Allowed

Yadavelly Ravindra v. The State Of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Jan 2025CRLA/2635/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals against conviction for murdering parents over alleged property disputes. Court found conviction rested on an improved trial version of witnesses and unproven circumstances: no call data, CCTV, FSL reports or property documents. Circumstantial chain incomplete; convictions set aside and appellants acquitted.

What did the court decide?

Convictions in S.C.No.177/2014 set aside; appellants/A2, A3 and A4 acquitted and ordered released if not required in other cases.

Yadavelly Ravindra Vs The State Of Telangana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

Bail Slip: The^{AccusedNo-2 was directed to be released on bail vide Hon'bleHigh} 'court order art"o isbtlz"o)ilnl A'No t of 2021in crll No 2635 of 2018

¶2

rN rHE HIGH.or*If3IrtJ.1Bt#E^{oF TELANGANA}

¶3

TUESDAY,^{THE SEVENTHDAY OF JANUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEANIL KUMARJUKANTI}

¶6

CRIMINAL APP^{EALNOs: 186275 0F 2017 AND2635 0F 2018}

¶7

Appeals under^{Section37aQ) ot Cr P-C'' aggrievedby order date.d02-02-} 2017 ins.c.^{No.177 ot zolq on tt6 rir" of the courtof the Judge, Family Court-} Cum-VIll^{Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar'}

¶8

CRIMIN^{AL APPEALNO:186 0F 2017}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Yedavelly Satya^{Narayana, S/o Prabhakar'.Aged 38 vears' Occ:Priest} (Pourohityam), nvo^{ptotvt'iol'io,"bRPiC;i;r"tnj""p'r'saga'rRoad' Hvderabad'} N/o Pebbair

¶11

...APELLANT/43

¶12

AND

¶13

The State Of^{Telangana,Rep. by its Public Prosecutor'High Court at Hyderabad} Foitne State^{of Telanganaand A'P'}

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶15

Counsel for^{the Appellant:Ms'C Vasundhara Reddy}

¶16

Counsel for^{the Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor}

¶17

CRIMIN^{AL APPEAL NO:27soF 2017}

¶18

Between:

¶19

Pelluri Mohan,^{S/o Pakiraiah,aged about 30 y99rq' Occ: autodriver' -R/o-H'No'} 86-697, Sai^{Ram Corony,'fi.il]ieaOy-ltlgar,HyderabadR/o' Muzafar Nagar'} Kurnool.

¶20

...APELLANT/ACCUSED^No'4

¶21

¶22

AND

¶23

#?"tiii""BlJiiiigili;1""?#;1,fl[:"rfi sl"t"tcatureatHyderabadrorthe

¶24

... RESPONDENTiCOMPLAINANT

¶25

IA NO:30F 2019

¶26

Petition urrde r Secti perrod of ili:iq?#Iff two months,^tffiT'tfi in the interest^:il'T's?"fi oi;rrti"".,, HlH,T,ti,",T"r,r#;J#H{.,",' ^

¶27

IA NO:20F 2021

¶28

*ffffff##a1h#gE#**ffi

¶29

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. G Jaya Reddy

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent: pUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶31

CRIMINA LAPPEALN O: 2635 0F 2018

¶32

Between:

¶33

ff"'r?f "{,yJ:B16AJ1,r}.:i,.,lil,1il,3,i#il3l,a1grT"#S30years,occ:pvt

¶34

AND

¶35

...APELLANT/ACCUSED No.2

¶36

The State Of Telangana, Rep by pubtic prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad

¶37

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶38

Counset for the Appellant: SRt. y Ratna prabha

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent: public prosecutor

¶40

The Court detivered the fofiowing: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶41

¶42

¶43

TTIE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K'SURENDER}

¶44

AND

¶45

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI WSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI} CRIMINAI Nos.186 275 of 20 17^{and263,5 0F 2018}

¶46

(per The Hon'ble^{Sri JusticeK'SURENDER)} COMMol{^JUDGMENT: Criminal^{AppealNo'186/2017 is frled by Accused No'3' Criminal} Appeal^{No.275l2Ol7is frled by Accused No'4 ald CriminalAppeal} No.2635/2oi8isfrledbyAccusedNo.2.Theappellantswere convicted^{by theJudge, Famrly Court'Mahabubnagar' in} S.C.No.177/2O^{14 for the offences underSections302 and 201 of the} Indian^{Penal Code and sentencedto undergo Rigorous Imprisonment} for life,^{each, and to pay a frne of Rs'5'O00/-'each'}

