Telangana High Court
Manupati Sunkaiah , Sunkulu, ... vs S.H.O., Ramagundam P.S., Karimnagar ... on 12 June, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.8 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice SambasivaRao Naidu)
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant
under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., assailing the judgment of the
VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Godavarikhani
dated 18-11-2014 in a Sessions Case vide SC.No.372 of 2013,
where under, the trial Court found the appellant herein guilty
for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for
short 'IPC'), convicted him under Section 235(2) of Criminal
Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') and sentenced him to
suffer Imprisonment for Life and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-
with default sentence.
2. As per the material allegations made in the charge
sheet, the appellant herein and two more persons were
prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w
34 of IPC. According to the case of prosecution, one
Dunnapothula Sridhar (hereinafter will be referred as
'deceased') was the son of PWs.1 and 2 and was residing at
2 PSK,J & SSRN, J
Kakathiyanagar (NTPC). This offence took place during the
year 2012. By that time, the deceased was married and he
was having a seven (7) months baby. The deceased was
addicted to bad habits since 2005 and involved in property
offences along with some more associates. He was arrested
in the said criminal cases and was sent to judicial custody.
3. The appellant herein was doing scrap business at
Autonagar, NTPC. The deceased used to sell the iron scrap
and other material to appellant (A1) and in view of the said
transactions, he was moving very close with A1. The
prosecution has alleged that the deceased and one K.Vinod @
Pandu, who was examined as PW.4 before the trial Court
committed property offences and on 30-07-2012, both of
them were arrested by police, Ramagundam in Crime No.36
of 2012. During the course of investigation/interrogation,
they made confession about their involvement in other cases,
subsequently, they were sent to judicial custody. The
appellant herein, who was dealing with iron scrap business
was caught by S & PC personnel on the allegation that he was
dealing with stolen property, thereby, A1 suspected that the
deceased must have passed all the information about his
3 PSK,J & SSRN, J
involvement and developed grudge against the deceased.
It is also alleged in the charge sheet that the deceased made
a publicity in the village that A1 was dealing with the stolen
property, therefore, he wanted to eliminate the deceased and
for that purpose, he sought the help of A2 and A3, who are no
other than his brothers-in-law. All the accused hatched a plan
to kill the deceased, and were waiting for an opportunity to
take revenge against the deceased.
4. The prosecution has alleged that on 24-12-2012,
the deceased went to NTPC to his parent's house and having
come to know about this fact, the appellant herein called
PW.4, who was working under him and close associate of the
deceased, asked him to bring the deceased to his house on
the guise of celebrating a party and given some money to
PW.4 asking him to bring alcohol and chicken. Therefore,
PW.4 met the deceased and informed that he was instructed
by the appellant herein to bring him to his house to
participate in a party. Therefore, PW.4 and deceased went to
the house of A1. All of them consumed liquor and during the
course of time, A1 came out, contacted A2 over phone and
informed the presence of the deceased at his house and also
4 PSK,J & SSRN, J
informed that he will bring the deceased to IOC, Kundanpalli
and asked him to wait at IOC, so that they can kill the
deceased. In view of the said directions, A2 and A3
proceeded to IOC on a motor-cycle and were waiting for A1 to
come. Thereafter, A1 informed the deceased that some
copper wire was available at IOC, Kundanpalli area and
asked him to come along with him. The deceased obliged his
instructions and after consuming alcohol, PW.4 slept at the
house of A1, whereas, A1 took the deceased with him and
they proceeded to the Hotel of PW.7, where they consumed
beer and A2, A3 joined them, all of them went to the bushes
near railway track at the out-skirts of Kundanpalli.
5. The prosecution further alleged that all these
people got down from their respective motor-cycles and
switched-off their mobile phones. A1 having obtained mobile
phone of deceased, handed over the same to A2 and while
questioning the deceased as to why he was blaming them as
if, they are thieves, attacked him and gave one Hacksaw
blade to A3 with instructions to cut the throat of the
deceased. Then A3 tried to cut the throat, he could not
succeed. Therefore, A3 brought a stone and pelted the same
5 PSK,J & SSRN, J
over the head of the deceased, thereby, the deceased died at
the spot. After confirmation of the death, all the accused left
the place and thrown the mobile phone of the deceased in a
big culvert and they proceeded to their respective houses.
