The State of Telangana Rep by Pp., Vs Sama… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2025)

The State of Telangana Rep by Pp., Vs Sama… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the judgment of acquittal of the respondents/accused stands confirmed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the State's criminal appeal under Section 378(3)&(1) Cr.P.C. against the acquittal of the respondents/accused should be allowed. +1 more

Court's answer

There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge; accordingly the criminal appeal is dismissed and the acquittal stands.

Ratio / Principle

The foundational circumstances connecting Accused No.1 with the deceased were not established: the Investigating Officer admitted that at the earliest point of time PWs.3 and 4, the parents of the deceased, did not speak of Accused No.1 and the deceased going together, and although the cell phone call records were collected, they were not placed before the trial court, with no reason given for withholding the document already available with the Investigating Officer.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana (K. Surender & J. Anil Kumar, JJ.; judgment per K. Surender, J.), 30.01.2025, in Crl.A. No.941 of 2017 under Section 378(3)&(1) Cr.P.C.: the State's appeal against the acquittal of three accused of offences under Sections 302, 201 and 202 IPC by the Judge, Family Court cum VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (S.C. No.162 of 2014, judgment dated 10.05.2016) was dismissed. The case rested wholly on circumstantial evidence - friendship and an alleged Rs.50,000 hand-loan motive, an alleged phone call by Accused No.1 the previous day, last-seen evidence of PW14, wine-shop witnesses PWs.6 and 7, and seizures of bloodstained clothes, a car and a dumbbell (MO5). Recalling the five conditions in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra and the principles governing interference with acquittals in Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P., Babu v. State of Kerala, State of Rajasthan v. Naresh @ Ram Naresh and State of U.P. v. Banne, the Division Bench held there were no compelling reasons to interfere: the parents (PWs.3 and 4) had not, at the earliest point, spoken of the deceased leaving with Accused No.1, as the Investigating Officer (PW23) admitted, and the call records, though collected by PW23, were never placed before the trial court to substantiate the alleged phone call. Acquittal confirmed.

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH^{DAY OF JANUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEANILKUMARJUKANTI}

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 941^{OF 2017}

Criminal Appeal U/s 378(3)&(1)^{Cr.P.C against the Judgment madein} s.c.No.162 ot 2014 dated^{10.05.2016 on the file of the Judge, Family court cum} Vll Additional District & Sessions^{Judge, Medakat Sangareddy'} Between:

ine statJ or relangana, Rep. by^{rhe Pubric t.*":11,rflg[fft+,A,Jl,]B"Jiir?l-,} AND

.1 . Sama Narsimha Reddy, S/o. Buchi Reddy' Occ Senior Accountant at ttlt.trlodet Global Servic'es^{Private Limited, R/o H.No '1 1-62, Shanthi Nagar} Colony, Patancheru.

z. Fiioirj'.la'pit AeOoy, S/o.^{Veera Reddy,Occ Labour, R/o. NadlapurVillage of} Andole Mandal.

e. Sjmi inandrakala,^{Wo.Buchi Reddy, occHoqsewife,R/o H'No 11-62'} shanti Nagar colony' Patancheru

...RESpoNDENTS/AccusED

Counsel for the Appellant^{: SRI DODLA ARUN KUMAR} ADDITIONAL PUBLIC^PROSECUTOR

Counsel for the Respondents:^{SRI PALLE SRIHARINATH}

The Court made the^{following: JUDGMENT}

1

i i i ]

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

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.941 oF 2077

JUDGMEN!: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

Tht, aJrpeal is preferred by the State, aga.inst the acquittal of respondents/accused for the offencers under Sections 3O2, 2OI and 2O2 of Indian penal Code (f:r short 1PC1.

Heard Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar, learned Actditiona_l Public Prose,:utor appearing on behalf of appellant_State and Mr. Pal1e Sriharinath, learned counsel for respondents_ accused

The deceased, who is the son of pWs.3 and 4, was found deal b5. pW1 near patelguda. pW1 lodged a co:nplaint with PW2 3 Inspector of police. On the basis of conrplaint, PW23 wer rt trr the scene and conducted scene of offence panchan,ar na. The body was photographed and on the basis of tailor s} op :eame that was on the shirt collar, pW2li made enquiries rLnd identified the dead body was that of de<:eased, who was the son of pWs.3 and, 4. The call data of the deceased v as verified and then on the basis of suspicion that

2

accused No.1 was involved, PW23 arrested^{accusedNo. 1. On} the basis of accused Nos.1's confessii:n,^{accused Nos.2 and 3} were also indentified as involved in the murder^{of deceased.} At the instance of accused No.l, blood^{stained pant, shirt,} and car that was allegedly used^{to transport the deadbody of} deceased were seized. MO5/dumbbell^{with whichaccused} attacked and allegedly hit the^{deceased causing the death,} was also seized.

