Telangana High Court
The State Of A.P.,Rep.By P.P., ... vs Allipur Prashanth Kumar , ... on 21 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.836 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
(per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER) The State filed the appeal aggrieved by the acquittal of respondents/accused for the offences under Sections 363, 365, 341, 302, 302 r/w.34, 201 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 30.05.2002, PW.1 gave complaint stating that on 25.05.2002, one Prasanth-A1, resident of Moosarambagh, came to their house who was well- known to her husband, has taken him on the pretext of some work at about 11.00 a.m. from their house in their Maruthi Van bearing No.AP 11F 2785. The father of A1 namely Christopher came to her house at about 9.00 a.m. on last Sunday and told her that her husband left to Vikarabad with some unknown persons in Tata Sumo. But, her husband did not return home from 25.05.2002 till that day i.e. 30.05.2002 and they waited for him. She was suspecting A1 and his father of kidnapping her husband 2 because their Maruthi Van is with Prasanth and she was afraid for his life. On that, the Sub-Inspector of Police-LW.23 S.Sivaraj, registered a case in Crime No.110/2022 under Sections 363, 365 of the Indian Penal Code on 30.05.2002 at 12.30 p.m. and entrusted the case file to Sub-Inspector of Police PW.12-C.Anjaiah for investigation. During the course of investigation, PW.12-C.Anjaiah, has examined the witnesses PW1/Smt.Param Jyothi, PW.3/Kum.Veronica, PW.2/J.S.Yohan, B.S.David and PW.4/Murali Krishna and recorded their statements.
4. On credible information, on 02.06.2002, PW.15 along with his staff while doing frisking operation at Amberpet Bridge, Moosarambagh, to track down the red colour Maruthi Van bearing No.AP 11F 2785 belonging to G.S.Jeevan Kumar, intercepted the said Maruthi van at around 7.50 a.m. which was coming from Amberpet bridge side towards Moosarambagh and found A1 to A3 in the car. Car was stopped, A1 to A3 arrested and the confessional statements of A1 to A3, were recorded in the presence of mediators separately, who admitted their guilt. In pursuance of their confession, red colour Maruthi van bearing No.AP 11F 2785 was seized along with sale documents including the letter addressed to finance company on Rs.10/- stamp paper written in favour of A1 from the possession of A1. A1 and A2 led the police party and 3 panchas to the place of dead body, located near Patancheruvu on National Highway No.9 in the open land besides M/s.Rahul Automobile godown near bushes where the dead body of B.S.Jeevan Kumar was found in a decomposed state.
5. PW.15 the Inspector of Police, altered the section of law to Sections 302, 363, 365, 341, 379, 201 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code and took up further investigation. With the assistance of Police and scientific officer of clues team of CCS, photographs and videograph were taken. Inquest was conducted over the dead body in the presence of one K.Nandakumar and PW.9/M.Moses. After conducting post-mortem examination, the dead body was sent to Osmania General Hospital under escort as the dead body was highly decomposed and blood and skin were eaten away by stray animals. The body was identified as body of B.S.Jeevan Kumar by their relatives including the wife and daughter with the help of clothes of the deceased which were seized at the time of inquest.
6. After conducting the inquest, along with the staff and panchas, they proceeded to Government land located on the South West direction of Kollur village at a distance of about 3 Kms. The exact scene of offence near Neem tree shown by A1 to A3 consisted of blood stains with a diameter of 3 to 3 ½ feet. Further the accused led them to a distance of 80 yards from the place of 4 murder and A2 dug out earth, taking out a sword type knife in the presence of panchas. The same was seized in their presence under cover of panchanama and taken photographs. The blood stained earth and control earth were collected along with the said knife under cover of seizure report in the presence of above panchas. In pursuance of the confession of A1 to A3, A4 was also arrested and brought to the police station.
7. A requisition for conducting spot post-mortem examination was rejected by the Medical Officers of Sanga Reddy as it was late for conducting spot post-mortem examination. With the permission of the Resident Medical Officer, the decomposed dead body of the deceased Jeevan Kumar was deposited in Osmania Medical College Mortuary, Hyderabad, for conducting post-mortem examination. On 02.06.2002, Dr.K.Janardhan conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued post-mortem report stating that the death of the deceased was due to cut throat injury associated with the injury on head.
8. A1 to A4 were sent for judicial remand on 02.06.2002. The seized car bearing No.AP 11F 2785 was deposited in the Court. PW.15 forwarded the material objects to the Director, FSL, Hyderabad, through letter of advise for analysis and report. The 5 Assistant Director of Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad after examination gave analysis report.
