Chandupatla Sravan vs The State Of Telangana And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 5046 Tel

Telangana High Court

Chandupatla Sravan vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 24 April, 2025

      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                       AND
     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.411 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused,

aggrieved by the judgment and sentence dated 07.06.2019 in

S.C.No.6 of 2017, on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge,

Warangal, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences

punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.

2. Heard Smt. C.Vasundara, learned counsel for the

appellant/accused, Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State and

Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

for respondent No.2.

3. The case of the prosecution is that Chandupatla Padma

(hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') is the senior paternal

aunt of the appellant. The appellant used to suspect that the

deceased was practicing sorcery/witchcraft, for which reason

he and his family members developed grudge against the

deceased. Few months prior to the incident, the cotton crop of

the deceased was damaged. It is alleged that the appellant was

responsible for the damage of the said crop and the deceased

and PW.1 complained to the elders in that regard. PW.3 then

called the appellant and admonished him. The appellant again

questioned the deceased about practicing sorcery. Because of

the suspicion of the appellant that the deceased was practicing

sorcery, which resulted in the ill health of their family

members, the appellant wanted to kill her. On 25.12.2015, the

deceased went to her fields but did not return. After a thorough

search, PW.2/son of the deceased lodged a complaint with the

police stating that the deceased was missing. The said

complaint was filed on 27.12.2015.

4. PWs.7 and 8 are the elders in the village. PW.7 stated

that on 01.01.2016, he identified MOs.1 and 2, which are a

pant and a shirt belonging to the appellant. PW.8 stated that

there were disputes between the deceased and the appellant,

and he also stated that the cotton crop of the deceased was

spoiled by wild pigs. However, the complaint was filed against

the appellant. 15 to 20 days after the incident, the deceased

was not found in the village. The police, while enquiring into

the matter, found the clothes, which are MOs.1 and 2, near the

well belonging to one Narayana Reddy. The police brought the

said clothes to the village, and PW.8 identified the clothes as

those of the appellant. The appellant was caught by the

Bhupalpalli Police, who took him to the Tank at Nandigama.

According to the case of the prosecution, the appellant

confessed that he had killed the deceased in the fields of the

deceased, and her body was taken in a gunny bag to the nearby

tank, which is at a distance of 1½ kilometers. He threw the

dead body into the tank by tying a boulder along with the dead

body, keeping it in the gunny bag.

5. On the basis of the dead body being found and identified

as that of the deceased, the police conducted further

investigation and filed a charge sheet against the appellant for

committing the murder of the deceased.

6. The learned Sessions Judge found favor with the

circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution, and

accordingly convicted the appellant.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

would submit that none of the circumstances relied upon by

the prosecution were proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further,

the main contention of the prosecution, that the dead body of

the deceased was found at the instance of the appellant, is not

established by the evidence of their own witnesses. Therefore,

the prosecution has failed to prove how the dead body was

carried from the fields of the deceased to the tank, which is 1½

kilometers away. The circumstances relied upon by the

prosecution do not form a complete chain, and there are

missing links that remain unexplained.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the

judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raja

Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh 1, Vijender v. State of

Delhi, 2 and Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer v. State of

Kerala 3.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the case

laws referred to above, where the prosecution had failed to

prove that anyone had seen the body being shifted from the

place where the deceased was attacked to the place where the

dead body was found, found that the case of the prosecution

was not credible.

(2024) 3 SCC 481

(1997) 6 SCC 171

2024 LawSuit (SC) 979

10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit

that the clothes, i.e., MOs.1 and 2, belong to the appellant, and

the same were sent for FSL examination, where it was proven

that they had blood stains. In fact, the dead body of the

deceased was taken out from the tank at the instance of the

appellant. Once the dead body was traced at the instance of the

appellant, it establishes that the appellant had exclusive

knowledge of where the dead body of the deceased was located.

