Telangana High Court
Yedavelly Satya Narayana, Hyd, N/O. ... vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 7 January, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.186, 275 of 2017 and 2635 OF 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER)
Criminal Appeal No.186/2017 is filed by Accused No.3, Criminal
Appeal No.275/2017 is filed by Accused No.4 and Criminal Appeal
No.2635/2018 is filed by Accused No.2. The appellants were
convicted by the Judge, Family Court, Mahabubnagar, in
S.C.No.177/2014 for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment
for life, each, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, each.
2. Since the appellants are accused in the same case i.e.
S.C.No.177/2014, all the three appeals are heard together and
disposed off by way of common Judgment.
3. Heard Ms. C.Vasundhara Reddy, Ms.G.Jaya Reddy, Ms.Y.Ratna
Prabha, learned counsel for appellants/A2 to A4, and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.
4. A1 to A4 were tried for the offence of murder of the parents of
Accused Nos.1 and 2, however the case was split up against A1 due to
his abscondance and only A2 to A4 were tried.
5. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased 1 and 2 went to
the house of PW.7 on 01.07.2013 and stayed for 4 days. On
07.07.2013 they returned to Hyderabad in Thungabhadra Express
Train at 3.00 p.m and they reached Hyderabad at 8.00 p.m. A1 to A3
and Juvenile namely Vijay Kumar (JICL), took the deceased Balaraju
(D1) and Eswaramma (D2), parents of Accused Nos.1 and 2 and
paternal Uncle and Aunt of A3 in a Bolero vehicle from Malakpet
Railway Station on the night of 04.07.2013 , when they arrived from
Kurnool and committed murder on the outskirts of Kuppagandla
Village by beating them and slitting their throats with knives. PW.6 is
the daughter of the deceased 1 and 2. She was staying along with the
deceased 1 and 2 after divorcing her husband. PW.6 and PW.7
daughters of the deceased tried to contact the deceased on
07.07.2013 to know whether they reached Hyderabad, however, their
cell phones were not reachable. A3 went to the house of PW.6 in the
morning of 05.07.2013 and asked about the deceased. In the evening
around 4.00 p.m., A2 called PW.6 and informed that police
Kalwakurthy called him and informed him that there were two dead
bodies found near Kuppagandla village. PW.6, accused and others
went there and observed that there were injuries on the dead bodies.
The dead bodies were first seen by PW.1 who is the VRO of
Uppagandla village of Veldanda Mandal. On seeing the dead bodies at
7.00 A.M. on 05.07.2013, he gave report to Veldanda Police. Ex.P1 is
the report given by PW.1.
6. The Police observed the dead bodies and on the basis of the
tailor's name and address stitched on the backside of the shirt of the
deceased No.1, the deceased were identified after contacting the
tailor-PW.9. Accused Nos.1 and 2, PWs.6 and 7 were contacted by the
Police after taking details from PW.9. After the relatives of the
deceased were identified, the police concluded observation of scene,
inquest proceedings and thereafter sent the bodies for post mortem
examination.
7. During the course of investigation, Police came to know that A1
and A2 were frequently quarreling with the deceased couple about
share in the properties and developed grudge against them. A3 who
was the nephew also had disputes with the deceased No.1 regarding
the donations collected for 'Shaneshwaram temple'. A1 to A3 were
arrested. It was known during the course of investigation that A4 was
in the company of A2 and A3 when the incident had taken place as
such A4 was also arrested.
8. The arrests were on 15.07.2013. During interrogation by the
Police A1 and appellants confessed about killing the deceased along
with Juvenile by taking them in Bolero vehicle after picking them up
from Malakpet Railway station. It is further the case of the
prosecution that deceased No.1 acquired immovable properties i.e.
one small house at Pebbair, and 100 Sq.Ys plot in Cherya village
which is near to the city. Since A1 and A2 wanted to get the property
from their parents i.e. D1 and D2, they planned to kill D1 & D2. A1 &
A2 contacted the deceased on phone while returning from Kurnool.
