Telangana High Court
S. Laxman Rao, Hyd vs State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., Hyd And 6 ... on 25 January, 2024
Author: K.Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJANA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1063 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
(PER HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJANA) This appeal is preferred being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.09.2013 passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad, in S.C.No.346 of 2011, whereunder, the accused Nos.1 to 6 were acquitted for offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 302 read with 34 of IPC and 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959 and 235(1) of Cr.P.C. This appeal is filed by the de facto complainant.
2. During the course of proceedings, on 09.02.2023 learned counsel representing respondent No.2/accused No.1, reported the death of respondent No.2, as such, the proceedings against respondent No.2/accused No.1 were abated. Despite of service of notice to respondent No.4/accused No.3 there was no representation, as such, non-bailable warrant was issued against him. Even then, no whereabouts of respondent No.4/accused No.3 were found. Therefore, on 11.10.2023 this Court appointed Sri M.Durga Prasad Rao as legal aid counsel to respondent No.4/accused No.3.
KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013 2
3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Shabad Hanumantha Rao is proprietor of Srikanth Lodge situated at Rahmathnagar, having one water tanker. He also owned Shabad Stones and other stone businesses in the premises abutting to Srikanth Lodge. There is a civil dispute between the deceased Hanumantha Rao and accused Nos.1 and 2 over the land situated abutting to the Srikanth Lodge. As such, accused No.2 filed O.S.No.4266 of 1997 against the deceased, in turn, the deceased filed O.S.No.479 of 2001 against accused Nos.1 and 2 and others. Later, accused No.2 filed O.S.No.12 of 2006 against the deceased.
4. During the life time of deceased, the disputed piece of land was under his possession in which he stored shabad stones. The deceased along with his wife, three sons and one daughter used to reside in third floor of Srikanth Lodge. About one week prior to the incident, the deceased adorned Ayyappa Swamy Mala, as such, he was staying in room No.201 of the said lodge.
5. Accused Nos.1 and 2 hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased who allegedly occupied their land. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy of accused Nos.1 and 2, they engaged accused Nos.3 and 5 to eliminate the deceased for which they promised to pay ransom KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013 3 amount of Rs.12,00,000/- out of which, accused No.1 paid an advance amount of Rs.50,000/- to accused No.3. Agreeing thereupon, accused Nos.3 and 5 in turn engaged accused Nos.4 and 6 to assist them in eliminating the deceased for which they promised to present an auto rickshaw for accused No.4 and a computer to accused No.6.
6. As per the plan, accused Nos.3 and 5 took rental room at Borabanda, Hyderabad, and surveyed the surroundings of Srikanth Lodge and the movements of the deceased. Accused Nos.3 to 6 were armed with daggers and hunting sickle. They also purchased a LML scooter for escaping from the scene of offence after commission of offence. On 19.12.2009 accused Nos.3 and 4 occupied room No.110 of Srikanth Lodge owned by the deceased. As per the directions of accused No.3, accused No.5 brought LML vespa parked opposite to Srikanth Lodge.
7. On 20.12.2009 at about 4:00 A.M., both accused Nos.3 and 4 went to room No.201 wherein the deceased was staying. Accused No.3 knocked door and informed the deceased that they were vacating the room, upon which the deceased came out of the room to inform the watchman to check the room and while he was bolting the door from outside, accused No.3 held him by his hands and KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013 4 instantly, accused No.4 attacked him on his neck with sickle with left hand. In one shot, the deceased fell on ground with profuse bleeding. Out of fear, the sickle from the hand of accused No.4 fell down and in order to endure that Hanumantha Rao died, accused No.3 picked up the same sickle and again attacked him on his face twice due to which Hanumantha Rao sustained lacerated injuries. After seeing the blood of deceased and his movements, they were sure that he was dead, as such, they went down to the cellar/stilt portion through steps and abandoned the sickle amidst shadab stones and fled away on the scooter with the help of accused No.5.
8. Immediately, they rushed to the house of accused No.1 at Venkatagiri and informed her about the incident and when they asked for their share of money as promised by her, she replied that she does not have huge amount as promised by her and gave Rs.50,000/- for time being. While accused No.1 was inside, accused No.5 took out the dagger which was in the dicky of vehicle and hid it in the first floor of under construction house of accused No.1. Sensing danger with the amount the accused No.1 gave, the other accused persons fled away to the room at Allapur, Borabanda, Hyderabad, and abandoned the vehicle outside the room and along with accused No.6 all left for their native place, Guntur and later, to their respective villages. Thus, the accused Nos.1 to 6 committed the KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013 5 offence punishable under Sections 302, 120-B read with 34 of IPC and Section 25(1) (b) of the Arms Act, 1959.
