Allowed

Moluguri Sadi , Sadanandam v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Feb 2025CRLA/2479/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals against conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC in a murder case resting on circumstantial evidence: last-seen evidence, doubtful witness identifications, hostile confession witnesses, and call data not connecting accused to crime. High Court found chain incomplete and acquitted.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; A1, A3 and A4 acquitted and bail bonds discharged.

Moluguri Sadi , Sadanandam Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

[^341e ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

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

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos: 1280 of2O17 and2479 o1 2018

¶8

NOTE : The AppellanVAccused No.2 was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 28-11-2023 in l.A.No.3 of 2023 in Crl.A.No.1280 of 2017.

¶9

NOTE : The AppellanUAccused No.3 was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 28-04-2022 in l.A.No.1 of 202O in Crl.A.No.12B0 of 2017.

¶10

NOTE : The AppellanUAccused No.1 was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 08-01-2024 in l.A.No.2 of 2023 in Cd.A.No.l280 of 2017.

¶11

Criminal Appeal NaJ280^qf 2017

¶12

Appeal under Section 37aQ) ot Cr.P.C against the Judgment daled 24-07-2017 passed in S.C.No.'191 ot 2013 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Sessions Judge, at Karimnagar.

¶13

Between:

¶14

Kaveti Nageshwar nao (e-i) S/o. Late nb-mulu @ Saidulu, Age:38^years, Golla, Fi/o. Ravikampadu (Village), Chandrugonda^(Mandal), Khammam District.

¶15

Katla Nagamani (A-2), Katta @ Gujjeti Pocham, Age:31^years, Golla,^Ri/o. Katikenapalli (Village), Dharmaram (Mandal).

¶16

Velpula Mallesh (A-3), S/o. Late Rayamallu, Age:38^{years, Golla,Ri/o.} Chamanpalli (Village), Dharmaram (Mandal).

¶17

...AppellanUAccused Nos.1 to 3

¶18

AND

¶19

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

¶20

...RespondenUComplainant

¶21

Counsel forthe Appellant-1 : Sri D. Bhaskar Reddy

¶22

Counsel for the Appellant-3: Sri K. Neelakanteswara Rao

¶23

Counsel forthe Respondent: Sri D. Arun Kumar,

¶24

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶25

NOTE : The AppellanUAccused No.4 was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 17-1O-2O22 in l.A.No.1 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.2479 of 2017.

¶26

Criminal Appeal No.2479 ot 2017

¶27

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 24-07-2017 passed in S.C.No.'191 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Sessions Judge, at Karimnagar,

¶28

Between:

¶29

Moluguri Sadi @ Sadanandam, S/o Komuraiah, Age:37 years, Caste: Madiga R/o. Jukallu, Chityala Mandal, Warangal Diskict, now at RK 6 Colony; Srirampur, Adilabad District.

¶30

...AppellanUAccused (A4)

¶31

AND

¶32

The State of Telangana, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP at Hyderabad.

¶33

...RespondenUComplainant

¶34

Counsel for the Appellant-4: Smt. J. Kusumavathi

¶35

Counsel forthe Respondent: Sri D. Arun Kumar, Additional Pubtic Prosecutor

¶36

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶37

¶38

THE IIONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE.K.SURENDER}

¶39

AND

¶40

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI WSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI} CRIMIilAL APPEAL^{Nos.l280 ()F 2017 and 2479 0F 20L8}

¶41

COMM ON JUDGMENT:^{(per The Hon'ble Sri JusticeK.SURENDER)}

¶42

Criminal Appeal^{No.1280 of 2Ol7 is llled by the appellalts/Al} to A3 and^{CriminalAppeal No'2479 of 2018 isfrled bythe} appellant/A4,^{aggrievedby the convictionrecordedby the IV} Additional Sessions^{Judge at Karimnagar,in S'C'No'191of 2013'} dated, 24.07.2017,^{for the offencesunder Sections 302' 2Ol rlw'34} of the Indian^{Penal code;and sentencing them to undergoRigorous} Imprisonment for^{life and to pay a hne of Rs'10,O00l-each for the} offence under^{Sectio n3o2r} /^{w.34 of IPC; to undergoRigorous} Imprisonment for a^{period of 3 years each, and to pay a fine of} Rs.5,O00/- each,^{for the offenceunderSection 201 of IPC'}

¶43

2.HeardSriD.BhaskarReddy,learnedcounselforAl;Sri K.Neelakanteswara^{Rao, learned counselfor A3; Smt'J'Kusumavathi'} learned counsel^{for A4, and Sri D'Arun Kumar'learned Additional} Public Prosecutor^{for respondent-State'}

¶44

¶45

Accused No.2 was released on remission by the Government. The learned Counsel submits that their arguments are confrned to 41, A3, and A4.