When D1 & D2 got down from the train at Malakpet Railway Station,
on the pretext of dropping them at their house, both the deceased
were taken in the Bolero vehicle and murdered on the outskirts of
Kuppagandla village.
9. The learned Sessions Judge examined PWs.1 to 14 and marked
Exs.P1 to P16. M.Os.1 to 21 were also marked during trial. Exs.D1 to
D3 are the portions of statement of PWs.6 and 7 which were marked
during the cross-examination of witnesses.
10. The defence of the appellants is one of total denial. A2 stated in
his 313 Cr.P.C. examination that he was married in the year 2007
and PW.6 got divorced and all of them were living amicably. The
deceased 1 and 2 were residing in a rented house along with PW.6
and A1 was also living with them. There are no immovable properties.
There is one house in Pebbair village which is worth Rs.2 to 3 lakhs
and no one was going there since 15 years and a false case was filed.
11. A3 stated that he was beaten up in the Police station and case
was filed against them. The deceased were paternal uncle and aunt.
12. The prosecution has placed reliance on the motive aspect as
one of the circumstance to prove the case against the appellants.
Since PW.6 and 7 sisters of A1 and A2, expressed doubt regarding A1
and A2 fighting over property, that they would have committed the
murders, basing on the said suspicion, the investigation also
proceeded in the said direction.
13. The case is one of circumstantial evidence. The Honourable
Supreme Court in Shankar v. State of Maharashtra 1 held as
follows;
2023 SCC OnLine SC 268
"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:
(1) 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 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"
(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 explainable 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 show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the
accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute
the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial
evidence."
14. The main argument of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants is that witnesses have totally come up with an improved
version during the course of trial and the basis for conviction was
also the improved version. The said conviction on the basis of an
improved version from their 161 Cr.P.C. statements and developed at
a subsequent date during trial has to be set aside.
15. The improved version of the witnesses PWs.6 and 7 would be
relevant. PW.14 is the Investigating officer who was questioned
regarding the improved version of the witnesses.
16. PW.14 stated is as follows;
"It is true PW.6 not stated to me in her 161 Cr.P.C that on
04.07.2013, her father call her on phone and informed that
he will returning from Hyderabad in Thumgabhadra train at
3.00 p.m. It is true PW.6 not stated to me in her 161 cr.P.C.
that on 04.07.2013 at about 8.00 p.m. his father called her
phone informed that he was coming in Bolero van along with
his sons and also informed there was dispute arose in the
house of A3 between parents of A3 and he attended the
same and he will come tohome and asked her to prepare
food. It is true that PW.6 has not stated to me that when his
father and sons did not return she continuously called to his
father on phone and it was switched off, she also called to
the cell phone of A3 in the morning at 5.00 a.m. and A3
came to their house along with his mother informed that the
parents were not come to his house and again she called to
the cell phone of A2 and enquired and he denied the
presence of his parents and told that we did some thing
against them and he did not turn up and they searched here
and there along with A3.
It is true PW.6 has not stated to me that in the evening at
about 4.00 p.m. A2 called her and informed that police
Kalwakurthy called him, informed him that there were two
dead bodies found near Kuppagandla village and he went
there and identified the dead bodies as of his parents and
also observed injuries on the dead bodies, some body kills
his parents due to property disputes.
It is true PW.6 has not stated to me that there was
interference of A3 in their disputes and he took away her
father to collect donations for the construction of
Shaneshwaram temple at Siddipet village and in this regard
there is dispute arose between her father and A3 and the
said fact was informed to her by his father.