¶47

Since the^{aPPellantsare accused in the sarne case 1'e} S.C.No.l77 12014,^{all the three appealsare heard togetherand} disposed^{off by way of commonJudgment'}

¶48

Heard Ms.^{C. Vasundhara Reddy' Ms'G'Jaya Reddy' Ms'Y'Ratna} Prabha,^{learned counsel for appellantslA2to A4, and learned} Additional^{Public Prosecutorfor the respondent State'}

¶49

¶50

A1 to r\4 were tried for the offence of murder of the parents of Accused Nos.l zrrd 2, however the case was split up against A1 due to his abscondernce arrd only A2 to A.4 were tried.

¶51

The case of the prosecution is that the deceased 1 and 2 went to the house of pW.7 on Ol.OZ.2Ol3 and stayed for 4 days. On O7.O7 .2OI3 the5, returned to Hyderabad in Thungabha.dra Express Train at 3.OO p.rn and they reached Hyderabad at g.00 p.m. A1 to A,3 and Juvenile namely Vijay Kumar (JICL), took the deceased Balaraju (Dl) a,d Esrvar,amma (D2), parents of Accused Nos. r and 2 and. paternal Uncle eLnd Aunt of A3 in a Bolero vehicle from Malalpet Railway Station on the night of O4.OZ.2O|3, when they arrived from Kurnool and committed murder on the outskirts of Kuppagandla village by bearing them and slitting their throats w.irh knives. pw.6 is the daughter c,f the deceased 1 and 2. She was staying along with the deceased L a,:rd 2 after divorcing her husband. pW.6 ald pW.7 daughters of the deceased tried to contact the deceased on 07.O7.2073 to know whether they reached Hyderabad, however, ttreir cell phones were rtot reachable. A.3 went to the frouse of pW.6 in the morning of 05.(17. j2013 ard asked about the deceased. In the evening around 4.00 p.m., A2 called pW.6 ald informed that police

¶52

¶53

--.==" :.^_- -._r:=:,

¶54

¶55

¶56

Kalwakurthy^{calledhim and informed him that there were two dead} bodies found^{near Kuppagandla village'PW'6' accusedand others} went there^{and obserwed that there were injuries on the dead bodies'} ThedeadbodieswerelrrstseenbyPW.lwhoistheVRoof Uppagandla^{village of Veldanda Mandal' On seeingthe dead bodiesat} 7.00 A.M,^{on 05.07'2013,he gave report to Veldanda Police ' Ex'P1 is} the rePort^{givenbY PW' 1'}

¶57

The Police^{observed the deadbodies arrd on the basisof the} tailor's^{name and address stitched on the backside of the shirt of the} deceased^{No. 1, the deceased were identifred after contactingthe} tailor- PW.9.^{AccusedNos' 1 and 2' PWs'6 and'7 were contacted by the} Police after^{taking detailsfrom PW'9' After the relatives of the} deceased^{were identifred, the police concluded observationof scene'} inquest^{proceedings and thereafter sent the bodies for post mortem} examination.

¶58

Dr:ring^{the courseof investigation'Police came to know thatA1} artd A2^{were frequentlyquarreling with the deceased coupleabout} share in the^{properties and developedgrudge againstthem' A3 who} was the^{nephew also had disputes with the deceasedNo'1 regarding} the donations^{collected for 'shaneshwararn temple'' A1 to ,,{3 were}

¶59

¶60

¶61

arrested. It wars known during the course of investigation that A4 was in the compan y of A2 and ,{3 when the incident had taken place as such ,{4 war; also arrested.

¶62

The ar.rests were on 1S.OT.2OI3. During interrogation by the Police A1 ard appella,ts confessed about k,ling the deceased aJong with Juvenil: blr taking them in Bolero vehicle after picking them up from Ma_laklret Railway station. It is further the .case of the prosecution rhat deceased No. I acquired immovable properties i.e. one small hc,usr: at pebbair, arrd 100 Sq.ys plot in Cherya vilage which is near to the cit5r. Since Al and A2 wanted to get the property from their parents i.e. D1 and D2, they planned to kill Dl & D2. A1 & ,{2 contacted the deceased on phone while returning from Kurnool. When Dl & D2 g:t down from the trajn at Malakpet Railway Station, on the pretext of dropping them at their house, both the deceased were taken in thr: Bolero vehicle and murdered on the outskirts of Kuppagandla village.

