Yenugu Govind Reddy, Dharur ... vs State Of Telangana, Rep Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 7142 Tel

      THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
                        AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.547 OF 2015


JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice N.Tukaramji)

       This appeal is directed against the judgment of

conviction and sentence dated 13.02.2015 in S.C.No.39 of

2010 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under

SCs & STs (PAO) Act, 1989-cum-VIII Additional District and

Sessions   Judge,   Ranga      Reddy   District,   whereby,   the

appellant/accused had been convicted for the charges under

Sections 302 and 379 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter

'IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to

pay fine of Rs.100/- for the offence punishable under

Section    302   IPC.,   and    also   sentenced    to   undergo

imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable

under Section 397 IPC.      Both the substantive sentences of

imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.


2.1    The prosecution case in brief is that Yenugu Govinda

Reddy/convict/accused (hereinafter 'the accused') is the
                               2                       Dr.SAJ & NTRJ
                                                      CrlA_547_2015




resident of Godhamguda village had an illicit affair with

Pyata Bheemamma/deceased (hereinafter 'the deceased')

who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, since 10

years. On that account, the husband of deceased left her,

thereafter the accused used to visit her house and extended

help to her family. However, since six months prior to the

incident, the accused began to suspect that the deceased

had developed bad acquaintance and cautioned her in the

presence of J. Anitha/PW-10 and P.Ramulu/PW-11, to give

up vices and to avoid frequent visits to Vikarabad, or else he

will kill her.   Albeit, as she continued the accused bore

grudge and hatched a plan to do away with her life.


2.2   In pursuance thereof, the accused instructed the

deceased to meet him at Alpha Hotel, Vikarabad on

12.08.2008

at 2.00 pm. From there he led her to

Mahashakti Chowrasta. There he purchased one cheap liquor

quarter bottle and made her to consume more alcohol and

from there by inducing, taken her in an auto. Meanwhile, on

enquiry of one P.Narsimhulu/P.W.12 the accused informed

him that they are going to Mominpet to attend some work.

                                3                     Dr.SAJ & NTRJ
                                                     CrlA_547_2015

At Mominpet bus stand, the accused purchased one 'short

company' cheap liquor bottle, one kinley water bottle, one

biryani packet, two plastic glasses and taken her on foot on

Vikarabad road and at some distance from Mominpet village,

they consumed liquor under a neem tree. Even there the

accused made her to consume more liquor and while the

deceased was in intoxicated condition, had sexual

intercourse, after that he sat on the deceased and throttled

her to death.

2.3 After confirming her death, the accused snatched the

deceased's ear tops, cash of Rs1,650/- and kept in his shirt

pocket. He also took her gold beads, leg chains and kept

them in his pant pocket and fled away from the scene to

Mominpet bus stand, from there to Vikarabad and reached

their village. However found that the gold beads and silver

leg chains are missing from his pants pocket. Later on

24.08.2008, he pledged the gold ear tops at the pawn shop

of K.Babulal/P.W.13 for Rs.2,000/-.

                                      4                     Dr.SAJ & NTRJ
                                                           CrlA_547_2015




2.4    After apprehension of the accused and in pursuance of

his confessional statement, a pair of ear studs/M.O.7 were

recovered from the PW-13 and the accused was remanded

to judicial custody. Subsequently, on completion of

investigation final report was laid for the offence punishable

under Sections 302, 379 IPC., and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST

(POA) Act, 1989.

3. On examination under Section 239 Code of Criminal

Procedure (CrPC), as the accusations were denied, the

accused was made to stand trial. The charges were framed

under Sections 302, 379 IPC., and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST

(POA) Act, 1989.

4. During trial, the prosecution got examined the

complainant/P.w.14, circumstantial witnesses/P.Ws.2 to 12

and 17, the pawn broker with whom the accused pledged

the ear tops of deceased/P.W.13, panch witnesses for

confession and recovery/P.Ws.15 and 16, panch witness for

scene of offence and inquest/P.W.18, panch witness for the

identification parade of gold ear tops/ P.W.19, the doctor 5 Dr.SAJ & NTRJ CrlA_547_2015

who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the

deceased/P.W.20 and the investigating officer/P.W.21 and

marked Exs.P1 to P25 and material objects 1 to 12.

5. On the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the

incriminating material has been put to the accused under

Section 313 CrPC and the same was denied, but no defence

evidence was placed.

6. The trial Court on considering the oral and

documentary evidence and other material on record,

convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above.

