Telangana High Court
Kukatla Komaraiah, Karimnagar Dt, Ts., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 6 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.749 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER)
This Criminal Appeal is filed questioning the conviction and
sentence imposed against the appellant/accused vide Judgment
dated 12.08.2016, in S.C.No.484 of 2014, by the learned Judge,
Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Karimnagar, wherein the appellant/accused was convicted under
Sections 302 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- for the
offence under Section 302 of IPC; to undergo rigorous Imprisonment
for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, for the offence
under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard Mr.MD.Sadath Hussain, learned legal aid counsel for the
appellant/accused and Mr.Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 09.06.2012, PW.1
who is the defacto complainant, went to the police station and filed
complaint at 00.30 hours informing the Police that, on the previous
day, i.e., on 08.06.2012, around 3.00 p.m., his mother was found
dead in the house. Immediately, PW.1 and others went to the house
and found the dead body of his mother in the room. Gold Ornaments
were missing from the dead body and there were injuries. PW.1
suspected that some unknown person killed his mother and
committed theft of gold ornaments.
4. The appellant was apprehended in Crime No.260 of 2013 by
P.S., Sulthanabad. In the said crime, the Police came to know that
the appellant had confessed regarding committing the present crime.
The Investigating Officer, having received the information on
22.10.2013, took independent witnesses along with him for the
purpose of investigation. The interrogation of the appellant was in
the presence of mediators, PW.5 and another. Pursuant to the
confession, the appellant produced MOs.1 and 2, which are, ear
studs and gold ear tops, respectively. Admittedly, none of the
witnesses have stated anything about the appellant being seen
anywhere near the scene of offence. Only on the basis of confession
in another crime, the appellant was identified as the person who
committed the murder of PW.1's mother/deceased, and pursuant to
his confession, MOs.1 and 2 were seized. The said seizure of MOs.1
and 2 formed basis for conviction of the appellant in the present
case.
5. This Court had dealt with Crl.A.No.739 of 2017 and also
Crl.A.No.614 of 2017. In the said cases also, the appellant was
shown as accused, and convicted on the basis of the alleged recovery
in the said case on the same day.
6. The property, i.e., MOs.1 and 2 should have been identified in
accordance with Rule-35 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, however,
the said procedure was not followed. The only evidence is that the
appellant confessed to committing the crime, when he was
questioned in the other crimes. Though the said confession was
recorded in the presence of PW.6 and another witness, the manner in
which the appellant was arrested and the recoveries were effected
create any amount of doubt regarding the implication of the
appellant. Any amount of suspicion cannot take the place of legal
proof. The trial Court got carried away by the fact that the appellant
was involved in 2 other cases. There is no reliable and admissible
evidence to convict the appellant in the present case. The duty of the
prosecution is to prove the case against the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt.
7. The Honourable Supreme Court in Shankar v. State of
Maharashtra 1, held as follows;
"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:
2023 SCC OnLine SC 268
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."
8. Judges cannot assume or presume a situation to convict an
accused. The evidence has to be assessed and relied on in
accordance with Evidence Act. Evidence placed on record by the
prosecution against an accused or accused adducing evidence, Court
has to initially test the veracity and reliability and then the Court
has to form an opinion on the basis of admissible evidence which
was adduced by the prosecution or defence during the course of trial.
As per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the confession
which was made under police custody is inadmissible. The Court
cannot look into any inadmissible evidence to base its finding in a
criminal case. The learned Sessions Judge has erred in relying on
the alleged confession made during course of investigation and the
consequent recovery of M.O.1 and M.O.2, which is wholly unreliable.
9. It is apparent that the Police has shown seizure in all three
cases on the same day from the premises of Syed Syraj, who was
examined as PW.4, however, PW.4 did not support the case of the
prosecution, and stated that some household articles were kept by
the appellant in his house. The said evidence of PW.4 is of no avail to
the prosecution case. The offence was on 09.06.2012 and the
appellant was apprehended in some other case on 22.10.2013 i.e.,
nearly 18 months after the incident. Not a single witness had
identified the accused who has seen the appellant near the place of
incident. As already discussed confession has formed sole basis to
convict the appellant. In the said circumstances, benefit of doubt is
extended to the appellant.
10. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed, setting aside the
conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Judge, Family
Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar,
dated 12.08.2016, in S.C.No.484 of 2014. Since the
appellant/accused is in jail, he shall be released forthwith, if he is
not required in any other cases.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
__________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date: 06.03.2025
Note: Dispatch forthwith
B/o.tk
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.749 OF 2017
Date: 06.03.2025
tk