9. To prove the case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 19 and got marked Exs.P1 to P31 and MOs.1 to 13.
10. Considering the evidence on record and after hearing both side, the trial Court acquitted accused Nos.1 to 6 vide judgment dated 30.09.2013 in S.C.No.346 of 2011. Aggrieved thereby, the de facto complainant filed this appeal.
11. Heard Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for appellant - de facto complainant, Sri T.V. Ramana Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State, Sri M.Durga Prasad Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3, 4, 6 and 7 - accused Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6, and Sri Srihari Chunduru, learned counsel for respondent No.5 - accused No.4.
12. The contention of learned counsel for appellant is that the trial Court has erroneously acquitted all the accused persons even though the prosecution has proved payment of amounts to the accused No.3 and also the recovery of MOs.10 and 11 at the instance of accused No.5. Further, the trial Court has erred in not appreciating the KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013 6 evidence of PW.6 who identified the accused Nos.3 to 5 in the identification parade conducted in the Central Jail. As such, there is ample evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused persons. Therefore, prayed the Court to allow this appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2013 in S.C.No.346 of 2011 by convicting the accused persons.
13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Nos.3, 4, 6 and 7 - accused Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 submitted that there are no infirmities in the judgment of the trial Court as the prosecution has failed to prove any of the allegations made against the accused persons. Further, it is not in dispute that there are civil disputes between the accused Nos.1 and 2 and the deceased, as such, there is every possibility of appellant trapping the respondent Nos.3, 4, 6 and 7 in false case. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal.
14. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 - accused No.4 submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of respondent No.5 beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused No.4. As such, prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal.
KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013 7
15. Now, the points for determination are:
1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt?
2. Whether the judgment of trial Court needs interference?
POINT Nos.1 & 2:
16. To prove the case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 19. PW.1 is the son of the deceased. His evidence is that he is a resident of H.No.8-3-231/73/A/B, situated at Srikrishna Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad, consisting of three floors and cellar and he resides in the third floor along with his parents and other family members. He deposed that they run lodge under the name and style of Srikanth Lodge on the ground, first and second floors. On 19.12.2009 at 11:30 P.M., went to ground floor to sleep in room No.201 as he was wearing Ayyappa Maala and other family members slept in third floor of the building. On 20.12.2009 at about 5 A.M., the watchman came to third floor and informed that Hanumantha Rao was found dead. When PW.1 himself and other family members came to the ground floor, in room No.201 they found the dead body of Hanumantha Rao with deep cut injuries on his neck KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013 8 and on face. He further deposed that immediately he informed about the incident to the Police and Police in turn came and recorded his statement and he suspected that his father died due to the land disputes that prevailed between his father and accused No.1.
PW.2 is the brother of the deceased. He deposed on the same lines as that of PW.1. His evidence is that since 22 years there was a land dispute between his brother and accused Nos.1 and 2, as such, he suspects that accused Nos.1 and 2 are responsible for the death of his brother.
PW.3 is the watchman who works in Srikanth Lodge. He deposed that on the previous night of the incident, he was on duty when one lorry came for loading stones and the labourers loaded the stones upto 1:30 A.M., thereafter, the lorry left the premises. Then the deceased Hanumantha Rao paid the labour charges to the labourers and gave Rs.50/- to him to give it to auto driver when his wife and daughter in law returns to home, accordingly, on their arrival, he gave Rs.50/- to the auto driver. Later, at about 5:15 A.M., the supervisor of the lodge came and asked me to go and see who is ling dead and then he found Hanumantha Rao dead, as such, he immediately rushed KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013 9 to third floor and informed the family members of the deceased.
PW.4 is the house owner of house bearing No.14-1-88/A/22, Friends Colony, Borabanda, Hyderabad. He deposed that there are two portions in the said house. Ringu Swaroopa lives in one of the said portions and the other portion is vacant. In the month of December 2009, he handed over the keys of the vacant portion to Ringu Swaroopa and asked her to let out the said portion to anybody. After a week, she informed him that she has let out the said portion to some bachelors on monthly rent of Rs.800/-. He further deposed that he cannot identify the persons to whom the portion of the house was let out. Later, the Police came and recorded his statement. PW.5 is the owner of mechanic shop located in Gayathri Nagar, Hyderabad. He deposed that in the month of May 2009, he purchased LML scooter from one Rama Rao and during the month of May 2009 itself, one person (accused No.3) approached him and purchased the said scooter at a sum of Rs.5000/-. He further deposed that he cannot say the registration number of the said scooter but can identify it. During cross examination by Public Prosecutor, he deposed KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013 10 that the vehicle shown to him is not the vehicle that was sold to accused No.3.
