Telangana High Court
Daragoni Srinu , Vikram, Mahaboobnagar ... vs P.P., Hyd on 25 July, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No. 305 OF 2015
Between:
Daragoni Srinu @ Vikram S/o: Narayana, Age: 26 years, R/o:
Thirmalapoor (BK) Village, Amrabad Mandal, Mahaboobnagar
District.
... Appellant/Accused No.5
And
The State of Telangana. rep. by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Hyderabad.
... Respondent/Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 25.07.2024
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
2
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ CRL.A.No.305 OF 2015
% Dated 25.07.2024
# Daragoni Srinu @ Vikram S/o: Narayana,
Age: 26 years, R/o: Thirmalapoor (BK) Village,
Amrabad Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.
...Appellant/Accused No.5
And
$ The State of Telangana, rep. by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court at
Hyderabad.
... Respondent/Complainant
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Challa Srinivas Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor for State
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
-NIL-
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.305 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Surender)
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 17.03.2015 in S.C.No.141 of 2013 on the file of the Judge,
Family Court-cum-VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar,
whereby, the appellant/accused No.5 (hereinafter 'the accused') was
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of
Rs.50,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for six months for the
offence under Section 302 of IPC; also sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in
default simple imprisonment for three months each for the offences
under Sections 25(1), 27 of the Indian Arms Act and Section 20 of the
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAP), 1967. Both the sentences of
imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased namely
Ramavath Panthu Naik who was MPP of Amangal, resident of
Mysigandi Village is a congress leader. The appellant was a member of
Maoist group of Nallamalla L.G.S. He joined the said group attracted by
their ideology. The case is that the said Ramavath Panthu
Naik/deceased was killed in a temple of Mysigandi on 01.12.2007 at
8am. It is further case of the prosecution that the appellant and another
went to the said temple and found that the deceased was going round
the temple. Then the appellant attacked and fired two rounds with AK-
47 gun on his back, resulting in the instantaneous death of the deceased.
Thereafter, they escaped from the scene.
3. The police registered the case and after investigation filed
charge sheet under Sections Section 302 of IPC and Sections 25(1), 27 of
the Indian Arms Act and also Section 20 of the Unlawful Activities
Prevention Act, 1967. Since Accused No.2 died during investigation and
Accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 were shown as absconding, only the appellant
and Accused No.7 were prosecuted before the Sessions Court. Charges
were framed under Section 302 and 120-B of IPC for murder having
entered into conspiracy and under Section 25(1) of Arms Act and 27(1)
of Arms Act R/w Section 20 of UAP Act for being in possession of
AK-47 gun to use it for unlawful purposes.
4. The learned Sessions Judge recorded the evidence of PWs 1 to
20 out of whom, according to the prosecution, PWs 1, 4, 5 and 6 were the
persons who were present at the scene and eye witnesses to the incident.
On the basis of their evidence and also recovery of weapon which is AK-
47 gun, the learned Sessions Judge recorded conviction as stated supra.
5. The counsel on record for the appellant has informed that he
has no instructions from the appellant to prosecute the case.
6. We have gone through the record with the assistance of Sri
Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Perused the
record.
7. PW1 is the person who filed the complaint/Ex.P1. He stated
that several persons had caused the death of the deceased. A5 and A7
were present at the scene and A2 namely Sambashivudu gave a chit on
behalf of Maoist organization. However, in the cross examination, he
stated that he enquired with the police and after the police informed the
names of the persons, he had written those names in Ex.P1. PW2 is the
wife of the deceased. She was not present at the scene when incident has
taken place.
8. PW3 is the son of the deceased. He was also not present at the
scene. PWs 4, 5 and 6 stated that they were present at the scene when
the incident has taken place and they have identified A5 as the person
who was present at the scene and A5 was found running away after the
incident has taken place. In fact, PWs 4, 5 and 6 have spoken about the
presence of A5 at the scene. They did not state that A5 had fired at the
deceased with AK-47 gun or that he was holding AK-47. Apart from the
presence of A5, no overt act is attributed by the witnesses to infer that
A5 had done any acts to cause the death of the deceased. Further, PWs.4
and 5 in cross examination stated that, A5 was shown by police in the
police station as such they identified A5 in jail.
9. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that A5 had confessed
before the VROs/PWs 10 and 11. The said confession was made in the
police station in the presence of police. Such confession is hit by Section
25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The recovery if any would be admissible
under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
10. Having gone through the evidence of PWs 10 and 11, they
stated that A5 was in custody of the police and in the presence of CI, SI
and other police personnel, A5 confessed to the act of committing
murder of the deceased. The case of the appellant is that he had never
confessed nor was present at the scene when the incident has taken
place. The said confession is of no consequence since it is not admissible.
PW.17/Investigating Officer admitted during cross examination that
nobody witnessed the firing with AK-47 on the deceased.
11. Coming to the factum of recovery of weapons from the accused,
the said recovery was at the instance of A5 and the seized weapons were
deposited in another case i.e. Crime No.840 of 2007 of PS;
Vanasthalipuram on 04.01.2008 (Ex.P-8). The said seizure cannot be
relied upon in the present case to convict the accused since the said
seizure is subject matter of Crime No.840 of 2007. According to PW.19,
AK-47 gun was recovered from appellant and subject matter of
C.C.No.101 of 2008. The said case ended in acquittal. Admittedly, no
appeal was filed. When charge was framed against appellant in
C.C.No.101 of 2008 for possessing AK-47 and the same ended in
acquittal. Further even according to PW.17/Investigating Officer, no one
has seen firing with AK-47, the question of convicting appellant for
possessing AK-47 is improper and without any legal basis. Once the case
in which charge was framed and acquitted for possessing AK-47, on the
very same seizure, charge cannot be framed in another case and find
him guilty.
12. Charge under Section 27 of Arms Act R/w Section 20 of
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act was framed for being in possession
of fire arms. When prosecution failed to prove that appellant was in
possession of AK-47, the said charge also fails. The learned Public
Prosecutor finally argued that the appellant was a member of Maoist
group and nearly 17 cases were pending against him. The said pendency
of cases cannot form basis to find the appellant guilty. The prosecution
has to succeed in every case on its own by producing reliable evidence.
There cannot be any moral conviction.
13. For the above discussed reasons, the prosecution has failed to
prove the charges levelled against the appellant/A5.
14. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.03.2015 in
S.C.No.141 of 2013 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII
Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, is hereby set aside and the
appellant/accused No.5 is acquitted of all charges. The fine amount, if
any, paid shall be refunded. Bail bonds furnished by him shall stand
cancelled.
15. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 25.07.2024
gvl
