Telangana High Court
S. Laxman Rao, Hyd vs State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., Hyd And 6 ... on 25 January, 2024
Author: K.Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJANA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1063 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
(PER HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJANA)
This appeal is preferred being aggrieved by the judgment dated
30.09.2013 passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at
Hyderabad, in S.C.No.346 of 2011, whereunder, the accused Nos.1
to 6 were acquitted for offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 302
read with 34 of IPC and 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959 and 235(1) of
Cr.P.C. This appeal is filed by the de facto complainant.
2. During the course of proceedings, on 09.02.2023 learned
counsel representing respondent No.2/accused No.1, reported the
death of respondent No.2, as such, the proceedings against
respondent No.2/accused No.1 were abated. Despite of service of
notice to respondent No.4/accused No.3 there was no
representation, as such, non-bailable warrant was issued against
him. Even then, no whereabouts of respondent No.4/accused No.3
were found. Therefore, on 11.10.2023 this Court appointed Sri
M.Durga Prasad Rao as legal aid counsel to respondent
No.4/accused No.3.
KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013
2
3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Shabad
Hanumantha Rao is proprietor of Srikanth Lodge situated at
Rahmathnagar, having one water tanker. He also owned Shabad
Stones and other stone businesses in the premises abutting to
Srikanth Lodge. There is a civil dispute between the deceased
Hanumantha Rao and accused Nos.1 and 2 over the land situated
abutting to the Srikanth Lodge. As such, accused No.2 filed
O.S.No.4266 of 1997 against the deceased, in turn, the deceased
filed O.S.No.479 of 2001 against accused Nos.1 and 2 and others.
Later, accused No.2 filed O.S.No.12 of 2006 against the deceased.
4. During the life time of deceased, the disputed piece of land was
under his possession in which he stored shabad stones. The
deceased along with his wife, three sons and one daughter used to
reside in third floor of Srikanth Lodge. About one week prior to the
incident, the deceased adorned Ayyappa Swamy Mala, as such, he
was staying in room No.201 of the said lodge.
5. Accused Nos.1 and 2 hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased
who allegedly occupied their land. In pursuance of the criminal
conspiracy of accused Nos.1 and 2, they engaged accused Nos.3 and
5 to eliminate the deceased for which they promised to pay ransom KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013
3
amount of Rs.12,00,000/- out of which, accused No.1 paid an
advance amount of Rs.50,000/- to accused No.3. Agreeing
thereupon, accused Nos.3 and 5 in turn engaged accused Nos.4 and
6 to assist them in eliminating the deceased for which they promised
to present an auto rickshaw for accused No.4 and a computer to
accused No.6.
6. As per the plan, accused Nos.3 and 5 took rental room at
Borabanda, Hyderabad, and surveyed the surroundings of Srikanth
Lodge and the movements of the deceased. Accused Nos.3 to 6 were
armed with daggers and hunting sickle. They also purchased a LML
scooter for escaping from the scene of offence after commission of
offence. On 19.12.2009 accused Nos.3 and 4 occupied room No.110
of Srikanth Lodge owned by the deceased. As per the directions of
accused No.3, accused No.5 brought LML vespa parked opposite to
Srikanth Lodge.
7. On 20.12.2009 at about 4:00 A.M., both accused Nos.3 and 4
went to room No.201 wherein the deceased was staying. Accused
No.3 knocked door and informed the deceased that they were
vacating the room, upon which the deceased came out of the room to
inform the watchman to check the room and while he was bolting the
door from outside, accused No.3 held him by his hands and KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013
4
instantly, accused No.4 attacked him on his neck with sickle with
left hand. In one shot, the deceased fell on ground with profuse
bleeding. Out of fear, the sickle from the hand of accused No.4 fell
down and in order to endure that Hanumantha Rao died, accused
No.3 picked up the same sickle and again attacked him on his face
twice due to which Hanumantha Rao sustained lacerated injuries.
