Telangana High Court

Mogili Kanakamma, Karimnagar Dt., vs Bandari Venkati, Karimnagar And Anr, ... on 5 September, 2024

      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                      AND
     THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR

           CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1274 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

This criminal appeal is filed by appellant/de-facto

complainant aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.07.2014 in

S.C.No.508 of 2013, on the file of III Additional Sessions

Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the respondents/accused Nos.1

to 3 were acquitted for the offence under Sections 302 and

201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and

respondent/accused No.4 was acquitted for the offence under

Sections 302 and 201 read with 109 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/de-facto

complainant, learned counsel for respondents/accused Nos.1

to 4 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent

Nos.5 and 6.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that accused No.1

is co-brother and accused No.2 is relative of deceased.

Accused No.3 is close friend of accused No.2 and accused

No.4 is wife of the deceased. Three years prior to the death of

deceased, he went to Saudi Arabia and came back to India

after 3 years. In the said three years, it is alleged that

accused No.1 and accused No.4 developed illegal intimacy

with each other. Two months prior to his death, the deceased

returned back to India and suspected the character of

accused No.4 and he found that there was an illegal

relationship between accused Nos.1 and 4. The deceased has

threatened accused No.1 to kill him, as such, accused Nos.1

and 4 hatched a plan and sought help of accused Nos.2 and

3 to kill the deceased.

4. It is further case that on 29.04.2013, the deceased

along with some caste elders held a panchayath. On noticing

the said panchayath, accused No.1 informed accused Nos.2

and 3 over phone about the deceased and according to their

plan, A1 to A4 committed murder of the deceased near open

place situated at Markfed Office, Padmanagar, Karimnagar.

Later, they tied a stone to the leg of the deceased and packed

him in a gunny bag and threw body into the well.

5. PW1 (mother of the deceased) lodged a complaint before

the Police on 01.05.2013 and informed the Police that

deceased was missing. Based on the said complaint, PW17

registered the case vide Crime No.132 of 2013 and recorded

the statement of PW1. Subsequently, PW18 took up further

investigation of the case and on 07.05.2013, the dead body

was found, as such, PW18 altered the Section of Law from

man missing to Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. During the

course of investigation, the Police found that accused Nos.1

to 4 are complicit of causing the death of the deceased. After

completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against

accused Nos.1 to 4 before the trial Court.

6. Charges were framed against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for

offence under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of IPC and

for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 read with 109 of

IPC against accused No.4. During the course of trial, PW1

(mother of the deceased), PW2 (father of the deceased), PW3

(brother of the deceased) and other witnesses were examined.

Prosecution also marked Exs.P1 to P14. MO's1 to 8 were also

brought on record.

7. The learned Sessions Judge having completed the

examination of the witnesses concluded as follows:

a) The extra marital relationship between accused Nos.1

and 4 was not proved.

b) As per Ex.P1, only A1 was suspected and in fact,

even according to the witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 3, accused No.4

was searching for the deceased along with them.

c) None of the witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 3 have stated the

extra marital relationship of accused No.1.

d) PW1 admitted that the deceased and accused No.4

were living together after the deceased returned from Muscat

and there were no disputes between them.

e) Prior to the recovery of dead body, none of the

witnesses stated that they suspected accused No.4 in

involvement in any offence, much less the reason for missing

of the deceased.

f) The prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW10 to

prove that the deceased and accused No.2 were last seen

together. However, the said last seen was nearly 10 days

prior to the dead body being found and such evidence is of no

use.

g) Though PW10 was present during the inquest, he did

not state that he had seen the deceased and accused No.2

together on 29.04.2013.

h) PW9 who is the prosecution witness stated that

accused Nos.2 to 4 went to his house and informed about

killing of the deceased. However, PW9's evidence is doubtful,

since the version that accused Nos.1 to 4 went to him and

confessed about the commission of offence on 16.05.2013

cannot be believed.

i) The recovery of MOs.6 and 7 cannot be believed, since

they were recovered from an open place.

j) The circumstances projected by the prosecution did

not make out a complete chain pointing towards guilt of

accused.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would

submit that the case of the prosecution regarding accused

Nos.1 and 4 having illegal relationship between them was

proved by the prosecution which is evident from the extra

judicial confession of the accused to PW9. Further, one spade

and a stone were recovered at the instance of accused No.1.

Since the motive is very clear and coupled with the evidence

of PW10 that the accused No.2 was last seen with the

deceased, it can be inferred that it was the accused who

committed the murder of the deceased.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of respondent Nos.1 to 4/accused would submit that there is

nothing unreasonable which was stated in the judgment of

the Sessions Court.

10. In cases of acquittal, the interference by the appellate

Court can only be in compelling circumstances. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Babu v. State of Kerala 1 held as follows:

12. In State of Rajasthan v. Naresh @ Ram Naresh [(2009) 9 SCC 368], the Court again examined the earlier judgments of this Court and laid down that an "order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even if the court believes that there is some evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused."

13. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Banne alias Baijnath & Ors. [(2009) 4 SCC 271], this Court gave certain illustrative circumstances in which the Court would be justified in interfering with a judgment of acquittal by the High Court. The circumstances includes:

i) The High Court's decision is based on totally erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled legal position;

ii) The High Court's conclusions are contrary to evidence and documents on record;

iii) The entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal leading to grave miscarriage of justice;

Crl.A.No.104/09, dated 11.08.2010

iv) The High Court's judgment is manifestly unjust and unreasonable based on erroneous law and facts on the record of the case;

v) This Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the High Court;

vi) This Court would be extremely reluctant in interfering with a case when both the Sessions Court and the High Court have recorded an order of acquittal.

11. On the ground that there was an illegal relationship

between accused Nos.1 and 4 on the basis of suspicion or

assumption, the Court cannot form basis to infer that

accused Nos.1 and 4 have come together to commit murder

of the deceased with the help of A2 and A3. As found by the

learned Sessions Judge, the evidence of PW10 stating that

accused No.2 and deceased were last seen together is of no

use. Also the evidence of PW9 that accused Nos.1 and 4 had

confessed to him nearly 10 days after the dead body was

found that Accused Nos.1 to 4, committed the murder of the

deceased is also suspicious and apparently made up for the

purpose of the case. There is no reason why accused Nos.1