PW.7 not stated before me that on 4.07.2013 they return to
Hyderabad in Thungabadra train at 3.00 p.m and
telephoned me at 8.00 p.m. that they have reached
Hyderabad and told that they will come again after 10 days
and after reaching the home my father informed that he will
called again. But he did not call to me. When I telephoned to
him he did not respond and I called my sister PW.6 she told
that my parents did not turnup, on that day and also till
afternoon on the next day no reply was received about our
parents. My sister told in the evening at 3 or 4.00 p.m. about
noticing of two deadbodies lying at Kuppagandla village of
Veldanda mandal and she requested me to come to there
and PW.6 also going there. Immediately I reached
Kalwakurthy in the evening and went to police station. Police
took me to government hospital, Kalwakurthy and shown me
the said dead bodies. I identified said both dead bodies as
my parents. I observed cut injury on the necks of my father
and mother. By seeing the said injuries some persons
murdered my parents and also PW.7 not stated before me
that A3 intended to construct Shaneshwara temple at
Siddipet as such he took the help of my father for collection
of donations for the construction of temple in Bollero vehicle
and they collected amount, A3 used to call my father when
he was stay in Kurnool."
17. Having gone through the trial Court findings, heavy reliance was
placed on the improved version of the witnesses as extracted above.
18. The Police did not collect the call data of the deceased phones or
the details of cell phones of A1, A2, PW.6 and PW.7. The alleged
phone calls made by PWs.6 and 7 as stated before Court ought to
have been substantiated by collecting the cell phone numbers of PW.6
and 7 to show that they called the deceased or A1 and A2 called the
deceased while they were in Kurnool or in the train while coming back
from Kurnool. There are no witnesses who have seen the appellants at
Malakpet Railway Station. Though, CCTV is affixed at Malakpet
Railway Station, PW.14 admitted that he did not collect the CCTV
footages at Malakpet Railway Station and cross roads on the said
date. PW.14 further admitted that he did not collect any evidence to
show the movement of the Bolero vehicle from Malakpet to Kurnool.
19. The appellants, A1 and the Juvenile were arrested on
15.07.2013. At the instance of A2 a paper cutting blade M.O.11 was
seized and A2's shirt-M.O.20 with blood stains was also seized.
M.O.21 is shirt of A3. Though the seizures were made neither the
shirts of A2 and A3 nor the paper cutting blades-M.O.11 and 12 were
sent for FSL examination to know whether there were blood stains on
the shirt of the accused 2 and 3 and whether the blood belongs to the
deceased.
20. The conviction of the appellants was entirely based on the
alleged confession and the improved version that was given during the
course of trial by PWs.6 and 7.
21. The prosecution did not file any documents to show that the
deceased owned immovable properties to substantiate the version of
killing the deceased for properties. In cases of circumstantial
evidence, every circumstance has to be proved beyond reasonable
doubt by the prosecution and such circumstances should make out
complete chain of the case which would rule out the possibility of
innocence of the accused and such circumstances should point only
towards the accused as the perpetrators of the crime with no place for
doubt.
22. The prosecution was not able to prove;
i) that the deceased owned any properties and there were any fights
between them for the properties.
ii) The appellants were present at Malakpet Railway Station to pick up
the deceased.
iii) that Bolero vehicle was used to take the deceased by the
appellants and travelled from Malakpet Railway Station to
Kuppagandla village, Kalwakurthy, nearly 80 k.ms. from Malakpet
Railway Station.
iv) that there was calls in between the deceased, PWs.6 and 7 and the
appellants on 04.07.2013 by collecting the call data and also
collecting their cell phone numbers.
v) that anything incriminating was found in the Bolero vehicle.
vi) that M.Os.1 to 14 including shirts of A2 and A3 contained blood
stains by sending them to FSL.
23. As discussed above, the prosecution has failed miserably to
make out a case against the appellants and all the three appeals
deserve to be allowed.
24. Accordingly, all the three Criminal Appeals are allowed setting
aside the conviction recorded by the Judge, Family Court,
Mahabubnagar, in S.C.No.177/2014. The appellants/A3, A4 & A2 are
acquitted. Since the appellants/A3 and A4 are in jail, they shall be
released, forthwith, if not required in any other case.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
__________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date: 07.01.2025
tk
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.186, 275 of 2017 and 2635 OF 2018
Date: 07.01.2025
tk