After seeing the blood of deceased and his movements, they were
sure that he was dead, as such, they went down to the cellar/stilt
portion through steps and abandoned the sickle amidst shadab
stones and fled away on the scooter with the help of accused No.5.
8. Immediately, they rushed to the house of accused No.1 at
Venkatagiri and informed her about the incident and when they
asked for their share of money as promised by her, she replied that
she does not have huge amount as promised by her and gave
Rs.50,000/- for time being. While accused No.1 was inside, accused
No.5 took out the dagger which was in the dicky of vehicle and hid it
in the first floor of under construction house of accused No.1.
Sensing danger with the amount the accused No.1 gave, the other
accused persons fled away to the room at Allapur, Borabanda,
Hyderabad, and abandoned the vehicle outside the room and along
with accused No.6 all left for their native place, Guntur and later, to
their respective villages. Thus, the accused Nos.1 to 6 committed the KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013
5
offence punishable under Sections 302, 120-B read with 34 of IPC
and Section 25(1) (b) of the Arms Act, 1959.
9. To prove the case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 19 and
got marked Exs.P1 to P31 and MOs.1 to 13.
10. Considering the evidence on record and after hearing both
side, the trial Court acquitted accused Nos.1 to 6 vide judgment
dated 30.09.2013 in S.C.No.346 of 2011. Aggrieved thereby, the de
facto complainant filed this appeal.
11. Heard Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for
appellant - de facto complainant, Sri T.V. Ramana Rao, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State,
Sri M.Durga Prasad Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos.3, 4, 6 and 7 - accused Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6, and Sri Srihari
Chunduru, learned counsel for respondent No.5 - accused No.4.
12. The contention of learned counsel for appellant is that the trial
Court has erroneously acquitted all the accused persons even though
the prosecution has proved payment of amounts to the accused No.3
and also the recovery of MOs.10 and 11 at the instance of accused
No.5. Further, the trial Court has erred in not appreciating the KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013
6
evidence of PW.6 who identified the accused Nos.3 to 5 in the
identification parade conducted in the Central Jail. As such, there is
ample evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused persons.
Therefore, prayed the Court to allow this appeal, setting aside the
impugned judgment dated 30.09.2013 in S.C.No.346 of 2011 by
convicting the accused persons.
13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Nos.3, 4, 6
and 7 - accused Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 submitted that there are no
infirmities in the judgment of the trial Court as the prosecution has
failed to prove any of the allegations made against the accused
persons. Further, it is not in dispute that there are civil disputes
between the accused Nos.1 and 2 and the deceased, as such, there is
every possibility of appellant trapping the respondent Nos.3, 4, 6 and
7 in false case. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal.
14. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 - accused No.4
submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of respondent
No.5 beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly
acquitted the accused No.4. As such, prayed the Court to dismiss the
appeal.
KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013
7
15. Now, the points for determination are:
1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt?
2. Whether the judgment of trial Court needs interference?
POINT Nos.1 & 2:
16. To prove the case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 19.
PW.1 is the son of the deceased. His evidence is that he is a
resident of H.No.8-3-231/73/A/B, situated at Srikrishna
Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad, consisting of three floors and
cellar and he resides in the third floor along with his parents
and other family members. He deposed that they run lodge
under the name and style of Srikanth Lodge on the ground,
first and second floors. On 19.12.2009 at 11:30 P.M., went to
ground floor to sleep in room No.201 as he was wearing
Ayyappa Maala and other family members slept in third floor of
the building. On 20.12.2009 at about 5 A.M., the watchman
came to third floor and informed that Hanumantha Rao was
found dead. When PW.1 himself and other family members
came to the ground floor, in room No.201 they found the dead
body of Hanumantha Rao with deep cut injuries on his neck KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013
8
and on face. He further deposed that immediately he informed
about the incident to the Police and Police in turn came and
recorded his statement and he suspected that his father died
due to the land disputes that prevailed between his father and
accused No.1.
PW.2 is the brother of the deceased. He deposed on the same
lines as that of PW.1. His evidence is that since 22 years there
was a land dispute between his brother and accused Nos.1 and
2, as such, he suspects that accused Nos.1 and 2 are
responsible for the death of his brother.