7. We have heard Smt. G. Jaya Reddy, learned counsel

for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and

carefully perused the evidence and the materials on record.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused would

plead that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial

evidence and the evidence placed by the prosecution is full

of discrepancies and contradictions and far from establishing

essential factual links. However, the trial Court convicted 6 Dr.SAJ & NTRJ CrlA_547_2015

the appellant based on presumptions, surmises and

conjectures. Further as the prosecution failed to

conclusively establish the presence of the accused much less

his involvement in the offence, the accused is entitled for

acquittal.

9. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the

evidence placed by the prosecution is establishing the

motive for the accused to commit the offence. Further the

accused and deceased were last seen together before the

incident. The recovery of ornament/M.O.7 of the deceased

from the appellant is leaving no other possibility except his

involvement in the offence. Therefore, the trial Court had

properly analysed the evidence and rightly found guilt and

convicted the accused. Thus, prayed for confirmation of the

impugned judgment.

10. In these rival pleadings, the points that arise for

determination are:

i) Whether the death of Bheemamma/deceased is homicidal?

                                          7                            Dr.SAJ & NTRJ
                                                                      CrlA_547_2015




     ii)     Whether the prosecution is able to establish the

involvement of the appellant in the offence beyond reasonable doubt?

11. (A) Point No. (i): The PW-1/K.Venkataiah,

PW-2/B.Ramaiah residents of Mominpet village deposed that

six years ago on knowing through villagers they went to the

outskirts of Mandhagudda, found a female deadbody. The

PW-2 deposed that he dug a pit as per the directions of

police, buried the deadbody. The PW-18/Narsimhulu,

mediator for scene of offence panchanama and the entries in

Ex.P-11/ scene of observation report narrating that the

decomposed deadbody of a woman is found in Sy.No.384 of

Mominpet village under a neem tree and at the scene they

have collected wearing apparel of the deadbody, bangles,

silver anklet and plastic chappal. The PW-3/brother of

deceased/Sathaiah and his brother-in-law as

PW-4/P.Yadaiah, son-in-law of the deceased

as PW-5/J.Sangaiah, daughter of the deceased PW-

10/J.Anitha, son of the deceased PW-11/P.Ramesh, the

neighbours PWs.6 to 9 (K.Laxmamma, Y.Yadaiah,

S.Narsimulu, and M.Srinivas respectively) in one voice 8 Dr.SAJ & NTRJ CrlA_547_2015

stated that they came to know about the unknown deadbody

found in the outskirts of Mominpet and they went to police

station, identified material objects belonging to the

deceased.

12. The Doctor/PW-20/Dr.Pavan Kumar deposed that on

21.08.2008 at request of the Station House Officer, he

visited the scene of offence where he found a decomposed

and mutilated deadbody by wild animals. Further the skull

and soft tissues are decomposed, upper limbs are mutilated

and only bones were present. Thus, as the deadbody was in

highly marred condition, he could not give any opinion as to

the cause of death.

13. By this evidence, finding a female deadbody in the

outskirts of Mominpet/Mandhagudda and by the

identification of material objects found on the deadbody by

the witnesses, it can safely be concluded that the deadbody

found is of the person Pyata Bheemamma/deceased and as

the medical evidence is not clear, it shall be held as the

death other than the natural circumstances.

                                  9                     Dr.SAJ & NTRJ
                                                       CrlA_547_2015




14.     (B) POINT NO.(ii):

The core prosecution case is that the accused had illicit

affair with the deceased/Bheemamma and as he suspected

that she developed other relationships, warned her and as

she did not heed the words, bore-grudge and committed the

offence.

15. To prove the accusation the prosecution has been

relied on circumstantial evidence. In regard to appreciation

of circumstantial evidence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

large number of cases annunciated the guiding principles to

be followed and consistently held that while considering the

circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the

conditions enumerated in the dictum of Sharad Birdhichand

Sarda v. State of Maharashtra1.

In Anwar Ali and another vs. State of Himachal

Pradesh2, the Hon'ble Apex Court in reiteration held that in

determining the guilt, the circumstances taken cumulatively

should form a chain so complete that there is no escape

AIR (1984) SC 1622

2020(10) SCC 166 10 Dr.SAJ & NTRJ CrlA_547_2015

from the conclusion that within all human probability the

crime was committed by the accused and none else and the

circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must

be complete and incapable of explanation of any other

hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such

evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the

accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.

