Guduri Raju, Gujarat State Vs the State of Ts., Rep. by P.P.

¶1

..---r,,/

¶2

t^3453I

¶3

NOTE:- The Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 22-12-2022 in l.A. No. 1ol 2O22 in Crl.A. No. 1219 ot 2017

¶4

NOTE:- The Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 20-03-2019 in l.A. No. 2 of 2018 inCrl.A. No. 1256 of 2017

¶5

NOTE:- The Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated0T-12-2022in1.A. No. 3 of 2023 in Crl.A. No. 1258 of 2017

¶6

NOTE:- The Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 25-0'1-2022 in l.A. No. 3 of 2020 in Crl.A. No. 546 of^2O2O. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶7

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND

¶10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶11

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs: 1219 1256 1258 1444 0F 2017 AND 546 0F 2020

¶12

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1219 OF 2017

¶13

Appeal filed under Section 37 aQ) ot Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 12-09-2017 in S C. No 658 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Sessrons Judge, at Karimnagar.

¶14

Between:

¶15

Konda Raju S/o. Laxmi Rajam,27 years, Occ. Student, R/o^{H.No.9-8-127,} Tharakramanagar, Siricilla.

¶16

...APPELLANT/ACCUSED^(A5)

¶17

AND

¶18

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad.

¶19

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶20

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Pappu Nageshwar Rao

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor

¶22

\F---

¶23

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1256 OF 2017

¶24

Appeal filed under Section 37 4(2) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 12-09-2017 in S.C. No 658 ot 2012 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Sessions Judge, at Karimnagar.

¶25

Between:

¶26

Akuleni lndira Wo. Narsimha Reddy, aged 3'1 years, R/o Gurralagondi Village, Chinnakoru Mandal, Now at Subhashnagar, Sircilla

¶27

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT No. 2

¶28

AND

¶29

State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶30

...RESPONDENT

¶31

Gounsel for the Appellant: Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor

¶33

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1258 OF 2017

¶34

Appeal filed under Section 37 4(2) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 12-09-2017 in S.C. No 658 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Sessions Judge, at Karimnagar.

¶35

Between:

¶36

Guduri Raju, S/o. Sudershan, Aged about 29 years, Occ Unemployed, R/o. H.No.275, Shahajanand Society, Surat, Gujarat State, (Currently residing at Nehru Nagar, Siricilla, Siricilla Dist., T.S.)

¶37

...APPELLANT/ACCUSED No. 5

¶38

AND

¶39

The State of Telangana, Rep by the Station House Officer, P.S. Siricilla, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶40

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶41

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor

¶43

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1444 OF 2017

¶44

Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 12-09-2017 in S.C. No 658 ot 2012 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Sessions Judge, at Karimnagar.

¶45

Between:

¶46

Kondapaka Sridhar @ Shekar @ Madhu @ Gopi @ Chinna, S/o Nagabhushanam, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Goldsmith, R/o H.No. 24-78 Ashok Road Mancherial now at Shivanagar, Sircilla.

¶47

...APPELLANT/ACCUSED No.'l

¶48

AND

¶49

State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor (TG) High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad

¶50

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶51

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy

¶52

Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor

¶53

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 546 OF 2O2O

¶54

Appeal filed under Section 37 4(2) ot Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 12-09-2017 in S C No 658 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Sessions Judge, at Karimnagar.

¶55

Between:

¶56

Kondapaka @ Kokkula Sujatha, Wo. Kondapaka Sridhar @ Shekar,^Aged about 37 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o.H.No. 12$-124, Shivanagar Sircilla, Srrcilla District.