PW.3 is the watchman who works in Srikanth Lodge. He
deposed that on the previous night of the incident, he was on
duty when one lorry came for loading stones and the labourers
loaded the stones upto 1:30 A.M., thereafter, the lorry left the
premises. Then the deceased Hanumantha Rao paid the labour
charges to the labourers and gave Rs.50/- to him to give it to
auto driver when his wife and daughter in law returns to
home, accordingly, on their arrival, he gave Rs.50/- to the auto
driver. Later, at about 5:15 A.M., the supervisor of the lodge
came and asked me to go and see who is ling dead and then he
found Hanumantha Rao dead, as such, he immediately rushed KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013
9
to third floor and informed the family members of the
deceased.
PW.4 is the house owner of house bearing No.14-1-88/A/22,
Friends Colony, Borabanda, Hyderabad. He deposed that there
are two portions in the said house. Ringu Swaroopa lives in
one of the said portions and the other portion is vacant. In the
month of December 2009, he handed over the keys of the
vacant portion to Ringu Swaroopa and asked her to let out the
said portion to anybody. After a week, she informed him that
she has let out the said portion to some bachelors on monthly
rent of Rs.800/-. He further deposed that he cannot identify
the persons to whom the portion of the house was let out.
Later, the Police came and recorded his statement.
PW.5 is the owner of mechanic shop located in Gayathri Nagar,
Hyderabad. He deposed that in the month of May 2009, he
purchased LML scooter from one Rama Rao and during the
month of May 2009 itself, one person (accused No.3)
approached him and purchased the said scooter at a sum of
Rs.5000/-. He further deposed that he cannot say the
registration number of the said scooter but can identify it.
During cross examination by Public Prosecutor, he deposed KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013
10
that the vehicle shown to him is not the vehicle that was sold
to accused No.3.
PW.6 is the resident of Srikakulam District. He deposed that
on 17.12.2009 he went to Hyderabad to meet his relative who
resides in Rahmathnagar area and stated that whenever he
visits Hyderabad, he stays in Srikanth Lodge and from
17.12.2009 to 20.12.2009 he booked room for himself in
Srikanth Lodge. He stated that on the night of 19.12.2009
while he was sleeping in his room, there was some commotion
in the opposite room No.110 and some people came in
drunken condition and quarreled. Then he asked the said
persons to not quarrel as he was getting disturbed. Thereafter,
on the next day morning when he was about to vacate the
room at 6:00 A.M., on 20.12.2009 he saw a gathering near the
dead body of Hanumantha Rao and later he came to know that
Hanumantha Rao was the owner of the lodge. Then when he
left the lodge and proceeded till Vizah, he received a call from
his sister informing that the Police had asked him to come
back for enquiry in connecting with the said murder.
Accordingly, he returned on 21.12.2009 and Police recorded is
statement. He further deposed that he can identify the persons
who quarreled in front of his room. The witness was shown two KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013
11
persons out of five persons who are accused Nos.3 and 5 and
on receiving summons for identifying the accused persons in
the jail as the persons he saw at the time of quarrel, he
identified two persons in the jail as the persons he saw at the
time of quarrel during night. One of the two persons he
identified in the jail was not present in the Court on that day.
PW.7 is the panch for scene of offence panchanama.
PW.8 is the resident of Allapur, Borabanda. She deposed that
she resides in the house owned by PW.4 in Allapur but he
resides in Begumpet. Accused Nos.3, 5, 6 and another came to
her and took two rooms on rent, as such, she let out the
portions to them in the month of December 2009. She further
deposed that they stayed in the said place for less than a
month. Later, the Police recorded her statement.
PW.9 is the Medical Officer who conducted the post mortem
examination over the dead body of the deceased. He deposed
that he found eight injuries over the dead body, out of which,
injury No.1 would be possible with MO.5 - sickle. He further
deposed that the cause of death is due to neck injury
associated with other injuries.
KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013
12
PW.10 is the panch for confession of accused No.1 cum seizure
panchanama.
PW.11 is the panch for confession of accused Nos.3 to 6 cum
seizure panchanama.
PW.12 is working as Police Constable in C.I.D., Department.
He deposed that on 20.10.2009 when he arrived at the scene of
offence along with his dog, he found the blood stains and dead
body in the corridor of ground floor of Srikanth Lodge. He
further deposed that when the dog was taken to sniff the blood
stains, the dog went to the cellar where there were stones on
the one side and then they found a knife (MO.5) in the middle
of the stones.
PW.13 is the Scientific Officer. He deposed that on 20.12.2009
he rushed to the scene of offence with scientific gadgets like
advance physical evidence collection kit, blood evidence
collection kit and advanced poly light and euro light. He
further deposed that he collected blood samples from the scene
of offence and also from the knife that was found in the cellar.
KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013
13
PW.14 is the Inspector of Police who deposed about the
investigation conducted by him.
PW.15 is the Constable in whose presence the dead body of the
deceased was shifted from Srikanth Lodge to the Hospital for
conducting post mortem examination.
PW.16 is the Judicial Officer who conducted Test Identification
Parade. She deposed that she gave option to each accused to
select any five non suspects among them. Each suspects'
selected five non suspects amount them. Thereafter, she asked
the non suspects to form a row and take place of their choice
in the row. The suspect No.1 took third position in the row
from left and suspect No.2 took tenth position in the row from
left and then she took assistance of her attender and called
witness to identify the suspect, the witness identified the third
person from the left as suspect No.1 and tenth person from left
as suspect NO.2. Then she obtained the signatures of suspects
in a sheet and stated that the witness has identified both the
suspects correctly.
PW.17 is the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Malakpet
Division, Hyderabad. He deposed about his investigation in the
case.
KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013
14
PW.18 is the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Enforcement,
Hyderabad. He deposed that on 10.02.2010 at about 18:00
hours while he was on patrolling duty along with his team at
Venkatagiri, Yousufguda, he received information that one
gang is approaching a house in respect of murder pertaining
this case. He informed the same to the Inspector of Police, PS,
Banjara Hills and on instructions, along with his team he
proceeded towards Venkatagiri near Gouthami School in front
of house of accused No.1 and apprehended the gang consisting
of accused Nos.3 to 6 and produced them before the Inspector
of Police, PS, Banjara Hills, for further investigation.
PW.19 is the Inspector of Police, Jeedimetla Police Station, who
earlier worked in Banjara Hills Police Station. He deposed that
during the course of investigation, accused No.2 got
anticipatory bail from the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh and in pursuance of said orders, she appeared before
him and she was released on bail. On completion of
investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1
to 6.
KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013
15
17. On going through the material available on record, it is noted
that the trial Court has not believed the evidence of PWs.1 to 19 and
acquitted all the accused persons vide judgment dated 30.09.2013.
Aggrieved thereby, the de facto complainant filed this appeal. The
case of the prosecution is completely relied on the circumstantial
evidence as there are no direct eye witnesses to the incident.
18. It is the specific contention of learned counsel appearing for
accused persons that the prosecution has tried to connect the death
of the deceased with accused persons in view of the property dispute
that prevailed between the deceased and accused Nos.1 and 2.
Further, though it is alleged that on 19.12.2009 accused Nos.3 and 4
occupied room No.110 of Srikanth Lodge and that they were seen by
PW.6 while they were quarreling at night in drunken condition, it is
noted that there is no evidence on record to prove that accused Nos.3
and 4 occupied the said room.
