The State Of A.P. Rep., By Its Pp vs Satla Thirupathi And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 3157 Tel

Telangana High Court

The State Of A.P. Rep., By Its Pp vs Satla Thirupathi And Another on 8 August, 2024

               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                                  And

            The HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

               CRIMINAL APPEAL No.487 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

1. The State aggrieved by the acquittal of the

respondents/Accused for the offences under Sections 341, 302,

379, 201 r/w 34 IPC against respondents/A1 and A2 vide

judgment in S.C.No.868 of 2007 dated 30.06.2011 passed by the

IV Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Warangal, the present appeal

is filed.

2. In brief, it is the case of prosecution, that A1 and A2 are

friends and both of them on 28.10.2006 committed murder of the

wife of P.W.1 namely Vijaya Laxmi by calling her into the room of

A1. They committed murder by way of strangulation with a

plastic rope and thereafter robbed gold pusthelathadu, gold chain

and gold ring and one pair of gold ear studs, cell phone from the

dead body. Thereafter, they packed the dead body in a gunny bag

and took that gunny bag on the motor cycle of A1 near to a well

situated on the outskirts of Pallevelpula Village and threw it in

the well. A1 handed over cash of Rs.2,000/- and the cell phone to

A2 towards the share of A2 and the A1 got cash after he

mortgaged robbed gold chain and sold gold ring. A1 kept the

remaining property i.e., the gold pusthelathadu and pair of ear

studs with him in order to sell them whenever he gets an

opportunity. A1 after paying the amount of Rs.2000/- to A2,

deposited an amount of Rs.8,500/- as margin money at Andhra

Bank, Naimnagar Branch and purchased a motor cycle by

availing a loan and he spent the balance amount lavishly. P.W.1

when found his wife missing complained to police Inthezargunj

on 30.10.2006 and the police initially registered the case under

the head of Woman missing and commenced the investigation.

While the investigation of the crime was in progress, Maram

Ramesh (P.W.6) on 22.11.2006 produced A2 before police and

stated that A2 confessed before him that A2 and A1 together

murdered Vijayalaxmi. The police after interrogation of the A2

seized the cell of the deceased from the possession of A2 in the

presence of mediators under the cover of panchanama and

thereafter on the lead of A2, the police recovered and removed the

gunny bag containing the dead body of deceased Vijayalaxmi

from the well in which it was thrown. The husband i.e., the

defacto complainant/P.W.1 as well as the parents of deceased

Vijayalaxmi identified the dead body as that of Vijayalaxmi which

was in decomposed condition.

3. The police Inthezargunj, basing on the confession of A2

caught hold of A1 on the same day at Warangal Chowrastha

where he was making efforts to dispose the remaining robbed

gold ornaments i.e., pusthelathadu, ear studs pair of the

deceased. The police apprehended A1 and in the presence of

mediators after recording the confession of A1 seized those two

remaining robbed items. The police arrested the A1 and A2. After

completion of investigation, charge sheet against them was laid

for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 302, 379, 201

r/w 34 of IPC.

4. Learned Sessions Judge placed reliance on the

circumstantial evidence i.e., (i) Last seen theory; (ii) Extra judicial

confession of A2; and (iii) Confession-cum-recovery panchanamas

of A1 and A2.

5. Last Seen Theory: According to the prosecution, PW5 was

with the deceased in the auto when the deceased received a call

from A1 around 10:15 to 10:20 am. When PW5 asked, the

deceased informed that A1 wanted to meet her to help with a

friend's problem.

6. Learned Sessions Judge found that initially PW10, claimed

to have last seen A1 and A2 with the deceased, but later turned

hostile. Further, learned Sessions Judge believed the chain of

events was broken because LW13 and LW14 were not examined.

LW13 is the kirana shop owner from whose shop A1 used the

telephone to call the deceased. LW14 is the owner of the shop

from which A1 and A2 purchased a rope to commit the murder,

according to prosecution case.

7. Learned Sessions Judge further found that PW5 testified

that the call from A1 was received after 10:30 a.m and not

between 10:15-10:20 a.m, as claimed by the prosecution.

