Telangana High Court
Boddu Thirupathi, Nalgonda Dt., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 12 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.958 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.12.2015 passed in S.C.No.573 of 2013 on the file of III Aditional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
2. Heard Mr. K.Vasanth Rao, learned legal aid counsel for the appellant/accused and Mr. Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 27.05.2012 afternoon, Sanjay (deceased), Janardhan and Boddu Tirupathi (appellant/accused) went to a movie. While they were watching the movie, the deceased and the appellant quarreled with each other. Then, they left the movie theatre, without watching and came back to the 2 KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.958 of 2016 hotel and slept. At around 5.00 p.m., the appellant went to Rajadhani Hotel, of which PW1 is the owner and noticed the deceased was sleeping near the rest room. Then the appellant went into the kitchen and took a long handled iron kurfi (MO.1) used for mixing boiling milk and hit the deceased on his head resulting in his death. Thereafter, the appellant fled from the scene. The said incident was witnessed by PW2. PW2 is the only eyewitness to the incident.
4. PW1 during the course of his evidence stated that the incident took place at about 3:30 p.m. PW2 went and informed PW1 that the appellant killed the deceased with kurfi (MO.1). Immediately, PW1 went to the hotel and found the dead body and found injuries on the head of the deceased. On enquiry PW1 came to know that the appellant and the deceased quarreled with each other in the theater and thereafter the appellant attacked the deceased. On the basis of the information gathered by PW1, complaint/Ex.P1 was filed by PW1. PW1 also stated that he found the appellant at the store room when he went there after information given by PW2 and when PW1 admonished him, the appellant ran away.
3 KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.958 of 2016
5. PW2 is the only eye witness to the case. According to PW2, while he was in the hotel, he heard noises from the store room. Immediately he rushed to the room where he found the appellant beating the deceased with kurfi (MO.1) and found injury on the head of the deceased and immediately, he informed PW1 about the incident. Further, PW2 stated that he came to know that there were differences between the appellant and the deceased and they fought on the previous day.
6. During the course of trial, PW1 stated that on the information given by PW2, he went to the hotel and found the deceased dead. However, in the complaint/Ex.P1 filed by PW1 at 6:30 p.m., he stated that on the same day at around 5:00 p.m., the appellant went to the hotel and found the deceased sleeping and accordingly, attacked the deceased, which is contrary to the version he stated in the Court that at around 3:30 p.m., PW2 informed him about the incident. There is no mention of name of PW2 in the complaint/Ex.P1. PW1 narrated that there were differences between the appellant and the deceased, due to which the appellant committed murder.
7. The only eye witness to the incident is PW2 and on the basis of the information given by PW2 to PW1, PW1 4 KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.958 of 2016 lodged a complaint which is Ex.P1 and the name of PW2 is not reflected in the complaint which raises any amount of doubt regarding PW2 being an eye witness to the incident. As already discussed, PW1 has not stated in the complaint as to who informed him about the incident.
8. PW7, who is the investigating officer, arrested the appellant on 03.05.2012. According to PW7, the appellant lead PW7 to Padmavathi Nagar Colony, where the appellant produced kurfi (MO.1). Both PWs.1 and 2 did not state that the appellant was holding any kurfi i.e., MO.1, when they allegedly saw appellant at the scene. PW1 gave an improved version during trial stating that he found the appellant at the store room and when he admonished him, the appellant ran away. The said version of admonishing the appellant and finding him at the store was also not mentioned in the complaint/Ex.P1.
9. Though MO1 was allegedly seized at the instance of the appellant, the independent witnesses of the alleged seizure were not examined before the trial Court. Apparently, MO1 was planted. It is highly improbable that having committed the murder of the deceased, the appellant would have carried MO.1 which is used for cooking to his home.
5 KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.958 of 2016
10. In view of the above discussion, the evidence of sole eyewitness of PW2, whose name is not mentioned in Ex.P1, cannot be relied on to convict the appellant. Both PW1 and PW2 have given a totally different story during trial, which is contrary to the complaint. There are no other circumstances adduced by the prosecution during trial to make out any case against the appellant. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant.
11. Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant in S.C.No.573 of 2013 on the file of III Aditional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, is hereby set aside. Since it is informed that the appellant is in jail, he shall be released forthwith from prison, if not required in any other case.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J ___________________ J. ANIL KUMAR, J Date: 12.11.2024 Kgk/Krr