Dismissed

Kota Prasanna Laxmi, Warangal Dist. and Ano v. Lethakuka Narender Reddy, Warangal and 2 Othrs

Telangana HC26 Nov 2024CRLA/634/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal appeal against acquittal in murder, rape, and cheating case. The High Court examined cumulative circumstantial evidence, including witness reliability and lack of motive proof, and upheld the trial court's acquittal without compelling reasons to disturb it.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal filed against acquittal of accused Nos. 1 and 2 is dismissed.

Kota Prasanna Laxmi, Warangal Dist. and Ano… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^341s ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, TI-{E TWENTY^{SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW^FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE K.SURENOER}

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEANILKUMAR JUKANTI}

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEA^{L NO: 634 OF 2015}

¶8

Appeal under Section^{372 of Cr.P.Cagainst the judgment dated21-04-} 2014 made in s.c.No^{591 0f 2011 0n the file of the court of the ll Additional} Sessions Judge at^Warangal

¶9

Between:

¶10

Kota Prasanna Laxmi^{Wo (Late) Kota NarasimhaSry?'y' Aged. 46.years'} dcc Housenold.^{R/o. New Shayahpet, Hunter Road, HanmakondaMandal'} Warangal District.

¶11

Kota Vamshi,^{(Late) Kota Narasimha Swamy,Aged.25.yearsO99} ?lYqg!t' - C/o H.No.23-6-241, New Shayampet, Huntbr Rbad, Hanmakonda Mandal' Warangal District

¶12

,..APPELLANTS/PW.1,^LW.5

¶13

AND

¶14

1 Lethakuka Narender^{Reddy Sio.Thirupathi Reddy,Aged38. years Occ} Business, R/o. H.No.23-6-236,^{New Shayampet,HunterKoad' warangar}

¶15

2.ThotaSureshS/o.Ramchander,Aged36years,Occ:Business'R/o' H.No.164-143, Shivanagar,^Waragnal.

¶16

3 " rhe HVO"riUiO state or For^reransana, the Stite of Telingdna^{Rep bv "} and '''1:::t":Tilt -')':For the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶17

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶18

Counsel for the Appellants:^{Sri Lingala Sudheer representing} Sri J. SaUa Prasad

¶19

Counsel for the^{Respondents1 and 2: Sri' A' PrabhakarRao}

¶20

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo. 3: Public Prosecutor}

¶21

The Court delivered^{the followingJUDGMENT:}

¶22

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR

¶24

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. of 2O15

¶25

JTJDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K-Surender)

¶26

l. This appeal is filed by the wife of deceased aggrieved by the judgment d,ated, 21.04.2O14 in S.C.No.591 of 2011, passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge at Warangal, acquitting the appellants/accused Nos. I and 2 for the offences under Sections 364, 3O2, 2OL, 4O4 and l2O-B read with 34 of lPC.

¶27

Heard Mr Lingala Sudheer, learned counsel representing Mr J.Satya Prasad, learned counsel for appellan ts and Iearned Public Prosecutor for Staterespondent.

¶28

The case against the accused is that on 02.O1.2011, the decease,l who was the husband of pwl went to his parents house and from there, he went to the house of pW4. The deceased sent a message to PWl stating that he would be back at O4.0O P.M. on the said day. pWl tried to contact the deceased, horvever, she was unable to contact him. They searched ftrr the deceased and on the next day, she lodged compl:rint i.e., on O3.O1.2011 at O6.3O p.M. giving details of

¶29

¶30

missing person. The crime was registered as 'man missing'by the Police. Meanwhile, on 06.01.2011 at 08.30 A.M., Police received information about gunny bag containing dead body which was found at Mailaram Reservoir whi,ch is 3O km., from the residence of PW I . The Police went there and conducted inquest panchanama. The body was also sent for Post Mortem Examination. Post Mortem Doctor found that death was on account of manual strangulation.

¶31

The accused No. 1 was arrested on 11.O1.2011 at O7.OO A.M. His confession was recorded and on the basis of accused No. I's confession, accused No.2 was also arrested. At the instance of accused No.2, gold ring of the deceased was seized. A big needle which is used to stitch gunny bags was also seized, along with purchase bill of the needle.