Learned Sessions Judge found that PW5 kept quite about the call

for a month, even when the complainant was asking the

deceased's friends. Learned Sessions Judge, basing on the

evidence of P.W.5 found that the prosecution used PW5 to

connect the links. Learned Sessions Judge also found that the

prosecution failed to provide call data from the deceased's mobile

to support the version of P.W.5 and that the prosecution failed to

establish the complicity of the accused based on the last-seen

theory.

8. Extra Judicial Confession of A2:

According to the prosecution, A2 made an extra judicial

confession to PW6 about the offence i.e., committing the murder

of the deceased. However, PW6 turned hostile to the prosecution

case. Learned sessions Judge found discrepancy in the evidence

of PW6. P.W.6 in his Section 161 Cr.P.C statement, claimed that

A2 made an extrajudicial confession on the evening of

22.11.2006. However, according to PW16, the first investigating

officer, PW6 brought A2 to the police station on 24.11.2006 at

around 6:00 am, informing them of A2's confession. This raises

the question of what PW6 did with A2 on 23.11.2006, and the

delay cannot be overlooked. Further, learned Sessions Judge,

basing on the evidence of P.W.6 found that P.W.6 mentioned in

his statements that the police, along with A2, came to his house

on 22.11.2006. According to the prosecution, PW6 used the

deceased's mobile phone for one day, on 16.11.2006, after which,

it was handed to him by A2. He returned it to A2 later on same

day. PW17 then recovered the mobile from A2's possession.

Learned Sessions Judge also found that while PW6 testified

about using the phone, he also mentioned that when the police

visited his house on 22.11.2006 with A2, P.W.6 asked A2 to take

back the mobile phone. Learned Sessions Judge also found that

although PW6 did not explicitly state that he handed over the

mobile to the police on 22.11.2006, it was inferred from the

overall evidence that the police must have taken the deceased's

phone (MO1) from PW6. For the reasons best known to the

prosecution, the police neither confronted PW6 with MO1 nor

had PW6 identify the mobile. The prosecution failed to prove the

version of Extra Judicial confession to P.W.6

9. The confession cum recovery panchanamas of A1 and

A2:

The Learned Sessions Judge concluded that the prosecution

failed to prove the recoveries of MO1 to MO10 at the instance of

A1 and A2 beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the conclusion

that no case was made against the accused, for the following

reasons:

i) Ex.P30, the confession cum seizure panchanama of

A2, shows that the mobile phone MO1 was recovered

at the instance of A2 by PW17 in the presence of

PW11. However, Learned Sessions Judge did not

consider the evidence of PW.11 as an independent and

unbiased mediator, as he has close acquaintance with

the police, as he ran a bar and restaurant in front of

the police station. Consequently, PW11's testimony

was discarded by the Learned Sessions Judge and not

used to support PW17's evidence.

ii) Learned Sessions Judge also expressed doubt about

the actual recovery of the phone from A2's possession

under ExP30, as PW6 deposed that A2 had asked PW6

to take the mobile phone when the police came to his

house on 22.11.2006.

iii) ExP37 is the seizure of MO5 and MO6, gold

ornaments, allegedly seized from A1's possession by

PW17, along with PW15, as the supporting mediator.

Ex.P38 involved the recovery of MO2 to MO4 at the

instance of A1 from PW14's shop, along with PW15, as

the mediator. However, Learned Sessions Judge was

not convinced by this evidence due to the following

reasons:

a) Learned Sessions Judge found during cross-

examination of PW15 that P.W.15 mentioned that he

and the police had verified records at PW14's shop

and found that PW17 did not seize these records to

substantiate the mortgage and sale of MO2 to MO4

by A1. Additionally, although PW14 confirmed that

A1 and PW12 sold gold jewellery and received

money, noting these transactions in the shop

records, Learned Sessions Judge found fault with

PW17 for not collecting these records from PW14's

shop.

b) Furthermore, Learned Sessions Judge noted

inconsistencies in ExP38, which mentioned A1

selling a pair of ear studs to PW14, while PW17

claimed to recover these ear studs (MO6) from A1's

possession under ExP37. Additionally, the gold ring

(MO4) recovered from PW14's shop was not

mentioned in ExP38 as being sold or mortgaged by

A1. Despite PW17 and PW15 stating that the

recovery panchanama was prepared at PW14's shop,

PW14, who supported the prosecution's case

otherwise, denied the said fact and his signature

was found on ExP38.

