Telangana High Court
Pallapu Chinnaiah, Armoor., vs State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 1 August, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
*****
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.631 OF 2015
Between:
# Pallapu Chinnaiah, S/o. Venkati,
Aged 50 years, Occ: Stone Cutter,
Agril Cooli, R/o. Santhoshnagar
Colony, Armoor
.. Appellant/Accused
And
State of Telangana, rep., by
Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Judicature at Hyderabad
..Respondent/Complainant
Date of Judgment Pronounced: 01.08.2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may (Yes/No)
be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be (Yes/No)
marked to Law Reports/Journals?
3. Whether their Lordship/ Ladyship wish to (Yes/No)
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
__________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
KS,J & JAK, J
Crl.A.No.631 of 2015
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.631 OF 2015
% Dated: 01.08.2024
# Pallapu Chinnaiah, S/o. Venkati,
Aged 50 years, Occ: Stone Cutter,
Agril Cooli, R/o. Santhoshnagar
Colony, Armoor
.. Appellant/Accused
And
State of Telangana, rep., by
Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Judicature at Hyderabad
..Respondent/Complainant
! Counsel for appellant : Ms. C. Vasundhara Reddy
^ Counsel for respondent : Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramall1a,
learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor for the State of
Telangana
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 60
2. (2018) 8 SCC 24
3. (2024) 2 SCC 176
KS,J & JAK, J
Crl.A.No.631 of 2015
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.631 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
This criminal appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment
dated 05.06.2015 in S.C.No.32 of 2015 on the file of VIII
Additional Sessions Judge at Nizamabad, convicting the
appellant for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal
Code (IPC) and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for
life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for one month and for the offence under
Section 449 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and
Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State.
3. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that the deceased
was having illicit intimacy with the daughter-in-law of the
appellant/accused. On account of the said suspicion, there
KS,J & JAK, J
was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased, three
months prior to the incident.
4. It is the further case of the prosecution that
PW.5, who is the neighbor of the deceased, on the intervening
night of 06/07-07-2014, got up at 2:30 A.M. and went to
attend nature call and he saw the appellant/accused coming
from the side of the deceased house and going towards bus
stand. Then he went back to sleep and on the next day
morning, he went on to his daily work at 6:30 A.M.
5. PW.1 is the maternal uncle of the deceased.
He lodged a complaint stating that he found the dead body of
the deceased in his house and he was suspecting that the
appellant/accused would have caused death of the deceased
since deceased was having illicit intimacy with accused
daughter-in-law. However, the father of the deceased, who was
examined as PW.2, turned hostile to the prosecution case and
stated that there was no rivalry between the appellant and the
deceased.
6. On the basis of the appellant having motive to commit
murder of the deceased, charge sheet under Sections 302 and
449 of IPC was filed against the appellant/accused.
KS,J & JAK, J
7. Learned Sessions Judge examined the prosecution
witnesses PWs.1 to 10 and relied on the following
circumstances adduced by the prosecution:
i) PW.5 had seen the deceased at 2:30 A.M. on the
intervening night of 06/07.07.2014 and on the next
day morning at about 6:30 A.M., the body of the
deceased was found by PW.1.
ii) PW.1 specifically stated about a quarrel between
the deceased and the appellant on the ground that
the deceased was having illicit intimacy with the
daughter-in-law of the appellant.
iii) The appellant absconded from the village from date
of death i.e., 06/07.07.2014and later was arrested
on 16.07.2014.
iv) On 17.07.2014, his confession was recorded and at
his instance, the police recovered MO.1 - knife and
MO.2 - bloodstained shirt, which is admissible
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
v) MO.2 blood stained shirt of the accused was seized
and the blood group of the blood found on MO.2
was the blood group of the deceased.
KS,J & JAK, J
8. On the basis of the said circumstances, the learned
Sessions Judge opined that a complete chain of circumstances
was formed to prove the case against the appellant and
accordingly, convicted the appellant.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
would submit that the Sessions Court had committed an error
in convicting the appellant when the circumstances, which
were culled out by the prosecution during the course of trial,
were not enough to point towards the guilt of
the appellant. In a case of circumstantial evidence,
circumstances should be conclusive in nature and should
point towards the guilt of the accused. In the instant case, the
only basis is the bloodstained shirt - MO.2, which was
recovered at the instance of the appellant. Learned counsel
argued that according to the report of the Forensic Science
Laboratory, the blood group of the stains on the shirt was that
of the deceased, which is not sufficient proof to convict the
appellant. She relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Raja Naykar vs. State of Chhattisgarh 1, wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere matching of blood
group taken from the scene of offence and the
2024 LiveLaw (SC) 60
KS,J & JAK, J
accused/appellant, it cannot be said that the prosecution has
discharged its burden of proving the case beyond reasonable
doubt. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonvir Alias Somvir vs. State
(NCT of Delhi) 2, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
acquitted the accused on the ground that recovery of the
weapon was from an open place.
