Telangana High Court

The State Of A.P.,Rep.By P.P., ... vs Allipur Prashanth Kumar , ... on 21 November, 2024

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                               AND
     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.836 OF 2016

JUDGMENT:

(per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER)

The State filed the appeal aggrieved by the acquittal of

respondents/accused for the offences under Sections 363, 365,

341, 302, 302 r/w.34, 201 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor

and learned counsel for the accused.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 30.05.2002,

PW.1 gave complaint stating that on 25.05.2002, one Prasanth-A1,

resident of Moosarambagh, came to their house who was well-

known to her husband, has taken him on the pretext of some work

at about 11.00 a.m. from their house in their Maruthi Van bearing

No.AP 11F 2785. The father of A1 namely Christopher came to her

house at about 9.00 a.m. on last Sunday and told her that her

husband left to Vikarabad with some unknown persons in Tata

Sumo. But, her husband did not return home from 25.05.2002 till

that day i.e. 30.05.2002 and they waited for him. She was

suspecting A1 and his father of kidnapping her husband

because their Maruthi Van is with Prasanth and she was afraid for

his life. On that, the Sub-Inspector of Police-LW.23 S.Sivaraj,

registered a case in Crime No.110/2022 under Sections 363, 365 of

the Indian Penal Code on 30.05.2002 at 12.30 p.m. and entrusted

the case file to Sub-Inspector of Police PW.12-C.Anjaiah for

investigation. During the course of investigation, PW.12-C.Anjaiah,

has examined the witnesses PW1/Smt.Param Jyothi,

PW.3/Kum.Veronica, PW.2/J.S.Yohan, B.S.David and

PW.4/Murali Krishna and recorded their statements.

4. On credible information, on 02.06.2002, PW.15 along with

his staff while doing frisking operation at Amberpet Bridge,

Moosarambagh, to track down the red colour Maruthi Van bearing

No.AP 11F 2785 belonging to G.S.Jeevan Kumar, intercepted the

said Maruthi van at around 7.50 a.m. which was coming from

Amberpet bridge side towards Moosarambagh and found A1 to A3

in the car. Car was stopped, A1 to A3 arrested and the confessional

statements of A1 to A3, were recorded in the presence of mediators

separately, who admitted their guilt. In pursuance of their

confession, red colour Maruthi van bearing No.AP 11F 2785 was

seized along with sale documents including the letter addressed to

finance company on Rs.10/- stamp paper written in favour of A1

from the possession of A1. A1 and A2 led the police party and

panchas to the place of dead body, located near Patancheruvu on

National Highway No.9 in the open land besides M/s.Rahul

Automobile godown near bushes where the dead body of

B.S.Jeevan Kumar was found in a decomposed state.

5. PW.15 the Inspector of Police, altered the section of law to

Sections 302, 363, 365, 341, 379, 201 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal

Code and took up further investigation. With the assistance of

Police and scientific officer of clues team of CCS, photographs and

videograph were taken. Inquest was conducted over the dead body

in the presence of one K.Nandakumar and PW.9/M.Moses. After

conducting post-mortem examination, the dead body was sent to

Osmania General Hospital under escort as the dead body was

highly decomposed and blood and skin were eaten away by stray

animals. The body was identified as body of B.S.Jeevan Kumar by

their relatives including the wife and daughter with the help of

clothes of the deceased which were seized at the time of inquest.

6. After conducting the inquest, along with the staff and

panchas, they proceeded to Government land located on the South

West direction of Kollur village at a distance of about 3 Kms. The

exact scene of offence near Neem tree shown by A1 to A3 consisted

of blood stains with a diameter of 3 to 3 ½ feet. Further the

accused led them to a distance of 80 yards from the place of

murder and A2 dug out earth, taking out a sword type knife in the

presence of panchas. The same was seized in their presence under

cover of panchanama and taken photographs. The blood stained

earth and control earth were collected along with the said knife

under cover of seizure report in the presence of above panchas. In

pursuance of the confession of A1 to A3, A4 was also arrested and

brought to the police station.

7. A requisition for conducting spot post-mortem examination

was rejected by the Medical Officers of Sanga Reddy as it was late

for conducting spot post-mortem examination. With the permission

of the Resident Medical Officer, the decomposed dead body of the

deceased Jeevan Kumar was deposited in Osmania Medical College

Mortuary, Hyderabad, for conducting post-mortem examination.

