Allowed

Marri Sudhakar Reddy and 3 Others v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Nov 2024CRLA/874/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the conviction of the appellants for murder. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to doubts regarding the main eyewitness, irregular recoveries, and a lack of complete circumstantial evidence.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; bail bonds discharged.

Marri Sudhakar Reddy and 3 Others Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

BAIL sLlP : Trre Petitioner No. 1 / Accused No. 1 was directed to be released on bail by the Order of the High Court dated 22_11-2022 made in LA. No. 1 of 2Q22 in Crt.A No. 674 of 2015

¶2

BAIL sLlP : The Petitioner No. 3 / Accused No. 3 was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High court dated 06-09-2021 made in r.A. No. 4 of 2021 in Crt.A No BT4 of 2015

¶3

BAIL sLlP: The Petitioner No. 4 / Accused No. 4 was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High court dated 06-09-2021 made in r.A. No. 5 ot 2021 in Crl.A. No. 874 of 2015

¶4

BAIL sLlP : The Petitioner No. 2 / Accused No. 2 was directed to be released on bail by the Order of the High Court dated 14_09_2021 made in l.A. No. 7 o'f 2021 in Crt.A. No. 874 of 2O1S

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶6

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEI'BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶10

CRIMINAL APPEAL N O: 874 OF 2015

¶11

Appeal under section 374 (2) of cr.p.c. against the Judgment dated 20-082015 made in s.c. No. 126 of 2010 and dated 2s-og-201s made in s.c. No. 126 of 2010 on the file of the court of the Xll Additional District and sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Diskict at LB Nagar.

¶12

Between:

¶13

Marri Sudhakar Reddy, S/o. Janga R_eddy, Aged 21 years, Occ Owner_Cum_ Driver, of rata Sumo'Bea-ring. No. Ap 16iAC:-7s26 d Re;r eiirie.'riusin""", R/o Kothagudem Village, Kan-dukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy OiJtiici-^---'

¶14

2 Karri Kgmgl .Rg-ddy @ Titlu, S/o Ramchandra Reddy Aged 22 vears Occ Elec{rician R/o Kothagudem Viltage. Kandukur Mandal,'R Rl Disirict'--^--

¶15

S.udhakar @.B?p!q, S1o-D^igq1n.bgi, aged 21 years, Caste Lingayat Mochi Occ Mechanic, R/o H.No.^{g-1-z24r\r3s, piasad} r,iagar, Langerhoulei, Hvd"iroia

¶16

Areti Shanti Kumar, 9Iq 4-.lq.k , Aged 20 years, Caste SC Madiga, Occ Car Driver R/o H.No.9-'t-'109, Katidaspuiam Larigertrouse, HyOeraOiA"-'^----

¶17

.Appellants / Accused 1 to 4

¶18

AND

¶19

The- State of Telangana, Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad

¶20

...Respondent / Respondent

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶22

Petition under Section 38s (1) of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the order of sentence of imprisonment imposed on the Petitioner vide Judgement dt.20logt2015 passed in s c No126/2010 by the Hon'ble xll Addt. Dist & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Dist, LB Nagar tiil the disposal of CrlA by enlarge the petitioner herein on bail.

¶23

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶24

Petition under Section 3s9 (1) of cr.p.c. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the execution of sentence passed in s c No.126t2010 dt: 2010812015 on the file of Xill Addl. Dist and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Dist at L B Nagar and to rerease the petitioner t A1 on bair pending crrA No g74l20i5.

¶25

The Court delivered the following Judgment :

¶26

¶27

HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE K.SURENDER} And

¶28

HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE ANIL I{UMARJT.IKANTI}

¶29

CRIMINAL APPEAL^{No'874 OF 2015}

¶30

JUDGMENT:^{(per Hon'ble SiJusticeK'Surender)}

¶31

The^{present appeal is filed by appeltants/Alto ,{4 questioning} their conviction^{under Sections 3O2,379,2o1rlw 34 of IPC vide} judgment in S.C.No.126 of 2010^{dated 2o'o8'2o15 passed by the} XIII Additional^{Districtand Sessions Judge, Ranga ReddyDistrict at} L.B.Nagar.

