Telangana High Court

The State Of Telangana vs Subramanyam Sharavanan on 4 March, 2025

                                  1




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

             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3193 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

1. The State is aggrieved by the judgment dated

07.06.2018, in S.C.No.299 of 2014, on the file of Special

Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-

VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad,

acquitting the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence

under Sections 302 r/w. 34 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for State. Perused the record.

3. The facts of the case are that, on 14.11.2013, around

2:30 a.m., A-1 and A-2 went to the Market Police Station and

surrendered before P.W.16, who was the then Inspector of

Police. A-1 and A-2 informed P.W.16 that they wanted to

confess about a crime. P.W.16 took both of them into

custody, and secured presence of P.W.11 and another,

namely Ganga Prasad. It is alleged that, in their presence, A-

1 confessed that he was married to the deceased (D.2),

namely Padma Priya, which was an arranged marriage. D.2

started harassing the family members of A-1 on petty issues.

The elders were called by A-1 and they tried to explain to D.2,

however, there was no change in her attitude. She used to

regularly pick up quarrels with the family members of A-1.

4. In the month of April, 2011, A-1 sent a legal notice to

D.2 advising her to change her attitude, if not, he will divorce

her. After receiving the notice, D.2 lodged a complaint

against 14 family members of A-1. The said crime was

registered, however, the case, which was filed by D.2, was

closed for lack of evidence. A-1 filed a kidnapping case

against D.2 and her family members in Agodi police station.

D.2 was arrested by police and later released. Due to

insuffient evidence, case filed by A-1 against D.2 and others

was closed. D.2 then obtained a protection warrant from

Bangalore Court and came to Hyderabad. Thereafter, D.2

started staying with A-1 in his house. She was attending job

in the night hours. In the month of July, 2012, A-1 came to

know that D.2 was already married prior to his marriage with

her, and the said information was concealed by D.2. A-1 filed

complaint against D.2 and others for the offence of bigamy

and cheating. (D.2) and her mother (D.1) used to harass A-1

and his family members, while staying with A-1 at

Kummariguda. Again a complaint was lodged by D.1 and D.2

against A-3 with the Market Police.

5. Unable to bear harassment of the deceased, A-1 along

with his maternal uncle/A-2, and his younger brother/A-3

planned to kill the deceased. Accordingly, A-1 and A-2

waited in the house, where A-1 and D.1 were staying, while

A-3 was keeping a watch outside. Both deceased went to the

house and knocked on the door. A-1 and A-2 opened the

door and both deceased entered the house. On that, A-1 and

A-2 assaulted both deceased, resulting in their death.

Thereafter, both A-1 and A-2 surrendered before the police

station and confessed to the crime, while A-3 absconded.

6. At the instance of the accused, M.Os.1 and 2 and

M.Os.4 to 9, which are two shirts, two pants, one cell phone,

iron rod, shawl, towel, bed sheet, chunni, and Karbon cell

phone, were seized.

7. P.W.16, who is the Investigating Officer, went to the

scene of offence at the instance of A-1. Scene of Offence

panchnama was conducted and inquest proceedings were

concluded. Thereafter, the bodies were shifted to Gandhi

hospital.

8. Autopsy was conducted by P.W.12 on both bodies.

P.W.12/the post mortem Doctor opined that the reason for

cause of death of D.1 was due to head injury, and D.2 was

due to strangulation associated with head injury. Having

concluded the investigation, charge sheet was filed.

9. Learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution

relied on the following circumstances:

i) Motive

ii) Conduct of accused viz., surrender of the accused Nos.1 and 2 before the police station, immediately after the commission of offence and seizure of incriminating material.

iii) Extra judicial confession.

iv) Presumption.

10. Learned Sessions Judge found that the confession

made by A-1 and A-2 will not fall within exception of Section

24 of the Evidence Act, to consider the confessions as an

extra judicial confession. Since the alleged confessions were

made in the police station in the presence of police personnel,

the said confessions of A-1 and A-2 are inadmissible in view

of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Further, the main witness

P.W.11, who was the alleged witness to the confession and

seizure of M.Os.4 to 9, was declared hostile to the

prosecution case. Apart from the confession and subsequent

seizures, that were effected by the Police, there is absolutely

no other evidence to suggest that it was the accused who had

committed the offence.

11. Learned Sessions Judge found that, P.W.3 is one of the

witnesses who stated about the deceased going into the

house of the accused. It was argued by the Public Prosecutor

that presumption has to be drawn under Section 106 of the

Evidence Act and burden shifts on to the accused to explain

the deaths of D.1 and D.2. Learned Sessions Judge found

that, according to P.W.3, he only knew about the deceased

going to that particular house, however, he was not an eye

witness to the incident. Further, the Investigating Officer did

not collect any call data records to prove that any information

was passed on by D.2 to P.Ws.3 and 4. The witnesses,

P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the immediate neighbours, also did

not speak about deceased visiting the house of A-1. Further,

P.W.3, in his chief examination, did not support the case of

the prosecution regarding the alleged confession of A-3 and

recovery of M.Os.1 to 3, hence seizure of M.Os.1 to 3 cannot

be believed.

12. Learned Sessions Judge found that though FSL report

was filed, it was not marked by the prosecution. There can

be no credibility attached to the prosecution case in the

absence of any substantive evidence against the accused, for

the Court to infer the involvement of the accused in the

murder of D.1 and D.2

13. The case is one of circumstantial evidence. It is for the

prosecution to prove each and every circumstance, beyond

reasonable doubt. All the said circumstances should

collectively point towards the guilt of the accused to rule out

any possibility of the innocence of the accused. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in several judgments, including the judgment

in Crl.A.No.713 of 2004, held that, suspicion, however grave,

cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference

between something that 'may be proved' and 'will be proved'.

14. The case is one of acquittal being questioned in appeal.

The parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

cases against acquittal, are enunciated in the following

judgments:

15. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of

Delhi) and another 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that

while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate

court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be

termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on

record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of

acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour

of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively

slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering

acquittal.

16. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, after referring to several Judgments

regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of

appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at

para 70 as follows:

"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:

1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.

A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to

(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536

(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450

discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:

i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong:

ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;

iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice";

iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;

v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;

vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.

vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.

2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court.

3. If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction __the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."

17. Learned Sessions Judge elaborately discussed the

evidence against the accused. The case is one of

circumstantial evidence. The main witnesses to the last seen

theory and also the confession of accused and the

subsequent seizures, were all declared hostile and they did

not support the prosecution case. In the absence of any

connecting link in the case of the prosecution, which depends

on the alleged confession and seizures that were effected at

the instance of accused, learned Sessions Judge had rightly

recorded the acquittal. There are no compelling reasons to

interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge,

recording acquittal of the respondents/accused.