Banoth Ranga, Khammam Dt., vs State Of Telangana, Rep Pp.,
2023 Latest Caselaw 2937 Tel

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
                                AND
            THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA



              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1042 OF 2015

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Smt Justice K.Sujana)


      This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused against the

judgment dated 09.02.2015 in S.C.No.538 of 2013, on the file of

Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs And STs

(POA) Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam, wherein

the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine

of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer simple

imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for

the offence punishable under Section 411 of the IPC and both the

sentences were directed to run concurrently.


2.    The facts of the case are that on 23.09.2012 at about 12.30

night, the Village Revenue Officer, Salebanjara gave a complaint

stating that on 22.09.2012 in the evening at about 5.00 p.m, the

villagers gathered and discussing that some unknown female dead

body was found at Suralamma Gutta. After knowing the same, he
                                                                 KL,J &SKS,J
                                                          Crl.A.No.1042 of 2015


                                     2


along with Daravath Venkanna went to Suralamma Gutta and

found female dead body in the bushes.          On receipt of complaint

the Sub-Inspector of police, Konijerla registered a case in

Cr.No.162 of 2012 under Section 302 of the IPC and went to the

scene of offence.   As it was a forest area, immediately the dead

body   was    shifted   to    Government    Head    Quarters     Hospital,

Khammam, observed scene of offence, prepared rough sketch,

prepared crime detail form in the presence of mediators and also

recorded the statements of relatives of the deceased, statements of

hostel members as the deceased was residing in hostel, seized the

clothes of the deceased and sent the dead body to autopsy. On

25.09.2012 at 4.00 p.m., on reliable information, he apprehended

the accused near Chinthala Cheruvu sivaru Venkatapuram Tank.

The accused confessed commission of offence in the presence of

panchas.     Based on the said confession, gold Nanu thadu with

pusthela thaadu and Laxmi Devi locket worth about Rs.90,000/-

were recovered under the cover of panchanama and also recovered

crime weapon, stone.         After completion of investigation, he filed

charge sheet.    During the course of investigation, it came to light

that the accused is habituated to commit petty offences and

deceased got acquaintance with a promise to secure a job and he

planned to rob gold Nanuthadu and other articles. The accused

also promised to secure job in real estate business on monthly
                                                            KL,J &SKS,J
                                                     Crl.A.No.1042 of 2015


                                  3


salary of Rs.11,000/- and used to talk with the deceased on her

cell phone No.9877740873.     Further the accused and deceased

travelled in the auto of Pw.6, got down at Pedda Ramapuram and

they were last seen by Pw.8 at the outskirts of Laxmipuram near

the fields of V.Venkaiah.


3.    According to the prosecution, the accused took the deceased

into Maabeera bushes near the fields of Venkaiah, beat her,

strangulated her and forcibly committed rape on her and took

away gold Naanuthadu, mettelu and threw her body into forest

bushes and left the scene.


4.    To prove the case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 24

and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.15 and M.Os.1 to 11.


5.    Basing on the evidence on record and after hearing both

sides, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offences under

Section 302 and 411 of the IPC and acquitted for the offence under

section 376 and 201 of the IPC.


6.    Heard Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellant/accused and Sri T.V.Ramana Rao, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.1042 of 2015

7. As the conviction is only for the offence under Section 302

and 411 of the IPC, there is no necessity to discuss about Section

376 and 201 of the IPC, as there is no appeal filed by the

prosecution.

8. Pw.1 is the complainant, on information of villagers he went

to the scene of offence and gave complaint. Pw.2 is the brother of

deceased, he saw the deceased only at hospital when brought by

the police, Pw.3 is the sister of deceased, Pw.4-T.Bala Krishna is

running computer institution at Khammam and the deceased

underwent training in the said institution, Pw.5-

D. Malathi is the owner of hostel and Pw.6 is the alleged auto

driver who dropped the accused and deceased at Pedda

Ramapuram on 21.09.2012 at 7.00 p.m. Pw.7 is the mother of

deceased. Her evidence is that she saw the dead body in

Government hospital, Khammam and Pw.18 is the father of

deceased and his evidence is only to the effect that he took interim

custody of gold nanthadu with pusthelu and silver laxmi locket

from Court and Pw.8-J.Koteswar Rao deposed that one day prior

to the incident, he saw the deceased and accused were going

towards Laxmipuram. Pw.9 deposed that on the next day of

incident, at about 7.00 a.m., when he was going on motor cycle

towards Mekalakunta, the accused was standing at canal and he KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.1042 of 2015

was wearing black T- shirt. At his request, he gave lift upto

Mekalakunta and the accused was found in disturbed mood.