¶32

2.Thecaseoftheprosecutionisthaton25'08'20O7around1'O0 p.m, A1 went near^{the house of the deceased and took both the} deceased Susheela^{Devi(D1) and Manju Rani (D2) in a Tata Sumo} vehicle. On the said^{date, P-W'9was presentwhen Dl and D2 wele} waitingforaperson.TheTatasumovehiclecafilethereinwhichAl was sitting in^{the vehicleon the left side' However' he could not} identify the^{d.river. Both the deceased sat in the vehicleand they} left. Ttvo days^thereafter, !'W'9^{came to know that both the} deceased were^{ki1led. P-W.8 is the son of Dl and brotherof D2'} According to^{him, on 25.08'2007, he called his mother' who}

¶33

¶34

informed that she along with Manju^{Rani were going to Kandukur} in a Tata Sumo and one Sudhakar^{was also present along with} them. Thereafter, when he tried^{to make contact with them' there} was rio response. Accordingly,^{P.W.8 went to the police station and} lodged complaint Ex.P6 at 11.00 a.m.^{The said complaintEx.P6was} registered as 'two women missing' and^{investigation was takenup} by Saroornagar police.

¶35

Meanwhile, P.W.3, who is the Sarpanch^{of NarallapallyVi1lage,} Chitapally Mandal, lodged complaint^{on 26.08.2007 stating that} two dead bodies were found in the^{outskirts of the village.} Accordingly, P.W.3 lodged Ex.Pl^{report with the police. P.W'18,} Circle Inspector of Chinthapally^{Police Station registeredthe case in} Crime No.12O of 2OO7 under Section^{3O2 IPC. He went to the village} and recorded the statements of P.Ws.3 to 5^{and 7. Scene of offence} panchanama was conducted. There, he found electric conduction wire of five meters length which was seized in the^{presence of} mediators. Inquest^proceedings were^{alsQ cqncluded and dead} bodies were sent for^{postmortem examination.On the basis of} information, Saroornagar^{police found that dead bodies were that} of

¶36

¶37

mother and sister^{of P.w.S. P.W.8 then went to the hospitaland} identilied the dead bodies^{on 27.08.2007. The said case registered} by the chinthapally^{Policewas tralsferredto saroornagarPolice} station. P.ws. 19 to^{2lare Investigatingofficers of saroornagar} Police Station. According^{to P.W. 19, while investigation was in} progress on 06.09.2007,^{P.Ws.16and 17,whoare the constablesof} Saroornagar^{Police Station apprehendedthe appellants/A1 to ,A4} while they were^{going in Tata Sumo on 06'09'200T at 2'30 a'm'} They were arrested^{and brought tothe police station'On} interrogation by^{P.W.9/Sub-lnspector, A1 allegedly confessedthat} onaccountoflanddisputes,sincehisfattrersoldoneacreofland toboththedeceasedatalowerpriceandsincetherewashikein landprices,AlwiththehelpofA,2toA4,murderedthedeceased' Pursuant to the^{confession, gold ornaments of both the deceased} which were marked^{as MOs.l to 10 were seized from A1 to ,\4'} Further, according^{to P.W. 19, there was a writtenagreementon a} bond paper which^{was purchasedby A2 wherein A1 promised to} give Rs.2.OO lakhs to^{A3 and A4 and A2 would standas a mediator} to the said agreement.^{On the basis of confession and recoveries} made, Section of law^{of komenmissing'registeredby saroornagar}

¶38

¶39

Police was altered^{to Sections 3O2,379' 2Ol rlw 34 IPC' The} prosecution^{a-lso examined P'W'15, who stated that on 26'08'2007'} in the evening,^{A2 broughtgold chain and took Rs'4'9OO/-' The} said transaction^{was recordedin the daily account book and the} relevant entry^{was marked as Exs'P21andthe receipt Ex'P22was} produced by^{P.W.15on the date of his examinationin the Court on} 10.09.2013

¶40

The^{potice, havingseized the Tata sumo vehicle/MOl3 along} with ornaments^{at the instance of the appellantsand also other} evidence collected,^{charge sheet was filed'}

¶41

The case^{is one of circumstantialevidence' l'earned Sessions} Judge, on the^{basis of the arrest, seizures and mainly basing on the} evidence of^{P.W-9, who foundA1 taking both the deceasedin a Tata} Sumo, recorded^conviction.