16. In the light of these principles, the materials placed on

record need examination.

To establish the culpability of the accused, the

prosecution put-forth (a) the motive, (b) the evidence of

last seen together, (c) the confessional statement and the

recovery of ornament/M.O.7 from the accused. These

circumstances need careful examination to deduce the guilt.

17. (a) Motive:

The brother/PW-3, son-in-law/PW-5, daughter/PW-10,

son/PW-11 of the deceased testified that the accused and

the deceased have developed illegal intimacy. The

neighbour/resident of same village/PW-9 deposed that the 11 Dr.SAJ & NTRJ CrlA_547_2015

accused used to visit the house of the deceased. However,

the other neighbours PWs.5, 6, 7 and 8 did not refer to any

such acquaintance between the accused and the deceased.

It is pertinent to note that the prosecution specifically

referred that six months prior to the occurrence, the accused

developed suspicion over the conduct of the deceased and

one month prior to the incident in the presence of her

daughter/PW-10 and son/PW-11 warned her to stop her

movements, otherwise he will kill her. In the evidence the

daughter/PW-10 deposed that the accused came to the

agricultural field and warned her mother that she had

developed illegal contacts with others. Whereas PW-11

stated that six months prior to the date of death of the

deceased, the appellant came to their agricultural field and

warned his mother that he will kill her if she had any illegal

affairs with others.

Thus, though the neighbours/PWs.3 to 8 did not

approve the alleged illicit affair, the family members of the

deceased consistently specified the affair between the

deceased and the accused, except the variance in time and 12 Dr.SAJ & NTRJ CrlA_547_2015

the words used by the accused in dialogue. Even if these

aspects are accepted, the same cannot be read as

substantive material to incriminate the accused unless the

other circumstances are conclusively point the involvement

of the accused.

18. (b) Last seen together:

The foremost plea of the prosecution is that on the

date of the occurrence the accused and the deceased were

seen together. The neighbour/PW-6 deposed that on one

day an auto came to the house of the deceased and she

boarded in the auto. As per the auto driver/PW-17 in the

year 2008 the deceased boarded his auto at the village and

gone to Vikarabad. Further the PWs.3 and 5 stated that the

deceased went to Vikarabad. As per the PW-4 the deceased

went to the Market, Vikarabad. The neighbour/PW-7 stated

that the deceased left her house. S.Narsimhulu/PW-8 stated

that P.Narsimhulu/PW-12 informed him that the accused and

deceased went to Vikarabad to purchase pesticides. The

son/PW-11 stated that on that day his mother informed him

that she is going to Vikarabad but she did not return.

                                 13                   Dr.SAJ & NTRJ
                                                     CrlA_547_2015

However, the PW-12 deposed that he had seen the deceased

and the accused at MRP Petrol Bunk and when he informed

about his daughter's marriage, the deceased conveyed that

she will attend the marriage.

19. In these testimonies, except the versions of PWs.6, 17

and 12 the other testimonies are hearsay. By the version of

PWs.6 and 17 the deceased had left alone to Vikarabad. It is

pertinent to note that the prosecution case is that on the

instructions of the accused the deceased went to Vikarabad

to meet him at Alfa Hotel. No witness including the PW-12

referred to this aspect. As per the PW-12, he saw the

deceased and the accused at MRP Petrol Bunk. To note, the

PW-12 also stated that after receiving information about the

death of the deceased, the police had arrested and beat him

indiscriminately and thrown him at his house. For discussion,

if this statement is considered, it is suggesting that the

police also speculated the involvement of PW-12 in the

offence. When it is so, in normal course of conduct, he/PW-

12 should have informed the police about he noticing the

deceased and accused together at MRP Petrol Bunk, 14 Dr.SAJ & NTRJ CrlA_547_2015

Vikarabad, no such act has been claimed. Further the

prosecution case is that the PW-12, saw the deceased

boarding the auto at MRP Petrol Bunk to go to Mominpet

along with the accused, which is not spoken by the

witness/PW-12.

20. It is noteworthy that in the evidence of Doctor/PW-20

who conducted post mortem examination of the putrefied

body of the deceased, specifically stated that the death

would have been caused 4 to 6 days prior to autopsy. As

per the prosecution the incident occurred on 12.08.2008. If

the medical evidence is taken into account the death should

have possibly occurred on 15.08.2008 but not

12/13.08.208. In that case, even last seen together on

12.08.2008 is taken as it is, as there is a long gap of 2 to 3

days, the possibility of contact with other persons cannot be

ruled out.