¶57

...APPELLANT/ACCUSED No. 3

¶58

AND

¶59

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its public prosecutor High Court for the state of Telangana Hyderabad,

¶60

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶61

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri C. Ruthwik Reddy

¶62

Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor

¶63

The Court delivered the following COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶64

3

¶65

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AlID THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶66

CRIMINALAPPEAL Nos.1219. L25,6. L25'8. 1444 oF 2017 & 546 0F 2020

¶67

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Si Justice K.Surender)

¶68

Crl.A.No.12l9 of 2Ol7 is preferred by A-6, Crl.A.No. 1256 of 2Ol7 is preferred by A-2, Crl.A.No.l258 of 2Ol7 is preferred by A-5, Crl.A.No. L444 of 2Ot7 is preferred by A-1, and Crl.A.No.546 of 202O is preferred by A-3, questioning their conviction for the offences under Sections l2O-8,364-A,302, and 2Ol rlw.34 of IPC.

¶69

Since all the Appeals arise out of the judgment in S.C.No.658 of 2012, on the file of IV Additiona_t Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, all are heard together and disposed of, by way of this common judgment.

¶70

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants, and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional public Prosecutor for respondent- State.

¶71

The deceased, namely Srinivas, who was the son of P.W. 1, went to Hyderabad on 20.06.20II around 2:3O p.m. As P.W. 1 did not receive any information about the deceased,

¶72

4

¶73

on the next day, P.W. I tried to contact the deceased on his phone, but his phone was switched off. On 22.O6.2011, P.W. I received a phone call from phone No.94 +OO72821, stating that the deceased was kidnapped and the^person on the call demanded a ransom of Rs.2,0O,OOO/-.^However, P.W. I was instructed to deposit the amount in the account of a bank. On 24.06.20 I 1, P.W. I went to the Police and^lodged a complaint/Ex.P. 1. After lodging the complaint, P.W.^{1 was} asked to deposit the ransom amount in the account of^one Geethanjali who had an account in SBH,^Jagtial. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.1,50,0O0/- was deposited^on 25.06.2011. On the basis of the complaint, P.W.l1 took^up investigation. P.W. I^provided the account number to^{P.W. I 1.} P.W. I I then went to the house of Geethanjali^(not examined) in whose account the amount was deposited. Again^on 25.06.201l, a threatening call was received by P.W.1, and he was asked to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.SO,OOO/-. The call details of the deceased's mobile number and^area numbers were collected. The Investigating Offrcer^ana)yzed several numbers, and two^phone numbers, i.e., 99497O3O9O belonging to A-6 and 9000286556 belonging to^one Ranganath, a resident of Warangal, were found to^be

¶74

5

¶75

suspicious P.W. 11 questioned A-6 about the suspected phone numbers, and A-6 informed that the number99497O3O9O was used by A-4 and A-1. The Investigating Oflicer further found that part of the amount, i.e., Rs. 1,5O,OOO/-, which was deposited into the account, was withdrawn from the ATM. The CCTV footage was collected of the time when the money was withdrawn. During interrogation, A-6 informed about the flat No.4O2 in ARK Residency, Uppal. P.W. I I then secured the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, and others, and a,lso gave a requisition to the MRO, Uppal, to break open the lock of the flat. On breaking open the flat, they found the refrigerator tied with a saree, and the body of the deceased was found in a plastic bag tied with a cable wire in the refrigerator. Inquest was conducted, and the dead body was sent for the post-mortem examination. P.W. I 1 also called a fingerprint expert to lift the chance prints from the scene.

¶76

Post mortem was conducted by P.W.7 /Narender Babu. He found the following injuries:-

¶77

"1. Multiple contusion of various dimensions seen over both gleutail region.

¶78

6

¶79

Three linear bluish coloured marks^horizontally placed on the back of chest measuring about 15 cm x 1 Yz cm., the subscutarious tissue under^the mark is normal.

¶80

Bluish coloured mark three in number^{over the} tateral^gouter) aspect of both arms, measuring⁶ x % cm, the subcutaneous under the mark^is normal.

¶81

A ligature mark of 40 x 1 cm round^{the neck} faintly seen on the right side^{andprominent on the} left side, the ligature mark is l0 cm^{below the right} mastoid region, 9 cm below the right ear,^{7 cm} below the right angle of the mandible,⁵ and^{% cm} below the Ieft ear, 6 and '/, cm below^the left^angle of the mandible, 6 cm below the^{left mastoid,5 and} % cm below the chin.

