Dismissed

The State of a.P., v. Alampally Krishna Reddy

Telangana HC12 Nov 2024CRLA/678/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a criminal appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused for murder. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, noting significant doubts regarding the prosecution witnesses, including allegations of torture and planted testimony, and finding missing links in the evidence chain.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The acquittal of the respondent is upheld.

The State of a.P., Vs Alampally Krishna Reddy — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 678 OF 2016

¶7

Crl. Appeal Under Section 378 (3) & (1) of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment in S.C.No. 523 of 2012 daled 22-03-2013 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Maha bubnagar

¶8

Between:

¶9

The State of A.P., rept. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶10

...APPELLANT/ Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

Alampally Krishna Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy, Compounder, R/o. Lalapet, H/o. Chinna Ummenthala, Kondurg Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶13

..Accused / RESPODENT

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI ARUN KUMAR DODDLA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI MOHD GULAM RASOOL

¶16

The Court delivered the following Judgment :

¶17

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI WSTICE J.ANIL KT'MAR

¶19

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.678 OF 2016

¶20

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

¶21

The State is aggrieved by the acquittal of t-lee respondent/accused for the olfences under Sections 302 and 379 of IPC.

¶22

Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for appellant-State and Mr. Mohammed Gulam Rasool for respondent-accused.

¶23

The flacts of the case are that the deceased namely Kothur Ananthaiah who is husband of PWl and the respondent/accused hailed from same village Lalapet. The incident happened on 23.03.2012 i.e., on the day of Ugadi festival. On the said date, according to the prosecution case, the deceased went to the house of the appellant and informed him that he had an amount of Rs.25,OOO/- with him. In order to take away the amount, he took the deceased on his Bajaj ' Rrlsar motorcycle and went to PW6. There, he kept his motorcycle and took the motorcycle/MO.6 of PW6 and from there, they went to the outskirts of Edulapatly Village. Both

¶24

¶25

were dmnk and in the said condition, the accused allegedly killed the deceased.

¶26

PWl was informed about the body of her husband and lodged Ex. Pl/complaint to the Police. The Police conducted scene of offence panchanarna and thereafter,^inquest proceedings were also concluded. After post-mortem examination, the body was handed over to relatives.

¶27

The Police, mainly on the basis of the complaint and evidence of PWs.6 and 7, filed charge sheet against^the respondent/accused for the offences under Secfions 302 and 379 of IPC.

¶28

Learned Sessions Judge, having examined witnesses found that case is one of circumstantial^{evidence. In such} cases, the principles laid down by the Honble^{Supreme Court} in Padalo Veera reddg o. Sto;te of A.P.^a,nd, othersl^{is that} when a case rests upon circumstantial^{evidence,such} evidence must satisff the following tests:

¶29

a. the circumstances from which an inference^{of guilt is} sought to be drawn, must be cogently and^irrmly established.

¶30

I (ArR) 1990 SC 790

¶31

¶32

b. those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused.

¶33

c. The circumstances taken cumulatively should form . a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and

¶34

d. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than tl.at of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of tie accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.

¶35

karned Sessions Judge found that PWl is not a witness to accused going along with the deceased. It was specifically admitted and marked in Ex.Pl/complaint.

¶36

PW6, though stated that his vehicle/MO.6 was taken by the appellant and deceased, however, his statement was recorded four days thereafter. PW6 admitted that he was, detained in the Police Station for three days, Police suspected that he was the person who had committed the murder. Apparently, unable to bear the torture of Police, PW6 gave

¶37

¶38

evidence against the accused. The other evidence is that of PW7, who is also a planted witness. Though he had allegedly seen the accused and deceased at 09:OO A.M on 23.03.2012, however, he did not say anything to the Police or anyone else about the same, till the Police recorded his statement on 26.03.2012. The said conduct and delay in recording the statement also casts any amount of doubt regarding version given by PW7 being correct.

¶39

On the basis of the above, the learned Sessions Judge found that the circumstances relied on by the prosecution against the accused were not made out and there were missing links in the case of prosecution.

¶40

In cases of acquittal, Appellate Court has to be cautious and cannot interfere with the orders of acquittal, unless and until the findings of the learned Trial Judge are not based on record or illegal.

¶41

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prtlicherlq Nagoraiu Alias Nagaraja Reddg a. State ofAndhra Prqdeshz h.eld. as follows:

¶42

'?^{(2006)11 scc 444}

I I

I 0

"15. It is now well settled that the power of the High Court in al appeal from acquittal is no different from its power in an appeal 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. However, if the High Court decided to depart from the conclusions reached by the trial court, it should pay due attention to the grounds on which acquittal was based and state the reasons as to why it frnds the conclusions leading to the acquittal, unacceptable. It should also bear in mind that (i) the presumption of innocence in favour of tJ:e accused is fortified by the findings of the tria.l court; (ii) the accused is entitled to benefit of any doubt; and (iii) the trial court had the advantage of examining the demeanour of t]1e witnesses. 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 by the trial court."

¶47

The case is one of circumstantial evidence. As rightly pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge, the prosecution has heavily placed reliance on the evidence of PWs. I , 6 anld 7 , their evidence could not be believed for the reasons stated by the learned Sessions Judge. The reasons given for not believing the evidence of PWs. l, 6 and 7 are probable and based on the evidence of witnesses themselves. Mere recovery of amount from accused, it cannot be said that he was responsible, when specifically money seized from the accused was not proved to be that of deceased.

There are no compelling^{circumstanc€sorreasons} which are shown by the prosecution to^{reverse the well} reasoned judgment of acquittal.^Therefore, the appeal^is liable to be dismissed.

¶52