PW.6 is the resident of Srikakulam District. He deposed that on 17.12.2009 he went to Hyderabad to meet his relative who resides in Rahmathnagar area and stated that whenever he visits Hyderabad, he stays in Srikanth Lodge and from 17.12.2009 to 20.12.2009 he booked room for himself in Srikanth Lodge. He stated that on the night of 19.12.2009 while he was sleeping in his room, there was some commotion in the opposite room No.110 and some people came in drunken condition and quarreled. Then he asked the said persons to not quarrel as he was getting disturbed. Thereafter, on the next day morning when he was about to vacate the room at 6:00 A.M., on 20.12.2009 he saw a gathering near the dead body of Hanumantha Rao and later he came to know that Hanumantha Rao was the owner of the lodge. Then when he left the lodge and proceeded till Vizah, he received a call from his sister informing that the Police had asked him to come back for enquiry in connecting with the said murder. Accordingly, he returned on 21.12.2009 and Police recorded is statement. He further deposed that he can identify the persons who quarreled in front of his room. The witness was shown two KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013 11 persons out of five persons who are accused Nos.3 and 5 and on receiving summons for identifying the accused persons in the jail as the persons he saw at the time of quarrel, he identified two persons in the jail as the persons he saw at the time of quarrel during night. One of the two persons he identified in the jail was not present in the Court on that day. PW.7 is the panch for scene of offence panchanama. PW.8 is the resident of Allapur, Borabanda. She deposed that she resides in the house owned by PW.4 in Allapur but he resides in Begumpet. Accused Nos.3, 5, 6 and another came to her and took two rooms on rent, as such, she let out the portions to them in the month of December 2009. She further deposed that they stayed in the said place for less than a month. Later, the Police recorded her statement. PW.9 is the Medical Officer who conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. He deposed that he found eight injuries over the dead body, out of which, injury No.1 would be possible with MO.5 - sickle. He further deposed that the cause of death is due to neck injury associated with other injuries.
KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013 12 PW.10 is the panch for confession of accused No.1 cum seizure panchanama.
PW.11 is the panch for confession of accused Nos.3 to 6 cum seizure panchanama.
PW.12 is working as Police Constable in C.I.D., Department. He deposed that on 20.10.2009 when he arrived at the scene of offence along with his dog, he found the blood stains and dead body in the corridor of ground floor of Srikanth Lodge. He further deposed that when the dog was taken to sniff the blood stains, the dog went to the cellar where there were stones on the one side and then they found a knife (MO.5) in the middle of the stones.
PW.13 is the Scientific Officer. He deposed that on 20.12.2009 he rushed to the scene of offence with scientific gadgets like advance physical evidence collection kit, blood evidence collection kit and advanced poly light and euro light. He further deposed that he collected blood samples from the scene of offence and also from the knife that was found in the cellar.
KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013 13 PW.14 is the Inspector of Police who deposed about the investigation conducted by him.
PW.15 is the Constable in whose presence the dead body of the deceased was shifted from Srikanth Lodge to the Hospital for conducting post mortem examination.
PW.16 is the Judicial Officer who conducted Test Identification Parade. She deposed that she gave option to each accused to select any five non suspects among them. Each suspects' selected five non suspects amount them. Thereafter, she asked the non suspects to form a row and take place of their choice in the row. The suspect No.1 took third position in the row from left and suspect No.2 took tenth position in the row from left and then she took assistance of her attender and called witness to identify the suspect, the witness identified the third person from the left as suspect No.1 and tenth person from left as suspect NO.2. Then she obtained the signatures of suspects in a sheet and stated that the witness has identified both the suspects correctly.
PW.17 is the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Malakpet Division, Hyderabad. He deposed about his investigation in the case.
KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013 14 PW.18 is the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Enforcement, Hyderabad. He deposed that on 10.02.2010 at about 18:00 hours while he was on patrolling duty along with his team at Venkatagiri, Yousufguda, he received information that one gang is approaching a house in respect of murder pertaining this case. He informed the same to the Inspector of Police, PS, Banjara Hills and on instructions, along with his team he proceeded towards Venkatagiri near Gouthami School in front of house of accused No.1 and apprehended the gang consisting of accused Nos.3 to 6 and produced them before the Inspector of Police, PS, Banjara Hills, for further investigation. PW.19 is the Inspector of Police, Jeedimetla Police Station, who earlier worked in Banjara Hills Police Station. He deposed that during the course of investigation, accused No.2 got anticipatory bail from the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and in pursuance of said orders, she appeared before him and she was released on bail. On completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 6.
KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013 15
17. On going through the material available on record, it is noted that the trial Court has not believed the evidence of PWs.1 to 19 and acquitted all the accused persons vide judgment dated 30.09.2013. Aggrieved thereby, the de facto complainant filed this appeal. The case of the prosecution is completely relied on the circumstantial evidence as there are no direct eye witnesses to the incident.