¶82

The right thumb and the left little^finger amputated in the middle.

¶83

The hyoid bone and^{thyroid cartilage intact.}

¶84

Blood stained frothy material^{seen inboth} nostrils.

¶85

Sub conjuntival heamorrahge^{seen in botheyes'}

¶86

Further, P.W.7 opined that the^{cause of death was Asphyxia} due to smothering, associated^{with strangrrlation.}

¶87

The information of the flat being^{rentedout to A-1 was} provided by P.W.3, and based on the information^{provided by}

¶88

1

¶89

4'-6, P.W. 11 arrested A-1 and A-3 to A-5 on 15.O7.2OI1 at Peddapalli railway station. A-1 and A-3 to A-5 were interrogated, and pursuant to their confessions, the seizure of ATM cards was effected. On further enquiry, it was revealed that A-1 was involved in several offences, and he confessed to the murder of the deceased with the help of the other accused.

¶90

Cat card of the deceased-M.O.18 was recovered from A- l, and the driving license was recovered from A-3. An amount of Rs.5O,O0O/- was recovered from A-2, and Rs.a8,SOO/- was recovered from A-6. The CCTV footage, which was filed in the form of CD/Ex.P.32, was collected to show the withdrawal of the amount by the accused.

¶91

On the basis of the evidence collected during the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against A- I to A-6. A- 4 died during tJle trial, and the case was abated against him.

¶92

Learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution, found favour with the prosecution case, and conrricted the appellants on the basis of the circumstantial evidence.

¶93

lO. The prosecution relied on the following circumstances:-

¶94

8

¶95

The deceased went missing on 20.06.2011, ard on 22.06.2011, P.w. I received a phone call from the phone of the deceased, and a report^was given to the Police on 24.06.2011. On 25.06.2O11, the amounts were deposited by P.W. 1 and withdrawn by the accused. During^the investigation, the amounts were seized at^the instance of A-1 and 4-6.

¶96

On analysis of the area call details by P.W.^{1 1,} A-6 was apprehended.

¶97

On the basis of the information^providedby A-6, the flat at Uppal was identified.

¶98

When the flat was broken open, the dead body was found.

¶99

A-1 had taken the flat on rent from P.W.4, who is the owner of the flat. P.W.3 is^the watchman who gave the key of the flat to A-1^on behalf of P.w.4.

¶100

P.W.3 saw A-1 getting the deceased to the apartment two days prior to 26.06.2011.

¶101

On 26.06.201 l, A-l and A 3 to A-5 left^the apartment and went away.

¶102

P.W.3 identified A-1, A-3, and^A-5 during^the Test Identffication Parade.

¶103

9

¶104

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants argued on the following grounds:-

¶105

There is no evidence regarding ttre kidnapping of the deceased by the accused.

¶106

The evidence of P.W.3 is suspicious since there is no lease deed executed by A-1 to take the flat on rent.

¶107

Nothing was produced by the prosecution to show that P.W.3 worked as a watchman in the said flats.

¶108

There is a delay of nearly 3 months in conducting the Test Identification Parade, which is fatal to the prosecution case.

¶109

P.W.3 admitted in his cross-examination that he was shown the photographs of the accused before the Test Identification Parade.

¶110

The CCTV footage that was filed cannot be considered- firstly, due to tJle absence of 65-8 certificate, and secondly, because the CD was disbelieved by the Court, stating that none of the accused were seen in the CCTV footage.

¶111

l0

¶112

7 . None of the circumstances projected by the prosecution make out any case against the appellants.

¶113

On the other hald, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that the flat was taken on rent by A-1. The burden is on A-1 to prove the reason for the dead body being found in the flat. Further, the accused absconded after 26.06.201. Mer-e abscondance can. be treated as a circumstance in^the chain of circurrstances to establish the case against^the appellants.