¶63

The learned Sessions Judge examined pWs.1 to 14 and marked Exs.Pl to p16. M.Os. I to 2l were also marked during tria_l. Exs.D1 to D3 are the portions of statement of pWs.6 and 7 which were marked during the cross-examination of witnesses.

¶64

¶65

¶66

10.^{The defenceof the appellantsis one of total denial'A2 stated in} his 313^{Cr.P.C. examinationthat he was married in the year 2OO7} and PW.6^{got divorcedand all of them were living amicably'The} deceased^{Iand' 2 were residing in a rentedhousealong with PW'6} and A1^{was also livtng with them' There are no immovable properties'} There is^{one house in Pebbairvillage which is worth Rs'2 to 3 lakhs} ald no^{one was going there since 15 yearsand a false casewas filed'}

¶67

11.^{'A3 stated that he was beaten up in the Police station and case} was frled^{againstthem' The deceasedwere paternal uncle and aunt'}

¶68

The^{prosecution has placed reliance on the motive aspect as} oneofthecircumstancetoprovethecaseagainsttheappellalts. Since^{P[i.6 and 7 sisters of A1 and A2' expresseddoubt regarding A1} and A2^{frghtrng over property'that they would havecommittedthe} the investigation^also murders,^{basing on the said susprcron'} proceeded^{in the said direction'}

¶69

The^{case rsone of circumstantialevidence' The Honourable} Shcrnkcrr^{u-Sitate oJ Maharashtrat heldas} Supreme^{Court in}

¶70

follows;

¶71

'^{2023scc online sc 26E}

¶72

¶73

"In the der:ision of prakash u. State of Raja-sthan (2013) 4 SCC 66,9, t.his Court took note of the following principles laid down rerga.ding the raw relaLing circumstantiar evidence in Sharad Birdhtchand. Sard.a u. State of Maharashtra (jg|4) 4 SCC 116:-

¶74

"15:)' A crose anargsb of this decision would. show that tlte "tollalsin, conditions must be fulfi.lled before a case again-st an accused_ can be said. to be fullg establi.shed.:

¶75

(1) The tircumstances from uthich th-e conclusion of guilt i-s to be drawn should be fullg establtsh,ed. It mag be noted. h.ere tha.t thb Court ind.icated that the ciranmstances concemed. ,must or should., and not '^oA be' estobtished. There is not onty a

¶76

grommatical but a legal distinction betueen ,may be

¶77

proued' and^,must be or should. be proued_,as uas he,ld by this Court in Shiuaji Sahabrao Bobarle u. Stctte of Mahara.shtra [(1923) 2 SCC 7931 uhere the

¶78

followi.ng obseruation s were mad_e:

¶79

......"ertainty, it i.s a primary pinciple that the accused must be and. not merely may be guiltg bef,tre a aurt can conuict and. th,e mental d.istance behaeen'may be' and.,must be, i-s long and d.iuid.es uague conjectures from sure conclusions"

¶80

(2) TlE rfizcfs so establi.stted should be ansistent <>nly uitl,, the hgpotLesis of the guilt of tLe accused.. that

¶81

¶82

b to say, tleg^{shoutd not be explainable on anA} other hgpothesis^{except that the acansed is guiltg'}

¶83

(3) The. ciratmstances^{slnuld be of a conclusiuenature} and tendencg,

¶84

ft)fheg^{stnuld exclude euery possiblehgpothesis} excePt the^{one to be} Proued,^ond

¶85

(5) There must^{be a chnin of euidene so complete as} not to leaue^{anA reo'sonablegroundforthe} anclusion^{consistent rttith the innocenceofthe} acansed and^{must shattt that in allhtman}

¶86

probabititg the^{act must haue been done bg the} accused.

¶87

Th.ese fiue^{golden principles, if ue may sag so' constitute} th.e pancltsheel^{of the proof of a case based on ciranmstantial} euidence."

¶88

The main^{argumentof the learned counsel appearing for the} appellants^{is that witnesses have totally comeup with an improved} version during^{the course of trial and the basis for convictionwas} also the^{improved version' The said convictionon the basisof an} improved^{version from their 161 Cr'P'C'statements and developedat} a subsequent^{date during trial has to be set aside'}

¶89

¶90

The impr.ved version of the witnesses pws.6 and 7 wourd be relevarrt. PV/. 1.1 is the Investigating offrcer who was questioned regarding the irrLproved version of the witnesses.