10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submits that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution
during the course of trial regarding the appellant being seen at
the residence of the deceased and later absconding would
suffice to infer that it was the appellant alone who had
committed the offence. Further, the blood found on shirt of
the accused tallied with blood group of the deceased.
11. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Raja Naykar's case (1 supra), which are relevant, read as
under:
"8. It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary
for the prosecution that the circumstances from which
the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be
fully established. The Court holds that it is a primary
principle that the accused 'must be' and not merely
'may be' proved guilty before a Court can convict the
accused. It has been held that there is not only a
(2018) 8 SCC 24
KS,J & JAK, J
grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be
proved' and 'must be or should be proved'. It has
been held that the facts so established should be
consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to
say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It has
further been held that the circumstances should be
such that they exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved. It has been held that
there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not
to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and
must show that in all human probabilities the act
must have been done by the accused.
9. It is settled law that the suspicion, however
strong it may be, cannot be the place of proof beyond
reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on
the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is.
An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph Nos.7 and 8
held as under:
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show
that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a
case against an accused can be said to be fully
established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned "must or should" and not
"may be" established. There is not only a grammatical
but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and
"must be or should be proved" as was held by this
Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State
of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri)
1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were
made: [SCC para 19, p.807 : SCC (cri) p.1047]
KS,J & JAK, J
"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused
must be and not merely may be guilty before a court
can convict and the mental distance between 'may be'
and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures
from sure conclusions."
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that
is to say, they should not be explainable on any
other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the
accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so,
constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based
on circumstantial evidence.
8. It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for
the prosecution that the circumstances from which
the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be
fully established. The Court holds that it is a primary
principle that the accused 'must be' and not merely
'may be' proved guilty before a court can convict the
accused. It has been held that there is not only a
grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be
proved and 'must be or should be proved. It has been
held that the facts so established should be consistent
only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they
should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
except that the accused is guilty. It has further been
held that the circumstances should be such that they
exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be
proved. It has been held that there must be a chain of
evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for the conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and must show that in all
KS,J & JAK, J
human probabilities the act must have been done by
the accused."
13. According to PW.8, independent witness to seizure of
MO.1, the appellant confessed the commission of offence and
had taken the police to the place of MO.1 - knife which was
underneath the Neem tree and police recovered the same.
However, according to PW.8, the place where MO.1 was
recovered has easy access to public as it was an open place.
The observations made in Raja Naykar's case (1 supra),
amply apply to the facts of the present case.
14. In Sonvir Alias Somvir's case (2 supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that in a case of circumstantial evidence
mere recovery of the bloodstained shirt and recovery
of weapon would not suffice to form a complete chain of
circumstances. Accordingly, the accused was given benefit
of doubt.
15. Another circumstance, which creates any amount of
doubt of conduct of PW.5, is that PW.5 saw the appellant in
the night at 2:30 A.M. According to PW.1, the body was
discovered at 6:30 A.M. In fact, if the dead body was found at
6:30 A.M., the natural course would be that PW.5 would have
KS,J & JAK, J
informed PW.1 regarding the appellant being seen near the
house. The complaint - Ex.P1 was lodged by PW.1 at 11:45
A.M. There was no mention about PW.1 in the said complaint.
The said circumstance also creates any amount of doubt
regarding correctness of the prosecution version.
It appears that the statement of PW.5 was later pressed into
service to support the case of the prosecution.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sekaran v. State of
Tamil Nadu 3, held that abscondance of accused after
registration of FIR, cannot be held to be proved guilt of the
accused, unless there are other circumstances, which
conclusively point towards guilt of accused. It is for
the prosecution to prove each and every circumstance
with convincing and admissible evidence. When the
circumstances relied on by the prosecution are suspicious and
unreliable, the question of such circumstance framing
a complete chain to infer guilt of the accused, does not arise.
17. In view of the prosecution failure to connect the
circumstances conclusively to make out a case pointing
towards the appellant, benefit of doubt is extended to the
appellant.
(2024) 2 SCC 176
KS,J & JAK, J
18. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the
conviction and sentence imposed against the
appellant/accused by the learned VIII Additional Sessions
Judge at Nizamabad vide judgment dated 05.06.2015 is
hereby set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted for all
the charges. The fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded.
Since the appellant is on bail, bail bonds shall stand
discharged.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal
Appeal shall stand cancelled.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
____________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date:01.08.2024
Note: L.R. Copy be marked.
(B/o)
KH