¶42

l,earned^{counsel appearing on behalfof the appellants would} submitthatthecaseisoneofcircumstantialevidence.Even according to the^{admissionof P'W'19, there was no progressof} investigation frorn^{29.8.2007to 06'09'2007'There is no basis for} affesting^{the appellants. The onlyevidencethat was relied on by the}

¶43

¶44

¶45

learned^{SessionsJudge are the recoveries that were effected at the} instance of^{the appellants' Further' P'W'9 identified A1 for the first} timeintheCourtandtherewasnoTestldentilrcationParadethat was held during^{investigation'WhenP'W'9 and A1 are strangers'it} is highly^{improbable that P'W'9 would identifyA1 as the person} who had taken^{the deceased in the Tata Sumofor the hrst time in} Court.

¶46

Learned^{counselfurther arguedthat identihcation of the} property was^{not done in accordance with Rule 35 of the Criminal} Rules of^{Practice. In fact, the seized property shouldhave been} taken to the^{Magistrate, mixed with ottrer properties/jewellery and} thenthewitnesshadtoidentifirthesaidproperty.Learnedcounsel relied on^{the judgmentin the case of Jayan v' State of Keralar' In} the said^{judgment, the Hon'lcle SupremeCourt held that though} test identification^{parade is a weak piece of evidence' however'it} can be treated^{as corroboratingevidence'The HonbleSupreme} Courtfurtherfoundthattheevidenceofidentifrcationcannotbe believed if^{there is large time gap from the date of incidentand the} date of recording^{the evidence' Lrarnedcounselalso relied on tl.e}

¶47

'120211^{20 SuPremecourtcases 38}

¶48

t:l

¶49

judgment in the case of Anjan Kumar Sarma and others^{v. State} of Assam2, u,herein the^{HonbleSupreme Court held that only} circumstance of last seen^{together in the absence of any other} satisfactory explanation and^{circumstantial evidence, conviction} cannot be sustained.

¶50

In Dana Yadav alias Dahu^{and others v. State of Bihars,the} Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing^{with the facts of case therein,} held that though there was no^{test identification parade, since the} narne of the accused was mentioned in^{the FIR, not holding test} identification parade is of no consequence.^{However,if a witness} identifies the accused for the first^{time in the Court,the probative} value of such uncorroborated evidence^{becomes unreliable and} unsafe to relY on.

¶51

l,earned counsel a]so relied^{on the three Judge Benchof} Hon.'ble Supreme Court wherein the Court^{found that ifthe} procedure prescribed was not followed in identifying the^ornaments, the said identification becomes doubtful.

¶52

'120t71^{1+ srpre."courtcases 359}

¶53

'(2002)^{7 Supremecourt cases 295}

¶54

¶55

On the other hand,^{learned Additional Public Prosecutor would} submit that P.W.8 is the son^{of D1 and brother of D2.ldentification} of the^jewellery of his mother and^{sister cannotbe disbelievedonly} on the ground that Rule 35 of^{Criminal Rules of Practice was not} followed. P.W.9 is an independent^{witness, who has seen the Dl} and D2 going along with A1 in^{the car. A1 to A4 were arrested} while going in the Tata Sumo in^{which Dl and D2 were taken} earlier and thereafter, they^{were found dead. The evidenceof last} seeing the deceased with A1 is spoken^{to by P.W.9 and immediately} on the next day, they were found dead.^{In the said circumstances,} the finding of the learned^{SessionsJudge regarding involvementof} the appellants cannot be disbelieved.

¶56

Firstly, dealing with the evidence^{of last seen, P.W.9 stated} tfrat on 25.O8.2OO7 around^{1.OO p.m, he saw both the deceased} waiting for a vehicle. In the^{meantime, ..A'1, who was in the Tata} sumo vehicle/MOl3 had arrived^{and both D1 and D2 left in the} said vehicle.