21. In this context, a mentionable authority of Hon'ble

Supreme Court between Bodh Raj @ Bodha and others v 15 Dr.SAJ & NTRJ CrlA_547_2015

State of Jammu and Kashmir3, wherein the last seen

theory has been explicated in para 31 as under:

"The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap

between pointing out that the accused and the deceased were

seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small

that possibility of any person other than the accused being the

author of the crime becomes improbable himself. It would be

even in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was

last seen with the accused, when there is a long gap and

possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the

absence of any other positive evidence to complete that the

accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be

hazardous to come to a conclusion of the guilt in those cases."

22. Thus, in absence of the reliable evidence particularly

the unconvincing evidence of PW-12 that the deceased and

the accused were seen together finding of the body of the

deceased in a open and accessible place drawing any

inference against the accused would be unjustified. For

these reasons, the circumstance of last seen together put-

AIR 2002 SC 316 16 Dr.SAJ & NTRJ CrlA_547_2015

forth by the prosecution basing on the evidence of PW-12 is

lacking foundation and not inspiring confidence to rely on.

23. (C) Confessional statement and recovery of the material objects:

The Investigating Officer/PW-21 deposed that the

appellant made the statement of admission in the presence

of PWs.15 and 16 and recorded the statement of accused as

in Ex.P-20/panchanama (relevant portion had been

marked). Thereupon, a receipt Ex.P-2 and cash of

Rs.1620/- were seized from the possession of the appellant.

In furtherance thereof, the appellant led them to Jai Bhavani

Pawn Brokers shop and shown the receipt to the shop

owner/PW-13/Babulal. Thereupon, a pair of ear studs/MO.7

were shown by the shop owner/PW-13 and it was seized

under Ex.P-21 panchanama. However, both the mediators

PWs.15 and 16 did not support the prosecution version and

categorically stated that their signatures were obtained by

the police on white papers, however identified their

signatures. Nonetheless, the confessional statement of the

accused during the course of investigation made in the 17 Dr.SAJ & NTRJ CrlA_547_2015

presence of police cannot be proved against him as the

same is hit by the Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

24. With regard to recovery of pair of ear studs/M.O.7, the

pawn broker/PW-13 deposed that six years ago the accused

pledged the pair of ear studs/M.O.7 under receipt Ex.P-2

and police came to his shop along with the accused and

seized the ear studs/M.O.7. However, in the cross

examination stated that he issued Ex.P-2 receipt to the

police when police brought the accused to him and as the

accused pledged the articles in the night of 23.08.2008, he

could not hand over the receipt, and yet, on the next day

i.e. 24.08.2008 when the police brought the accused, the

receipt/Ex.P-2 was handed over, as such he could not obtain

the counter signature of the accused on the duplicate

receipt.

25. When this evidence is carefully considered, as per the

investigating officer/PW-21 the accused was apprehended by

the police on 01.09.2008 at 11 a.m. Whereas the evidence

of Pawn broker/PW-13 is that the accused was brought to 18 Dr.SAJ & NTRJ CrlA_547_2015

him on 24.08.2008. Thus the custody and the issuance of

receipt on 24.09.2008 to the police when they came along

with the accused is giving scope to entertain any amount of

doubt as these aspects are shaking the foundation of the

prosecution case.

26. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the

circumstances projected by the prosecution i.e. last seen

together, confessional statement and recovery of material

objects are as standing open ended, falling short to bear up

against the legal scrutiny, resultantly it shall be held that the

prosecution had failed to establish the chain of

circumstances giving rise to the hypothesis to conclusively

hold that it is the accused alone and none else has

committed the offence in consequence the benefit of doubt

shall be extended and accordingly the accused is entitled for

acquittal.

27. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of

conviction and sentence dated 13.02.2015 in S.C.No.39 of

2010 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under

SCs & STs (PAO) Act, 1989-cum-VIII Additional District and 19 Dr.SAJ & NTRJ CrlA_547_2015

Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District are hereby set aside

and the appellant/accused is acquitted of the charges with

which he is charged. The accused shall be set at liberty

forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or crime.

The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused shall

be refunded.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in

this Appeal, shall stand closed.

______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date:30.12.2022 Ccm 20 Dr.SAJ & NTRJ CrlA_547_2015

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.547 OF 2015

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice N.Tukaramji)

DATE:30.12.2022

CCM