Telangana High Court
Dasari Prem Kumar, Karimnagar Dt., vs State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 21 November, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.510 and 430 of 2015 and 338 OF 2018
Crl.A.No.510 of 2015
Between:
1. Neelapu Ravi Babu
2. Neelapu Vamshi Krishna
3. Dhanala Shekar ...Appellants/A2, A3 & A5
And
The State of Telangana ... Respondent/complainant
Crl.A.No.430 of 2018
Between:
Dasari Prem Kumar ...Appellant/A7
And
The State of Telangana ... Respondent/complainant
Crl.A.No.338 of 2018
Between:
T.K.Srinu @ Thorrikonda Sinivas ...Appellant/A6
And
The State of Telangana ... Respondent/complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 21.11.2024
Submitted for approval.
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
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
__________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
3
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.510 and 430 of 2015 and 338 OF 2018
% Dated 21.11.2024
Crl.A.No.510 of 2015
Between:
#1. Neelapu Ravi Babu
2. Neelapu Vamshi Krishna
3. Dhanala Shekar ...Appellants/A2, A3 & A5
And
$ The State of Telangana ... Respondent/complainant
Crl.A.No.430 of 2018
Between:
# Dasari Prem Kumar ...Appellant/A7
And
$ The State of Telangana ... Respondent/complainant
Crl.A.No.338 of 2018
Between:
# T.K.Srinu @ Thorrikonda Sinivas ...Appellant/A6
And
$ The State of Telangana ... Respondent/complainant
4
! Counsel for the Appellants
In Crl.A.No.510/2015 & 338/2018 : Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned
Senior Counsel
In Crl.A.No.430/2015 : Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy.
^ Counsel for the Respondents : Sri D.Arun Kumar,
Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
2011 Cri LJ 2640 (SC)
2
2013 Cri L.J 1248 (SC)
3
(2023) 5 SCC 504
5
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.510 and 430 of 2015 and 338 OF 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER)
Crl.A.No.510 of 2015 is filed by the appellants/A2, A3 and
A5 and Crl.A.No.430 of 2015 is filed by the appellant/A7 aggrieved
by the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.112 of 2013,
dated 10.04.2015 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions
Judge at Godavarikhani.
2. Crl.A.No.338 of 2018 is filed by the appellant/A6 aggrieved
by the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.449 of 2014,
dated 03.07.217. Against A6, case was split up from other
accused vide S.C.No.112/2013 and tried as S.C.No.449 of 2014.
3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
respondent State and learned Senior Counsel Sri C.Damodar
Reddy, appearing for Sri C.Ruthwik Reddy, and Sri P.Prabhakar
Reddy for appellants in all the three appeals.
4. The incident of murder happened on 06.11.2010. The
prosecution case is that nearly one week prior to the incident, A1
misbehaved with PW.5 who is sister of PW.1. PW.1 was away on
lorry duty. PW.1 returned on 05.11.2010 and PW.5 informed him
about A1's obscene conduct. On the same day i.e. on 05.11.2010,
PW.1 called A1 to the play ground near Shivalayam by sending
information through the deceased namely Sathish and scolded A1
for his behavior. PW.1 along with PWs.2 and 3, allegedly beat A1.
Feeling humiliated, A1 went to A2's house, where A2 and A3 were
present and allegedly urged A2 and A3 to kill Sathish and others.
A2 purportedly agreed to kill Sathish with the assistance of A3 to
A7. On 06.11.2010 in the evening hours, A1 to A7 gathered at the
playground near Shivalayam, PH Colony, where A1 reportedly gave
A2 to A4 a knife and two iron rods with instructions to kill Sathish
and his friends. A1 allegedly remained at the playground while A2
to A7 left to execute the plan. On the same day i.e. on 06.11.2010
at 9:10 p.m., the deceased, PWs.1 to 4 and others were drinking at
a wine shop near the bus stand joined by A7. Thereafter, A7 took
them to a nearby graveyard under the pretext of having a
discussion. At the graveyard, A2 and A3 allegedly attacked the
deceased with a butcher knife and an iron rod, inflicting severe
head injuries. PW.2 attempted to intervene but was reportedly
attacked by A3, who caused him head injury with an iron rod. A5
along with A6 and A7 allegedly threatened PWs.1 to 4 and LW.4,
not to interfere. A2 then stabbed the deceased in the chest and A3
further beat the deceased with the iron rod, resulting in Sathish's
death at the scene. PWs.1 to 4 and another fled in fear and PW.1
filed report with the police on the same night.