¶114

Prosecution has liled the cell phone^{records.Though} the Investigating Oflicer collected the call^{records pertaining} to the deceased, A-6, and A-1, the location of the said^cell phone was neither found out by the Investigating Ofltcer nor reflected in the call records. The Nodal Officer of^{the service} provider was not examined before the Court. In the absence of any certificate under Section 65-8 of the Indian^Evidence Act, and the non-examination of the Nodal Officer, who^had provided tJle call details, the cell records cannot be Iooked into.

¶115

Ex.P.32 is the CD frled by the^prosecution to^{show that} accused had withdrawn the amount^{from the} ATM.^{The said}

¶116

1l

¶117

CD was marked subject to objection. Admittedly, there is no 65-E} certificate provided by the person who transferred the contents of the CCTV footage onto the CD. No witness was examined who had collected the CCTV footage or copied the CCTV footage onto the CD.

¶118

The Honble Supreme Court in Chandrabhan

¶119

SudamSanap v. State of MaharashllEt, held that, in the absence of a 65-E} certificate or Erny other evidence requiring certification under Section 65-El of the Indian Evidence Act, such evidence cannot be looked into.

¶120

The crrcia-l evidence that has been relied upon by the prosecution is the evidence of P.W.3. P.W.3, in his evidence, stated that oo 77.06.201 l, A-1 took the flat on a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- with Rs.5O0/- as maintenalce charges. In advance, Rs.5,OOO/- was paid. A-3 is the wife of A-1, A-4 is the brother of A- I , and A-5 also resided in the same Apartment. According to A-3 to A-5, A-1 left the house on 26.06.201I in the afternoon, which was a Sunday. The Police went to the Apartment on Thursday, i.e., on 30.06.2011. According to P.W.3, A-1 took the deceased to

¶121

'^{2025 Lawsuit} 1SC1^ttz

¶122

t2

¶123

the Apartment two days before leaving the Apartment,^i.e., 24.06.20Lt.

¶124

In the cross-examination, P.W.3 stated that the Apartment has 5 floors consisting of 17 flats. He could not provide the details of the occupants of the flats. There is no register for visitors ald he could not give any particulars of the persons who had visited the flat on a^given day.^{He also} admitted that he had no prior acquaintance with A-l but still leased out the flat, and no lease deed was executed.

¶125

The test identilication of A-1, A-3, and A-5^was conducted on 01.10.2011 by P.W.S/Magistrate. The^Test Identification was conducted after a requisition^{was given} by P.W. l l ot 17.O9.2O11. P.W.3 admitted that the Police have showed him the photographs of the suspects at^his apartment before he was taken to the^jail for the^{purpose of} identification.

¶126

I9. P.W.3 did not speak specifically about the^{accused as to} when he found A-3 to A-5 living along with A- 1.^Accordingto P.W.3, A-1 brought the deceased to the flat on24.06.2Oll.^lt is not the case of P.W.3 that A-3 to A-5 were in the^house when A-1 took the deceased to the flat. It is strange that the

¶127

13

¶128

Investigating Officer did not take any steps to examine any of the neighbours of the flat. The examination of neighbours or neighouring flat owners would have lent credibility to the version of the prosecution that A-1, A-3 to A-5 stayed in the said flat.

¶129

The statement of P.W.3 that A-3 to A-5 left the flat on 23.06.2011 becomes doubtful in the background of the admission in his cross-examination that the photographs of the accused were shown to him prior to the test identifrcation parade. Admittedly, several persons stayed in the apartment complex. A- I had leased out the flat 1O days prior to 26.06.2011. In the background of the extent of stay and P.W.3 not specifically speaking about A-3 and A-5 being present in the apartment on 24.06.2071, the date on which the alleged murder of the deceased took place, the inference of complicity of A-3 & A-5 cannot be drawn. As assessed by the prosecution, on the basis of the approximate time of death given by the postmortem Doctor, the time of death was around 24.O6.2OL1. On that day, according to P.W.8, A-l brought the deceased to the apartment.