Thus, the prosecution has proven all the circumstances against

the appellant.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Sharad Birdhichand

Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 4, laid down the principles

regarding the acceptance of circumstantial evidence and the

basis for recording conviction in cases involving

circumstantial evidence, which read as under:-

"1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established;

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 explained on any other

(1984) 4 SCC 116

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 the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused."

12. The clothes of the appellant, i.e., MOs.1 and 2, were

found by the police while searching for the deceased on the

basis of the complaint filed by the son of the deceased on

27.12.2015. PW.7 states that he identified the clothes as those

of the appellant on 01.01.2016. PW.8 is another witness who

speaks about the police finding the clothes of the appellant

near the well belonging to one Narayana Reddy. Admittedly, the

clothes were not found at the instance of the appellant. Though

it is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was

absconding, however, it is for the prosecution to prove that the

clothes belong to the appellant. The basis on which PW.7

identified the clothes as those of the appellant was not

explained. In the cross-examination of PW.7, he admitted that

MOs.1 and 2 were branded clothes and that similar clothes,

like MOs.1 and 2 would be available in the market everywhere.

It is admitted that same clothes would be available in the open

market. The prosecution ought to have established that the

clothes, MOs.1 and 2, were belonged to the appellant by

adducing scientific evidence.

13. MOs.1 and 2 were not subjected to any DNA examination

to conclude that the clothes belong to the appellant. It is an

open recovery and the case of the prosecution cannot be

believed unless it is established that the clothes belong to the

appellant.

14. The main circumstance that the prosecution relied upon

is the recovery of the dead body of the deceased at the instance

of the appellant. The prosecution claims that the appellant took

the police to the tank where the dead body was fished out.

15. The evidence of PWs.2, 3, 8, and 14 would be relevant.

PW.2 stated that "it is true that the police came to Nandigama

Village on 30.12.2015 also. It is true the police took the appellant

to the police station on 31.12.2015".

16. PW.3 stated that "the accused also came along with us

while searching the dead body of the deceased. The accused

also came along with us and police on 31.12.2015 for searching

the dead body of the deceased. The police brought the accused to

Chuttukunta tank on 01.01.2016 after half an hour after myself

reaching there".

17. PW.8 stated that "the police brought the appellant around

10.30 or 11.00 A.M. on that day. It is true PWs.1 and 2 reached

the said tank around 9.00 A.M. on that day".

PW.14 stated that "we straight away proceeded to the

kunta (tank). By the time they reached there, the villagers

gathered. The jeeps of Sub-Inspector of Police and Inspector of

Police started at once and reached the said kunta (tank) at the

same time. The appellant was brought by the police in their

vehicle to kunta (tank)".

18. As seen from the evidence of the witnesses, it is evident

that by the time the police reached the scene of the offence,

where the dead body of the deceased was found, villagers were

already present. Therefore, it cannot be said that the dead body

of the deceased was discovered at the instance of the appellant.

In fact, Ex.D1 was also marked in the cross-examination of

PW.8. In Ex.D1, PW.8 stated that the dead body of the

deceased was floating in the water body (kunta).

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Raja Naykar

(cited supra), held as follows:

"14. Undisputedly, the dead body was found much prior to the recording of the Memorandum of the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, only that part of the statement which leads to recovery of the dagger and the rickshaw would be relevant.

15. The Property Seizure Memo would show that the dagger was seized from a place accessible to one and all. According to the prosecution, the incident took place on 21st October, 2009 and the recovery was made on 25th October, 2009.

16. As per the FSL report, the blood stains found on the dagger were of human blood. However, the FSL report does not show that the blood found on the dagger was of the blood group of the deceased. Apart from that, even the serological report is not available.

17. Insofar as the recovery of rickshaw is concerned, it is again from an open place accessible to one and all. It is difficult to believe that the owner of the rickshaw would remain silent

when his rickshaw was missing for 3-4 days. As such, the said recovery would also not be relevant.

