Telangana High Court

Kaveti Nageshwar Rao A1 Khammam Dt And 2 ... vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 20 February, 2025

           HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                       AT HYDERABAD

    CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1280 of 2017 And 2479 OF 2018


Crl.A.No.1280 of 2017:

Between:

1. Kaveti Nageshwar Rao
2. Katta Nagamani
3. Velpula Mallesh                    Appellants/A1 to A3
                             And

The State of Telangana             ... Respondent/Complainant

Crl.A.No.2479 of 2018
Between:

Moluguri Sadi @ Sadanandam              ... Appellant/A4

                             And
The State of Telangana             ... Respondent/Complainant


DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED:           20.02.2025


Submitted for approval.
                                 2



         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                              AND
    THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

1   Whether Reporters of Local
    newspapers may be allowed to see the         Yes/No
    Judgments?

2   Whether the copies of judgment may
    be marked to Law Reporters/Journals          Yes/No

3   Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
    wish to see the fair copy of the             Yes/No
    Judgment?



                                           __________________
                                            K.SURENDER, J



                                       __________________________
                                       ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
                                                   3



               * THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                                                 AND
         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

           + CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 1280 of 2017 And 2479 OF 2018
% Dated 20.02.2025

Crl.A.No.1280 of 2017

# 1. Kaveti Nageshwar Rao
  2. Katta Nagamani
  3. Velpula Mallesh                                       Appellants/A1 to A3

                                           And
$ The State of Telangana,                              ... Respondent/complainant

Crl.A.No.2479 of 2018:

# Moluguri Sadi @ Sadanandam                                      ... Appellant/A4

                                           And
$ The State of Telangana                                ... Respondent/Complainant

! Counsel for the Appellants in
 in Crl.A.No.1280/2017                     A1    : Sri D.Bhaskar Reddy.
                                           A2    : Released on Remission
                                           A3    : Sri K.Neelakanteswara Rao
! Counsel for the Appellant in
 in Crl.A.No.2479/2018                     A4    : Smt.J.Kusumavathi
^ Counsel for the Respondent                     : Sri D.Arun Kumar
                                                   Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred
   1.   (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 748
                                   4



         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                                AND
     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
     CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1280 OF 2017 and 2479 OF 2018

COMMON JUDGMENT:

(per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER)

Criminal Appeal No.1280 of 2017 is filed by the appellants/A1

to A3 and Criminal Appeal No.2479 of 2018 is filed by the

appellant/A4, aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the IV

Additional Sessions Judge at Karimnagar, in S.C.No.191 of 2013,

dated 24.07.2017, for the offences under Sections 302, 201 r/w.34

of the Indian Penal code; and sentencing them to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the

offence under Section 302 r/w.34 of IPC; to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of 3 years each, and to pay a fine of

Rs.5,000/- each, for the offence under Section 201 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri D.Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for A1; Sri

K.Neelakanteswara Rao, learned counsel for A3; Smt.J.Kusumavathi,

learned counsel for A4, and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

3. Accused No.2 was released on remission by the Government.

The learned Counsel submits that their arguments are confined to

A1, A3, and A4.

4. PW.1-Swaroopa, is the wife of the deceased, namely Avula

Srinivas. She stated that around 12.30 hours, on 09.09.2012, the

deceased went out on his motorbike. In the evening, around 4.30

p.m., when PW.1 called the deceased on phone, the deceased

informed her that someone was trying to kill him and immediately,

the phone was switched off. At about 8.00 P.M., PW.1 came to know

that the deceased died with a cut injury to his throat. Then she

visited the Government Hospital at Peddapalli and found a cut injury

on the throat of her husband. She came to know that her husband

was killed at Jaffarkhanpet village. Accordingly, she drafted Ex.P1

complaint and handed it over to PW.16.

5. PW.16-Sub-inspector of Police stated in his examination that

on 10.09.2012, at about 2.00 A.M, PW.1 came to the police station

and lodged written complaint Ex.P1, and then he immediately

rushed to the scene of offence and shifted the dead body to

Government Hospital, Peddapalli. The investigation was then handed

over to PW.18.

6. According to PW.18, on 10.09.2012, having received the

information from PW.16 Sub-inspector, he went to the mortuary of

Peddapalli government hospital and found the dead body with an

injury on his throat. The body was photographed and the wearing

apparel of the deceased were seized. He also seized one motorcycle

bearing No.AP 15 AD 6153-M.O.7 at the scene. PW.18 sought details

of call data of phone number of the suspect, i.e., 9866494067 and

other suspects' phone numbers, which are, 9177368884 and

8106292525. According to PW.18, the call data information provided

prima facie evidence of involvement of A1 to A4 in the offence. On

18.09.2012, A1 to A4 were arrested and in the presence of

independent mediators, PW.12 and another, the accused were

interrogated. In pursuance of their confession, mobile phones of A10

and A3 were seized. A1 further led the police to bus stand, where the

motorcycle bearing No.AP 15 AC 9787, which is M.O.3, was seized.

A1 further led the police party to the scene of offence, where the

knife-M.O.5 was seized. M.O.6-blood stained shirt of the accused

was also found at the scene and seized.

7. On 20.10.2012, the Test Identification Parade of A2 was

conducted at District Judge, Karimnagar. PW.17 is the Magistrate,

who conducted Test Identification Parade.

8. Having concluded investigation, charge sheet was filed by

PW.18-Inspector of Police.

9. The crucial witnesses, who were examined by the prosecution

and relied on by the learned Sessions Judge to record conviction, are

PWs.3, 4, and 5.

10. PW.3 stated that he found three male persons and one female

person nearby the bushes at the side of the road in Jaffarkhanpet

village. He found a person in a pool of blood, struggling for life. He

also found a motorcycle next to the dead body. The number of the

motorcycle is AP 15 AD 6153. PW.3 then informed PW.4 about the

body being found. Immediately, PW.4 went to the scene and found

the dead body with an injury on the neck. According to PW.4, he

informed Sub-inspector on phone.

11. PW.3, in his cross-examination, stated that he has seen the

accused for the first time and they are all strangers. He was

examined before the Court on 21.04.2015, which is nearly 2 ½ years

after the incident. According to PW.3, he saw the accused near the

place of the incident. However, he did not give any descriptive

particulars of the accused, when he was examined by the Police. The

identification of PW.3, 2 ½ years after the incident, without any Test

Identification Parade, raises doubt regarding his identification for the

first time in Court. Further, PW.3 stated that he informed PW.4, who

came to the scene. PW.4 stated in his cross-examination that he

informed the Sub-inspector on phone and immediately, the Police

came to the spot at 6.00 P.M., after receiving information about the

body being found, and body was shifted to hospital after arrival of

the Circle Inspector.

12. The said version of PW.4 is contradictory to the version given

by PW.16-Sub-inspector. According to PW.16, after he received

complaint at 2.00 A.M., on 10.09.2012, he rushed to the scene of

offence and shifted the body to the Government Hospital. According

to PW.4, he gave details of the incident, when the Police arrived at

the scene. One fails to understand, as to why the information, that

was given to police at 5.00 P.M. itself by PW.4, was not acted upon

by the Police. The Police pleads ignorance and denies having received

any such information, or going to the scene at 6.00 P.M. on

09.09.2012. The very first information, which was received by the

Police, was by PW.16 at 2.00 A.M., after the written complaint was

filed. Either PW.3 and PW.4 are speaking false about the incident, or

PW.16-Inspector statement is false.

13. PW.5 is another witness who saw A2 proceeding along with the

deceased at Kunaram X roads. According to PW.5, the deceased

introduced A2 as his cousin and both of them left on the bike. PW.5

further identified A2 in the Test Identification proceedings conducted

in the jail. PW.5 in his cross-examination stated that on the same

night, he saw news about the death of accused on Television.

Immediately, he and his relatives went to Government Hospital,

where the Circle Inspector was present. The Inquest took place after

he went to the hospital. The police examined PW.5 and relatives of

the deceased at the time of inquest. The inquest was conducted in

the hospital on 10.09.2012, at 8.00 A.M., and concluded at 10.00

A.M.

14. PW.6 speaks about the seizure of M.O.3. M.O.3 was marked

during his evidence. According to PW.3, the vehicle was seized by the

Police from his house. However, Inspector-PW.18, stated that M.O.3

was seized from the bus stand, at the instance of A1.

15. The prosecution relied on the statements of PW.7 and PW.11

that were made during the course of investigation, regarding the

accused confessing before them, about committing the murder of the

deceased. Both PWs.7 and 11 turned hostile to the prosecution case

and did not support the version of the prosecution that the accused

had confessed before them about committing the crime.

16. The evidence of PW.3, who saw the accused at the scene,

become doubtful, in view of his statement that he was identifying the

accused for the first time, before the Court, 2 ½ years after the

incident. Admittedly, no Test Identification Parade of all the accused,

was conducted for the purpose of PW.3 identifying the accused. In

the inquest report-Ex.P3, neither the name of PW.3, nor PW.4 is

mentioned as witnesses to the incident. In the inquest report, it was

mentioned that the first person who has seen the dead body, is

PW.5. As already discussed, the evidence of PW.5 is falsified by the

evidence of PW.16-Inspector.

17. The evidence of PW.3 is doubtful since his name is not

mentioned in the inquest, and identification of accused by him was

after 2 ½ years of the incident. In the inquest report, PW.5 though

stated that he called the Police and at 6.00 p.m., and the police

arrived, however, PW.10 stated that he went to the scene of offence

after receiving complaint from PW.1 at 2.00 A.M., on 10.09.2012.

18. PW.6 stated that M.O.3 was recovered from his house at the

instance of the Police, however, PW.16-Investigation Officer states

that M.O.3 was recovered at the instance of A1, from the bus stand.

The witnesses, PW.7 and PW.9, on whom the prosecution relied on,

to speak about the extra judicial confession of the accused, have

turned hostile to the prosecution case. The only evidence left is that

of PW.5, who has seen A2 and the deceased at around 4.30 p.m.,

and thereafter, the deceased was found dead. Though, call records

were filed by the prosecution, it does not connect the accused to the

crime.

19. The Honourable Supreme Court in Musheer Khan alias

Badshah Khan and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1, held

that:

"39. In a case of circumstantial evidence, one must look for complete chain of circumstances and not on snapped and scattered links which do not make a complete sequence. This Court finds that this case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. While appreciating circumstantial

(2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 748

evidence, the Court must adopt a cautious approach as circumstantial evidence is "inferential evidence" and proof in such a case is derivable by inference from circumstances."

20. In the cases such as these, when there is no eye-witness

account and the prosecution relies on the circumstantial evidence,

the circumstances relied on by the prosecution, have to be

convincingly established, and there should not be any room for

doubt. The link between the circumstances should be so

interconnected, that it should rule out the possibility of the accused

not being guilty and conclusively determine the involvement of

accused in the offence.

21. As already discussed, except the evidence of PW.5 seeing A2

along with the deceased, few hours prior to his dead body being

found, all the other circumstances are doubtful, and cannot be relied

on to prove the case insofar as A1 and A3 are concerned.