The case is one of circumstantial^{evidence. The} prosecution has relied on the following circumstances:

l. Accused No. 1 and deceased^{are friends}

Deceased advanced hand^{loal ofRs.SO,OOO/-to} accused No.1 at the interest^{of Rs.10,0OO/-, for a period} of 10 days. Since deceased^{was unable to repaythe said} amount, he was killed by^{accused Nos. I to 3.}

The day prior to deceased^{going missing, accusedNo'1} ca-lled the deceased on^his Phone.

After accused No.1 left to^{meet the deceased, PW14 saw} the deceased entering into^{the houseof accused.}

ri

J

P'r\ s.6 and 7 were working in two different wine shops an,l they saw two persons coming to their shop and pu^'chasing liquor and consuming it.

dumbbel that was used to murder the deceased and also the car that.vas used to transport the dead body.

Tht. learned Sessions Judge, however, having considert d tLLe evidence on record, found that case was one of circumstirnti:11 evidence and prosecution could not lrrove all the circr- mstances beyond reasonable doubt. Furt her, the circumst: tnces do not have any connecting link, to speciflcally say that .he ilccused are the persons who are responsible for death oL rleceased and none else. The circumstances relied on by the p rosecution are inconclusive and does not inspire confidenc e of the Court to convict the accused for tire grave offence of murder.

In cast:s of circumstantial evidence, the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Sharad. Birdhicha,nd Sarda u. State of Mahdloshtrar held as follows:

'^{lrse<;+ scc tro}

4

'The following conditions must be^{fulfrlledbefore a case} against an accused can^{be said to be fully establishedon} circumstantial evidence:

(1) the circumstances from which^{the conclusion of guilt is} to be drawn must or^{should be and not merely 'may be'} fully established,

(21 tLLe facts so established^{should be consistent only with}

' the hypothesis of^{the guilt of the accused, that is to} say, they should not be^{explainableon any other} hypothesis except that^{the accusedis guilty,}

(3) the circumstances should^{be of a conclusive nature} and tendencY,

(4) they should exclude^{everypossible hypothesisexcept} the one to be Proved,^and

(5) there must be a chain^{of evidenceso completeas not to} leave any reasonable^{groundfor the conclusion} consistent with the^{innocence of the accused ald must} show that in all^{human probability the act musthave}

. been done bY the^accused."

B. l,earned Public^{Prosecutor would submit that the main} evidence is that of^{PWs.3 to 5, who are the parents arrd} brother of the^{deceased. They specificallystatedthat} deceased went out^{with accused. Thereafter,he was found} dead on the next^{day. It is for the accused to explain} regarding the death^{of the deceased.}

g . l,earned Sessions Judge^{gave the followingreasons} regarding the acquittal:

5

.;9: -.:

1 Th: Police, though claimed that call recor.ds were seized, h cwever, records were not placed before the Court.

ii. Th rugh, PWs.3 and 4, parents of deceased stated that accuserl No. I came to their house and both the clecerrsed and accused No. t left, however, the said version was developed during tl e trial and at the earliest point of time, pWs.3 and 4 only sta ted that deceased received a phone c a,ii. The improven Lent made by pWs.3 and 4 is evident from the evidence f P'N23 Investigating Officer.

iii. P\Mt4 though stated before the Court that he had seen the deceaseo entering into the house of accused at O6.30 p.M. However, PV/14 admitted in the cross examination that the statemenr was given to police 8 days thereafter.

iv. PWs .6 ;tnd Z , who are witnesses to last see.ing the accused, stated that 2 persons visited their shop. H owever, PW6 statr:d that he did not identift the two persor:is. pW7 stated that it^.,vas accused Nos.1 and 2 who went to tl.Le shop, but he rli,l not see the deceased along with accuse<l Nos.l ar,d 2

Except for the developed verslon during ttLe trial regarding the deceased being in company of accuserl No.1,