Pw.10 is not an eye witness, but he identified the dead body as

that of Parvathi. Pw.11 saw the dead body of deceased at Suraram

gutta, got scared and informed to Pw.10 who in turn telephoned to

the police. Pw.12-Dharavath Shankar shifted the dead body to the

Government Hospital, Khammam. Pw.13-K.Laxminarayana is the

photographer and Pw.14 is the panch witness, Pw.15 is another

panch witness, Pw.16 is the Tahsildar who conducted inquest over

the dead body, Pw.17 is the panch for confession, Pw.19 is the

panch for recovery of gold ornaments, Pw.20 is the doctor who

conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, Pw.21 is

the Inspector of Police, SPI Branch, Warangal Rural and Pws.22

and 23 are also the investigating officers.

9. The trial Court convicted the accused basing on the evidence

of Pws.6 and 8 and also recovery of gold ornaments.

10. Now, the points for consideration is :

1. Whether the death of the deceased is homicidal, if so, accused is responsible for the same ?

2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offences under Section 302 and 411 of the IPC ?

KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.1042 of 2015

POINT NO.1 :

11. To prove the death of deceased as homicidal, the

prosecution relied on the evidence of Pw.20-medical officer.

According to her, the deceased received a laceration 1 ½ x 1 x ½

over left eye brow, a contusion 1x1x1 and on upper part of chest, a

contusion 5x5 right lower abdomen, ligature marks around the

neck measuring 2 inches width on all around the neck, fracture

left horn of hyoid bone, multiple abrasions over both upper and

lower limbs and all the injuries are ante mortem and can be

caused by blunt object. They also collected vaginal swabs and

slides, pubic hair, skin from anterior and posterior part of neck,

vicera, they were sent to FSL and after receiving FSL report, they

gave opinion that the cause of death was Asphyxia due to

strangulation.

12. Further, the evidence of Pw.11 Korra Lalu @ Lalya is that he

has land near Suraram Gutta and went to his cotton field, where

he found some dragging marks on the ground and followed the

said marks up to Suraram gutta, he found one dead body of a

female with bottom naked, he got scared and in the evening he

informed to Pw.10 who in turn informed to the police. Pw.10 also

deposed the same and Pw.14-Village Revenue Officer, who

conducted inquest panchanama deposed that he observed the KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.1042 of 2015

dead body and injuries were found on Parvathi and that she was

killed by strangulation. Ex.P.3 is the inquest report. Pw.15 -

Village Revenue Officer, Gopavaram also deposed that he saw the

dead body of Parvathi at Mortuary and there was an injury on the

neck. He opined that the deceased died due to strangulation with

chunni.

13. Pw.16-Tahsildar, Nelakondapalli, conducted inquest

panchanama. He commenced inquest at 10.30 a.m and completed

by 12.30 noon in the presence of Pws.14, 15 and 16. All of them

opined that the deceased was killed by throttling, there were

injuries on the back of the body. They suggested that the

deceased was dragged on the ground. The evidence of Medical

Officer coupled with inquest, Pws.14 to 16 and Pw.11 who saw the

dead body shows that the death of the deceased is an unnatural

death and the recovery of dead body itself proves that it is a

homicidal death. Therefore, it can be concluded that the death of

the deceased is a homicidal death. Point No.1 is accordingly,

answered.

POINT NO.2:

14. Now, it is to be seen that whether the accused is responsible

for the said homicidal death.

KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.1042 of 2015

15. To connect the accused with the offence, prosecution relied

on the evidence of Pw.6 who is an auto driver. The evidence of

Pw.6 is that on 21.09.2012, he came to Gubbagurthi from Wyra

and purchased provisions in a shop and when proceeding to Pedda

Rampuram at about 7.00 p.m., two persons i.e., one male and one

female boarded his auto asking him to drop at Pedda Rampuram.

They got down at Pedda Rampuram and went away. After two or

three days he saw a news item of death of a female person near

Sorari hillock. He also deposed that he can identify the

passengers who travelled in his auto upto Pedda Rampuram

village and he identified the accused as the person who travelled in

his auto along with female person but he could not identify the

photographs of the dead body filed in the Court. In cross-

examination he admitted that he had no prior acquaintance with

the accused and accused was shown to him three days after his

apprehension, but he could not identify him.

16. The evidence of Pw.6 that he identified the accused but

could not identify the female dead body itself shows that without

any prior acquaintance and without any test identification parade

identifying the accused first time in the Court is not reliable and

further he admitted in cross-examination that the accused was

shown to him three days after his apprehension. At that time, he KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.1042 of 2015

could not identify him. When Pw.6 has not identified the accused

in the police station, it gives suspicion on reliability of witness in

identifying the accused for the first time in the Court. Therefore,

the evidence of Pw.6 is not helpful to the prosecution to connect

the accused to the crime.