¶46

PW.1-Swaroopa, is the wife of the deceased, namely Avula Srinivas. She stated that around 12.30 hours, on 09.09.2012, the deceased went out on his motorbike. In the evening, around 4.30 p.m., when PW. 1 called the deceased on phone, the deceased informed her that someone was trying to kill him and immediately, the phone was switched off. At about 8.O0 P.M., PW. I came to know that the deceased died with a cut injury to his throat. Then she visited the Government Hospital at Peddapalli and found a cut injury on the throat of her husband. She came to know that her husband was killed at Jaffarkhanpet village. Accordingly, she drafted Ex.Pl complaint and halded it over to PW.16.

¶47

PW. 16-Sub-inspector of Police stated in his examination that on 10.09.2012, at about 2.OO A.M, PW. I came to the police station and lodged u,ritten complaint Ex.Pl, and then he immediately rushed to the scene of offence and shifted the dead body to Government Hospital, Peddapalli. The investigation was then handed over to PW. 18.

¶48

, ."

¶49

¶50

According to^{PW' 18, onlO} 'Og '2012'^{having received the} information^{from PW.16 Sub-inspector' he went to the mortuaryof} Peddapalli^{governmenthospital and found the dead body with an} injury on^{his throat.The body was photographedand the wearing} apparel of^{the deceased were seized' He also seized one motorcycle} bearing No.AP^{15 AD 6153-M'O'7 at tt:ie scene'PW' 18 sought details} of call data^{of phonenumber of the suspect,i.e., 9a66494o67 alrrd} other suspects'^{phonenumbers,which are' 9177368884 and} 8106292525^{- According to PW' 18, the call data informationprovided} pima facie^{evidenceof involvementof A1 to A4 in the offence'On} l8.Og.2O12,^{Al toA4 were arrested and in the presence of} independent^{mediators, PW' 12 and another' the accused were} interrogated.^{In pursuance of their confession' mobile phones of A10} and A3^{were seized. Al further led the policeto bus stand'where the} motorcycle^{bearing No'AP 15 AC g7A7' which is M'O'3' was seized'} A1 further^{led the police party to the scene of offence'where the} knife-M.O.S^{was seized' M'O'6-blood stainedshirt of the accused} was also found^{at the scene and seized'}

¶51

¶52

On 2O.1O.2O12, the Test Identification Parade of 42 was conducted at District Judge, Karimnagar. PW. 17 is the Magistrate, who conducted Test Identihcation Parade

¶53

Having concluded investigation, charge sheet was frled by PW. 1S-lnspector of Police

¶54

The crucial witnesses, who were exarnined by the prosecution and relied on bt'the learned Sessions Judge to record conviction, are PWs.3,4, and 5

¶55

PW.3 stated that he found three male persons and one female person nearby the bushes at the side of the road in Jaffarkhanpet village. He found a person in a pool of blood, stmggling for life. He also found a motorcycle next to the dead body. The number of the motorcycle is AP 15 AD 6153. PW.3 then informed PW.4 about the body being found. Immediately, PW.4 went to ttre scene and found the dead body rvith an injury on the neck. According to PW.4, he informed Sub-inspector on phone.

¶56

1 1. PW.3, in his cross-examination, stated that he has seen the accused for the hrst time and they are all strangers. He was examined before the Court on 21.04.2015, which is nearly 2^t/z yeans

¶57

¶58

¶59

after the incident.^{Accordingto PW'3, he saw the accused near the} place of the incident.^{However,he did not give any descriptive} particulars of the^{accused,when he was examinedby the Police' The} identilication^{of PW.3, 2 V" yearsafter the incident,without any Test} Identifrcation^{Parade, raisesdoubt regarding his identification for the} frrst time in^{Court. Further,PW'3stated that he informed PW'4' who} came to the^{scene. PW.4 stated in his cross-examination that he} informed the^{Sub-inspector on phoneand immediately' the Police} came to the^{spot at 6.O0 P M', after receiving information aboutthe} body being found,^{and body was shiftedto hospitalafter arrivalof} the Circle^InsPector.

¶60

|2.ThesaidversionofPw.4iscontradictorytotheversiongiven by PW. l6-Sub-inspector.^{According toPW' 16' after he received} complaint at^{2.OO A-M., on lO 'Og '2012,he rushed to the scene of} offence and^{shifted the body to the Government Hospital. According} to PW.4, he^{gave details of the incident, when the Policearrived at} the scene.^{One fails to understand, as to why the information' that} was given to^{police at 5.00 P'M' itself by PW'4' was not acted upon} by the Police.^{The Policepleads ignoranceand denies having received} any such information,^{or going to the scene at 6'00 P'M' on}

¶61

¶62

O9.O9.2O12. The very frrst information, which was received by the Police, was by PW. 16 at 2.OO A.M., after the w.itten complaint was frled. Either PW.3 and PW.4 are speaking false about the incident, or PW. l6-Inspector statement is false.

