Telangana High Court
Boddu Thirupathi, Nalgonda Dt., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 12 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.958 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated
28.12.2015 passed in S.C.No.573 of 2013 on the file of III
Aditional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy
District, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple
imprisonment for six months.
2. Heard Mr. K.Vasanth Rao, learned legal aid counsel
for the appellant/accused and Mr. Arun Kumar Dodla,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on
27.05.2012 afternoon, Sanjay (deceased), Janardhan and
Boddu Tirupathi (appellant/accused) went to a movie.
While they were watching the movie, the deceased and the
appellant quarreled with each other. Then, they left the
movie theatre, without watching and came back to the
2 KS, J & JAK, J
hotel and slept. At around 5.00 p.m., the appellant went to
Rajadhani Hotel, of which PW1 is the owner and noticed
the deceased was sleeping near the rest room. Then the
appellant went into the kitchen and took a long handled
iron kurfi (MO.1) used for mixing boiling milk and hit the
deceased on his head resulting in his death. Thereafter, the
appellant fled from the scene. The said incident was
witnessed by PW2. PW2 is the only eyewitness to the
incident.
4. PW1 during the course of his evidence stated that the
incident took place at about 3:30 p.m. PW2 went and
informed PW1 that the appellant killed the deceased with
kurfi (MO.1). Immediately, PW1 went to the hotel and
found the dead body and found injuries on the head of the
deceased. On enquiry PW1 came to know that the
appellant and the deceased quarreled with each other in
the theater and thereafter the appellant attacked the
deceased. On the basis of the information gathered by
PW1, complaint/Ex.P1 was filed by PW1. PW1 also stated
that he found the appellant at the store room when he
went there after information given by PW2 and when PW1
admonished him, the appellant ran away.
3 KS, J & JAK, J
5. PW2 is the only eye witness to the case. According to
PW2, while he was in the hotel, he heard noises from the
store room. Immediately he rushed to the room where he
found the appellant beating the deceased with kurfi (MO.1)
and found injury on the head of the deceased and
immediately, he informed PW1 about the incident. Further,
PW2 stated that he came to know that there were
differences between the appellant and the deceased and
they fought on the previous day.
6. During the course of trial, PW1 stated that on the
information given by PW2, he went to the hotel and found
the deceased dead. However, in the complaint/Ex.P1 filed
by PW1 at 6:30 p.m., he stated that on the same day at
around 5:00 p.m., the appellant went to the hotel and
found the deceased sleeping and accordingly, attacked the
deceased, which is contrary to the version he stated in the
Court that at around 3:30 p.m., PW2 informed him about
the incident. There is no mention of name of PW2 in the
complaint/Ex.P1. PW1 narrated that there were differences
between the appellant and the deceased, due to which the
appellant committed murder.
7. The only eye witness to the incident is PW2 and on
the basis of the information given by PW2 to PW1, PW1
4 KS, J & JAK, J
lodged a complaint which is Ex.P1 and the name of PW2 is
not reflected in the complaint which raises any amount of
doubt regarding PW2 being an eye witness to the incident.
As already discussed, PW1 has not stated in the complaint
as to who informed him about the incident.
8. PW7, who is the investigating officer, arrested the
appellant on 03.05.2012. According to PW7, the appellant
lead PW7 to Padmavathi Nagar Colony, where the appellant
produced kurfi (MO.1). Both PWs.1 and 2 did not state that
the appellant was holding any kurfi i.e., MO.1, when they
allegedly saw appellant at the scene. PW1 gave an
improved version during trial stating that he found the
appellant at the store room and when he admonished him,
the appellant ran away. The said version of admonishing
the appellant and finding him at the store was also not
mentioned in the complaint/Ex.P1.
9. Though MO1 was allegedly seized at the instance of
the appellant, the independent witnesses of the alleged
seizure were not examined before the trial Court.
Apparently, MO1 was planted. It is highly improbable that
having committed the murder of the deceased, the
appellant would have carried MO.1 which is used for
cooking to his home.
5 KS, J & JAK, J
10. In view of the above discussion, the evidence of sole
eyewitness of PW2, whose name is not mentioned in Ex.P1,
cannot be relied on to convict the appellant. Both PW1 and
PW2 have given a totally different story during trial, which
is contrary to the complaint. There are no other
circumstances adduced by the prosecution during trial to
make out any case against the appellant. Accordingly,
benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant.
11. Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and
sentence imposed against the appellant in S.C.No.573 of
2013 on the file of III Aditional District and Sessions Judge,
Ranga Reddy District, is hereby set aside. Since it is
informed that the appellant is in jail, he shall be released
forthwith from prison, if not required in any other case.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
___________________
J. ANIL KUMAR, J
Date: 12.11.2024
Kgk/Krr
