Telangana High Court
Akkenapalli Ramesh, Karimnagar Dt., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 23 January, 2025
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 982 OF 2017
Between:
Akkenapalli Ramesh ...Appellant/Accused
And
The State of Telangana ... Respondent/complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 23.01.2025
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE 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
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL No.982 OF 2017
% Dated 23.01.2025
Between:
# Akkenapalli Ramesh ...Appellant/Accused
And
$ The State of Telangana ... Respondent/complainant
! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri P.Giri Krishna
^ Counsel for the Respondents : Sri D.Arun Kumar,
Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.982 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER)
The appellant/accused aggrieved by the conviction under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, is before this Court.
2. The prosecution version against the appellant is that he was a
tenant in the premises of the deceased. The deceased, her mother and
others were staying in the same building which was ground plus two
floors. The ground floor had five mulgies which were given on rent.
First and second floors' portions were also given on rent. The
deceased and her mother who was the complainant examined as
PW.1 were residing in one portion. The deceased Karunasri was
collecting rents from the tenants in the said building. She lent an
amount of Rs.2 lakhs as hand loan to the appellant in the month of
April, 2013 and the amounts were repaid partially. The entire amount
was promised to be repaid on 15.05.2013. The premises was vacated
in the month of April, 2013 itself. On 15.05.2013, the appellant went
to the portion where PW.1 and deceased stayed, at 4.00 p.m. and
requested to lease out the very same shop which was vacated by him.
PW.1 and the deceased informed that the shop was leased out to
someone else, as such, the appellant left the house. However, he went
back at 9.00 p.m. on the same day and asked PW.1 to provide some
food. When PW.1 went inside, the appellant attacked the deceased
with a knife and stabbed her indiscriminately. PW.1 came back and
found the appellant attacking the deceased. The grand-son by name
Sheshanth who was aged about 5 years ran upstairs and called PW.3
and PW.8, however, the appellant ran away along with the knife. The
deceased died instantaneously at the spot. PW.1 went to the Police
Station and gave complaint at 00.30 hours on 16.05.2013 which is
Ex.P1. On the basis of the complaint filed, PW.11 registered the
complaint and went to the scene of offence from where he shifted the
dead body of the deceased to the Government Hospital, Karimnagar.
Inquest proceedings were concluded and thereafter, the body was
sent for postmortem examination. The postmortem doctor found the
following injuries on the body of the deceased:
"Multiple elliptical/leanier shaped sharp edge wearing
depth stab injuries are seen over the body of the deceased
Karunasree at various sites.
1. 5 c.m. x 10 c.m. anterior to left clavicle extending in to
left lung upper lobe.
2. 4 x 6 c.m. posterior left clavicle towards anterior neck.
3. 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. over right breast.
4. 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. below right eye.
5. 4 c.m. x 10 c.m. left lateral lower chest downwards in to
abdomen injuring spleen.
6. 1 x 1 c.m. on the base of right index
7. 3 x ½ c.ms on the base of left ring fingers
8. 5 x 5 c.ms. over thoracic spine upper
9. 2 x 2 c.m. over thoracic spine lower one
10. 4 x 1 c.m. above left hip.
11. 5 x 5 c.m. below left scapula
I mentioned in column No.6 in respect of chest. Left
Hemthorax i.e blood collection around the lungs.
Lungs - left lung puncture wound over it upper lobe.
Abdomen bleeding upto 200 ml. in peritoneal cavat.
Spleen - Functural wound over Posterior part."
3. The doctor opined that all the injuries are ante-mortem in
nature and might have been caused by stabbing with a knife. The
approximate time of death was less than 24 hours.
4. The appellant was arrested by PW.11 on 18.05.2013. His
confession was recorded and M.O.1-knife was seized at the instance
of the appellant.
5. The blood stained knife-M.O.1 and the wearing apparel of
deceased, M.O.2 and M.O.3 were sent for FSL examination. Blood
group on the knife could not be determined. However, according to
Ex.P11-FSL report, blood found on M.O.1 was of human.
6. The learned Sessions Judge examined PWs.1 to 11 and Exs.P1
to P11 were also marked on behalf of prosecution. Material objects,
M.O.1-knife, wearing apparel petticoat and nighty of the deceased-
M.Os.2 and 3 were also marked.
7. On behalf of defence, Ex.D1 was marked which is a portion of
the statement made under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by PW.1, that was
confronted to the witness during trial.
8. The learned sessions Judge mainly relied on the eye witness
account of PW.1, the complaint and the seizure of M.O.1 at the
instance of the appellant. Learned Judge found favour with the
prosecution case and accordingly convicted the appellant.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted
that false case was filed against the appellant. The scene of offence is
doubtful since PW.1 claims that the alleged attack on the deceased
had taken place in the front room of their portion, however, the dead
body was found on the terrace in the second floor. The scene of
offence panchanama reflects that the scene is on the terrace which is
contradictory to the solitary testimony of the eye-witness PW.1.
Further, the other witnesses only stated about information being
given regarding the alleged assault by the appellant and none saw the
alleged incident. The counsel further argued that the motive as
projected by the prosecution for committing murder was the alleged
outstanding amount due by the appellant and payable by the
deceased. However, no proof of any such lending was placed before
the Court to substantiate the motive.
10. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the complaint was
filed by PW.1 within 3 hours of the incident and there is no reason as
to why the appellant would be falsely implicated. In the complaint
also PW.1 narrated that the appellant had stabbed the deceased on
hands, face and other parts of the body which is corroborated by the
injuries found during postmortem examination.
