Partly allowed

The State of Telangana v. Mudrina Anjaneyulu Aka Anji

Telangana HC28 Jan 2025CRLA/1414/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State appeal against acquittal of three accused for the throat-slit murder of a woman, based only on recovery of her jewellery from two accused. The High Court held recovery supports at most a presumption under Section 114(a) Evidence Act of possession of stolen property, upheld acquittal for murder, and reduced A3's Section 411 IPC sentence to one year.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal No.1414 of 2017 dismissed upholding acquittal for murder; Criminal Appeal No.244 of 2016 partly allowed by reducing A3's sentence under Section 411 IPC from two years to one year.

The State of Telangana Vs Mudrina Anjaneyulu… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³⁴¹⁹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY^{EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE K.SURENDER} AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI}

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL^{NOS: 14'14 OF 2017AND 244oF 2016}

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL^{NO: 1414 OF 2017}

¶9

Criminal Appeal^{filedunder Section379(9q^(11} .of^Cr'PC '^{a.S.?i!sl-tle} .luagmeni daieO ]tiOZ.ZOtO^{passedrn S C No 214 ol 2014 on the file of the Court} of thi Metropolitan Sessions^{Judge. Hyderabad'}

¶10

Between:

¶11

The State of Telangana,^{rep' by The Public Prosecutor' High Court at} Hyderabad.

¶12

...APPetlanUComPlainant

¶13

AND

¶14

1 Mudrina An.laneyulu^{AkaAnji,S/o. I"4udrinaNarayana, Student of Teacher} iirinino co'ursel Sririivasa^{ioliege Kadiri Ananiapur,R/o 9-248 V-enugopal} Si;;;i^'N;lh ChirrJ^{Vittageand Mandal, Kadiri raluq.Anantapur District'}

¶15

? Vardhi Ganesh Aka Gani,^{S/o. Vardhi Vemaiah, Quality Analystin M/s} i th;;J; iv6;ii^{iuoov co"tir.uitlons prt Ltd, tirupaini,R/6} .^{H No- e-!'} , N;;r Y;g;V;inJiefupte,^{Nalla Cheruvu Village ahd Mandal, Kadiri Taluq'} Anantapur District.

¶16

3 Gutti Naoabhushanam, S/o.^{GuttiAdrnarayana, LoomWeaver,R/o H'No'} I E), P;'lrsr;; noio.^{ttatta cheruvuVillbge andMandalKadiri Taluq'} Anantapur District.

¶17

...Respodents/Accused

¶18

Counsel for the Appellant^{: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional} Public Prosecutor

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondents^{No.1 : Sri B S VenkataRamesh}

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents^{Nos.2to 3:} ---

¶21

¶22

BAIL sllP in crl.A.No. 244 ol 2016: The petitioner/ Accused was directed to be glggqgd on bail bv the order of rhe High Court dated.21-03-2016 in Crl.A.M.P.No.406 of 2C16 in Crt.A. No.244 of 2016

¶23

CRIMINAL APPEAL N O: 244 OF 2016

¶24

. Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.p.C , against the Judoment dated 18.02.20'16 passed in S.C.No.214 of 2:.014 on the file^"of the Court 6f the Metropolitan Sessions Judge. Hyderabad.

¶25

Between:

¶26

9utti.^{Nagabhu:sh1nqm,S/o GuttiAdinarayana,Occ HandloomsWeaver,} R/o. H No. 9-52, Pululgunda Road, Nallacheruvu Village and Uandat, kaOiri Taluq, Anantapr.rr District.

¶27

...Appellant

¶28

AND

¶29

The State of Telangana. rep. by the P ublic Prosecutor. through SHO,^pS., Chikkapally, Hioh iourt Hilh i ourt B uildings. Hyderabad.

¶30

...RespondenUComplainant

¶31

Counsel for the Appeltant : Sri Aduri Chinna Srinivas

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶33

The Court deliVered the following: Common Judgment

¶34

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

¶35

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.14l4 OF 2OL7 tr,244 OF 2OL6

¶36

COMMON JUDGMENT:^(pcr Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Swoder)

¶37

Criminal Appeal No.1414 of 2Ol7 is filed by^the appellant-State questioning the acquittal of^the respondents/Al to A3 for the offence^{of murderpunishable} under Section 302 of the Indian^{Penal Code,1860(for} short, 'IPCJ.

¶38

Criminal Appeal No.244 of 2076 is filed by the appellant/A3 questioning the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 41 1 of IPC.

¶39

Since both the appeals are filed^{questioningthe} judgment, dated 18.O2.2016, in S.C.No.214 of 2014 on the hle of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge at^{Hyderabad, they} are disposed off by way of this common^judgment.

¶40

Heard Mr. Amn Kumar Dodla,^{learned Additional} Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State^and

¶41

I:S,J&JAK,J Ct'l.A.No't4l4 20t; &244 2016

¶42

¶43

Mr. B. S. Venkata Ramesh, leanred counsel for the accused.

