police personnel apprehended Al, A2, A4 to 46 at Nagedunasagar bus stad, Nalgonda. They allegedly confessed to the offence. Thereafter, ,{3 strrrendered before the Court.

¶35

The Police {iled charge sheet for the offences under Section 302 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal code and Section 27 (rl of theArms Act.

¶36

The learned Sessions Judge having examined the witnesses of whom PW.2 was arl eye-witness, found the appellant along with four others guilt5z.

¶37

l,earned Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the entire finding of Sessions court is based on the solitar5r testimony of PW.2. only on the basis of pw.2's evidence, conviction was recorded. However, even according to the prosecution at the earliest point of time when pw.2 was examined by the Investigating officer, he did not state that he was an eye-witness to the incident. During the course of trial the contradictions in the evidence were marked in the earlier 161 Cr.F.C. statements as Dl and D2. pW.2 stated that by the time he went near the scene, he found the accused fleeing from the place and his brother was found dead. He did not state at the earliest point of time that he was an eye-witness but

¶38

¶39

improved his^{versionbefore the Court and stated that he was an eye-} witness to the incident.^{Such evidence. cannot be relied upon to} convict the accused.^{The counsel placed retalce on the Judgment of} the Honourable Supreme^{Court inVadivelu Theaar 1'' Sto:te of} Madro,s^r to buttress his^{argumentsthat the testimonyof PW'2is} wholly unreliable. The^{Honourable Supreme Court had classifredthe} witnesses into i) 'wholly^{reliableii) wholly unreliable iii) neither wholly} reliable nor u.h olly unreliable.^{The second categor,' u'itnesses'} evidence has to be brushed^{aside totally'However, in the third} category of witnesses, unless^{there is independentcorroboration} such evidence cannot be relied^on.

¶40

Learned CotLnsel also relied on the Judgment^{of Honourable} Supreme Court in Mahendra Singh^{and others a' State oJ M.P z} wherein, the Honourable Supreme Court^{while decidirg the case} found that the c,nly evidence of motive^{being established,the same} cannot be made basis to convict^{the accused.}

¶41

In the case of Sftate oJ Raiasthan^{a. RaJendra Singh3 the} Honourable Supreme Court had dismissed the^{appeal frled by the}

¶42

1 1957 SCC Online 5C 13

¶43

'12022^{Live Law sc 543}

¶44

3 (2oog) t t Supreme court Ceses '106

¶45

¶46

State mainly on the ground that there were contradictions and improvements in the evidence of eye-witness.

¶47

On the other hand, the learned Public prosecutor would submit that PW.2 has stated before ttre Court that he had witnessed the incident. Apparently, having^, seen such a ghastly incident of his brother being killed, he might have stated ttrat he had not witnessed, out of fear at the earlier point of time. However, gathering courage he has deposed before the Court regarding the involvement of the accused.

¶48

The eye witness evidence against the accused is the solitar5r testimony of PW.2. On the basis of PW.2,s information to pW. 1, complaint was hled. The evidence of PW. 1 is hear-say. The eye witness account of PW.2, whether can be relied on to convict the accused has to be looked into.

¶49

During the course of P.W.2's examination before the Court, PW.2 stated that he heard his brother shout for help on the date of incident which is 27.O2.2OI2 at 9:3O p.m. arld he rushed to the place where he heard his brother shouting. It was at a distance of 8O to 1OO feet away from the garage. There, he saw A1, F,2 and, A4 stabbing his younger brother with knives on front and back side of the deceased.

¶50

¶51

¶52

A5 and A6 were beating^{his brother with sickles and the public} gathered. Al, A2, A4, AS and^{A6 continued stabbing the deceased and} A3 brought one big^{granite stoneand threw it on the head of the} deceased twice in the^{presence of public.Later all the accusedfled on} bikes.

¶53

During the course of^{cross-examination,his statementrecorded} under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.^{was confrontedand Exs. D1 and D2} were marked. According to Ex.D1^{and Ex.D2, PW.2 stated before the} Police that " mg brother Sunil Goud tttos^{killed by Madhu, Siua,} Manikanta. I u.tos informed that mA brother^{Sunil Goud was being} beaten bg Madhu, Siua^qnd Manikanta.^{Then I ran toutords the place of} incident, shoutinq. Bg the time I reached^{near mg brother, Man|Siua} and Manikanta a.n.d some others sau^{PW.2 and} Jled.^{He utent to his} brother and saw that his bodg ruith seueral^{stabbingbleeding raounds.} Further, graruite stone u)as abo throun^onhi.s face^{and his brother utas} in pool of blood. The same was irtformed to^{PW.1 on pLnne"}

¶54

The Investigating Officer-PW. 11 admitted that^{PW.2 had stated} as in Exs.Dl and D2. He further admitted that^{PW.2did not state} before him that tre saw accused stabbing and that PW.2^waspresent when the accuse<l were stabbing the deceased.

¶55

....,".__ri,i;-... iirrirei.

¶56

¶57

..r:':':

¶58

Though PW.2 stated that several other persons were present there, however, none were examined by the Police. At the same tirne no names of any of the persons who gathered at the scene was given by PW.2 to tJle Police.

¶59

17 . Apart from the solitar5r,testimony of PW.2, there is no other evidence before the Court which corroborates with the version of PW.2 as already discussed. The entire version of being an eye-witness to the said incident of alleged stabbing by A1 to A6 and throwing of granite stone by ,A.3 on face of deceased is an irnprovement from the earliest version under Exs.Dl and D2. Considering the evidence of PW. 11Investigating Offrcer, it goes to show that PW.2 had not witnessed the incident and he reached the place of incident after the attack on the deceased. Mere presence of the appellarts/accused at the scene, it cannot be held that they committed the offence, when according to P.W.2, two or three persons informed him about the incident and when he went there, he saw appellants fleeing. Neither the said 2-3 persons are named nor details of anyone else is mentioned.

¶60

PW.2 is the brother of the deceased and is an interested witness. Admittedly, there were disputes regarding adoption. It is the case that the deceased was adopted in the place of A3 for which

¶61

¶62

reason, the alleged murder has taken^{place.PW.3 is the person who} had taken the d eceased in adoption.^{Relying on the observations} made by the Honourable Supreme Court in Mahendra^{Singh's case} (supra 2) even if motive is established, the conviction cannot sustain since there are no eye-witnesses to the incident.

¶63

The Police had also not given €rny reasons as to why^no independent witlresses were examined. Admittedll,, the scene^of offence was surrounded by residential houses but none of the^persons living in those houses were examined. Since the solitar5r testimony of PW.2 is an imp:roved version ald not corroborated by any other evidence, his tes,timony cannot be believed. Further, according to medical evidence, there were only stab injuries with a sharp edged weapon, however, according to P.W.2's version, granite stone was thrown on the face of the deceased twice by ,43. The said stone was not recovered and the doctor did not find any such crush injuries which would hav,: been caused by the granite stone when thrown on tl:e face of the der:eased.

¶64

In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation to extend benefit of doubt to the appellants 2 and 3.

¶65

¶66

Accordingly, appeal against appellants 2 and 3/A2 and A3, is allowed and they are acquitted. The conviction recorded by the triar Court in S.C.No.456 of 2012, dt.8.03.2016, is set aside against 42 and A3. Since appellants 2 and 3 /A2 and A3 are on bail, their bail

¶67

bonds shall stand discharged.

¶68

Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT EGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECT N OFFICER

To,