Telangana High Court

The State Of Telangana vs Polati Venugopal Rao And 6 Others on 11 March, 2025

                                  1




      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                      AND
     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2477 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

1. The State is aggrieved by the judgment dated

26.12.2017, in S.C.No.357 of 2016, on the file of Principal

Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, acquitting A-1 to A-6 for the

offences under Sections 120(B), 364, 343, 384, 302, and 201

of IPC, and A-8 for the offences under Sections 120(B), 364,

343, 302, and 201 r/w. 109 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for State. Perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.08.2010, the

deceased, who is the husband of P.W.1, left home around 8

a.m., however, he did not return home. P.W.1 enquired with

her co-sister/P.W.2 about the deceased. P.W.2 stated that

the deceased would return home by evening. The deceased

did not return home on that night and also on the next day.

Since P.W.1's search for the deceased proved futile, the son of

the deceased lodged a complaint with the Police, which is

Ex.P.1. The Sub-Inspector of Police/P.W.16 received the

complaint, and he registered it as a 'man missing' case, and

took up the investigation. The statement of P.W.2 was

recorded on 08.08.2010, and the statements of P.Ws.4 and 5

were recorded on 02.10.2010. P.W.16, while conducting a

vehicle check on 06.10.2010, found A-2 and A-5 in an auto,

and apprehended them. On interrogation, they confessed, in

the presence of P.W.9 and another, that they have committed

the murder of the deceased along with the other accused.

According to their confessions, the deceased was kidnapped

and killed with the help of A-3, and after taking the

deceased's gold chain and gold ring, the dead body was burnt

by taking the deceased in the auto of A-5. It is the further

case of the prosecution that the deceased was confined in a

room belonging to A-2. On the said day, A-2 and A-4 went to

the house of the deceased and asked P.W.1 for gold. P.W.1

asked the deceased, and at his instance, P.W.1 handed over

12 tulas of old, cash of Rs.1,000/-, a cell charger, and a pair

of clothes to them. There was also a demand for Rs.10 lakhs;

however, the said amount was not given, and meanwhile, the

accused committed the murder of the deceased.

4. Pursuant to the confessions of A-2 and A-5, 5½ tulas of

gold and one toy pistol made of wood were seized from A-2,

and an auto was seized from A-5. A-2 took the independent

witnesses, P.W.7 and two others, and pointed out the place

where the body was buried. P.W.16/Inspector of Police, in

the presence of P.W.7 and two other witnesses, exhumed the

dead body. After exhumation, the inquest proceedings were

conducted, and thereafter, the dead body was sent for post

mortem examination.

5. On 07.10.2010, P.W.16 filed an alteration memo before

the Court. On 11.10.2010, A-3, A-6 to A-9 were arrested. At

the instance of A-3, a gold chain, and at the instance of A-6,

another gold chain was seized. From A-7 and A-8 also gold

articles were seized. On 28.10.2010, at 10:40 hours, P.W.17

arrested A-1. Pursuant to his confession, 4 gold bangles and

a Hero Honda Passion motorcycle were seized. On

25.01.2011, P.W.17 forwarded the humerus right bone of the

deceased to the FSL for the purpose of examination. The

blood sample of the son of the deceased was taken, which

tallied with the DNA profile of the deceased that was

exhumed. The investigation was concluded, and a charge

sheet was laid against A-1 to A-6 and A-8. A-7 died.

6. Learned Sessions Judge, having considered the

evidence on record, acquitted the accused on the following

grounds:-

1. The evidence of the Investigating Officer and

P.W.3 that the dead body was pointed out by A-2

cannot be believed, since, according to P.W.16

/Investigating Officer, the blood relatives came to the

place only after the dead body was exhumed.

2. The confession, which runs into 8 ½ pages,

could not have been prepared within the time frame

stipulated by the Investigating Officer, as the arrest

was at 10 a.m. and the exhumation started by 1 p.m.

3. P.W.7, who is the Sweeper in the Grampanchayat,

stated that A-2 has shown the place of burial of the

body, and it was dug by him and two others. P.W.7

stated that the Police asked him to come to

Manakondur to exhume the body.

4. P.W.16/Investigating Officer admitted that P.W.7

did not speak about A-2 showing the place of burial of

the dead body.

5. The evidence of P.W.9, who is the witness to the

alleged confession of A-2 and A-5, cannot be believed

since he is not a resident of Valbhapur village, where

A-2 and A-5 were arrested.

6. The entire confession that was recorded by the

Police is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian

Evidence Act. Though P.W.9 stated that he went to

Valbhapur bus stand at 10 a.m., however, according to

P.W.16, A-2 and A-5 were arrested at 9:30 a.m. itself,

while conducting a vehicle check. Once the Police have

already seized the toy pistol, the question of discovering

it after the confession does not arise.

7. The recoveries that were affected would not fall

within the admissibility under Section 27 of the Indian

Evidence Act, since the recoveries were already made

and no new fact was discovered by the Police.

8. The evidence of P.W.1 identifying the accused is

after 7 years, and there was no Test Identification

Parade that was conducted.

9. The prosecution's case of abduction and detention

of the deceased cannot be believed since no neighbor of

house of A-2 was examined to indicate that the

deceased was detained in the house of A-2.

10. P.W.13 is the witness to the confession and the

seizure at the instance of A-1. However, in the cross

examination, it was proved that he has given two

different versions on two different occasions. As such,

reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of P.W.13.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the dead

body was exhumed at the instance of A-2, and gold

ornaments were also seized at the instance of accused. The

said circumstances are enough to infer the case of the

prosecution that the deceased was abducted and detained,

and thereafter, murdered by the accused.

8. In cases of acquittal, the appellate Court cannot reverse

the judgment of acquittal, unless there are compelling

reasons in the form of trial Court not considering any

inadmissible evidence or placing reliance on inadmissible

evidence in acquitting the accused.

9. 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.

10. 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."

11. The complaint was filed nearly 6 days after the

deceased went missing. In the complaint that was drafted by

the son of the deceased, there was no mention of any of the

accused approaching P.W.1 one day after the deceased went

missing and collecting gold ornaments and cash from P.W.1.

P.W.1 has identified the accused Nos.2, 4, and 5, seven years

after the alleged incident. Firstly, there is no mention of any

of the accused going to the house of P.W.1 and collecting the

jewelry under Ex.P.1. However, in the statement recorded

under Section 161 Cr.P.C., P.W.1 stated that three persons

came to her house. Secondly, the descriptive particulars of

three persons were neither stated, nor were the accused