Allowed

Boddu Thirupathi, Nalgonda Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC12 Nov 2024CRLA/958/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the conviction for murder. The Court found the sole eyewitness version unsupported, noted inconsistencies in trial evidence, and held that the murder weapon was probably planted, granting benefit of doubt.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; Appellant ordered to be released from prison forthwith if not required in other cases.

Boddu Thirupathi, Nalgonda Dt., Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^341s ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 958 of 2016

¶7

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P,C agorieved by the Judgment dated 28-12-2015 in S.C.No.573 of 2013 on the file pf the Court of the lll Additional Diskict and Sessions Judge, at Ranga Reddy.

¶8

Between:

¶9

¶10

Boddu Thirupathi, S/o Late B. Ankalu, Age: b21ears, Occ: Waiter in Raiadhani Hotel, Auto Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, N/o Padmavathi Colony, Backside- of Old U.oggqte,^{Hayathnagar, N/o. MatamallyViltage,Huzurnagar-Mandat,Natgonda} District.

¶11

...APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/STATE

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. K. Vasanth Rao, LEGAL AID

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Arun Kumar Dodla,

¶17

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶18

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

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

¶20

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.958 OF 2016

¶21

JUDGMENT: 1'per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

¶22

This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.L2.2015 passed in S.C.No.573 of 2013 on the fib of III Aditional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'lPCl') and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a . ine of Rs.1,OO0/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo srimple imprisonment lor six months.

¶23

Heard Mr. K.Vasanth Rao, learned legal aid ccunsel for the appellant/accused and Mr. Arun Kumar I)odla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- S tate.

¶24

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is thzLt on 27.O5.2012 afternoon, Sanjay (deceased), Janardhal and Boddu Tirupathi (appellant/accused) went to a movie. While they were watching the movie, the deceased and the appellant quarreled with each other. Then, they lelt the movie theatre, without watching and came back to the

¶25

-.-

¶26

KS. .I & JAK.^J C'l.A.No⁹⁵⁸ of20l6

¶27

¶28

hotel and slept. At around 5.00^p.m., the^{appellant went to} Rajadhani Hotel, of which PWl is the^{owner and noticed} the deceased was sleeping near the^{rest room. Then the} appellant went into the kitchen ald^{took a long handled} iron kurfi (MO.l) used for mixing^{boiling milk ald hit the} deceased on his head resulting^{in his death. Thereafter,the} appellant fled from the scene.^{The said incidentwas} witnessed by PW2. PW2 is^{the only eyewitnessto the} incident.

¶29

PWl during the course^of his^{evidence stated that the} incident took place at about^{3:30 p.m. PW2 went and} informed. PW1 that the appellant^{killed the deceasedwith} kurfi (MO.l). Immediately,^{PW1 went to the hoteland} found the dead body^{and found injurieson the head of the} deceased. On enquiry PWI^{carne toknor'r' that the} appellant and the deceased^{quarreledwith each other in} the theater and thereafter the^{appellant attackedthe} deceased. On the basis of the^{information gathered by} PW1, complaint/Ex.Pl was^{filed by PWl. PWl alsostated} that he found the appellant at^{the store room when he} went there after information^{given by PW2 and when PWl} admonished him, the^{appellant ran away.}

¶30

l ( ^)

¶31

KS,I & JAK. ] Crl A No^9;i3 Lrl l0l6

¶32

¶33

PW2 is tlre only eye witness^{to the case' Accordingto} PW2, while he was^{in the hotel, he heard noises frorn the} store room. Immediately^{he rushed to the room where he} found the appellant^{beatingthe deceasedwith kurfi (MO.1)} and found injury on the^head of^{thedeceasedand} immediately, he informed^PW1 about^{the incident. Further,} PW2 stated tl-rat he came to^{know thatthere were} differences betrveen the appellant^{and the deceased and} they fought on the^previousdaY.