¶32

During investigation, both accused Nos.l and 2 led the Police to Mailaram Reservoir, where they allegedty dumped the body. The Police was also taken to Kazipet bus stop, on the basis of confession of accused, where SIM card of the mobile phone was thrown. However, SIM card could not be traced. Then they went to drainage near NIT College, where the purse of the deceased was thrown in the drainage, but the purse was not found. The place which is a water

¶33

¶34

drainage was also searched at the instance of accused Nos.l and 2, since, accused Nos.1 and 2 stated that mobile phone of the deceased was thrown. However, mobile phone could not be traced. Finally, motor cycle which was used to allegedly transport the dead body by accused Nos. I and 2 to Mailaram Reservoir was seized.

¶35

During the coursc of investigation, the police found that accused No. I and deceased were doing business of executing civil contracts for APGENCO. Pursuant to completion of contract, they received amount of Rs. I2,OO,0OO/-. The said amount was taken by accused No. l. The deceased was asking for the said amount, however, accused No.l postponed the issue on one pretext or the other. Further, motive is also suggest('d that daughter of the deceased fell in love with some other pcrson and accused No. I got involved in the family issues u,hich resulted in differences in between aicused No.L and deceased.

¶36

The said motive was shown as reasons for committing murder of deceased by accused No. I with help of accused No.2.

¶37

Irrrrther, according to prosecution, on O2.O1.2011, accused No.l took the deceased on his motor bike. They were

¶38

¶39

seen by PWs.6 and 7. Both the PWs.6 and 7 stated that a bald head person travelled along with deceased. Both the deceased and accused No.l are strangers to PWs.6 and 7. Thereafter, PW7 also saw accused Nos.l and 2 carrying a gunny bag in between both of them on a two wheeler. The prosecution case is that accused No. I had taken deceased to accused No.2, where deceased was strangulated by both accused Nos.1 and 2 and thereafter, body was kept in the gunny bag and shifted to Mailaram Reservoir on the two wheeler and thrown in the said reservoir.

¶40

On the basis of the said circumstances, charge sheet was filed. During the course of trial, PWs. 1 to 2 1 were examined and Exs.Pl to 26 were placed on record by the prosecution. Exs.Dl to 16 are the defence exhibits which are contradictions in the evidence of PWs. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 12 along with other defence exhibits.

¶41

l,earned Sessions Judge having considered the evidence on record acquitted the accused on the following grounds:

¶42

The evidence of last seen by PWs.4, 5, 6 and 7 could not be believed. Admittedly, both accused No. I and deceased are strarrgers. The witnesses have seen them from their back side. Such evidence cannot be believed.

¶43

¶44

Test Identification Parade was not conductecl during the course of investigation to identify accused Nos. I and 2.

¶45

Though it was stated that telephone calls were made by accused No.1, while deceased was at the house of pW4, however, call data was not produced by the prosecution.

¶46

CeIl phone numbers or the details or the locations were not placed by the prosecution to substantiate the movement ofthe accused and the deceased.

¶47

The evidence of recovery of gold ring of the deceased is doubtful. PWI did not speak about any gold ring being worn by deceased, however, the same was seized.

¶48

No evidence of purchase of the said gold ring was produced by PWI during trial.

¶49

The motive aspect was also not proved. Running of chit business by PWI was not proved by filing any document. Further, there is no evidence to show that accused No. I joined as a member in the chit business that was being run by PW l.

¶50

Investigating Oflicer admitted that he had not collected any documents to show that any amount was received

¶51

¶52

from DGR company, towards the contract payrnent, that was executed by accused No. 1 and deceased.

¶53

Though Investigating Oflicer stated that he sent requisition to the Telecom Department for records, however, the said information was not placed before the Court.