18. Another circumstance relied on by the Trial Judge is with regard to recovery of blood- stained clothes on a Memorandum of the appellant. The said clothes were recovered from the house of the appellant's sister-in-law. The alleged incident is of 21st October 2009, whereas the recovery was made on 25th October, 2009. It is difficult to believe that a person committing the crime would keep the clothes in the house of his sister-in-law for four days."

20. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijender

(cited supra), wherein it was held as follows:

"17. Another elementary statutory breach which we notice in record-ing the evidence of the above witnesses is that of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Evidence was led through the above three police witnesses that in consequence of information received from the three appellants on June 30, 1992 they discovered the place where the dead body of Khurshid was thrown. As already noticed, the dead body of Khurshid was recovered on June 27, 1992 and therefore the question of discovery of the place where it was thrown thereafter could not arise. Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act if an information given by the accused leads to the discovery of a fact which is

the direct outcome of such information then only it would be evidence but when the fact has already been discovered as in the instant case the evidence could not be led in respect thereof."

21. The exception to the inadmissibility of the confession

made by an accused while in police custody is the discovery of

the fact at the instance of the accused, which is admissible

under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Once any fact was

already discovered or known to another person or the police

even before the accused had informed, such knowledge of a fact

would not fall within the 'discovery of a fact' under Section 27

of the Indian Evidence Act, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the above decisions.

22. Admittedly, the blood stains were found in the fields of

the deceased, and a panchanama was conducted in the fields of

the deceased. It is an admitted fact that the body was found in

the water tank (kunta), which was roughly 1½ kilometers away

from the field of the deceased. The prosecution has not

explained as to how the body was carried to the tank, which is

at a distance of 1 ½ kilometers.

23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Karakkattu

Muhammed Basheer (cited supra), held as follows:

"27. As per the case of prosecution, the time of death of the deceased Gouri has got to be after 11:30 PM, as it has been held by the courts that it is the Appellant alone who had committed her murder. The body obviously would have been disposed of prior to 5 AM on 17.08.1989. It has come on record that the distance between the house of Accused No. 2 and the paddy field where the body was found is about 1 KM; in between there is a sawmill which runs 24 hours. If the case of the prosecution is to be accepted, according to which the Appellant had carried the dead body of the deceased Gouri on his shoulder from the house of Accused No. 02 to the paddy fields, someone would have most likely seen him on the way, especially when there was a running mill in between from where the Appellant is said to have crossed. This further raises a doubt with regard to the credibility of the case as has been projected by the prosecution."

24. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the

appellant, the prosecution ought to have proved the manner in

which the body was shifted from the place where the incident

took place to the place where the dead body was found. In the

absence of any explanation or evidence from the prosecution as

to how the body was shifted, it creates any amount of doubt

regarding the version of the prosecution. Merely because blood

stains were found at the scene and the alleged clothes

belonging to the appellant were found does not provide basis to

conclude that the blood on the clothes MOs.1 and 2 was that of

the deceased. Admittedly, there was no DNA examination

conducted to identify that the dead body was that of the

deceased, nor was any DNA test conducted on the wearing

apparel of the appellant. PW.11, in his cross-examination,

stated that the dead body was in a decomposed state and

beyond recognition.

25. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the

appellant, when the dead body was already found, the

exception under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act will not

work in favour of the prosecution. In view of the above

discussion, since the prosecution failed to prove that the dead

body of the deceased was discovered at the instance of the

appellant or that the clothes MOs.1 and 2 belong to the

appellant, the major links in the case of the prosecution are

missing. For the said reasons, the benefit of doubt is extended

to the appellant.

26. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed by setting aside the

judgment dated 07.06.2019 in S.C.No.6 of 2017, on the file of

the I Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal. The

appellant/accused is acquitted for the said offences, and he

shall be set at liberty if he is not required in any other cases.

The fine amount paid, if any, shall be returned.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J

_____________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J

Date: 24.04.2025 PNS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.411 of 2019

Dated 24.04.2025 PNS