¶34

During tl-ie course of trial,^PW 1 stated^{that on the} information gir'en by PW2, he went^{to the hotel and found} the deceased dead. However, in the^{complaint/Ex.P 1 filed} by PW1 at 6:30 p.m., he stated that on^{the same day at} around 5:00 p.m., the appellant went to^{the hotel and} found the deceased sleeping and accordingly, attacked^the deceased, which is contrary to the^version he stated^{in the} Court that at around 3:30^{p.m., PW2} inlormed^{him zrbout} the incident. There is no mention of name of^{PW2 in the} complaint/Ex.P 1. PW1 narrated that there were^differr:nces between the appellant and the deceased, due to which the appellant committed murder.

¶35

7 . The onl1. eye witness to the incident is PW2 ar-':d on the basis of ttre informat(rn given by PW2 to PW1, PWl

¶36

Iodged a complaint which is Ex.pl and the name of pW2 is not reflected in the complaint which raises any amount of doubt regarding PW2 being an eye witness to the incident. As already discussed, PW1 has not stated in the complaint as to who informed him about the incident.

¶37

PW7, who is the investigating officer, arrested the appellant on 03.05.2012. According to PW7, the appellant lead PW7 to Padmavathi Nagar Colony, where the appellant produced kurfi (MO.1). Both PWs.l and 2 did not state that the appellant was holding any kurfi i.e., MO.1, when they allegedly saw appellant at the scene. pW1 gave an improved version during trial stating that he found the appellant at the store room and when he admonished him, the appellant ran away. The said version of admonishing the appellant and finding him at the store was a.lso not mentioned in the complaint/Ex.P1.

¶38

Though MOl was allegedly seized at the instance of the appellant, the independent witnesses of the alleged seizure rvere not examined before the trial Court. Apparently, MO I was planted. It is highly improbable that having committed the murder of the deceased, the appellant would have carried MO.l which is used for cooking to his home.

¶39

)

¶40

r.s &tAt.J (rl { ,, t5u ol_ltll6

¶41

:ry

¶42

¶43

In vierv of the above^{discussion,'the evidence of sole} eyewitness of PW2,^{whose name is not mentionedin E)x.P1,} cannot be relie d on to convict^{the appellant'Both PW1 and} PW2 have given a totally different story^duringtrial, 'vhich is contrary to the complaint.^There are^noother circumstances adduced by the^{prosecutionduring trial to} make out anv case against the appellant.^Accordingly, benefit of doubt is extended^to the^appellant.

¶44

Criminal Appeal is allowed.^{The convictionand} sentence imposed against the appellant^{in S.C.No.573 of} 2013 on the file of III Aditional District^{and Sessions Judge,} Ranga Reddy District, is hereby set aside. Since it^is informed that the appellant is in^jail, he shall be^released

¶45

forthwith from prison, if not required in^any other^cast:.

¶46

Sd/. M. V]JAYA BHASKER JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// w/// SECTION OFFICER

¶47

To, 1. The lll Additional^{District and Sessions Judge, at Ranga Reddy.(with records, if} any)

¶48

The Vll Metropolitan^{tvlagistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar.} 3. The Superintendent,^{Central Prison,Cherlapalli, RangaReddy.} (By Special Messenger)

¶49

ihe Superintendent,^{Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad.} (By Special Messenger)

¶50

S. inl Siation House^{Officer,VanasthalipuramPolice Station, Ranga Reddy District.} 6. Two CCs to the Public^{Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad.^(OUT)

¶51

One CC to Sri K. Vasanth^{Rao-cum-Legal Aid CounselAdvocate} [OUT]

¶52

Two CD Copies

-:.1a+---

/ I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1211112024

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.958 of 2016

.ir, i{f. S r,\ft'
e
+9
14 liriV 2i24
a
* Dfgr,.r'ic ,.i''

¶61

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL

¶62

tl
F{ ,il1

¶63

)05\ \rl^rl

Boddu Thirupathi, Nalgonda Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boddu Thirupathi, Nalgonda Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Radghagoni Nagabhushanam, Medak Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd

Allapuri Namdev, R.R.Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Bhukya Ramu, Warangal Dt., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Ijaz Ahmed, Ahmed, Nizamabad Dt and Anr., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Mangapatnam Hanmaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh