Telangana High Court
E.Parthasararhi , E.B.Raja , Rajanna vs State Of Telangana on 29 April, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1598 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice EV Venugopal)
1. The present criminal appeal is filed by the appellants/
accused Nos.1 and 2 aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.05.2018
in SC No.271 of 2016 on the file of the learned Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Hyderabad wherein and where by the trial Court
found the appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced them to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay
a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer further simple
imprisonment for a period of six months each, for the offence
punishable under Section 364 read with Section 34 of IPC; further,
sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine
of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer further simple imprisonment
for a period of six months each for the offence punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and further sentenced the
appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three
years each for the offence punishable under Section 379 read with
Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy and Sri P.Animi Reddy, learned
counsel for the appellants and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
3. SC No.271 of 2016, on the file of the learned Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Hyderabad is a case registered basing on the
complaint/Ex.P1, lodged by PW1 in FIR No.134 of 2015, dated
25.05.2015 on the file of PS, Kachiguda for the offences under
Sections 364, 302 and 379 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC on
the allegation that the appellants committed murder of deceased
No.1, committed theft of gold ornaments weighing 10 Tolas, worth
then about Rs.2.50 Lakhs, from her dead body and also committed
murder of her retorted brother-in-law.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.05.2015 at about
21.15 hours, PW18/SI of Police, PS Kachiguda received a
complaint from PW1, who is the son of deceased No.1 and nephew
of deceased No.2, complaining missing of his mother and paternal
uncle. Accordingly, FIR No.134 of 2015 was registered. When
PW19/SI of police enquired PWs.1 and 2, who are the son and
husband respectively of the deceased No.1, they informed that
when the deceased No.1 requested PW2 to take her to
Yadagirigutta on the eve of their marriage anniversary day, PW2
informed the deceased No.1 to go in the regular auto of
Parthasarathi/appellant No.1 along with his mentally unsound
brother i.e. the deceased No.2. PW10, who is the tenant of
deceased No.1, stated that the deceased went to Yadagirigutta in
the auto of appellant No.1 at 10.00 AM on 16.05.2015. He also
stated that the deceased No.1 wore red colour saree at that time.
PWs.1 and 2 further stated that when they tried to contact the auto
driver/appellant No.1 over cell phone, his cell phone was found
switched off.
5. On 01.06.2015 at about 07.00 hours, PW19 apprehended
the appellant No.1 at Kachiguda Railway Station while he was
trying to flee to Chennai by train. Appellant No.1 confessed that on
16.05.2015 he took both the deceased in his auto to Yadagirigutta
and on the afternoon of 17.05.2015 he, along with his associate
viz. Appellant No.2 killed them in the isolated hillocks of Podichedu
Village of Mothkur Mandal, Nalgona District, and he committed
theft of gold ornaments from the dead body of deceased No.1. He
further confessed that he pledged some of the gold ornaments with
a pawn broker/PW6 at Malakpet and some with PW11.
6. During the course of investigation, PW19 arrested the
appellants. PW20/Inspector of Police took up investigation,
recorded voluntary confessions of appellants, seized the auto,
recovered the gold ornaments and pawn broker receipts and after
conducting post-mortem examination and after completing the
requisite formalities, filed the charge-sheet
7. During the course of investigation, the local police from
Mothkur PS came to the spot and observed the scene and reported
that they have discovered the dead body of deceased No.2 on
19.05.2015, conducted inquest in Crime No.45 of 2015,
panchanama of scene of offence and autopsy on dead body through
PW7 and thereafter disposed off the body on 23.05.2015 through
gram panchayat officials as per rules. PWs.1, 2, 3 and 9 identified
the photographs and wearing apparel of the deceased No.2.
8. PW15, Finger Prints Examiner identified the skull and
humerus bone through DNA finger printing diagnostics and issued
report bearing No.DCDFD/LDFS/ 3675/2957/2016, dated
04.02.2016 stating that the same belong to the deceased No.1.
9. The trial Court framed charges against the appellants for the
offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 379, 404 IPC read
with Section 34 of IPC.
10. To substantiate its case before the trial Court, the
prosecution examined PWs.1 to 20 and got marked Exs.P1 to P26
and MOs.1 to 22.
11. Basing on the evidence adduced on record, the trial Court
found the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under
Sections 364 read with Section 34 IPC, 302 read with Section 34 of
IPC and 379 read with Section 34 of IPC. Accordingly, the trial
Court sentenced the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2, as stated
supra.
12. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellants
were guilty of the offences basing on the following circumstances :
(i) A1 was known to Uma Rani and her family members and
was regularly engaging his auto bearing No.AP 09 W 3180.
(ii) On 16.05.2015 at 10.00 AM deceased No.1 had left for
Yadagirigutta along with her brother-in-law/deceased No.2
and at that time appellants were in the auto and appellant
No.1 was the driver of the said auto.
(iii) They went to another temple and therefore they reached
Yadagirigutta in the night and stayed there in the room of
PW4.
(iv) The deceased did not return from Yadagirigutta.
(v) Family members reported the matter to the police on
19.05.2015.
13. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that there
is no ocular evidence to the scene of offence, though the case of the
prosecution that the deceased were missing from 16.05.2015,
Ex.P25 pawn broker receipt was dated 15.05.2015 i.e., prior to
their missing, the trial Court relied upon the evidence of interested
witnesses and the relatives of the deceased, the crime vehicle was
not in a condition of moving and hence, the same cannot be used
in commission of offence. Further, though the appellant No.1 was
arrested on 28.05.2015 the police showed his date of arrest as
01.06.2015. This fact itself shows that the prosecution case is not
based on the true set of facts.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant No.1, in support of their
contentions, relied upon the following decisions :
(1) M.Paul Vs. State rep. By Inspector of Police 1.
(2) Ashish Jain Vs. Stte of Madhya Pradesh 2.
(3) Jarapala Deepala and others Vs. State of A.P. 3.
(4) Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam 4.
By placing reliance, the learned counsel contended that when test
identification parade of property was not conducted in accordance
with the procedure laid down under Section 35 of the Criminal
Rules of Practice, credence cannot be given to the identification of
the property by the witness in the Court. Further, omissions to
mention important facts in FIR effect the probability of the case.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant No.2 relied upon the
following decisions :
(1) Nizam and another Vs. State of Rajasthan 5.
(2) SK Yousuf Vs. State of West Bengal 6.
(3) Sugali Dungavathi Lakshma Naik @ Anda and others Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh 7.
(4) Devarla Murali Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 8.
(5) Anil Kumar Goswamy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 9.
(6) Jose alias Pappachan Vs. Sub-Inspector of Police,
Koyilandy and another 10.
(7) Satish Kumar and another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
and another 11.
2022 (1) ALT (Crl.) 201
2019 (3) SCC 770
2005 SCC OnLine 1119
(2013) 12 SCC 406
2015(2) ALD (Crl.) 898 (SC)
(2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 754
2020 (1) ALD (Crl.) 172 (AP)
2020 (2) ALD (Crl.) 476 (AP)
2019(1) ALD (Crl.) 797
2017(1) ALD (Crl.) 1 (SC)
2020(2) ALD (Crl.) 531 (SC)
(8) CT Ponnappa Vs. State of Karnataka 12.
Basing on the proposition of law laid down in the above decisions,
learned counsel for the appellant No.2 contended that it would be
difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was
last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility
of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any
other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the
deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to
a conclusion of guilt in those cases.
16. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
vehemently opposed the criminal appeal mainly contending that
the complicity of the appellants is established by the prosecution
by adducing convincing, cogent and acceptable evidence and that
the appellants having failed to rebut the same, filed the present
criminal appeal and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.
17. Upon hearing the rival contentions on either side and
perusing the record, the point to be determined herein is whether
the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants for the offences
punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 379 of IPC read with
Section 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.
(2004) 11 Supreme Court Cases 391
18. The prosecution case goes on to show that the deceased No.1
along with the deceased No.2 went in the auto of appellant No.1
accompanied by appellant No.2 to Yadagirigutta. Their leaving the
house was witnessed by PW10, tenant of deceased No.1. PW10
stated that on 16.05.2015 at 10.00 AM he saw deceased No.1
dressed up along with the deceased No.2 to go out and when he
asked her about her dressing up with jewellery, she replied that
she was going to Yadagirigutta to have darshan on the eve of her
marriage day in the auto of appellant No.1. He further stated that
after 15 minutes, the appellant Nos.1 and 2 came with auto and
took the deceased. He further stated that he saw appellant No.1
earlier on two to three occasions as he used to take the deceased
No.1 to bank, hospitals etc.
19. PWs.1, 3 and 9 are the sons of the deceased No.1 and PW2 is
her husband. They have deposed with regard to their acquaintance
with appellant No.1, using his auto services by deceased No.1
according to her travel exigencies and deceased Nos.1 and 2 going
along with the appellants on 16.05.2015 to have a darshan at
Yadagirigutta. They identified the decomposed dead body of
deceased No.1, her wearing apparel and gold ornaments and also
the photographs and clothes of deceased No.2.
20. PW15/senior technical examiner examined teeth and
humerus bone of the deceased No.1 by comparing the same with
the DNA profiles of PWs.1, 3 and 9 and also their blood stains and
confirmed under Ex.P17 report that the deceased is the biological
mother of PWs.1, 3 and 9. The identification of dead bodies and
wearing apparel is very much established by the above said
witnesses and hence, there cannot be any doubt in this regard.
21. Appellant No.1 admitted his pledging the gold ornaments
with PW6 and PW11 and accordingly, they were recovered.
Further, as shown by the appellant No.1, the auto used for
commission of offence was recovered from the possession of
appellant No.2. Evidence of PW5 shows that he being the owner of
auto bearing No.AP 09 W 3180, hired his auto to accused No.1 for
plying the same in the year 2015. Evidence of PW4 shows that two
years ago they provided accommodation in their private
accommodation at Yadagirigutta to the deceased and appellants.
PW4 also stated that on the next day at 07.00 AM appellants and
the deceased vacated the room. He asserted that appellant No.1
was present among the persons who took accommodation. PW12
along with T.Jaya Ramulu acted as mediators for recovery of
MOs.16 and 17 from the scene and auto from the residence of
appellant No.2. They also witnessed confession of appellants
stating that they murdered the deceased.
22. PW7, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased
No.2, certified under Ex.P3/post-mortem examination report that
due to respiratory arrest caused by head injury and internal
bleeding the deceased No.2 died. PW8 who conducted autopsy over
the dead body of deceased No.1 certified under Ex.P4/post-mortem
examination report that due to bleeding leading to hypovolemia
and shock the deceased No.1 died. He also certified that the body
was putrefied and mummified.
23. Though the learned counsel for the appellant No.1 contended
that the appellant No.1 was arrested on 28.05.2015, PW19 showed
the date of arrest of appellant No.1 as 06.06.2015, there is no
question put to PW-19 in this regard.
24. The law is very clear that when there is no direct evidence to
establish the culpability of the accused, circumstantial evidence
plays crucial role to lend support to prove the guilt of the accused
as enunciated under Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act.
25. The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap
between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were
seen last alive and then the deceased is found dead is so small that
possibility of any person other than the accused being a part of the
crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to
positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the
accused when there is a long time gap and the possibility of other
person coming in between exists. In the absence of any other
positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased
were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a
conclusion of guilt in those cases. In Hatti Singh vs. State of
Haryana 13 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"21. In Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and Anr. v. State of
Andhra Pradesh (AIR 2006 SC 1656) , this Court noticed:
27. The last-seen theory, furthermore, comes into play
where the time gap between the point of time when the
accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the
deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any
person other than the accused being the author of the crime
becomes impossible. Even in such a case courts should look
for some corroboration.
28. In State of U.P. v. Satish (2005 CriLJ 1428), this Court
observed:
22. The last-seen theory comes into play where the time-gap
between the point of time when the accused and the
deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is
found dead is so small that possibility of any person other
than the accused being the author of the crime becomes
impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively
establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused
when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons
coming in between exists. In the absence of any other
positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the
deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to
come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. In this case
there is positive evidence that the deceased and the accused
were seen together by witnesses PWs 3 and 5, in addition to
the evidence of PW 2."
However, in the case on hand, there is ample evidence
available on record, particularly in the form of evidence of PW10, to
establish that the appellant and the deceased were last seen
together and the complaint was lodged with a little gap only. The
(2007)12 SCC 471
said fact was established through the evidence of PW10. There is
corroboration in the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3, 9 and 10 on that
aspect. Hence this court relies upon the last seen theory, which
was established by cogent and convincing evidence.
26. The prosecution has categorically established the motive,
intent and premeditation on the part of the appellant No.1 stating
that since the deceased No.1 refused to extend financial assistance
to the appellant No.1, he hatched a plan along with appellant No.2
and executed the same, committed murder of deceased and took
away her gold.
27. As per the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and 9, when they tried to
contact the appellant No.1 to enquire about the deceased, his
phone found to be switched off and his whereabouts were also not
found. Admittedly, after going along with the appellants in the
auto of appellant No.1 the deceased did not return to the home.
28. When the above factual matrix is meticulously scrutinized,
the chain of link is completed pointing out the finger towards the
appellants in view of the evidence of PW10. It is well established
through the evidence of PW6 and PW11 that the appellant No.1
and his wife have mortgaged the property with them. They
identified the appellant No.1 and his wife. Further, PWs.1 and 2,
who are the son and husband of the deceased No.1 have identified
the ornaments recovered from PWs.6 and 11.
29. The evidence let in by the prosecution is cogent, clinching
and convincing in establishing an unbroken chain of
circumstances in proving the culpability of the appellants. By
taking into consideration the above factual matrix, the trial Court
had rightly found the appellant No.1 guilty for the offences
punishable under Sections 364 read with Section 34, Section 302
read with Section 34 and Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC
and convicted him by giving proper reasoning and findings.
30. With regard to the culpability of appellant No.2 is concerned,
the prosecution could able to establish that he accompanied the
appellant No.1 in the entire episode. Admittedly, except the auto,
nothing was recovered from appellant No.2. The prosecution failed
to prove his role in committing murder of the deceased or in taking
away her gold ornaments. In that view of the matter the findings of
the trial Court with regard to the appellant No.2 needs interference
by this Court since evidence on record is not sufficient to found
him guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with
Section 34 and Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC. However,
the evidence on record could establish that the appellant No.2
extended his help or abetted the appellant No.1 in taking the
deceased in the auto of appellant No.1. Accordingly, the appellant
No.2 is found guilty only for the offence punishable under Section
364 read with Section 109 of IPC.
31. In the result, the criminal appeal, insofar as the appellant
No.1 is concerned, is dismissed. Insofar as the appellant No.2 is
concerned, the conviction as imposed by the trial Court for the
offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and
Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC is set aside and he is
found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 364 read with
Section 109 of IPC and accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer
simple imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-,
in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The
appellant No.2 is entitled for the benefit under Section 428 of
Cr.P.C.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
____________________
EV VENUGOPAL, J
Date :29.04.2025
Abb.