¶91

PW. 14 ,stated is as follows;

¶92

"It is tr,,t e PW.6 not stated. to me tn her 161 Cr.p.C that on O4.O7.2O1:1, h.er father call her on phone and, informed-.that he u.ill ,.etu.ming from Hgderabad. in Ttumgabhadra tratn at 3.OO p.n. lt is ttue pW.6 not stated- to me in her l6,t cr.p.C. that on 04.07.2013 at about g.OO p.m. hi.s father called. her phone irrformed that h.e uas coming in Bolero uan along uith his sons; and also infonned. there utas dispute arose in the hause of A3 between parents of 43 and_ he attencled the same antd 4e uill com.e tohome and. asked. her to prepare food.^It i;^true that^pW.6 has not stated. to me that uthen his father^antd :;ons did not retum she continuously callerl to hb father^{orL phone} and it uas switched. off, she also called_ to the cell ,ohone of 43 in the moming at 5.O0 a.m. and. A3 came to ,l.hetr house along witlt his motlrcr informed. that tte parents uere not come to hi.s lause and. again she co_lled. to tLrc cell ph<tne of 42 and. enquired. and LLe d-enied, the presence of his parents and. tota that we d.id. somet thing ogainst thent and he did. not turn up and. they searched. here and there along uith A3.

¶93

It is true PW,.6 has not stated to me that in th.e euen.ing at about 4.00 .p.m. A2 called h.er and. informed. that police

¶94

¶95

Kaluakurthg^{called' lim' informed'him that thereu)ere tTao} dead'bodiesfoundnearKuppagandlauitlageandleuent thi,re^{and id.entifiedthe deadbodiesas of his parents and} also obserued.^{injuneson th'e d'ead bodies' somebodg kills} his parents^{due to propertg disputes'}

¶96

It is true^{PW'6 llrzs not stated to me that ttere uas} interference^{of A3 in their disputesand letook awag her} father^{tocollectdonations for theconstructionof} ShaneshularamtempleatSiddipetallageandinthisregard there is^{di.spute arose bettaeen Ler fatLer ond A3 and the} said" fact^{tttosinformedto her bg his fatler'}

¶97

PW.7^{ruot stated before me that on 4'O7'2013 theg refitn to} Hgderabad^{inThungabadratrain at 3'00 p'mand} teldphaned^{me at8'0O p'm'thcLt theg haue reached} Hgderabad^{and told that heA uill come again after 10 dags} and after^{reachingthe homemg father informed ttwt he will} called^{again. But he did not call to me' Wten I teleplaned to} him he^{did not respondand' I called mg sister PW'6 she told} that^{mg parents did not hfinup'on that dag and abo till} aftemoon^{on the next dag no replgutas recciued about our} parents-^{Mg sister told in tle eueningat 3 or 4'00 p'm' about} raticingoftuodeadbodieslyingatKuppagandlauillageof Veldandamandaland.shereE,testedmetocom.etothere and PW-6^{also going there' ImmediatetgIreached} Kahualatrthg^{in the euerung and' uent to police statioru' Police} took me^{to gouernment hospital'Kolwatatrthg and shoun me}

¶98

¶99

the sa,,d clead bodies. I identified. said_ both d.ead ltodies as mA parents. I obserued cut injury on the necks of mg father and n'.oth.er. Bg seeing the said. injuies some persons murdered mA parents and also pW.7 not stated_ before me that A3 in.tended, to construct Shaneshu.tara temple qt Siddipe't as such he took the Lelp of mg father for collection of doncr.tiorts for the construction of temple in Bokero uehicle and thetg callected amount, A3 used. to call my father when he u,tas stag in Kurnool. "

¶100

Having gone through the triar court findings, heary rerialce was placed on the improved version of the witnesses as extracted above.

¶101

18' The Police crid not co,ect the ca, data of the deceased phones or the details ol cell phones of Al, A2, pW.6 and pW.7. The alleged phone calls nrade by pWs.6 and 7 as stated before Court ought to have been substantiated by collecting the .cell phone numbers of pW.6 ad 7 to shou'that they called the deceased or A1 and A2 called the deceased whikr they were in Kurnool or in the train while coming back from Kurnool. There are no witnesses who have seen the appellants at Malakpet Railwa5, Station. Though, CCTV is alhxed at Malakpet Railway Station, pW. 14 admitted that he did not collect the CCTV footages at Malakpet Railway Station and cross roads on the said

¶102

-t

¶103

¶104

date. PW.^{14 further admitted that he did not collectany evidenceto} show the movement^{of the Bolero vehicle from Malakpet to Kurnool'}

¶105

lg. The appellants,^{A1 and the Juvenile were arrested on} I5.O7.2013.^{At the instance of A2 a papercutting blade M'O'11was} seized and^{A2's shirt-M'O'20\Mith blood stains was also seized'} M.O.21 is^{shirt of A3. Thoughthe seizureswere made neitherthe} shirts of^{A2 and A3 nor the paper cuttingblades-M'O'11 and 12 were} sent for FSL^{examination to know whether there were blood stains on} the shirt^{of the accused 2 and 3 and whether the blood belongsto the} deceased.