On 02.06.2002, Dr.K.Janardhan conducted autopsy over the dead

body of the deceased and issued post-mortem report stating that

the death of the deceased was due to cut throat injury associated

with the injury on head.

8. A1 to A4 were sent for judicial remand on 02.06.2002. The

seized car bearing No.AP 11F 2785 was deposited in the Court.

PW.15 forwarded the material objects to the Director, FSL,

Hyderabad, through letter of advise for analysis and report. The

Assistant Director of Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory,

Hyderabad after examination gave analysis report.

9. In view of the evidence collected, it is the case of the

prosecution that A1 who is Lab Technician Student, resident of

Moosarambagh, Hyderabad, hatched a plan along with A2 to A4

i.e., maternal uncle, father and another maternal uncle of A1,

respectively, to take away the Maruthi Van bearing No.AP 11F 2785

of the deceased who was retired as A.A.O., in A.P.Vaidya Vidhan

Parishad, Hyderabad, resident of Malakpet, Hyderabad. A1

abducted the deceased by deceitful means on the pretext of visiting

Kollur, where some persons who were in need of Lab Technician

jobs, wanted visas. A1 lured the deceased who was a mediator for

securing Government jobs and Visas to the needy. Accused took

him to Kollur in his Maruthi Omni Van bearing No.AP 11F 2785

driven by the deceased himself from the house of the deceased in

the presence of PW.1 and PW.3. After reaching Kollur, A2 joined

them and A1 took the deceased to Jenwarda and made him to

speak to A3. Thereupon in furtherance of common intention of A1

to A4, A1 and A2 took the deceased to Government Land near

Kollur village and A2 slit the throat of the deceased, after taking

signature on Rs.10/- blank bond paper and sale documents viz.,

Revenue stamped receipt, Form No.29, another form No.29, form

No.30 and a letter addressed to Motor Finance Company and took

the Maruthi Omni Van. Later both A1 and A2 took the deceased

dead body in the same van driven by A1 and abandoned near

M/s.Rahul Automobiles Godown, Patancheruvu, Medak District, by

removing clothes from the person and thrown the same nearby.

They hit the head of the deceased with a granite stone and

disfigured it and thereby concealed the evidence. A1 and A2 in

order to execute their plan to own the van, made A3 to say that A4

gave Rs.50,000/- to A1 to buy the van and A1 would show that he

purchased the Maruthi van legally on payment of Rs.45,000/-

under Revenue stamp and got sale papers with deceased

signatures. A3 and A4 also conceded to the request of A1 to whom

A2 cooperated in doing away the deceased after making him to talk

to daughter of deceased on telephone that he sold the van for

Rs.45,000/- to A1 and going to Vikarabad helped A1 in executing

the murder of the deceased. A1 to A4 committed the offence

punishable under Sections 302, 341, 363, 365, 379 and 201

r/w.Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

10. The learned Special Judge examined PWs.1 to 15 and got

marked Exs.P1 to P21. M.Os.1 to 5 were also brought on record.

11. The learned Sessions Judge found that the case is one of

circumstantial evidence and the prosecution could not make out

the case against the accused for the following reasons.

i) The version about the apprehension of Accused Nos.1 to 3 in the

alleged stolen vehicle on 02.06.2002 cannot be believed in the

background of the admission of PW.1 that she has seen the

Maruthi Van on 29th and 30th of May, 2002 in the Police Station.

ii) The identification of the dead body as shown by A1 to A3 is

contrary to the evidence of Panchas PWs.11, 12, 13 and PW.15.

iii) The DNA of the dead body was not taken to identify that it

belongs to the deceased who is the husband of PW.1.

12. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the dead

body was not identified till it was shown by A1 to A3. The said

circumstance of the accused having exclusive knowledge of the

dead body can solely form basis to convict the appellants.

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

(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536

reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the 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 Pradesh 2 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.

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

(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450

3. 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 genesis of the prosecution case is that the appellants

were arrested on 02.06.2002 while going on the Maruthi Van which

was subjected to theft. The very case of the prosecution regarding

identifying the accused and their arrest on 02.06.2002 becomes

doubtful since the vehicle was lying in the Police Station since

29.05.2002 according to PW.1. Further PW.1 stated that when she

asked the Police to give back the van, the Police advised her to

approach the Court. Apparently, the entire version of the

prosecution regarding A1 to A3 travelling in the van on 02.06.2002

was concocted.

16. The learned Sessions Judge has elaborately discussed the

contradictions in respect of the alleged confessions that were made