Telangana High Court
Raghu Prabhu vs State Of Telangana on 8 April, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.896 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
The appellant filed the present criminal appeal,
aggrieved by the life imprisonment imposed against him on
09.11.2017, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of
IPC, vide judgment dated 07.11.2017 in SC No.296 of 2015 by
the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Godavarikhani.
2. Heard Mrs.Mukkera Sahithi Sri Kavya, learned counsel
or the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
3. The complaint/Ex.P1 was filed on 14.01.2015 with the
PS, Kamanpur, by PW3. In the said complaint, it was
mentioned that the appellant, viz. Raghu Prabhu, and several
others were working in the brick making unit owned by PW6.
The deceased was found dead in his house. PW1 is the
paternal aunt of the deceased. According to PW1, she stated
Page 2
that the deceased, his wife, and the sister-in-law of the
appellant were staying in a separate hut. The appellant
quarrelled with Parashuram Boye (deceased) in view of his
love affair with the appellant's sister-in-law. The deceased
was sleeping in the open area in front of the hut. At about
4-00 AM, on the next day, the deceased was found dead.
Further, his nose was bleeding, and blood was oozing out of
his mouth and ears.
4. PW2 is the wife of PW1. PW3 is the mother of the
deceased. PW4 is the daughter of PW3. All the witnesses
have stated that the dead body was found, and they
suspected that it was the appellant who committed the
murder of the deceased.
5. PW7 is the panch witness for Ex.P3/scene of
panchanama, under which MO.1/blood-stained stone was
seized. PW8 is the inquest panch. PW9 is the postmortem
doctor. PW10 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector who received the
complaint.
Page 3
6. PW11 is the investigating officer, who, on the basis of
the complaint filed by PW3, interrogated the appellant, and on
the basis of his confession, a charge-sheet was laid.
7. The entire case of the prosecution rests on the suspicion
expressed by PWs.1 to 4. None of the witnesses have seen the
appellant either at the scene of offence or quarrelling with the
deceased, either on the previous night or having any conflict
with the deceased prior to the deceased being found dead.
8. Except the suspicion expressed by PWs.1 to 4, there is
absolutely no evidence whatsoever to connect the appellant
with the death of the deceased. Though the witnesses spoke
about the relationship between the deceased and the
appellant's sister-in-law, however, the said allegation is based
on suspicion. Even assuming that the prosecution was able to
prove that there was a relationship between the deceased and
the appellant's sister-in-law, it will not absolve the
prosecution from proving its case against the appellant
beyond all reasonable doubt.
Page 4
9. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident, and there are
no witnesses who have last seen the deceased in the company
of the appellant.
10. The suspicion, however strong, cannot be taken as legal
proof. There is absolutely no proof to remotely connect the
appellant with the murder of the deceased. Accordingly, the
appeal stands allowed.
11. In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed, setting
aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the
appellant, vide judgment in SC No.296 of 2015 by the learned
VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Godavarikhani.
Bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
____________________
EV VENUGOPAL, J
Date :08.04.2025
Abb.