¶57

The name of P.W.9 was not mentioned^{in the FIR. Though,he} claims to be acquaintance of both the^{deceased,he never informed}

¶58

¶59

P.W.S, who is the son of Dl that he has seen Dl and D2 going in a Tata sumo vehicle. p.W.g son of Dl lodged complaint on 26.08.2002 after nearly 22 hours of the a,lleged witnessing by P.ry.9. Further, according to p.W.9, he stated in his cross_ examination that two days after coming to know of the death of the deceased, he found A1 in the police station and he identified A1 as the person who accompanied the deceased. Admittedly, according to P'w'19, there was no progress in investigation till the arrest of accused on 06.09 .2OO7 . p.W .9 stated that two days after he saw the deceased going in the Tata sumo, he came to know about their death' Two days after coming to know about the deaths, he found A1 in the police station which would be on 29th or 30th of August, 2007.

¶60

As already stated p.W.9 had specifically stated in his cross_ examination that he had identified A1 in the police station on 29/3O-O8-2OO7. However, A1 to 44 were arrested on 06.09.200Z at 2.3o a.m according to the arresting constables p.ws.r6 & 17. Nowhere in the evidence of Investigating oflicers/p.Ws. 19, 20 or 2l it is mentioned as to how the accused were identified and details of

¶61

¶62

¶63

MO13/Tata Sumo were known to^{them. WhenP.W. 19 statedthat} there was no progress in investigation from^29.O8.2OO7to 06.09.2007, it remains a mystery as to how^{the details of MO13} were lo:own.

¶64

Admittedly, no test identification^{parade was conductedfor} P.W.9 to identiff A1. Admittedly,^{A'1 and P.W.9 are strangers.As} already discussed, P.W.9 stated that^{A1 was found in the police} station four days after the incident on 29.O8.2OO7.ln^{the facts of} the present case, it appears that P.W.9^{was planted as a witness} subsequently to come up with the^{evidenceof 'last seen'andthat it} would be a reliable circumstance in the^{prosecution case.}

¶65

The police have not collected the details^{of the phonenumbers} of the appellants and also that of^{the deceasedto ascertain their} location to know whether the deceased and tl'e^{appellantshave} travelled till the village in Medak^{District where the dead bodies} were found. No reason is given as to^{why the location details of the} appellants were not taken. The investigating^{ofhcersought to have} collected details of the phone numbers^{and their location during the} time from 1.00 p.m on 25.O8.2007 till^{their bodieswere found on}

¶66

¶67

¶68

the next day around 6.00 p.m on 26.08.20O7. The said details would have lent credibility to the prosecution version.

¶69

The other circumstances relied on apa-rt from the last seen theory are the recoveries that were made from the appellants. P.W. l9/Investigating Officer took A2 to A4 along with mediators to Nedunuru village of Kandukur Mandal to a tamarind tree where the appellants have shown the gold ornaments hidden and they were recovered from the hallow part of the tree. All the said gold ornaments were seized which are four golden bangles, four gold frnger rings, one gold chain with Balaji locket. Thereafter, A2 to A4 have taken the police to Mahadev Jewellers, Kandukur village, wherein one gold chain was sold to P.W. 15. Ex.W2 is the receipt which was produced bv P.W. 15 on the date of his examination. On the letter head, it is written as follows:

¶70

"Om Prakash S/ o.L.R.Clwwdlnry, age 23 gears, Occ: Mahadeu Jeuellers, R/ o. H. No. 5- 1 06, Kandukur-9g4 88 2 9606. On 26/8/O7 (Sundag) Rs.49OO/-

¶71

Page 297, ueight 9r.7.84 by Kamal Reddy."

¶72

No evidentiary value can be attributed to Ex.P22. Paying an amount of Rs.4,9OO /- for a gold chain which weights around 7.4

¶73

¶74

grams appears to be^{highly improbable'Page number 297 is} mentioned in the^{receipt but it is not convincing'The help of P'W'15} was subsequently taken^{by the police to give evidenceagainst 42'}

