Telangana High Court
Kuktla Komuraiah, Karimnagar Dt., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 28 January, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.775 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
This criminal appeal is filed aggrieved by the
judgment dated 12.08.2016 in S.C.No.190 of 2014 on the
file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional Sessions
Judge, Karimnagar, convicting the appellant/accused for
the offence under Sections 302 and 380 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and sentencing him to
undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.100/-,
in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple
imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section
302 IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine
of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple
imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section
380 IPC.
2. Heard Mr. Md. Sadath Hussain, legal aid counsel for
the appellant/accused, and Mr. Arun Kumar Dodla,
KS, J & JAK, J
Crl.A.No.775_2017
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-
State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that PW.1, who is the
son of the deceased, went to the police station and lodged
complaint on 04.10.2013 stating that his mother was
found dead in the house and her gold and silver jewellery
were missing. The said complaint was filed at about
10.30 P.M., and Crime No.260 of 2013 was registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 IPC.
Having received the complaint, PW.14-Investigating
Officer went to the scene of offence, conducted
panchanama, examined PWs.1 to 5 and recorded their
statements. The body was sent for post mortem
examination. Thereafter, on 21.10.2013, the
appellant/accused was arrested at Sulthanbad. The
appellant was interrogated and in the presence of PW.12
and another, confession was recorded and jewellery
MOs.1 to 3 were recovered from the possession of the
appellant. Immediately, after recovery of MOs.1 to 3,
according to PW.12, independent witness, and PW.14,
Investigating Officer, the appellant took them
KS, J & JAK, J
Crl.A.No.775_2017
to Elkathurthi Village and showed the case property of
two other crimes. PW.14 seized the said case property
and the appellant was taken back to the police station.
Thereafter, the appellant was produced before the
concerned Magistrate.
4. PW.1, who is the son of the deceased, stated that he
found the deceased dead and her jewellery was missing
and therefore, lodged Ex.P1 - complaint. PW.2, who is
the neighbor, was declared as hostile to the prosecution
case since she stated that she did not know the reason of
the death. PW.3 is also a neighbor, who stated that the
deceased was found dead. PW.4, who is the photographer,
also stated on similar lines, that the deceased was found
dead in her house and jewellery was missing. PW.5, who
is the daughter of the deceased, stated that her mother
was found murdered and her jewellery was missing. PW.5
identified MOs.1 to 3 as the jewellery of the deceased.
PW.7 stated that one day prior to the death of the
deceased, he saw the appellant near the house of the
deceased. He further stated that the deceased was the
owner of the house and she let out two rooms on rent.
KS, J & JAK, J
Crl.A.No.775_2017
PW.7 and the appellant were staying in two separate
rooms as tenants.
5. The case is one of circumstantial evidence. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.
State of Maharashtra 1, laid principles as to the
acceptance of circumstantial evidence and the basis to
record conviction, which read as under:-
"1. the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be
fully established. The circumstances
concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may
be' established;
2. 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 explained on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is
guilty;
3. the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency;
4. they should exclude every possible
hypothesis except the one to be proved;
and
5. 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
(1984) 4 SCC 116
KS, J & JAK, J
Crl.A.No.775_2017
show that in all human probability, the act
must have been done by the accused."
6. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution are
as follows:
1. The appellant was earlier a tenant in the house of
the deceased.
2. The appellant vacated ten days prior to the
incident. However, according to PW.7, the
appellant was found near the house of the
deceased one day prior to the death of the
deceased,
3. After his arrest on 21.10.2013, MOs.1 to 3 were
recovered from the pocket of the appellant.
7. PW.12 is the independent witness, who stated that
he went to the iron shop at Indiranagar, Sulthanbad, on
the instructions of the Mandal Revenue Officer, where the
appellant was present in safari dress. Appellant confessed
about the murder of the deceased and the appellant
produced MOs.1 to 3 from his pocket. From the said old
iron shop situated at Indiranagar, the appellant led the
police officers near Elkathurthy, where another iron
KS, J & JAK, J
Crl.A.No.775_2017
shop was situated, and from there a box was shown
relating to property of other offences. According to PW.12,
independent witness, and PW.14-Circle Inspector, the
recovery was made from the pocket of the appellant in the
iron shop. It is not stated as to where the appellant was
arrested and where he was interrogated prior to the
appellant taking them to the old iron shop at Indiranagar.
If at all MOs.1 to 3 were in the pocket of the appellant till
arrival of the independent witness-PW.12, no reason is
given as to why the appellant was taken to the iron shop
at Indiranagar. Admittedly, nothing was recovered from
the iron shop, since MOs.1 to 3 were recovered from the
pocket of the appellant. The said narration of recovery as
projected by the prosecution is doubtful.
8. There is no clarity as to why the jewellery was not
recovered if it was in the pocket of the appellant, when the
appellant was arrested. If at all the appellant was
arrested at some place and taken to the Police Station, the
ornaments would have been recovered at the very first
instance, when he was arrested or when he confessed.
However, the police have shown that the recovery was at
KS, J & JAK, J
Crl.A.No.775_2017
iron shop and that too from the pocket of the appellant.
As already discussed, it was not stated by the
Investigating Officer - PW.14 as to when the appellant was
arrested and details of his confession leading to the iron
shop at Indiranagar. In the facts and circumstances of
the present case, it appears that the case was made up
against the appellant insofar as recovery of MOs.1 to 3 are
concerned. The recovery is not believable. Further, PW.5
- daughter of the deceased identified MOs.1 to 3. But, it
is not stated as to when Test Identification Parade of the
ornaments was done. The ornaments should have been
identified in accordance with Rule 35 of the Criminal
Rules of Practice, 1990. But, no Identification Parade of
the property was conducted in accordance with the
procedure. It is not stated as to when the jewellery MOs.1
to 3 were shown to PW.5 after the alleged recovery on
21.10.2013. The evidence of recovery of MOs.1 to 3 is
unconvincing.
9. Another aspect of the case is that PW.14-
Investigating Officer had called PW.12 to act as witness to
the seizure. As already discussed, the seizure from the
KS, J & JAK, J
Crl.A.No.775_2017
pocket of the appellant at the iron shop is not convincing.
From the said iron shop, according to PWs.12 and 14, the
appellant took them to another place where jewellery of
other crimes were recovered as pointed out by the
appellant. PW.14-Investigating Officer has shown recovery
of ornaments in three cases against the appellant, on the
same day. PW.14 has stage-managed the entire recoveries
in all the three cases (case vide Crl.A.No.739 of 2017,
Crl.A.No.614 of 2017 and the present case).
10. Further, as seen from the photographs - Ex.P3, the
deceased has a gold chain around her neck. It is not
explained why the appellant had not taken the gold chain
which is in the photographs and collected only MOs.1 to 3
which are nanu, ear studs and silver kadiums. As already
discussed, the entire evidence is wholly unconvincing.
11. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed. The
appellant/accused shall be released forthwith, if he is not
required in any other case. His bail bonds shall stand
cancelled.
KS, J & JAK, J
Crl.A.No.775_2017
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this
Criminal Appeal shall stand cancelled.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
____________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date:28.01.2025
KH