11. The alleged incident happed at 9.00 p.m. The complaint-Ex.P1
was filed at 00.30 hours i.e., nearly 3 ½ hours after the alleged
assault. In the complaint it was stated that PW.1 saw the appellant
stabbing her daughter and hearing her shout for help, Sanga Sravan-
PW.8, Chada Ramana Reddy-PW.3, went there immediately.
12. PW.2 who is the brother of the deceased stated that on
15.05.2013 at 9.10 P.M., PW.4 informed him on phone that the
appellant stabbed the deceased and ran away and then he went to the
premises. PW.2 further narrated that the appellant took an amount of
Rs.2 lakhs and there were disputes in between the appellant and the
deceased. A panchayat was also held before the DSP and the matter
was settled for Rs.1,50,000/-. Rs.75,000/- was paid on 30.04.2013
and the remaining amount was due and to be paid on 15.05.2013 i.e.,
the date of the incident.
13. PW.3 stated that on 15.05.2013, he saw the deceased and the
appellant talking on the second floor terrace in between 12.30 and
2.00 p.m. and thereafter he went off to his duty. He came back
around 4.00 p.m. and found that PW.1 and the appellant were on the
second floor. Thereafter, he went away and when he returned to the
house again in between 8.30 and 9.30 p.m., PW.8 was on the second
floor where the dead body was lying. He went to the second floor
terrace and it was informed by the son of the deceased and PW.8 that
the appellant stabbed the deceased with a knife and ran away.
14. PW.4 who is another tenant stated that on the said day he
heard someone shout from the house of PW.1 and he immediately
went to the house of PW.1 on the second floor and found that the
dead body was in the chair in a sitting position and PW.1 was
weeping. Blood was coming out from the body of the deceased. When
questioned PW.1 informed that the appellant stabbed the deceased
due to the money transactions and ran away.
15. PW.2 stated that PW.8 informed him about the incident. PW.8
who was named in the complaint stated that on the date of the
incident he heard someone shout from the second floor and when he
rushed to the second floor he saw the deceased with stab injuries and
in a sitting position in the chair. PW.8 was declared hostile and cross-
examined by the prosecutor. The Public Prosecutor had only
suggested to PW.8 that whatever he stated in his 161 Cr.P.C.
statement was correct, which was denied.
16. According to PW.1 while she was in the house, the appellant
attacked the deceased with a knife and the son of the deceased ran
upstairs to call PW.3 and PW.8. PW.3 did not state anything about
seeing the appellant. However, he stated that the dead body was lying
on the terrace on the second floor. According to PW.1, the incident
happened in their house. PW.4 contradicted PW.3 stating that the
dead body was lying in the chair in a sitting position. Similar is the
evidence of PW.8. According to the scene of offence panchanama-
Ex.P4, the dead body was on the second floor terrace which was 11
feet in length with 3 feet high wall with stairs leading to terrace.
Nothing incriminating was found on the terrace since it was a cement
slab as mentioned in Ex.P4. Ex.P4-scene of offence panchanama was
contrary to what was stated by PW.1, PW.2-brother of the deceased,
PW.3-tenant, PW.4-another tenant, who have stated that the dead
body was on the chair in a sitting position in the house. PW.11-
Investigating Officer went to the scene and he got the body shifted to
the Government Hospital. According to the Investigating Officer, the
dead body was not in the chair as stated by the witnesses, but lying
on the terrace of the building.
17. The said contradictory evidence in the versions of the
Investigating Officer when he went to the scene, finding the dead body
on the terrace and PWs.1, 2, 3 and 4, the witnesses stating that the
dead body was in the chair in the house of PW.1, creates doubt
regarding the prosecution truthfully stating about the incident.
18. The FIR was lodged after 3 ½ hours and the FIR reached the
concerned Magistrate at 10.30 a.m. on 16.05.2013. The Investigating
officer has not stated the reasons for the delay of nearly 10 hours for
the complaint reaching Court. When there is contradictory evidence
regarding the place where the dead body was found, the version of
sole eye-witness PW.1 that she saw the appellant stabbing the
deceased in the house is falsified by the Investigating Officer finding
the dead body on the terrace of the building. As already discussed,
three of the witnesses have also not stated that the dead body was on
the terrace of the building but in a sitting position in the chair in the
house of PW.1. The said discrepancy goes to the root of the case.
Prosecution has failed to establish where exactly the incident
happened and where the dead body was found. PW.1's evidence
cannot be believed. PW.2-brother of deceased and PW.4-tenant stated
that the dead body was in the house on the chair in a sitting position
and they were not declared hostile to prosecution case. PW.3 and the
Investigating Officer stated that body was on the terrace of the
building. The son of the deceased who allegedly witnessed the
incident was not examined. The unexplained delay of nearly 10 hours
for the complaint to reach the Court further discredits the eye-witness
account. It can be safely inferred that there was no eye-witness to the
assault on the deceased and a suspicion formed the basis to name the
appellant as the assailant. As already discussed, PW.1 was not an
eye-witness to the murderous assault on the deceased.
19. In the said circumstances, benefit of doubt is extended to the
appellant.
20. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted.
The conviction recorded by the V Additional Sessions Judge, vide
Judgment dated 31.05.2017 in S.C.No.3 of 2014 under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code, is set aside. Since the appellant is on bail, his
bail bonds shall stand discharged.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
____________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date: 23.01.2025
Note: L.R copy to marked.
tk
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.982 OF 2017
Date: 23.01.2025
tk
