Telangana High Court
Asadi Ranjith vs The State Of Telanagana on 29 April, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1528 OF 2018
& 2242 of 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
Criminal Appeal No.1528 of 2018 is filed by the accused
No.2, and Criminal Appeal No.2242 of 2018 is filed by the
accused No.1. Since both the appeals are filed questioning the
conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in SC No.124
of 2015 dated 17.04.2018, on the file of the learned VI
Additional District and Sessions Judge at Godavarikhan, they
are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Heard Sri V.Raghunath, learned senior counsel for the
appellant in Crl.A.No.1528 of 2018, Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao,
learned senior counsel representing Sri V.Rohith, learned
counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.2242 of 2018, and
Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the respondent/State.
3. PW1 is the husband of Sulochana (the deceased). PW1
was working in Singareni Collieries. Accused No.2 is a poojari
by profession, and accused No.1 is a friend of accused No.2. On
Page 2
01.11.2014, at about 07.00 AM, PW1 left the house while the
deceased and the housemaid were present in the house. When
he returned to the house at around 03.25 PM, the front door
was closed and when he went inside, in the hall he found that
the almirahs were opened and the articles in the almirah were
ransacked. Then he found the dead body of his wife in the
kitchen in a pool of blood. Her legs and arms were tied with a
rope. PW1 noticed a cut wound to her neck, and when PW1
started shouting, the neighbours gathered in his house. He
found some of the gold ornaments missing from the almirah.
Gold ornaments of the deceased were marked under MOs.1 to 9.
PW1 went to the police station and filed a complaint at 08.30
PM. In the complaint, he narrated that some unknown persons
have entered into his house and attacked the deceased,
resulting in her death and took away the gold ornaments.
4. On the basis of the said complaint, PW11 registered the
FIR. On the night of that day, PW11 rushed to the spot and
arranged for guards. Since it was night, he conducted the scene
of offence panchanama and the inquest the next day, and he got
the scene photographed. The blood-stained clothes of the
Page 3
deceased, the doormat, the plastic mat, two white coloured
threads, cement flake, controlled earth, etc., were seized under
MOs.14 to 20.
5. During the course of investigation, on 04.11.2014, i.e.,
three days after the incident, both the appellants were arrested.
MOs.1 to 9/gold ornaments were seized from the pockets of the
appellants. They were interrogated in the presence of PW9 and
another independent witness. Thereafter, at the instance of the
appellants, the police went to a pond near the banks of
Godavari. There, they found a knife and clothes of the accused,
which are MOs.11 and 12. A panchanama was conducted.
6. On the basis of the evidence collected during the course of
investigation, both the appellants were charge-sheeted for the
offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34
and Section 380 of IPC.
7. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants
relying on circumstantial evidence, which is, PW8, who saw the
appellants on the date of the incident, i.e., on 01.11.2014, and
the recovery of the gold ornaments/MOs.1 to 9 at the instance
of the appellants.
Page 4
8. Both the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants submitted that the case is one of circumstantial
evidence. The only circumstance relied on by the prosecution is
the evidence of PW8, who saw the appellants walking hurriedly
near the Hanuman temple, Godavarikhani. The said evidence
cannot form the basis to convict the appellants, as it is
unreliable, and so is the recovery effected at the instance of the
appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shankar v. State
of Maharashtra 1, wherein it was held as under; :
"In the decision of Prakash v. State of Rajasthan
(2013) 4 SCC 668, this Court took note of the following
principles laid down regarding the law relating
circumstantial evidence in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.
State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116:-
"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:
2. 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
2023 SCC OnLine SC 268
Page 5
v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793] where
the following observations were made:
19. ......"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"
3. 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,
4. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency,
5. They should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved, and
6. 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.
7. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so,
constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on
circumstantial evidence."
9. The learned counsel for the appellants also relied upon the
judgment in Raja Khan Vs. State of Chattisgarh 2, stating that
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while adjudicating a case based on
circumstantial evidence, where certain recoveries were made at
AIR 2015 SC 1254
Page 6
the instance of the accused therein, found that the prosecution
had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hon'ble
Supreme Court noticed inconsistencies in the evidence of the
witnesses regarding the gold chains that were allegedly
recovered.
10. Ex.P1/complaint was given stating that some unknown
persons trespassed into their house and committed the murder
of the deceased. There is no mention about accused No.2
performing any kind of pooja/ritual in the house, either
previously or at that point of time. PW1 did not express any
suspicion against accused No.1 or accused No.2. PW8 is an
independent witness who stated about accused No.2 performing
pooja in the house of PW1 three years prior to the incident. On
01.11.2014, at 11-00 AM, PW8 saw the accused Nos.1 and 2
near Hanuman Temple at GM Colony while they were walking in
a hurried manner. From there, PW8 went to the house of the
deceased and found the dead body of the deceased. According
to PW8, he suspected that the accused killed the deceased for
gold ornaments.
Page 7
11. Though it is stated by PW8 that he went to the house and
entertained a suspicion against the accused, however, he did
not state anything regarding the said suspicion either to PW1 or
to the police. Though the names of the neighbours, i.e. PWs.3,
4, and another, were mentioned in the complaint, however, the
name of PW8 is not mentioned in the complaint. PW1 also did
not state in his evidence that PW8 had expressed any doubt
regarding the accused or that PW8 had seen the accused on the
said day near Hanuman Temple. There is no evidence on
record to determine the distance between the house of the
deceased and Hanuman temple, when the appellants were seen
by PW8.
12. PW11 apprehended the appellants on 04.11.2014, i.e.,
three days after the incident at Laxmi Nagar, Godavarikhani.
They were taken to the police station and interrogated in the
presence of PW9 and another independent witness. PW4 did
not narrate any inputs about the accused or suspecting them.
PW11 also did not mention the reason for coming to a
conclusion or suspecting the accused in the commission of the
offence. According to PWs.9 and 11, both the accused were
Page 8
having gold ornaments in their pockets. The said ornaments
were seized from the possession of the accused.
13. The version of the prosecution that accused were carrying
MOs.1 to 9 in their pockets for three days till their arrest,
appears to be improbable. When the arrest was effected at
Laxmi Nagar, Godavarikhani, PW11 did not speak about the
appellants carrying the gold ornaments in their pockets.
However, they were taken to the police station, and the presence
of PW9 and another was sought. At that point of time, the
recovery was shown. The manner in which the recoveries were
effected is also doubtful. The case as projected by the
prosecution also cannot be believed, since, without showing any
recovery from the accused at the time of their arrest, the
recoveries were shown at the police station after obtaining the
presence of PW9 and another. It appears that the police wanted
to show such recovery in the presence of PW9 and the
independent witness. However, such recovery cannot be
believed.
14. Further, according to the prosecution, the accused lead
PWs.9, 11, and another to a pond near Godavari River, where
Page 9
they found Mos.11 to 13 in the said pond. MOs.11 and 12 are
the wearing apparel and MO13 is the knife which were sent to
the FSL for examination, and the report of FSL revealed that
they contained blood stains. The prosecution did not make any
efforts to get a DNA test done on the blood stains found on the
wearing apparel/Mos.11 & 12 or MO13/knife. The said
circumstance also does not fit into the chain of circumstances
to infer that the blood stains found on the clothes recovered at
the instance of the accused are that of the deceased.
15. The prosecution has the bounden duty to prove every
circumstance in a case of circumstantial evidence beyond
reasonable doubt. Any doubt that arises in the mind of the
Court regarding the circumstance, that leads to a missing link
in the chain of circumstances, it is fatal to the prosecution case.
As already discussed, the recovery of gold jewellery from the
possession of the appellants cannot be believed, so also it
cannot be believed that the blood stains found on MOs.11 to 13
are that of the deceased.
16. Under Rule 35 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, the
jewellery should have been subjected to the test identification
Page 10
parade. No such procedure was followed in the present case.
As already discussed, the recovery was from the pockets of the
appellants while they were in the police station. When the case
is looked into in its entirety, there are several inconsistencies in
the case of the prosecution and unexplained contradictions on
the part of the prosecution. In view of the said contradictions in
the prosecution case, we find that the prosecution failed to
prove its case against the appellants beyond a reasonable
doubt. Accordingly, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the
appellants and against the prosecution.
17. In the result, both these criminal appeals are allowed. The
bail bonds of the appellants/accused stand cancelled.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
____________________
EV VENUGOPAL, J
Date :29.04.2025
Abb.
