Telangana High Court
Parvatham Pentaiah, Nalgonda Dt. vs State Of Telangana, Rep. By P.P on 22 January, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 611 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
The appellant/A2 filed the appeal aggrieved by the conviction
recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge at Suryapet, in
S.C.No.597 of 2012, dt.21.04.2014, for the offences under Sections
394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that PWs.1 to 3 and 5 belong to
the same family. PWs.5 and 2 are husband and wife and PW.1 is
the brother of PW.5. On 28.06.2010, PW.5 went to Hyderabad and
instructed his brother-PW.1 to sleep in his house for that night as
the house is situated in an isolated area at Indiramma Colony.
Accordingly PW.1 went to PW.5's house. PW.2, her children, PW.3-
son of elder brother of PW.1, slept inside the house and PW.1 slept
outside of the house. On the same day at about 2.00 a.m. (mid
night), the appellant along with another accused went to the house
of PW.5 with an intention to commit theft. They beat PW.1 who was
sleeping outside the house and tied his legs and hands with lungi,
broke open the doors and entered inside the house and beat PW.2
with toddy (Mujakathi knife) and thereby caused injury on her left
hand. Accused took one pair of ear studs, one pair of gold matties
and gold Nanuthadu. At the time of the accused leaving the house,
PW.2 beat one of the accused with a crow bar. The accused broke
open the doors and entered another room with the help of crowbar
and took away Rs.20,000/- and one pair of silver leg chains. One of
the accused had caused bleeding injury to PW.2 on her head, back
side of shoulder and right hand by beating with knife and fled.
Thereafter, PWs.1 to 3 went to the house of PW.4 which is at a
distance of 200 meters and called PW.5 and other relatives. After
some time, their relatives Pathulu and others came and shifted
them in an auto to Government Area Hospital, Suryapet. After
getting first aid, PW.1 lodged report Ex.P1 on 29.06.2010.
4. The Police during the course of investigation identified A1 and
A2 (appellant herein) as the persons who committed robbery and
injured PWs.1 and 2.
5. Having gone through the record, PW.1 specifically stated that
A2 was not the person who was present when the incident had
taken place. PW.2 also did not identify A2. Though, PW.2 stated
that there were two persons, she did not identify A2 as one of the
person who was present at the time of incident. PW.3 specifically
stated that A2 was not the person who was present when the
incident had taken place. Apart from the evidence of PWs.1 to 3,
there is no other evidence to speak about the incident. Since none
of the witnesses PWs.1 to 3 who were present when the incident
had happened have identified the appellant, the question of
convicting the appellant under Section 397 of IPC, on the basis of
recovery, does not arise. M.Os.1 to 3 were seized in the presence of
PW.11 who was a panch witness, by the Police. Ex.P4 is the
panchanama that was drafted on 03.11.2011. The said M.Os.1 to 3
were seized from the shop of one Satyanarayanachary-PW.7.
However, PW.7 also did not identify A2.
6. In the said circumstances, when there is absolutely no
evidence insofar as appellant is concerned, the conviction cannot
sustain.
7. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed and the appellant/A2
is acquitted. The conviction recorded by the Assistant Sessions
Judge at Suryapet, in S.C.No.597 of 2012, dt.21.04.2014, is set
aside against A2. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall
stand discharged.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 22.01.2025
tk