c) Learned Sessions Judge found another discrepancy

with MO2, the gold chain, which was not listed

among the material objects recovered from the dead

body. The prosecution later claimed MO2 belonged

to A1's sister, but this was not proved. The

ownership of MO2 remained unclear, as it was not

identified by the deceased's parents (PW1 and PW2)

and was absent from PW17's evidence. Moreover,

Learned Sessions Judge found that MO3 to MO6

were also not identified by the parents.

d) Regarding the allegation that A1 sold the jewellery

and used the proceeds to deposit money in Andhra

Bank to avail a loan for purchasing a motorcycle,

learned Sessions Judge found fault with the

evidence of PW17 for not attempting to verify the

loan transaction documents at the bank, which

would have established that A1 bought the

motorcycle with the loan. This oversight was seen as

another break in the chain of evidence.

e) Moreover, learned Special Judge disbelieved the

contents of ExP31 to ExP33, prepared by PW17 at the

instance of A2, despite the testimonies of PW17 and

PW11 supporting these documents, for the reasons

that ExP32, the crime detail report made at 9:30 am,

described the physical evidence collected from the

crime scene, including a rough sketch showing the

dead body in a gunny bag. ExP31, detailing the

handing over of the dead body and the panchanama

location, was made at 8:30 am. Learned Special Judge

pointed out that if ExP31 was prepared first, the rough

sketch in ExP32 should not depict the body in the

gunny bag, as it had already been retrieved and

removed from the well under ExP31. According to the

judge, this discrepancy lacked a satisfactory

explanation.

10. It is also found that by the learned Sessions Judge that

ExP33 was also prepared by PW17, contained a rough sketch of

the scene but did not clarify as to how the police and A2 gained

entry into A1's rented house or whether A1 was present. Learned

Sessions Judge found that if ExP33 was prepared on 24.11.2006

at A1's house with A2's assistance, A1 would have known about

the police investigation and likely fled town to avoid capture.

However, the learned Sessions Judge found it implausible that

A1 would be seen in public on 25.11.2006 with MO5 and MO6,

essentially inviting police trouble by openly carrying stolen

property.

11. Learned Sessions Judge scrutinized ExP39 (dated

26.11.2006) and ExP40 (dated 25.11.2006), both prepared by

PW17 at the instance of A1 after his apprehension. ExP40 stated

that A1 led the police and mediators to a location where he and

A2 had burned some belongings of the deceased to destroy

evidence. Ex.P39 detailed the recovery of MOs 7 to 10 and some

burnt ash, as well as the presence of a bottle used to bring petrol

for burning the belongings. Learned Sessions Judge found fault

as to why P.W.17 did not seize the bottle.

12. Learned Sessions Judge found that ExP39 and ExP40

were made at the same location where the accused allegedly

burned the deceased's belongings and held that if MOs 7 to 10

were found as mentioned in ExP39, they should also have been

mentioned in ExP40. This discrepancy led to doubt the recoveries

under ExP39, considering it was created after ExP40.

Learned Sessions Judge noted that Ex.P30 does not detail

as to how A2 and A1 approached PW12, nor does it explain as to

how A1 left A2 at PW12's shop while he, along with PW12, went

to PW14's shop to sell and mortgage the gold ornaments (MOs 2

to 4). Additionally, ExP30 fails to mention that after committing

the murder, A1 and A2 used a motorcycle to travel to the location

shown in ExP39 and ExP40 to burn the deceased's belongings

and the rope used in the crime. Learned Sessions Judge also

found it puzzling that A2 did not confess to these specific actions.

PW17 did not take A2, who was already in police custody

at the time of A1's arrest, to the location where both A1 and A2

claimed to have burned some of the deceased's belongings and

the rope.

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 reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the

(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536

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 Pradesh2 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.

(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450

2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court.

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 findings of the learned Sessions Judge are reasonable

and based on record. Unless there are compelling circumstances

as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the question of

interference in appeals against acquittals does not arise. The case

is one of circumstantial evidence. As already discussed above,

none of the circumstances relied on by the prosecution have been

proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, there are no merits

in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

16. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J

____________________________ J.SREENIVAS RAO, J Date : 08.08.2024 kvs