¶106

was entirely based^{on the} 20. The conviction^{of the appellants} alleged^{confessionand the irnproved versionthat was given during the} course of^{trial bY PWs.6 and 7'}

¶107

27 . The^{prosecution did not frle any documents to show that the} deceased^{owned immovable propertiesto substantiate the versionof} killing the^{deceased forproperties'Incases ofcircumstantial} evidence,^{every circumstancehas to be proved beyondreasonable} doubt by^{the prosecution and such circumstances should make out} complete^{chain of the case which would rule out the possibility of} innocence^{of the accusedand such circumstancesshould point only}

¶108

¶109

¶110

towards the accused as the perpetrators of the crime with no place for doubt

¶111

The prosecution was not able to prove;

¶112

i) that the deceased owned any properties ald there were any fights between therr for the properties.

¶113

ii) The appellarts were present at Malakpet Railway Station to pick up the deceased.

¶114

iii) that Bolero vehicle was used to take the deceased by the appellants zrnd travelled from Ma-lakpet Railway Station to Kuppagandla village, Kalwakurthy, nearly g0 k.ms. from Ma-lakpet Railway Station.

¶115

iv) that there,,vasr calls in between the deceased, pWs.6 ard 7 ald the appellarrts or: 04 .OZ .2O 13 by collecting the call data and also collecting their. cell phone numbers.

¶116

v) that anything incriminating was found in the Bolero vehicle.

¶117

vi) that M.Os. I to 14 including shirts of ,{2 and A3 contained blood stains by sending them to FSL.

¶118

¶119

As discussed above, the prosecution has failed miserably to make out a case against the appellants and all the three appeals deserve to be allowed.

¶120

Accordingly, all the three Crirninal Appeals are allowed setting aside the conviction recorded by the Judge, Family Court, Mahabubnagar, in S.C.No.l77 /2014. The appellants/A3, A4 &' A2 are acquitted. Since the appellants/A3 and A4 are in^jail, they sha-tl be released, forthwith, if not required in any other case.

¶121

Sd/. C.V.MALLIKARJ UNAVAR A JOINT GI R

//TRUE^COPY//

s TION OFFICER

The Judge,^{Family Court-Cum-Vlll Additional SessionsJudge'}

¶126

Mahabubnagar^{(WithRecords if any)}

¶127

Z. if,"naAltioriat^{LuOiciat Magistrateof FirstClass,Kalwakurthy.. .^} 5. +il; iil;;;ti"na"nt,^{cuniilJ"ii-ctturlapallv'RansaReddvDistrict (Bv} Soecial Messenger)

¶128

Soecial Messenger)

¶129

4 Yfi,;"cc;'i;int^{"pr6ri"Prosecutor, High Court for the State of relangana at} Hvderabad^(OUT)

¶130

5 di';"bCi.;^{b-n-i.'6Lnvn REDDY,AdYgcJg [oPUC]} 6 5ii" 66 i;^{Eiii. c VnsurloHAnA nroov'Aovocate^[oPUC]} i. 5ii!;; i;^{s'Ci.VnninA pneBHA,Advocate[oPUc]}

¶131

Two CD^CoPies

¶132

¶133

HIGH COURT DATED:07101t202s

¶134

COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA.No.18G, ZtS ot 2011 AND 2635 0F 2018

¶135

1 dE riTA f c'
e
t
(.) 0 ! ,li i.i 20?5
al
^
-:\ - si,., 1'

¶136

ALLOWING THE CRL.APPEALS

¶137

Yadavelly Ravindra v. The State Of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yadavelly Ravindra v. The State Of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Telangana Rep by Pp., Vs Kuntala Praveen Kumar, Parkal (Vandm).

The State of Telangana Rep., Vs Korra Kondaiah, Gandhari Mandal.

Smt.Dasari Maneema, Kurnool Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and 4 Otrs.

Daggula Suresh , Suresh, Rr.Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Talpunoori Subbaiah, Mahabubnagar Dt and 2 Otrs., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Pelluri Mohan, Kurnool., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.