Telangana High Court
Thallapalli Rakesh Goud , Laxman , ... vs The State Of Telangana on 8 April, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.244 & 489 OF 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. Crl.A.No.244 of 2021 is preferred by the appellant/A-1
and Crl.A.No.489 of 2021 is preferred by the appellant/A-2,
questioning their conviction for the offences under Sections 302
and 379 of IPC, pending on the file of II Additional District &
Sessions Judge (FTC), Adilabad at Mancherial.
2. Since both the Appeals arise out of the judgment in
S.C.No.113 of 2019, both are heard together and disposed of by
way of this common judgment.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants/A-1
and A-2 and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State.
4. The case of the prosecution is that A-1 and A-2 are
friends. The deceased, who is the son of P.W.1, owned an auto.
He gave the said auto to P.W.4 on rent.
5. On 17.06.2018, at about 10 a.m., A-1, A-2, and the
deceased went to the wine shop of P.W.6. There, they sat in the
permit room and left the room. Thereafter, all three of them
went to the house of P.W.5. According to P.W.5, both the
appellants and the deceased stayed in his room and consumed
liquor. There, they entered into a quarrel around 12:30 p.m. on
the said day. P.W.5 admonished them, as such, all three of
them left his room.
6. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased, who went to the police
station in the night of 18.06.2018 at 0015 hours, and lodged a
telugu written complaint. In the complaint, P.W.1 narrated
that his son had gone out in the morning around 9 a.m. on
17.06.2018. Around 1:00 p.m., when his daughter called the
deceased, he informed that he was partying with his friends at
the ACC Quarry and would return home after the party. Again,
at 2:00 p.m., the deceased was contacted, however, some other
person answered the call and threatened that the deceased
would be killed. Then, P.W.1 and others went in search of the
deceased but could not trace him. Around 6 p.m., another
phone call was made to the cell phone of the deceased, and a
person picked up and stated that auto collection money had to
be given to Shiva. When contacted again, a bank account
bearing No.62454544613 was provided, and the caller
demanded that money be deposited in the said account. On
account of the said events that transpired on 17.06.2018, a
complaint was filed with the police, seeking assistance of the
police to trace the whereabouts of the deceased.
7. The dead body of the deceased was found on the outskirts
of the village on 18.06.2018. The dead body was identified as
that of the son of P.W.1. The police conducted the scene of
offence panchnama, and the body was sent for post mortem
examination. P.W.11 conducted autopsy of the dead body and
found the following injuries:
1. Crushed head injury (left side, brain exposed)
(ante-mortem)
2. Contusion over the left upper chest (ante-mortem).
3. Blisters all over the body present (post-mortem).
8. According to P.W.11, the age of injuries was 24 hours
prior to the postmortem examination. However, according to
postmortem examination report/Ex.P.9, the approximate time
of death was 36 to 38 hours prior to the post mortem
conducted on 19.06.2018 at 12 noon.
9. The Investigating Officer, on the basis of the evidence
collected, i.e., the CCTV footage at the wine shop and the
account bearing No.62454544613 belonging to A-2,
apprehended the appellants on 25.06.2018. Upon
interrogation, the accused confessed to the crime, and the
wearing apparel of the accused at the time of incident were also
seized. The accused also pointed out the place where the
murder of the deceased was committed.
10. Both the accused were tried for the offence under Section
302 of IPC.
11. Learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the
circumstantial evidence, found favour with the prosecution case
and convicted the appellants.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would
submit that the case is one of circumstantial evidence and the
prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances beyond
reasonable doubt. The learned counsel raised the following
grounds:
1. The postmortem Doctor stated that the death occurred
24 hours prior to the incident. The postmortem was
conducted on 19.06.2018 at 12 noon. If the opinion of
the postmortem Doctor is considered, the death must
have occurred on 18.06.2018 around 12 noon. The
question of convicting the appellants does not arise, as
the appellants were last seen with the deceased on
17.06.2018 around 12:30 p.m., by P.W.5 in his room,
which is 24 hours prior to the death. The 'last seen'
theory cannot be consistent.
2. The account number stated in the complaint though
belonging to A-2, would be known to several persons. It
cannot be said conclusively that it was the appellants
who had given the account number.
3. There is a lot of time gap between the last seen theory
and actual time of death.
13. In support of her contentions, she relied on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jabir and Others vs. State of
Uttarakhand 1. The relevant paragraphs read as under:
25. A basic principle of criminal jurisprudence is that in
circumstantial evidence cases, the prosecution is obliged to
prove each circumstance, beyond reasonable doubt, as well
the as the links between all circumstances; such
circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so
complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that
within all human probability, the crime was committed by
the accused and none else; further, the facts so proved
should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused.