9. In view of the evidence collected, it is the case of the prosecution that A1 who is Lab Technician Student, resident of Moosarambagh, Hyderabad, hatched a plan along with A2 to A4 i.e., maternal uncle, father and another maternal uncle of A1, respectively, to take away the Maruthi Van bearing No.AP 11F 2785 of the deceased who was retired as A.A.O., in A.P.Vaidya Vidhan Parishad, Hyderabad, resident of Malakpet, Hyderabad. A1 abducted the deceased by deceitful means on the pretext of visiting Kollur, where some persons who were in need of Lab Technician jobs, wanted visas. A1 lured the deceased who was a mediator for securing Government jobs and Visas to the needy. Accused took him to Kollur in his Maruthi Omni Van bearing No.AP 11F 2785 driven by the deceased himself from the house of the deceased in the presence of PW.1 and PW.3. After reaching Kollur, A2 joined them and A1 took the deceased to Jenwarda and made him to speak to A3. Thereupon in furtherance of common intention of A1 to A4, A1 and A2 took the deceased to Government Land near Kollur village and A2 slit the throat of the deceased, after taking signature on Rs.10/- blank bond paper and sale documents viz., Revenue stamped receipt, Form No.29, another form No.29, form 6 No.30 and a letter addressed to Motor Finance Company and took the Maruthi Omni Van. Later both A1 and A2 took the deceased dead body in the same van driven by A1 and abandoned near M/s.Rahul Automobiles Godown, Patancheruvu, Medak District, by removing clothes from the person and thrown the same nearby. They hit the head of the deceased with a granite stone and disfigured it and thereby concealed the evidence. A1 and A2 in order to execute their plan to own the van, made A3 to say that A4 gave Rs.50,000/- to A1 to buy the van and A1 would show that he purchased the Maruthi van legally on payment of Rs.45,000/- under Revenue stamp and got sale papers with deceased signatures. A3 and A4 also conceded to the request of A1 to whom A2 cooperated in doing away the deceased after making him to talk to daughter of deceased on telephone that he sold the van for Rs.45,000/- to A1 and going to Vikarabad helped A1 in executing the murder of the deceased. A1 to A4 committed the offence punishable under Sections 302, 341, 363, 365, 379 and 201 r/w.Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
10. The learned Special Judge examined PWs.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P1 to P21. M.Os.1 to 5 were also brought on record. 7
11. The learned Sessions Judge found that the case is one of circumstantial evidence and the prosecution could not make out the case against the accused for the following reasons.
i) The version about the apprehension of Accused Nos.1 to 3 in the alleged stolen vehicle on 02.06.2002 cannot be believed in the background of the admission of PW.1 that she has seen the Maruthi Van on 29th and 30th of May, 2002 in the Police Station.
ii) The identification of the dead body as shown by A1 to A3 is contrary to the evidence of Panchas PWs.11, 12, 13 and PW.15.
iii) The DNA of the dead body was not taken to identify that it belongs to the deceased who is the husband of PW.1.
12. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the dead body was not identified till it was shown by A1 to A3. The said circumstance of the accused having exclusive knowledge of the dead body can solely form basis to convict the appellants.
13. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The 1 (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 8 reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.
14. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows:
"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:
i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong:
ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;
iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice";
iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;
v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;
vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.
vii)This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court. 2 (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 9
3. If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction __the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."
15. The genesis of the prosecution case is that the appellants were arrested on 02.06.2002 while going on the Maruthi Van which was subjected to theft. The very case of the prosecution regarding identifying the accused and their arrest on 02.06.2002 becomes doubtful since the vehicle was lying in the Police Station since 29.05.2002 according to PW.1. Further PW.1 stated that when she asked the Police to give back the van, the Police advised her to approach the Court. Apparently, the entire version of the prosecution regarding A1 to A3 travelling in the van on 02.06.2002 was concocted.
16. The learned Sessions Judge has elaborately discussed the contradictions in respect of the alleged confessions that were made by A1 to A3 and the consequent discovery of the dead body. The identity of the dead body was on account of the clothes. However, according to the prosecution case, the clothes of the deceased were removed but kept at a distance of 80 yards from the dead body, which is not believable. Further, the panchas did not support the seizure and there are contradictions. No DNA test was conducted to 10 identify the body since all the witnesses stated that the body could not be recognized.
17. Having gone through the record, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the said Judgment of acquittal which is based on record, reasonable and probable.
18. Accordingly, the appeal fails and dismissed.
___________________ K.SURENDER, J ____________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date: 21.11.2024 tk