¶44

Briefly the case of the prosecution is that pW. 1 ]odged^{cornplaint with the police on 05.09.2013stating} that the deceased, namely, Smt. Vallabhaneni Nagamani, resident of Bagh Lingampalty, was found dead in her house with her throat slit. On the basis of the said complaint, police registered crime No.329 of 2O 13 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The police went to the scene of offence and conducted the scene ol offence panchanama. Thereafter, the accused were arrested and from them MOs.1 to 5 were seized which according to the prosecution, were the jewellery worn by the deceased. On the basis of the recovery, charge sheet was filed against A1 to A3 for the offences punishable under Sections 3O2, 3gO, l2O-8, 2O2 and 411 read with Section 34 of IPC against Al and A2 and for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC against ,{3.

¶45

Irarned Sessions Judge examined pWs. 1 to 19 and marked Exs.Pl to P27 and MOs. I to 5, which are the jewellery articles, along with MOs.6 to 9. Learned Sessions

¶46

KS.J&JAK,J Crl.A.Nos.14l4 2017 &)44 2016

¶47

¶48

Judge found that not a single witness has stated about^the accused being seen in the company of the deceased or any time prior to the dead body being found. The only evidence that was produced before the Court is the^recoveryof 'MO".l to 5. l,earned Sessions Judge further found that none of the witnesses were acquainted with the^accused and did not state anything about accused^{having any} relation with the deceased.

¶49

Basing on the recovery of the ornaments, at^the instance of A2 and A3, coupled with the evidence^{of the} witnesses of Manappuram Finance, where the^goldwas pledged, the learned Sessions Judge convicted A2 and^A'3 for the offence punishable under Section 411 of^{IPC for} being in possession of theft articles.

¶50

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor admitted^that there is no evidence about the accused being^found in^the company of the deceased at any^point of time,^however, contended that recovery of MOs.1 to 5^{can form basis to} reverse the judgment of acquittal and to convict^the accused and that there is no reason^{why the jewellery of}

¶51

K.S,J&JAK,J Crl.ANos l4l4 201, &244 2016

¶52

{

¶53

the deceased would be in possession of A2 and A3 unless they have committed murder of the deceased.

¶54

An5, presumption that can be drawn under Section .114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is to the extent of the accused being in possession of .jewellary, which was subjected to theft.

¶55

Section 114 (a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is extracted

¶56

"That a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession"

¶57

1 1. The recovery of jewellery i.e., MOs.l to 5, at the instance of A2 and A3, ca4 only be confined to presumption of the jewellery being stolen or recovered stolen goods. None of the witnesses have seen the accused at the scene. It is not even stated by the prosecution as to how the accused planned or murdered the deceased. For being in possession of stolen jewellery,. learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted .,4.2 and .,A,3 for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC.

¶58

KS.J&JAK,J Crl.A.Nos.l4l1 2017 &244 20 t6

¶59

-5

¶60

In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raui Sharma u, State (Gooernment of NCT of Delhi) and

¶61

anothef, held that while dealing with an appeal against .acquittal,^{the appellatecourt has to considerwhether the} trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.

¶62

ln Ghureg Lal a. State of Uttar Pradesh' the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at paraTO, as follows:

¶63

"7O. In the light of the aboue, the Htgh Court and other oppellate Courts should follow the well-settled^pinciples crystallized bg number of Judgments if it is going to ouemlle or othenuise disturb the tial court's acquittal:

¶64

The appellate court mag onlg ouenule or otherunise disturb the tial court's acquittal if it has "uerg substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.

¶65

'^{(2022) 8 supremecourt Cases536}

¶66

'^{(2oo8)10 SupremeCourt cases 450}

¶67

K',J&J,IK,J (:fl./t-Nos.l4l4 20 I 7 1t244 2016

¶68

¶69

A number of instances aise in u.thich the appellate court utould hnue " uery substantial and mmpelling reasons,' to discard the tial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" eist uhen:

¶70

i) The tial court's conclusion u..tith regard to the facts ts

¶71

palpablg u'rong: ii) Tlrc tial court's decision tuas ltased. on an errorleous uiew of laut;

¶72

iil) The tial court's judgment is likely to result in "qraue mis car iag e of ju stice " ;

¶73

it;) The entire approach of the trial courT in dealinq utth the euidence utas patently illegal;

¶74

u) The tial courl's judgment uas manifestly unjust and unreasonable;

¶75

tt)Tlte trial court has ignored. the eDidence or misread the mateial euidence or has ignored mateial documents ltke dying declarations/ repott of the ballistic expert, etc.

¶76

riifThis lisl is intended to be illustratiue, not exhaustiue. 2. Tl'te appellate couft must alwaAs giue proper weight and consideration o the findtngs of the trial coutt. .1. If tluo reasonable uiews can be reached_ one thot leads to acquittal, the other to conuiction _the Htgh Courts/ appellate courts must tule in fauour of the accused."

¶77

The grounds raised by learned Additional Public Prosecutor cannot form the basis to reverse the judgment of acquittal. Accepting the arguments of learned Additional Public Prosecutor, at most, the evidence under Section 411 of IPC is made out. A.2 and A3 were already convicted for the said offence.

¶78