6. On 26-12-2012, PW.1 visited police station,
Ramagundem and presented a written complaint informing
the police about the missing of his son and about the visit of
PW.4 to his house and also informed the police that when
they searched in the nearby locality, they found the dead
body of his son nearby the railway track and sought the
intervention of the police. On the basis of the said complaint,
PW.11 registered a case under Section 302 of IPC and
submitted Express FIR to all concerned. On receipt of the copy
of said complaint, PW.12, the then Sub-Inspector of Police,
Ramagundem took up the investigation and examined all the
material witnesses and after completing the other formalities,
having affected the arrest of the accused and after completing
investigation, laid charge sheet against A1 to A3.
7. The said charge sheet was registered as PRC.No.8
of 2013. After the completion of committal proceedings by the
Committal Court, the case was made over to VI Additional
6 PSK,J & SSRN, J
Sessions Judge at Godavarikhani. The learned trial Judge
having examined the accused i.e., A1 to A3 framed a charge
under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and as the appellant and the
other accused denied the allegations proceeded with the trial.
During the trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 12
and marked Exs.P1 to P27. Mos.1 to 11 were also marked on
behalf of the prosecution. The contradiction portion in the
statement of PW.7 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has
been marked as Exs.D1 and D2.
8. After completion of the trial, the accused were
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the entire
incriminating evidence spoken to by the above said
prosecution witnesses was informed to the accused. Once
again, they denied the said evidence.
9. The trial Judge after hearing both parties, came to
the conclusion that the prosecution was not able to prove the
guilt of A2 and A3 for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of
IPC and accordingly, acquitted them under Section 235(1) of
Cr.P.C., but found A1 the appellant herein guilty for the
offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer
Life Imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500/-.
7 PSK,J & SSRN, J
10. The learned defense counsel has submitted that
there is no eye-witness to the alleged offence. The
prosecution was not able to produce any incriminating
evidence against the appellant herein. Even as per the
allegations in Ex.P1 complaint, the deceased left the house
along with PW.4 but without any proper evidence, the trial
Court convicted the appellant herein for a grave offence like
302 of IPC and sentenced him with Life Imprisonment,
therefore, sought for setting aside the impugned judgment.
11. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor has argued that the evidence of all the prosecution
witnesses proved the involvement of the appellant herein in
the murder of deceased. Therefore, the trial Court rightly
recorded a finding against the appellant, as such, sought for
dismissal of the appeal.
12. It is the case of prosecution that the appellant
herein developed grudge against the deceased on the ground
that he was unnecessarily defamed in the town at the
instance of the deceased. According to the prosecution, A1
who was caught by some security personnel of NTPC was
under the impression that it was because of the information
8 PSK,J & SSRN, J
that might have been passed on by the deceased herein, the
security people of NTPC suspected him, thereby, he want to
eliminate the deceased. It is also the specific case of the
prosecution that for the purpose of eliminating the deceased,
he sought the help of A2, A3 and deputed PW.4, who was a
close associate of deceased, to bring him to a particular place
on the guise of a party and said to have attacked the
deceased.
13. Therefore, absolutely there is no eye-witness to
the alleged offence, and the prosecution tried to establish the
guilt of accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The
prosecution sought to rely on the evidence of PWs.1 to 12.
PWs.1 and 2, the parents of the deceased at best can depose
that their son was called by PW.4 and they have no
knowledge about the subsequent events. According to the
evidence of PW.1, the deceased left the house along with
PW.4 but did not return home in the night. Therefore, he
started search for his son and in the evening, he came to
know that a dead body was lying near the railway track.
Therefore, he rushed there and found the dead body of his
son. He has raised suspicion against A1 as A1 said to have
9 PSK,J & SSRN, J
challenged that he would kill his son. It is not the case of
PW.1 that he has personally witnessed the offence.
14. Similarly, PW.2, who is no other than the mother
of the deceased could not have any information about the
offence proper. PW.3 is a photographer with whose help, the
Investigating Officer obtained the photographs of the scene of
offence. PW.4 has been examined to prove that at the
instance of A1 he went to the house of PW.1 and took the
deceased with him, but he did not support the case of the
prosecution. Whereas, according to his evidence before the
trial Court, he has got acquaintance with the deceased and he
came to know about the deceased died due to injuries and it
is his further evidence that he did not meet the deceased prior
to his death and he has no knowledge as to how the deceased
died.
