Telangana High Court
Mukkala Polaraju, Mancherial Dt And ... vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 10 April, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.510 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. The Appeal is filed by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and
2, aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.03.2017 in S.C.No.273
of 2011, on the file of III Additional District & Sessions Judge,
at Asifabad. The appellants were convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 341 and 302 r/w.34 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Arun
Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State.
3. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant. He lodged a complaint
on 22.08.2010 at 10:45 a.m., with the Police. According to
P.W.1, his brother was caught hold of by these appellants, A-3
and A-4. P.W.1 requested the accused to leave him. But the
accused took the deceased towards the house of P.W.5. There,
A-1 was holding a knife and threatened P.W.1 not to follow him.
All the accused caught hold of the deceased, and A-1 cut his
throat and ran away. When P.W.1 tried to rescue the deceased,
he was also attacked. After the attack, P.W.4, who was present
at the scene, took P.W.1 to the Police Station, where the
complaint was filed, which is Ex.P.1. Though P.W.3 tried to
catch hold of the accused, they ran away.
4. P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased. According to her, she
stated that at about 9 a.m., when she was going to the fields,
she saw the deceased being brought by the accused, and
deceased's hands were tied behind his back. There were
injuries on his face and other parts of the body. P.W.2
questioned as to why they were abusing her husband, and then
the accused asked her to go to the Police Station. Then P.W.2
went to the Police Station, which is 4 km from the village, and
brought the Police back to the village. By the time P.W.2 and
the Police reached the village, the dead body of the deceased
was found in a pool of blood. According to P.W.2, there were
land disputes between the accused's family and the deceased's
family, for which reason, the deceased was attacked.
5. P.W.3 is another eyewitness. He stated that, on the date
of the incident, he came to know that the accused were abusing
the deceased and they were quarreling with one another. Then,
P.W.3 interfered and asked them to settle the disputes before
the elders or the Police. The accused then warned P.W.3 not to
interfere in their family affairs and they went away. At that
time, the deceased was found with injuries on his chest and
face. The accused then tied the hands of the deceased and
brought him to the village. P.W.3 followed them, and
meanwhile, he met P.W.1. P.W.1 asked P.W.3 about the
quarrel and P.W.3 narrated the entire incident to him. Then
the relatives of the deceased came there, including P.Ws.1 and
2, and all of them went into the village where they saw A-1 cut
the throat of the deceased. Again, the accused took the
deceased to the nearby culvert and cut his throat. Though
P.W.1 tried to rescue the deceased, A-1 and A-5 threatened
P.W.1. P.W.2 took the police to the village.
6. P.W.4 is another eyewitness. According to him, he
observed A-1 hacking the deceased from a distance of 15
meters. P.W.1 and others came there and tried to rescue the
deceased; however, the deceased was hacked to death.
7. P.W.5 is another eyewitness, who stated that the
appellants/A-1 and A-2 and A-5 brought the deceased by tying
his hands, and there were injuries on the face, and mud on the
body of the deceased. Then P.W.5 requested the accused to let
off the deceased. The deceased informed P.W.5 that the
accused wanted to take him to the Police Station and requested
P.W.5 to accompany him. However, P.W.5 replied that he was
having some work at home and went away. Later, he came to
know that the deceased was killed by the appellants and A-5.
8. P.W.6 speaks about the death of the deceased and
mentions that there were differences between the families of the
deceased and the accused.
9. P.W.7 stated that on 22.08.2010, at about 8 a.m., when
he went to the field, he saw A-1 to A-3 catching hold of the
deceased and beating him. From the field, the deceased was
brought back to the village, where he was hacked near the
culvert of the village. The deceased was taken a distance by
A-1, and his throat was cut, with A-1 stating that the deceased
was still alive. According to P.W.7, P.W.4 admonished the
accused and went away.
10. P.W.8 is also another witness who stated about all the five
accused bringing the deceased into the village and beating him.
Immediately, P.W.8, who is the brother of the deceased,
informed his parents/P.W.1 and P.W.2. According to him, he
questioned the accused about beating the deceased and left to
the field, and thereafter he did not know what happened.
11. P.W.9 is another villager, who is the witness to the
inquest that was held on the dead body on 22.08.2010 at about
1:30 p.m.
12. P.W.10 is another independent witness, who speaks about
the differences between the accused and the deceased.
13. P.W.11 is the inquest panch, who stated about the
inquest being conducted, and P.W.12 is the witness to the
confession and seizure from the accused.
14. P.W.15 is the Inspector of Police, who took up the
investigation of the case. P.W.14 received the complaint from
P.W.1 on 22.08.2010 at 10:45 a.m., and dispatched the
complaint to the concerned Magistrate.
15. The complaint was filed on 22.08.2010 at 10:45 a.m.
According to P.W.14, the scene of offence was 4 kms. from the
Police Station and the Magistrate Court was at a distance of 12
kms. The complaint reached the concerned Magistrate Court
on the next day, i.e., on 23.08.2010 at 11:45 p.m., which is
with a delay of 37 hours.
16. As narrated above, the eye-witness account of P.Ws.1 to 6
reveals different versions regarding the incident and also about
the accused. P.W.14, though he received the complaint at
10:45 a.m., has not provided any reason for the delay of 37
hours in the complaint reaching the Court.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeevan and Another vs.
State of Kerala 1, was dealing with the case involving delay of
12 hours in filing the FIR. The delay in placing the FIR before
the Magistrate, coupled with unsatisfactory explanation given
by the police officer, was held to adversely affect the
prosecution's case.
18. In Suresh @ Subhash & Ors vs. State of Kerala 2, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the delay in the FIR reaching
the Magistrate was not properly explained by the Investigating
Officer. In Teja Singh and Ors vs. State of Rajasthan 3, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was a delay in sending
the FIR to the Magistrate. The explanation given was that the
delay occured due to holidays. The explanation was found to
be neither convincing nor acceptable. In Buta Singh vs. State
of Punjab 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case
where there was a delay in lodging the report and the FIR
reaching the Junior First Class Magistrate Court. In Thulia
2003 (3) SCC 355
2009(15) SCC 121
2001(3) SCC 147
1991 (2) SCC 612
Kali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu 5, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that the delay in lodging the report raises
considerable doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence of the
two witnesses. It points to an infirmity in their evidence and
renders it unsafe to base a conviction of the appellant upon
such evidence.
19. It is an admitted fact that there were disputes between the
accused's family and the complainant's family. Though P.W.2
stated that she had gone to the Police Station and brought the
Police to the village by 9 a.m., however, P.W.14 and P.W.15 did
not state anything about P.W.2 going to the Police Station and
bringing the Police to the village. Even according to P.W.1,
P.W.2 went to the Police Station at 9 a.m., and brought the
Police to the scene of offence where the dead body was lying.
The said evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and other witnesses is totally
contrary to the evidence of P.Ws.14 and 15. After receiving the
complaint, P.W.14 went to the scene and guarded the scene till
the arrival of the Inspector/P.W.16. According to P.W.16, he
went to the scene of offence at 1 p.m.
20. The evidence of the eyewitnesses is entirely inconsistent
and contradicts one another. Such evidence cannot be relied
1972 (3) SCC 393
upon. There is no explanation for the delay of 37 hours in the
complaint reaching the Court. Apparently, the complaint was
after due deliberations, implicating the appellants and the other
accused.
21. In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the above cited judgments, and since there is no
explanation for the delay in the complaint reaching the Court,
we deem it appropriate to set aside the conviction. Accordingly,
the appellants succeed.
22. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Since A-1 is
on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled, and since A-2 is in
jail, he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other
case.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
_____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 10.04.2025
dv