¶130

t4

¶131

A-1 was found in the^possession of the cat^{card of the} deceased. An amount of Rs.50,000/- was seLed from^A-1, and an amount of Rs.48,5OO/- was seized from A-6.^{A-6 had} given a cell phone to A-1 for use. 4-6 was nowhere^{seen in} the apartment by P.W.3. There was no Test^{Identification} Parade in respect of A-6. However, the flat^{was discovered by} the police at the instance of A-6,^where the^{dead body was} found. Only for the reason of A-6 showing the^{flat to the} Police, it cannot be inferred that he^{was complicit in} committing the murder of the deceased,^{especiallywhen A-6} was not seen anywhere near the apartment^{where the dead} body was found.

¶132

The circumstances indicate that^(if A-1^{had taken the} flat on rent, lii) A-1 brought the deceased^{to the apartment} on 24.06.201 1, (iiil A-l was absconding^{from26.06.2011,} and (ivf the cat card of the deceased^{was seized atthe} instance of A-1, a,long with cash, for which^{no explanation} was provided.

¶133

The circumstances relied^{on by tJle prosecution, insofar} as A-2 and A-3 to A-6 zrre concerrred,^{are doubtful- As} already discussed, the^presence of A-3 to^{A-6 on the date of}

¶134

t5

¶135

death of the deceased was not stated by any of the witnesses. Mere assumption that they were responsible for causing the death solely because they were living with A- 1 cannot form basis to infer guilt of A-2, A-3 to A-6.

¶136

At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for A-l submits that none of the ingredients of Section 364-A of IpC are made out. Section 364-4 of IPC reads as under:-

¶137

"3646, Kidnapping for ransom, etc.-

¶138

Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or aIry foreign State or international inter-governmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shatl also be liable to firne."

¶139

P.W.3 stated that it was A-l who had brought the deceased to his apartment on 24.06.2011. Admittedly, the deceased went missing from 20.06.2011. Though there is no evidence regarding the whereabouts of the deceased from

¶140

l6

¶141

20.06.2025 to 24.06.2025, however, the deceased was brought to the flat on 24.06.2011 by A-1. Pursuant to the phone calls made to P.W. 1, the amounts were transferred into the account and subsequently withdrawn. P.W. 1 was threatened, and pursuant to the said threat received over the phone, the amount was deposited into the account.

¶142

The ingredients of Section 364-A of IPC are:-

¶143

or (i) Any person being kidnapped, abducted, detained.

¶144

(iil Threatening to cause death or hurt to such a person.

¶145

(iiil Conducting in a manner that gives rise to apprehension that the abducted person may be hurt or killed.

¶146

(iv) Such act or conduct, which is deliberate urith the intent of compelling any person to pay ransom or abstain from doing some act.

¶147

27 Admittedly, after the deceased went missing, he was found in the company of A-1, subsequently, the dead body was found in the flat leased out to A-1 and there was ransom call made to P.W.1, pursuant to which, amount was deposited. All the ingredients of Section 364-A of IPC are made out.

¶148

t7

¶149

The prosecution has laid the foundation regarding the deceased being taken to the house rented by A-1. Since the dead body of the deceased was found in the flat ofA-l, the burden is on A-1 to explain how the dead body was found in his flat. A1though, the general burden in a criminal case rests on the prosecution to prove its case, however, in the present circumstances, it shifts onto the accused under Section lO6 of the Indian Evidence Act. A- 1, except for denying his role in the homicidal death of the deceased, has not placed anything on record to discharge the burden shifted onto him.

¶150

Accordingly, all the offences alleged against A- I are confirmed.

¶151

In the result, Crl.A.No. 1444 of 2Ol7 is dismissed. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1219 of 2017, 1256 of 2017, 1258 of 2OL7 and 546 of 2O2O preferred by A-6, A-2, A-5, and A-3, respectively, are allowed. Since A-6, A-2, A-5, and A-3 zrre on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

¶152

One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Surender (For His Lordship's kind Perusal) AND

¶153

One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice E.V. Venugopal (For His Lordship's kind Perusal)

¶154

To,

¶155