6

there is no other evidence to^{connectthe accusedwiththe}

offence of murder

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pulicherla^Nagaraiu Alias Nagaraja Reddg rt. State^of Andhra^{Ptadesh2held.} as follows:

" 15. It is now well settled that the^power of^the High Court in an appeal from acquittal is^no different from its power in an^appealfrom conviction. It cal review a;rd^{consider the entire} evidence and come to its own conclusions^by either accepting the evidence^{rejectedby the trial} court or rejecting the evidence^{accepted by the} trial court. However, if the High^{Court decidedto} depart from the conclusions^{reachedby the trial} court, it should^pay due^{attention to the grounds} on which acquittal was based and^statethe reasons as to why it finds the^{conclusions leading} to the acquittal, unacceptable.^{It shouldalso bear} in mind that (i) the presumption of innocence in favour^{of the} accused is fortrfied by the^{frndings of the trial} court; (ii) the accused is entitled^{to benefitof any} doubt; arld (iii) the trial court had^{the advantage} of examining the demeanour of^{the witnesses.} The crux of the matter, however,^{is whetherthe} High Court is able to^give clear^{reasonsto dispel} the doubt raised, and reject the^{reasons givenb. y} the trial court."

In cases of acquittal,^{the interferenceby the appellate} Court can only be in compelling^{ci-rcumstances.The}

z (2006) 11 scc 444

7

'; j.!

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babu a. State of Keralas held as follou s:

|J. ln State of Rajasthan v. Naresh @ R,m I laresrh [(2009) 9 SCC 368], the Court again examined tre earlier judgments of this Court arrd laid down that € n ",trder of acquittal should not be lightly interfered l^,ith even if the court believes that theie r.s so ane r^yidence pointing out the finger towards the accuseC.,

IrL State of Uttar Pradesh v. Banne alias BaijneLth 8, On;. [(2009) 4 SCC 2711, this Court gave cJrtr:dn il lustt ative circumstances in which the Court rvor.tld b s justified in interfering with a judgment of acquit tal by thr: High Court. The circumstances includes:

i) The High Court's decision is based on totallv e ronoous view of law by ignoring the settled le51al p rsitir>n;

ii) The High Court's conclusions are contraly- to e 'ider ce ald documents on record;

_^{ilil The entire approachof the HighCoum} in d,:a1ing with the evidence was patently ili,egal leadir-rg tr grave m iscarriage ofjustice;

iv) The High Court's judgment is manifesrlv u:rjust and unreasonable based on erroneous law ani fa:ts on the record of the case;

vt This Court must always give proper weight at rd cc nsideration to the findings of the High Courtf

vi) This Court would be extremely reluctalt :n in,erfering wittr a case when both the Sessions Court ar d the High Court have recorded an order ,:f ac quit1.a1.

II

The main argument advanced by the learned public prosecuto| is that deceased was seen in the coml)any of accused l 'o. l. However, the said version is beliecl by the

3 crl.n.No.1oql( 9, dated 11.08.2010

E

l .l

Investigating Officer who admitted that at the earliest^poihtof time, PW3 and PW4,^parents of deceased did not^speakabout accused No. 1 ald deceased going together. Further,^the prosecution has failed to file the telephone records to^suggest that accused No. 1 called^{the deceased. PW23 admitted that} cell phone call records were^{collected, however, the samewere} not placed before the Court^{below.No reason is givenas to} why the document which^{was already availablewith} Investigating Officer was not^{placed before the Courtto} substantiate the version of^{prosecutionthat accusedNo. I} had called the deceased one^{day prior to the incident.}

There are no compelling^{reasons to interfere with the} reasoning given by the learned^{Sessions Judge.}

Accordingly, the^{criminalaPPeal is dismissed.}

To,

Sd/- I. NAGA LAKSHMI TY REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

1 The Judge, Family Court^{Cum Vll Additional District & SessionsJudge'} Medak at SangareddY.

One CC to SriFalle Sriharinath ,Advocate^(OPUC)

i*o CCs to Public^{Prosecutor, High Court ior the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad.(OUT)

4 Two CD Copies

kS e

II

HIGH COURT'

DATED:30 t0112025

JUDGMEN T

CRLA.No"941 of 2017

Dismissing the Crl.A.

HF- l; l'476
,-s.
:) P
a\ 01 irl:1i.5
.9
t .>
.q<./
,,i
---:-

OL
0b