5. According to prosecution case, it was alleged that A2, A4 and
A5 hid a knife, motorcycle bumper rod, and iron rod in bushes
near the church, while A3, A6 and A7 fled towards IB Colony,
Godavarikhani. Around 9:45 p.m., A2 to A7 returned to A1 and
informed him of their execution of plan. Thereafter, A2 went home,
changed his shirt, and joined others. A1, accompanied by A2 to
A7, allegedly visited his friend-PW.8's Kirana shop to request
money, threatening PW.8 when he refused. Later, they allegedly
went to the Godavari River, where A2 disposed of his blood-
stained shirt, before travelling to Karimnagar via Mancherial by
lorry. On 16.11.2010 Police Inspector raided A2's residence and
arrested A1 to A7.
6. Briefly, the background of the case is that Accused Nos.1 to
6, the deceased, PWs.1 to 4 and LW.4 are close friends and belong
to the same group. Accused Nos.1 to 3, along with PWs.1 and 2
and the deceased were implicated in a double murder case vide
Crime No.13/2010 registered under Sections 148, 448 and 302
read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code at Karimnagar II Town
Police Station. Accused Nos.1 to 3, PWs.1 and 2, the deceased,
PW.3 and LW.4 are involved in Crime No.4/2010, registered under
Sections 148, 365 and 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code
at GDK-I town police station. Rowdy sheets are maintained in the
concerned Police Station against A1, A2, A3, the deceased, PW.1
and PW.2 due to their criminal background.
7. The learned Sessions Judge having considered the evidence
on record, mainly placing reliance on the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3
and 4 who are all eye-witnesses convicted the appellants. The
motive for murder which is alleged indecent behavior of A1 with
PW.5, was spoken to by PW.5. Conviction was recorded on the
basis of eye-witness account.
8. PW.1 stated that he is one of the eye-witnesses and the
complainant who filed Ex.P1-complaint. A1 misbehaved with his
sister PW.5. On 05.10.2010, he along with the deceased, PWs.2
and 3 confronted A1 and hit him. He also stated that the following
day, he along with PWs.2 to 4, the deceased and LW.4 were
drinking when A7 approached them and led them to the
graveyard. PW.1 further described how A2 and A3 inflicted
injuries on the deceased using a knife and iron rod after A7 took
them towards the graveyard after consuming liquor. He also stated
that A3 struck PW.2 with an iron rod. Additionally, A4 to A7 who
had been hiding, emerged and threatened them to prevent any
interference. He identified M.Os.1 to 6.
9. PW.2 stated that he is an eye-witness to the incident and
testified about A2 and A3 assaulting the deceased with a knife and
an iron rod. He also stated that when he tried to rescue the
deceased, A3 struck him on the head with an iron rod. He further
stated about the presence of A4 to A7 at the scene where A2 and
A3 attacked the deceased and identified M.Os.1 to 6.
10. PW.3 is the driver of the lorry, and PW.1 is the cleaner. PW.3
gave evidence stating that the deceased had reprimanded A1 for
his behavior towards PW.1's sister, in his presence and also PWs.1
and 2. He also narrated how A2 and A3 beat the deceased with a
knife and an iron rod and how the other accused threatened them
to prevent any interference. He further stated that A3 struck PW.2
on the head when he tried to intervene. He identified M.Os.1 to 6.
11. PW.4 stated that he is also an eye-witness to the incident
and gave evidence stating about A2 and A3 assaulting the
deceased with a knife and iron rod. He also stated about A3
hitting PW.2, and the other accused threatening them. He
identified M.Os. 1 to 6.
12. The eye-witnesses have spoken to regarding A2 and A3
inflicting injuries on the deceased while A5 to A7 threatened
PWs.1 to 4.
13. PWs.1, 2 and 3 stated that A5 was holding an iron rod in his
hand when A2 and A3 attacked the deceased. Though, A2 and A3
inflicted injuries on the deceased, however, the Court convicted
A5, A6 and A7 also with the aid of Section 148 of the Indian Penal
Code for forming into an unlawful assembly and committing
murder with a common object.
14. The incident as narrated by the witnesses is that A7
consumed beer with PWs.1 to 3 and others and then when all of
them went towards statue of Sripada Rao, A2 to A6 were waiting
there. A2 gave a blow with knife on the head of deceased Sathish
questioning as to why A1 was beaten on the other day, then A3
beat the deceased with iron rod. A4 to A7 who were hiding near
the burial ground came out and threatened PWs.1 to 4.