15. The learned Public Prosecutor having declared him
as hostile tried to elicit by way of cross-examination that at
the instance of the appellant herein, he went to the house of
PW.1 and got the deceased but he has denied the
suggestions. PW.5 is the wife of the deceased, who has no
knowledge about the actual offence. PW.6 is a witness to the
10 PSK,J & SSRN, J
inquest that was conducted on the dead body of the
deceased. According to his evidence, they found a boulder
which was used for killing the deceased and inquest report is
marked as Ex.B15. PW.7 is supposed to be a witness, who
could saw the accused with the company of deceased.
According to his evidence before the Court, A1, the deceased
and another person visited his Hotel on 24-12-2012. They
purchased liquor, consumed the same by sitting in the Hotel
and subsequently, he saw the photo of the deceased in a
News Paper. As per the cross-examination of this witness,
customers were not allowed to sit in his Hotel for consumption
of alcohol likewise, the appellant herein and deceased did not
sit in the Hotel. He did not state before the police, as if, the
accused and deceased Sridhar consumed liquor in his shop. In
view of this particular portion of his evidence, his statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has been marked as Ex.D1. Even if
it is believed that PW.7 was running a Hotel, it is highly
impossible for him to identify each and every person, who has
visited his Hotel and purchased some liquor or snacks. Even
otherwise, he is not an eyewitness to the alleged murder nor
his evidence can be treated as last scene theory.
11 PSK,J & SSRN, J
16. PW.8 was examined to prove the alleged
confession of A.1. According to the evidence of PW8, on
29-12-2012, at the instance of Inspector of Police, NTPC, he
went to police station where he found A1 to A3, on being
questioned by the Inspector of Police, the appellant herein
took him (PW.8) and one Ramulu to his house and produced
an Hacksaw blade from his auto. According to the evidence of
PW.8, the police said to have seized the motor-cycle of A3,
auto trolley and Hacksaw blade from A1 and prepared
Panchanama. As per the evidence of PW.9, who conducted
post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased, death of the
deceased was due to hemorrhagic shock due to crush injury
to head. Therefore, even if a Hacksaw blade is seized from the
possession of A1, it cannot connect the appellant herein to the
alleged murder of the deceased.
17. PW.10 is supposed to be a witness before whom
the appellant herein made a confession, but he was declared
as hostile, as he did not support the case of prosecution.
PWs.11 and 12 are the Investigating Officers. Therefore, out
of these 12 witnesses, none of them were able to say that
they saw the appellant herein committed the offence nor it is
12 PSK,J & SSRN, J
their evidence that the appellant was present when somebody
threw a big boulder on the deceased. The Investigating Officer
conveniently did not collect any call data record from the
mobile phones of the appellant or deceased and no finger
prints were obtained from the scene of offence. But the
prosecution sought to rely on the evidence of PW.7 to connect
the appellant with the death of deceased by simply claiming
that the deceased was last seen in the company of A1. Even
as per the allegations made in the charge sheet, it is quite
clear that there was prior acquaintance between the appellant
and deceased as the deceased used to sell stolen scrap to the
appellant herein. Therefore, simply because the evidence of
PW.7 shows that the deceased was seen in the company of
A1, it cannot be a conclusive proof that A1 himself killed the
deceased.
18. The most important witness i.e., PW.4 whom the
appellant herein instructed to get the presence of deceased
did not support the case of prosecution. Therefore, the
important link to connect the appellant herein with the death
of the deceased has been missing. Simply because one auto
trolley and Hacksaw blade was produced by the appellant
13 PSK,J & SSRN, J
herein, it cannot be a conclusive proof that the appellant
herein killed the deceased. But the trial Court simply by
relying on the evidence of PW.7, though the recovery of
MO.10 is no way connected with the offence, found the
appellant herein guilty for the offence under Section 302 of
IPC. Therefore, such sentence cannot sustain, consequently,
liable to be set aside.
19. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The sentence
imposed by the trial Court is set aside. The appellant i.e., A1
shall be released, if, his presence is not required in any other
case. The fine amount, if paid, shall be returned to him after
appeal time is over.
Consequently, Miscellaneous petitions if any, are closed.
No costs.
__________________
JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
__________________________
JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
Date: 12.06.2024
PLV