17. The prosecution also relied on the evidence of Pw.8 and his

evidence is that he knows the accused and he is son-in-law of

Surya. On 21.09.2012 at about 7.30 p.m., when he was going to

Rampuram from his village, he saw the accused along with one

female person going towards Laxmipuram. He came to know

about the incident after seeing the newspaper and he identified the

photograph of the deceased in the newspaper. In cross-

examination the defense counsel could elicit that he has not

mentioned descriptive particulars of the female person and also

stated that he did not observe the colour of clothes of the victim.

However, the evidence of Pw.6 is that the accused and deceased

got down the auto in between 7.00 p.m., to 7.30 p.m at

Peddaramapuram, whereas the evidence of Pw.8 shows that he

saw the accused and deceased at Laxmipuram at 7.30 p.m.

18. Pw.9 evidence is that he know the accused and on the next

day of murder, when he was going on motor cycle to Mekalakunta

at about 7.00 a.m, he saw the accused standing at canal and he KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.1042 of 2015

gave lift to the accused, his clothes were wet and he appeared to

have in disturbed state, whereas in the statement given to the

police he stated that on 22.09.2012, during morning hours at

about 5.30 a.m, while he was proceeding to his field, he saw

Banoth Ranga, son-in-law of Maloth Sukya coming with wet

having mud dress from Suralamma hillock, Laxmipuram. He was

in a disturbed mood, on seeing him, Pw.9 called him, but he went

away and on the next day when he woke up, he came to know that

some unknown persons committed rape on a girl, killed and

thrown into bushes.

19. The evidence given by Pw.9 is totally contradictory to the

statement given to the police. Therefore, the evidence of Pw.9 is

not helpful to the prosecution to connect the accused with the

offence.

20. Further, the prosecution relied on recovery of gold

ornaments from the accused which belonged to the deceased. In

this regard, the evidence of Pw.2, brother of the deceased is that

deceased was wearing Pusthelathadu, Kammalu Bhuttalu, silver

leg chains and one cell phone were not found on her body when

they saw the dead body first time. According to Pw.19, M.Os.9 to

11 are recovered from the scene of offence but not from the KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.1042 of 2015

possession of accused. The recovery as per the police is that

M.O.9 is pusthelathadu and M.O.10-two pusthes, M.O.11 Silver

locket of Laxmi and the descriptive particulars of the ornaments

stated by Pw.2 and M.Os.9 to 11 are not tallying with each other.

Further, Test Identification parade of the articles as per Rule 35 of

the Cr.P.C., was not conducted by the police. Therefore, recovery

of gold ornaments which are not tallying with the evidence of Pw.2

is no way helpful to the prosecution to connect the accused with

the death of the deceased.

21. Though the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 24 to connect

the accused, the evidence of Pws.6, 8 and 9 is only relevant to this

case. Pw.6 evidence is not reliable as he himself admitted that he

has not identified the accused when he was shown to him three

days after apprehension. Pw.8 in his cross-examination admitted

that the father-in-law of the deceased is working in his fields and

there are disputes in between accused and his father-in-law.

Therefore, it is not safe to rely on his evidence and the time stated

by Pws.6 and 8 is not corroborating with each other.

22. Pw.9 evidence is discarded as his evidence is totally

contradictory with his earlier statement and he was not declared

as hostile by the prosecution. The recovery is also not made in KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.1042 of 2015

accordance with law. The trial Court erroneously convicted the

accused relying on the evidence of Pw.6 and Pw.8, whose evidence

is not corroborating with each other. Further, the trial Court

relied on recovery of M.Os.9 and 10 which are not recovered from

the possession of accused. According to Pw.19 they recovered

from scene of offence and they are not matching with the

descriptive particulars given by Pw.2. Therefore, their evidence is

not sufficient to prove the case against the accused. Further, to

prove the offence under Section 302 of the IPC, the prosecution

has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but

it failed to prove the same and failed to connect the accused,

though the death of deceased is a homicidal death. Therefore, the

accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, Point

No.2 is answered.

23. IN THE RESULT, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the

appellant/accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable

under Sections 302 and 411 of the IPC. Hence he is acquitted of

the said offences and the judgment dated 09.02.2015 in

S.C.No.538 of 2013 passed by the Special Sessions Judge for Trial

of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-Additional Sessions

Judge at Khammam is set aside. The bail bonds of the accused KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.1042 of 2015

shall stand cancelled. The appellant/accused shall be set at liberty

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

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal

Appeal shall stand closed.

_________________ K.LAKSHMAN, J

______________ K. SUJANA, J Date :06.10.2023 Rds