19. In addition to the above, the PW.6 identified accused Nos.3
and 5 during Test Identification Parade conducted by the Magistrate,
whereas, in his evidence before the trial Court, he identified accused
Nos.3 and 4 as suspects. Further, there is some ambiguity in
conducting the Test Identification Parade as in the requisition
submitted by the Investigating Officer with regard to the names of KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013
16
accused Nos.4 and 5, the Investigating Officer stated that witness
identified accused NOs.3 and 5 and later stated that the witness
identified accused Nos.3 and 4. However, on the date of evidence, the
accused No.4 was absent, so the witness identified accused NO.5
instead of accused No.4. Later, when accused NO.4 appeared in the
Court, the witness stated that he identified only accused No.3 and
not accused NO.4. The witness also stated that the de facto
complainant had pressurized him to identify the accused.
20. It is also noted that there is no documentary evidence to prove
the stay of accused Nos.3 and 5 in lodge. The register maintained by
the lodge and the counter foils for the payment of lodge receipts were
also not produced before the trial Court to prove that accused Nos.3
and 5 stayed in the lodge on the date of incident. Therefore, these
circumstances are not proved by the prosecution.
21. According to the version of prosecution, PW.8 was the tenant
of PW.4, whereas, the PW.17 stated in his cross examination that
PW.8 is not the tenant of PW.4 and as per the statement of PW.4,
PW.8 is only his neighbour. Therefore, the version of prosecution
that PW.8 is tenant of PW.4 is totally disproved. Therefore, the
circumstance that they have taken the house on rent for the purpose
of implementing the plan is also not proved.
KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013
17
22. The further circumstance relied upon is recovery of material
objects. The MO.5 - sickle was not seized at the instance of any of
the accused persons and the same was seized with the assistance of
dog squad from the cellar of the lodge which is a public place.
Further, MO.10 - knife was seized from open terrace. Further, the
prosecution has alleged that accused NO.1 was found in possession
of the said knife, as such, he is liable for punishment under Section
25(1)(B) of the Arms Act, but the size of said knife is less than 9
inches. Therefore, the seizure of said knife at the instance of accused
person does not attract the offence punishable under Section
25(1)(B) of the Arms Act.
23. Furthermore, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused
Nos.1 and 2 hatched plan to kill the deceased Hanumantha Rao and
accused Nos.3 to 6 are part of the said conspiracy against the
deceased, beyond reasonable doubt. Though the prosecution alleged
that the motive for commission of offence is the land dispute no
documents are filed to prove the said land dispute, as such, the
alleged motive for commission of offence is weak. Therefore, it cannot
be considered.
KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013
18
24. The prosecution also tried to connect the accused No.1 with
the death of the deceased stating that accused No.1 paid an amount
of Rs.50,000/- to accused No.3 as supari. However, with regard to
the said contention there is no evidence on record, as no bank
statement or any other document is filed by the prosecution to prove
the same, as such, the said contention has no force. Further, though
it is alleged that there was land dispute between the deceased and
accused Nos.1 and 2, after the death of the deceased, the legal heirs
of the deceased have not filed any civil cases. Therefore, though the
prosecution tried connect accused Nos.1 to 6 with the death of
deceased basing on the evidence of PWs.1 to 19, the prosecution was
not able to prove the same.
25. Though the death of the deceased is homicidal death, the
prosecution failed to prove that accused Nos.1 to 6 are responsible
for his death. None of the circumstances proved with cogent
evidence. Therefore, it can be said that the trial Court has rightly
discussed the evidence on record and acquitted accused NOs.1 to 6.
26. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion
that there are no infirmities in the judgment dated 30.09.2013
passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad, in
S.C.No.346 of 2011, acquitting the accused persons for offences KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013
19
punishable under Sections 120-B, 302 read with 34 of IPC and 25(1-
A) of the Arms Act, 1959 and 235(1) of Cr.P.C. There are no merits in
the present appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the point NOs.1 and 2 are answered.
27. IN THE RESULT, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
appeal shall stand closed.
____________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J
__________________ K. SUJANA, J
Date : 25.01.2024 PT KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.1063 of 2013
20
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN AND HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
P.D. JUDGMENT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1063 OF 2013
(Pre-delivery judgment of the Division Bench prepared by the Hon'ble Smt Justice K. Sujana)
Date:25.01.2024 PT