18. It is the specific contention of learned counsel appearing for accused persons that the prosecution has tried to connect the death of the deceased with accused persons in view of the property dispute that prevailed between the deceased and accused Nos.1 and 2. Further, though it is alleged that on 19.12.2009 accused Nos.3 and 4 occupied room No.110 of Srikanth Lodge and that they were seen by PW.6 while they were quarreling at night in drunken condition, it is noted that there is no evidence on record to prove that accused Nos.3 and 4 occupied the said room.
19. In addition to the above, the PW.6 identified accused Nos.3 and 5 during Test Identification Parade conducted by the Magistrate, whereas, in his evidence before the trial Court, he identified accused Nos.3 and 4 as suspects. Further, there is some ambiguity in conducting the Test Identification Parade as in the requisition submitted by the Investigating Officer with regard to the names of KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013 16 accused Nos.4 and 5, the Investigating Officer stated that witness identified accused NOs.3 and 5 and later stated that the witness identified accused Nos.3 and 4. However, on the date of evidence, the accused No.4 was absent, so the witness identified accused NO.5 instead of accused No.4. Later, when accused NO.4 appeared in the Court, the witness stated that he identified only accused No.3 and not accused NO.4. The witness also stated that the de facto complainant had pressurized him to identify the accused.
20. It is also noted that there is no documentary evidence to prove the stay of accused Nos.3 and 5 in lodge. The register maintained by the lodge and the counter foils for the payment of lodge receipts were also not produced before the trial Court to prove that accused Nos.3 and 5 stayed in the lodge on the date of incident. Therefore, these circumstances are not proved by the prosecution.
21. According to the version of prosecution, PW.8 was the tenant of PW.4, whereas, the PW.17 stated in his cross examination that PW.8 is not the tenant of PW.4 and as per the statement of PW.4, PW.8 is only his neighbour. Therefore, the version of prosecution that PW.8 is tenant of PW.4 is totally disproved. Therefore, the circumstance that they have taken the house on rent for the purpose of implementing the plan is also not proved.
KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013 17
22. The further circumstance relied upon is recovery of material objects. The MO.5 - sickle was not seized at the instance of any of the accused persons and the same was seized with the assistance of dog squad from the cellar of the lodge which is a public place. Further, MO.10 - knife was seized from open terrace. Further, the prosecution has alleged that accused NO.1 was found in possession of the said knife, as such, he is liable for punishment under Section 25(1)(B) of the Arms Act, but the size of said knife is less than 9 inches. Therefore, the seizure of said knife at the instance of accused person does not attract the offence punishable under Section 25(1)(B) of the Arms Act.
23. Furthermore, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused Nos.1 and 2 hatched plan to kill the deceased Hanumantha Rao and accused Nos.3 to 6 are part of the said conspiracy against the deceased, beyond reasonable doubt. Though the prosecution alleged that the motive for commission of offence is the land dispute no documents are filed to prove the said land dispute, as such, the alleged motive for commission of offence is weak. Therefore, it cannot be considered.
KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013 18
24. The prosecution also tried to connect the accused No.1 with the death of the deceased stating that accused No.1 paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- to accused No.3 as supari. However, with regard to the said contention there is no evidence on record, as no bank statement or any other document is filed by the prosecution to prove the same, as such, the said contention has no force. Further, though it is alleged that there was land dispute between the deceased and accused Nos.1 and 2, after the death of the deceased, the legal heirs of the deceased have not filed any civil cases. Therefore, though the prosecution tried connect accused Nos.1 to 6 with the death of deceased basing on the evidence of PWs.1 to 19, the prosecution was not able to prove the same.
25. Though the death of the deceased is homicidal death, the prosecution failed to prove that accused Nos.1 to 6 are responsible for his death. None of the circumstances proved with cogent evidence. Therefore, it can be said that the trial Court has rightly discussed the evidence on record and acquitted accused NOs.1 to 6.
26. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there are no infirmities in the judgment dated 30.09.2013 passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad, in S.C.No.346 of 2011, acquitting the accused persons for offences KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013 19 punishable under Sections 120-B, 302 read with 34 of IPC and 25(1- A) of the Arms Act, 1959 and 235(1) of Cr.P.C. There are no merits in the present appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the point NOs.1 and 2 are answered.
27. IN THE RESULT, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
____________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J __________________ K. SUJANA, J Date : 25.01.2024 PT KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013 20 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN AND HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA P.D. JUDGMENT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1063 OF 2013 (Pre-delivery judgment of the Division Bench prepared by the Hon'ble Smt Justice K. Sujana) Date:25.01.2024 PT