¶54

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a strong motive for accused No. I to commit murder is outstanding amount received from the contract and also the amount received in the chit being run by PW1. There is no reason why independent witnesses who are PWs.6 and 7 would speak false against the accused. Learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in .Rohtash Kutnar u. State of Haryanat, Babu and a,nother a. Statez, Stote of U.P. u. M.K. Anthongs, State of Rojasthan u. Smt. Kalki <rnd anothera, State of U.P. a. Shankers.

¶55

),2. On the other hand learned counsel for accused supported the findings of the learned Sessions Judge

¶56

'^{2013(2) ALo (crr.) 806(sc)}

¶57

'?2013^{(2) ALD (crr.)2.$B(sc)} r AIR rg8s sc 48

¶58

'^{AIRi981 sct39o}

¶59

s AIR 1981 sc 897

¶60

¶61

In cases of acquittal, the appellate Court is restrained from converting the order of acquittal to one of conviction, unless compelling reasons are shown. Compelling reasons would include any admissible evidence not being considered by the trial Court or evidence igzrored or the acquittal based on irrelevant material or inadmissible evidence.

¶62

The Honble Supreme Court in pulicherla Nagaraju Alias Nagaraja Reddy v. Slto;te o! Andhra pr-adesho held as follov,,s:

¶63

"15. It is now well settled that the power of the High Court in an appeal from acquittal is no different from its powcr in an appea.l from conviction. It can review and consider the entire evidence and come to its own conclusions by either accepting the evidence rejected by the trial court or rejecting the evidence accepted by the trial court. I{owever, if the High Court decided to depart from ttre conclusions reached by the trial court, it should pay due attention to the grounds on which acquittal was based and state the re:rsons as to why it linds the conclusions leading to the acquittal, unacceptable. It should also beai in mind that (i) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is fortihed by the findings of thc trial court; (ii) the accused is entitled to benefit of any doubt; and (iii) the trial court had the advantage of examining the demeanour of the u,itnesses. The crux of the matter, however, is whether the High Court is able to give clear reasons to dispel the doubt raised, and reject the reasons given b_,the trial court."

¶64

15 There has to be connecting link in the circumstances that are projected by the prosecution. In case of

¶65

6 lzoooy r L scc +<-+

¶66

¶67

circumstantial evidence, each^{andevery circumstancethat is} relied on by the^prosecution should^{be proved beyond} reasonable doubt. The said^{circumstarrceswhichare proved} should form a complete^{chain,so as to rule out the possibility} of the accused being^{innocent ard the circumstances should} point towards the guilt of^{ac"cusedpersononly.}

¶68

As already discussed^{above, reasons given by the} learned Sessions Judge^{regardingevery circumstancenot} been proved by the^{prosecution,cannotbe found fault with'} Strangers who are PWs.6^{and 7 have stated about last seeing} accused No.l and^{the deceased.Further, PW7 stated that} dead body of the^{deceasedwas apparently carriedin a grnny} bag and thrown at^{a distance of 30 kms in the reservoir'As} rightly found by the learned^{Sessions Judge, the manner, in} which, the bag was found^{was not placed on record. Further,} accused Nos.l and 2^{were stoutpersonsand the possibilityof} man being tied up in a bag^{and carrying it on a two wheeler,} was not possible. The said^{linding also is reasonable.}

¶69

[r-r view of the^above ,^{collectively,there are no reasons to} interfere with the findings^{of the learned SessionsJudge,} while acquitting the accused '

¶70

¶71

Accordingly, the Criminal appeal is dismissed.

¶72

Sd/. I. NAGA LAKSHMI DEP REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I; OFFICER To, 1. The ll Additional Sessions Judge at Warangal. 2. The Station House Officer, Matwada Police Station, Warangal. 3. Two cCs to the Public Proseclrtor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 4. One-CC to Sri J Satya Prasad, Advocate TOPUCI 5. Orte CC to Sd A Prabhakar Rao, Advocate [OPUCI 6. Two CD Copies VFUelr' Yt'

r-;--,!--:--:. ,

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2611112024

JUDGMENT'

IllE Sla
t r)e. )ia o,(
J
1s FiE 7[?f "F
!.
.f
f trs.," .-..r -

¶79