¶75

1g. The recovery^{of the gold ornaments from hallow of tamarind} tree also is doubtful.^{There is no reason why all the appellantshave} taken t]le ornaments^{and kept the ornaments in the hallowof a L.ee} except for a^{gold chain, which was taken to P'W'15' As rightly} pointed out by the learned^{counsel for the appellaits,the seized} ornaments ought to^{havebeenproduced before the Magistrate for} the purpose of identification^{in accordancewith Rule 35 of Crirr.'inal} Rules of Practice. The^{said seizure of ornamentsfrom the hallow of} tamarind tree is doubtful^{when the said tree is in the open} accessible to everyone^{and at a considerable distanceof 1o0 kms} from Hyderabad. A1^{and A2 are residentsof Kothagudem and 43} and ,A'4 are residents^{of HYderabad.}

¶76

Lg. The motive as^{projected by the prosecutioncase was narrated} by^p.w. 19. According^{to him, the fattrer of 41 sold one acre of land} to the deceased^{at a lower price and since there was hike in land} prices A1 took^{the assistance of .\2 to ,{4 and murdered both the}

¶77

<br><br>---
I
'-/
i

¶78

¶79

deceased. Firstly, the Investigating Oflicer has not collected^{any sale} deed or any kind of sale transaction in between the father^{of A1 and} both the deceased. The details of the land^{are notgiven and it is not} stated as to how the death of the^{deceasedwould} in^{any manner} help A1 in getting back the property which was sold by^{his father to} the deceased.

¶80

In view of the foregoing discussion, the^prosecution has failed to prove any of the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.

¶81

The five golden principles constituting^panchsheel to^{prove a} case based on circumstantial evidence were summed up in Sharad

¶82

Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtraa, which reads as

¶83

follows:

¶84

"153. A dose analgsis of this decision utould slaw that^the following conditions must be fulflled before a case agqinst an acstsed can be said to be fully^established:

¶85

(1) the ciratmstances from uhich the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fullg established. It maA be noted here thd this Couft indicated that the cira nstances concerned 'must or should" and not'mog be" established. There is not onlA a grammatical but o legol distinction betueen "may be^proued" and "must be or should^{be proued"as uas tel-dbA this Coutt in ShiuajiSahabrao} Bobade u. State of MaharasWra l(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC Cd1O33 : 1973 Crt LJ 17831 uhere the obseruations were made: ISCC para 19, p. 8O7: SCC(cflp. loafl

¶86

^^(t9a4l4 scc^{1 16}

¶87

¶88

"Certoinlg, it^{is a pimaryprinciple that the acasedmust be and not} merelg may be^{guiltgbefore a court canconuict and tlrc mentdl distance} between 'mag be'^and 'must^{be' is long and diuides uogue anjecturesfrom} sure condusions. "

¶89

(2) the facts so established slnuld be consistent^{onlg uith the hypothesis of} the guitt of the accused, that^{is to sag, thegshould not be explainable on ang} other hypothesis except^{that the autsed is guiltg'}

¶90

(3) the ciratmstances slauld be of^{a condusiue nature and tendency,}

¶91

(4) theg sllould exclud.e euery possible^{hypothesis except tte one to be proued,} and

¶92

(5) th-ere must be a chain of euidence^{so complete as not to leaueang reasonable} 'giound for the conctusioi consistent tuith tle innocence of the accased and "^ust sir,t thnt in atl yuman probabilitg the act must houe been done bg the atxused-'

¶93

Every circumstance^{of (i) last seen theory; (ii) Arrest; (iii)}

¶94

recovery; (iv) motive are all^{suspicious and doubtfulas discussed} in the preceding^paras. The^{prosecution faited to provebeyond} reasonable doubt. For the^{said reason, the conviction of the} appellants is set aside.

¶95

Accordingly, Criminal^{Appeal isallowed' Since tlee} appellants are on bail,^{their bail bonds shall stand discharged'}

¶96

Sd/- K. SRINIVASA^RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶97

¶98

SECTION OFFICER

¶99

One Fair - Copy (Fo. His LordshiP^{to the Hon'ble Kind Sri Justice K' Perusal)Surender} One Fair Copy^{to the Hon'bleSri Justice Anil-KumarJukanti} ' '(For His LordshiP Kind Perusal)

¶100

To, 1 The Xlll Additional Sessions^{Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar (with} records, if any)

¶101

2 The Xll Additional District^{& SessionsJudge, Ranga Reddy District at LB} Nagar

¶102

The Xl t./tptronolitan tvlaoistaate. LB^{Naoar, Cyberabad}

¶103

¶104

¶105