The circumstantial evidence, in order to sustain conviction,
must be complete and incapable of explanation of any
other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused, and
such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt
of the accused but should be inconsistent with his
innocence.5 These were so stated in Sarad Birdichand
2023 SCC online SC 32
Sarda (supra) where the court, after quoting from
Hanumant, observed that:
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the
following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against
an Accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is
to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be'
established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal
distinction between 'may be proved' and "must be or
should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji
Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC
793 where the following observations were made: [SCC
para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri.) p. 1047] Certainly, it is a
primary principle that the Accused must be and not merely
may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental
distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides
vague conjectures from sure conclusions.
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the Accused, that is to say,
they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
except that the Accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances
should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they
should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to
be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of 5 Ibid 3 the
Accused and must show that in all human probability the
act must have been done by the Accused."
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so,
constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on
circumstantial evidence."
28. This court is also of the opinion that apart from the
above serious infirmities, there is no evidence, oral or any
material object, which connects the appellant-accused with
the crime. It has been repeatedly emphasized by this court,
that the "last seen" doctrine has limited application, where
the time lag between the time the deceased was seen last
with the accused, and the time of murder, is narrow;
furthermore, the court should not convict an accused only
on the basis of the "last seen" circumstance. In Jaswant
Gir vs. State of Punjab, 6 this court explained the
soundness of such a rule:
"Without probing further into the correctness of the "last-
seen" version emanating from P.W. 14's evidence, even
assuming that the deceased did accompany the accused in
their vehicle, this circumstance by itself does not lead to
the irresistible conclusion that the Appellant and his
companion had killed him and thrown the dead body in the
culvert. It cannot be presumed that the Appellant and his
companions were responsible for the murder, though grave
suspicion arises against the accused. There is considerable
time-gap between the deceased boarding the vehicle of the
Appellant and the time when P.W. 11 found the dead body.
In the absence of any other links in the chain of
circumstantial evidence it is not possible to convict the
Appellant solely on the basis of the "last-seen" evidence,
even if the version of P.W. 14 in this regard is believed. In
view of this, the evidence of P.W. 9 as regards the alleged
confession made to him by the Appellant assumes
importance."
14. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits
that the circumstances narrated by the prosecution clearly
indicate that the deceased was in the company of A-1 and A-2,
and it is for the appellants to explain under what
circumstances the deceased died.
15. The postmortem was conducted by P.W.11, who stated
that the death occurred 24 hours prior to the postmortem
examination. The postmortem examination was on 19.06.2018,
at 12 noon. However, as seen from the postmortem report, the
death occurred 36 to 38 hours prior to the postmortem
examination, which would place the time of death around
midnight on 17.06.2018. It appears that there was a typo
during the course of the postmortem Doctor's examination in
the Court.
16. The sequence of the events narrated are as follows:-
1. Both the appellants and the deceased were found at
the wine shop of P.W.6, and their presence was recorded
in the CCTV footage.
2. All three of them went to the room of P.W.5 where they
consumed alcohol. A quarrel ensued between them, and
thereafter, they left the room at 12:30 p.m. on
17.06.2018.
3. Around 1:00 p.m., when a call was made, the
deceased informed his sister that they were partying and
he would return home after partying.
4. On the same day, around 2:00 p.m., when a phone
call was made, some other person picked up the phone
and threatened that the deceased would be killed.
5. Around 6 p.m. on the said day, another person picked
up the call and asked for money to be deposited into the
account of A-2.
6. The dead body was found on the outskirts of the
village, and the death was homicidal.
7. The postmortem was conducted on 19.06.2018 at 12
noon, and the death is estimated to have occurred
around midnight on 17.06.2018.
8. The cell phone of the deceased was recovered from the
possession of A-2.
17. As seen from the postmortem examination, the stomach of
the deceased contained undigested food particles mixed with
alcohol. Under normal circumstances, when the stomach
contains undigested food, death would have occurred
approximately within two hours of consumption of food.
According to the prosecution case, A-1, A-2 and the deceased
were consuming liquor from 10 a.m. onwards in the morning.
If the death occurred around midnight, there is no mention by
any of the witnesses that the deceased consumed food later in
the day. However, in the background of the present case, it can
be inferred that the food must have been consumed two hours
prior to the death, but the exact time of death could not be
established by the prosecution. The appellants were last seen
in the company of the deceased around 12:30 p.m. on
17.06.2018. Thereafter, in the evening around 6 p.m., the
account number of A-2 was given when a phone call was made
to the cell phone of the deceased.
18. The events that transpired on the date of the incident
reflect that both the appellants and the deceased were
consuming alcohol throughout the day. As seen from the
injuries found on the dead body, the death was as a result of
crushed injury on the head. In the present circumstances, a
drunken brawl cannot be ruled out. Both the appellants and
the deceased were drunk and the deceased was killed with a
blunt force injury to the head. There are neither stab injuries
on the body nor any other injuries on the body to infer that the
deceased was attacked with a weapon. In the said
circumstances, we deem it appropriate to convert the conviction
of the appellants from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304-II of
IPC.
19. Accordingly, the appellants are convicted under Section
304-II of IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years of
imprisonment.
20. In the result, the Criminal Appeals are partly allowed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
_____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 08.04.2025
dv