¶63

PW.5 is another rvitness who saw ,{2 proceeding along with the deceased at Kunaram X roads. According to pW.S, the deceased introduced A2 as his cousin and both of them left on the bike. pW.5 further identified A2 in the Test Identification proceedings conducted in the jail. PW.5 in his cross-examination state(l that on the same night, he saw news about the death of accused on Television. Immediately, he and his relatives went to Government Hospital, where the circlc Inspector was present. The lnquest took place after he went to the hospita,l. The police examined pW.5 and relatives of the deceased at the time of inquest. The inquest was conducted in the hospital on 1O.09.20 12, at 8.00 A.M., and concluded at 10.00 A.M.

¶64

PW.6 speaks about the seizure of M.O.3. M.O.3 was marked during his evidence. According to PW.3, the vehicle r.r.as seized by the Police from his house. However, Inspector-pW.lg, stated that M.O.3 was seized from the bus stand, at the instance of A1.

¶65

¶66

The^{prosecution relied on the statementsof PW'7and PW'1l} that were^{made during the course of investigation, regardingthe} accused^{confessing before them'aboutcommittingthe murderof the} deceased.^{Both PWs'7 ald 11 turned hostile to the prosecutioncase} and did^{not support the version of the prosecutionthat the accused} had confessed^{beforethem about committing the crime'}

¶67

The^{evidenceof PW'3, who saw the accused at the scene'} become^{doubtful,in view of his statement that he was identifying the} accused^{for the hrst time, beforethe Court' 2 Yz yeats after the} incident.^{Admittedly, no Test IdentificationParadeof all the accused'} was conducted^{for the purpose of PW'3identifyingthe accused'In} the inquest^{report-Ex'P3,neitherthe name of PW'3' nor PW'4is} mentioned^{as witnesses to the incident' In the inquest report' it was} mentioned^{that the frrst personwho has seen the dead body' is} PW.5. As^{already discussed'the evidence of PW'S is falsified by the} evidence^{of PW. 16-Inspector'}

¶68

The^{evidence of PW'3 isdoubtfulsince his name is not} mentioned^{in the inquest, and identihcation of accused by him was} altet 2^{Yz years of the incident'In the inquest report' PW'S though} stated that^{he called the Policeand at 6'00 p'm'' and the police}

¶69

¶70

arrived, however, PW. 10 stated that he went to the scene of offence aJter receiving complaint from PW. 1 at 2.00 A.M., on 1O.O9.2012

¶71

PW.6 stated that M.O.3 was recovered frorn his house at the instance of the Poiice, however, PW. l6-lnvestigation Officer states that M.O.3 was recovered at the instance of A1, from the bus stand. The witnesses, PW.7 and PW.9, on whom the prosecution relied on, to speak about the extra judicial confession of the accused, have turned hostile to the prosecution case. The only evidence left is that of PW.5, who has seen A2 and the deceased at around 4.30 p.m., and thereafter, the deceased was found dead. Though, caII records were filed by the prosecution, it does not connect the accused to the cnme

¶72

The Honourable Supreme Court in Musheer Khan alias Badshah Kha,n and. another u. State oJ Madhga Pradesht, held that:

¶73

"39. In a case of ciranmstantial euidence, one must look for compLete chain of circumstances and not on snapped and scattered links tuhich do not make a complete sequence. This Court finds that this case is entirelg based on circumstantial euidence. While appreciating ciranmstantial

¶74

r (2010) I Supreme ( oun a ases 748

I I

I I

eudence,^{the Court must adopt a cautious approachas} ciranmstantial^{euidence is "inferentialeuidence" and proof} in such a^case is deriuable^{bginference from} ciranmstances."

¶79

20.Inthecasessuchasthese,whenthereisnoeye-witness account and^{the prosecution relies on the circumstantialevidence'} the circumstances^{relied on by the prosecution, have tobe} convincingly^{established,and there should not be any room for} doubt. The^{linkbetween thecircumstancesshould beso} interconnected,^{that it should rule out the possibility of the accused} determine^{the involvement of} not being^{guilty and conclusivelY} accused in^{the offence.}

¶80

As already^{discussed, exceptthe evidence of PW'S seeingA2} along with^{the deceased, few hours prior to his dead body being} found, all^{the other circumstancesare doubtful' and cannotbe relied} on to^{prove the caseinsofar as A1 ald A3 are concerned'}

¶81

In^{view of the foregoingdiscussion'benefrt of doubt is extended} to A1, A3,^{and A4. SinceA2 was released on remission'no frndings} are given^{against J{2}

Accordingly. Criminal Appeal^No.2479 of^{20 18 ard Criminal} Appeal No.12B0 of 2Ol7 insofar as Al ald^{A3 are concerned,are} a,llowed, setting aside the conviction^{recordedb5' the IV Additional} Sessions Judge at Karimnagar, in^S.C.No.191 of^{2013, dated} 24.07.2017. A1, A3, and .A4 are acquitted.^{Since A1, A3, and A4, are}

¶86

on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharu"O.

¶87

,rr_ K. SRINI,ASA RAo //TRUE COPY// ,,sl T1.']Tl slicrroru oFFrcER

¶88

One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble SRI JUSTICE K.SURENOER (For His Lordship's kind Perusal)

¶89

One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI (For His Lordship's kind Perusal)

¶90

To,

¶91