15. According to PW.1, when the attack by A2 and A3 had taken
place, A4 to A7 were not present at the scene and they came out
from the burial ground where they were hiding and threatened
PWs.1 to 4. PW.1's evidence is doubtful about A4 to A7 hiding in
the burial ground when A7 went along with PWs.1 to 4 and
deceased, the question of A4 to A7 hiding in the burial ground
does not arise. PW.2 stated that when they went near the statue of
Sripada Rao, A2 to A6 were waiting with knives in their hands
which is contrary to the evidence of PW.1, regarding the presence
of A4 to A7 when attack had taken place. PW.3 stated that when
they went near the scene, they saw A2 to A6. The evidence of PW.3
is contrary to the evidence of PW.1. PW.4 stated that after the
attack by A2 and A3, A4 to A6 came to the scene, threatened
PWs.1 to 4 and then all of them ran away.
16. There is any amount of discrepancy regarding the presence
of A4 to A7 as evident from the versions of PWs.1 to 4, at the
scene when the deceased was attacked by A2 and A3. The learned
Sessions Judge gave benefit of doubt to A4, though his role is the
same as that of A5 to A7, according to the witnesses. Further, the
learned Sessions Judge found that seizure of iron rod at the
instance of A4 is of no avail and further A4 showing the place
where the weapons were concealed will not make out any offence
against A4.
17. To convict an accused with the aid of Section 148 of the
Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove that the accused
were members of unlawful assembly who have assembled with a
common object. The Court should give clear finding regarding the
nature of common object, that the object was unlawful. Merely
stating that they were armed with iron rods or weapons will not
suffice to prove common object.
18. The Honourable Supreme Court in Kuldip Yadav v. State
of Bihar 1 held that when the accused is convicted to the aid of
Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code the Court must give clear
finding regarding the nature of common object and in the absence
of such finding the other accused against whom no overt acts are
attributed cannot be convicted.
19. In Raju v. State of Rajasthan 2 where three out of six
accused persons were armed with fire-arms, but no fire arm was
used and no injury was caused, it was held that common object of
the unlawful assembly was not to cause the death of the deceased
and only the persons who have attacked were convicted.
20. Since the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 who are the eye-witnesses
is contradictory, regarding the specific role played by A4 to A7 and
according to PWs.1 and 3, A4 to A7 reached the spot after A2 and
A3 assaulted, it cannot be said that A4 to A7 were part of the
2011 Cri LJ 2640 (SC)
2013 Cri L.J 1248 (SC)
unlawful assembly who gathered with the common object for
committing the murder of the deceased Sathish.
21. A5, A6 and A7 also stand on the same footing as A4 and
benefit of doubt extended to A4 by the Sessions Court has to be
extended to A5, A6 and A7. As seen from the evidence of witnesses
and Ex.P5-scene of offence panchanama, attack took place near
Sripada statue which is about 100 yards from the traffic police
station. However, the complaint was lodged with a delay of 3
hours. False implication of A4 to A7 cannot be ruled out.
22. Insofar as A2 is concerned, he has inflicted injuries on the
deceased resulting in his death along with A3. The evidence of
PWs.1 to 4 is consistent about the attack on the deceased by A2
and A3. A2 and A3's conviction is confirmed.
23. Insofar as A3 is concerned, the Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Godavarikhani, addressed a letter dated
16.02.2024 to the Assistant Registrar, High Court for the State of
Telangana, enclosing his findings dated 31.01.2024, whereby
having conducted enquiry, orders were passed determining the
date of birth of Accused No.3 as 26.02.1995 and as on the date of
incident he was aged 15 years, 8 months and 11 days, which is
less than 16 years and is a minor. Accordingly, as per Section 18
of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000, whatever the nature of crime, whether serious or petty,
committed by a child who is below 16 years, the maximum
punishment cannot exceed 3 years. As on date, his age is around
29 years, as such there is no necessity for sending him to any
child care institution or facility. Accordingly, appeal insofar as A3
is concerned is closed, with the said observation, relying on the
Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Karan v. State of
M.P. 3
24. In view of the aforesaid findings, Crl.A.Nos.430/2015 and
338/2018 are allowed.
25. Crl.A.No.510 of 2015 is partly allowed.
26. The appellant/A7 in Crl.A.No.430/2015, the appellant/A6 in
Crl.A.No.338/2018 and the appellant No.3/A5 in
Crl.A.No.510/2015 are acquitted.
27. The conviction and sentence passed against Accused Nos.5
and 7 in S.C.No.112 of 2013 is set aside.
28. The conviction and sentence passed against A6 in
S.C.No.449 of 2014, is set aside.
(2023) 5 SCC 504
29. The conviction and sentence passed against Accused Nos.2
and 3 in SC.No.112 of 2013 is confirmed and the trial Court is
directed to cause appearance of Accused No.2 and send him to
prison to serve out the remaining part of sentence.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
____________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date: 21.11.2024
Note: L.R.copy to be marked.
tk
