Telangana High Court
Vemula Srinivasa Rao Vasu vs State Of Telangana on 27 March, 2025
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No. 198 OF 2018
Between:
Vemula Srinivasa Rao ... Appellant /A1
And
The State of Telangana ... Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 27.03.2025
Submitted for approval.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No
2 Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
_____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
2
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
+ Criminal Appeal No. 198 OF 2018
% Dated 27.03.2025
# Vemula Srinivasa Rao ... Appellant /A1
And
$ The State of Telangana ... Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellant: Ms.G.Jaya Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla
Additional Public Prosecutor for the
respondent State.
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 268
2. (2013) 12 SCC 406
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.198 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
(per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER)
This appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Accused No. 1 against
the judgment in SC. No. 736 of 2013, dated 5.12.2017, passed by the
Court of III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Ranga Reddy
District, wherein A1 was convicted for offences under Sections 302, 201,
420, 380, and 120-B of the IPC. A2 was found not guilty and was
acquitted of the charges under Sections 302, 201, and 120-B of the IPC.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that, on 23.5.2011, at 7:15 PM, the
SHO, LB Nagar PS, received a complaint through the II-Metropolitan
Magistrate Court. PW..1/Complainant, in the complaint, stated that:
a) Her husband, Nama Muralidhar Rao (hereinafter referred to as 'the
deceased'), met with an accident on 21.4.2011 at about 11:30 PM in
front of the Ranga Reddy District Courts Complex, on National
Highway No. 9, L.B Nagar, R.R District. A case was registered in Cr.
No. 579/2011 under Section 304 A of the IPC against an unknown
vehicle based on a complaint lodged by the deceased's brother-in-
law, Narender (PW..6), and the same was under investigation.
b) PW.1 further stated that the deceased was running a private
finance business with a turnover of nearly Rs. 70 to 80 lakhs and
was also engaged in the purchase and sale of second-hand cars.
The deceased was assisted by A1, who was his brother-in-law
(maternal aunt's son). A1 used to collect daily finance recoveries
amounting to nearly Rs. 1 lakh and remit the same to the deceased
the following morning. A1 also assisted the deceased in the second-
hand car business. The deceased travelled to Hong Kong in the
second week of April 2011 and returned on 14.4.2011. Upon his
return, he asked A1 to repay the collection amount for the week
during which he was out of the country. In response, A1 stated that
the amount had been deposited in his account and that he would
return it later. On 15.4.2011, A1 was supposed to return the money
but failed to do so. As a result, the deceased scolded A1, not only
for this issue but also for neglecting his father's care. The deceased
demanded A1 to pay the collection amount for two days, but A1
only gave approximately Rs. 80,000 on 15.4.2011, which was
significantly less than the total collection for the week. A1 also
assured the deceased that he would withdraw the remaining
amount from his bank account and return it later.
c) On 18.4.2011, PW..1 and the deceased were waiting for A1 to
return the daily finance collections. A1 was expected to arrive at
around 9:00 AM but only arrived at 1:00 PM to hand over the
money.
d) The deceased then questioned A1 about his delay, to which A1
replied that he had gone to a temple. Dissatisfied with his casual
response, the deceased warned A1 not to visit his house from the
next day onwards and stated that he would collect the money from
A1's shop himself. Furthermore, the deceased instructed A1 that if
he had no interest in assisting with the daily finance business, he
should hand over the list of all debtors, as the deceased would
manage the business himself.
e) On 19.4.2011 and 20.4.2011, A1 arrived promptly at 9:30 AM and
handed over the day's collection. Similarly, on 21.4.2011, A1
arrived at 8:00 AM and handed over the collection money. Later
that evening, at around 7:00 PM, A1 made a phone call to the
deceased, informing him that he was bringing two cars and
instructing him not to leave the house until he received a call. The
deceased, expecting A1's call, waited at home. However, by 9:30
PM, when no call was received from A1, the deceased went to the
wine shop of PW.3, a partner of Sagar Wines, situated at LB Nagar.
f) At approximately 12:15 am on 22.4.2011, A1 and PW.3, a friend of
the deceased, arrived at PW.1's house and inquired about the
whereabouts of the deceased. PW.1 responded that she did not
know. Upon this, A1 informed PW.1 to get ready as the deceased
had met with a minor accident, and they needed to go to the
hospital. PW.1 got ready and accompanied PW.3 and A1 to Omni
Hospital, Kothapet. PW.4, the deceased's sister, also accompanied
them to the hospital.
g) On the way to the hospital, A1 informed PW.1 that the deceased
was in a heavily intoxicated state, and due to rash driving, the
accident had occurred. At the hospital, A1 took the key to PW.1's
house from her under the pretext of dropping the two children at
PW.4's house. Later, after some time, A1 went to PW.1's house
again to bring a lungi and a bedsheet. He returned the keys to PW.1
at 6:30 am in the morning.
h) Meanwhile, the deceased succumbed to his injuries while
undergoing treatment at Omni Hospital, and a case was registered
under Section 304-A of IPC. The investigation was undertaken by
PW.26, the Sub-Inspector of Police at LB Nagar PS.
i) PW.1 further stated that, on 23.4.2011, after performing the funeral
rites of the deceased, she discovered that the deceased's important
diary, containing daily finance collection transactions, was missing
from the house. She immediately questioned A1 regarding the
missing diary since he had possession of the house keys until that
time. A1 advised PW.1 to search for the diary in the house. Later, in
the presence of the deceased's friends and family members,
including PW.s 2 to 5 and 6 to 8, A1 confessed that he had taken
the diary and another file, giving a vague reason that he took them
for his six-month-old son. A1 assured PW.1 that he would return
the diary and the file to her.
j) PW.1 then sent PW.6 along with A1 to A1's house to retrieve the
diary and file. However, despite thoroughly searching the entire
apartment, PW.6 could not locate them. A1 provided an excuse that
one of his tenants was not at home and that he would retrieve the
diary upon the tenant's return. However, A1 neither returned the
diary nor went back to PW.1's house.
k) On 25.4.2011, A1 told PW.1 that he would arrive by 1:00 pm to
hand over the diary and file, but he did not show up until the
evening. PW.1 then called Suhasini, A1's wife, to inquire about A1's
whereabouts, to which she responded that she would inform him.
At approximately 9:30 pm, A1 arrived at PW.1's house and assured
her that he would disclose the details of those who had taken loans
and would return the diary.
l) PW.1 further stated that she suspected A1 not only of stealing the
diary but also of being involved in the accident that led to the
deceased's death. However, on that day, A1, along with some police
officials and the deceased's friends, went to Kachiguda in search of
the diary and the debtors. Until midnight, A1 neither produced the
diary nor provided the names of the debtors and simply returned.
m) A1 was then handed over to PS, LB Nagar, for further inquiry. On
26.4.2011, at approximately 10:00 am, A1 attempted to commit
suicide to avoid confessing the truth before the police officials by
piercing a small rod into his throat. As a result, PW.1 lodged a
complaint with PS, LB Nagar, and a case was registered in Cr. No.
600/2011 under Sections 309 and 506 of IPC. The case concluded
with a conviction on 23.12.2011, vide CC No. 138/2011, where A1
was fined Rs 1,500.
n) Even the next day, A1 neither appeared nor provided details of the
debtors. Instead, A1's wife and his sisters, Manjula and Aparna,
attempted to lodge a complaint at PS Saroor Nagar against PW.1,
PW.4, and others, alleging harassment and claiming that A1 had
gone missing due to their actions.
o) Furthermore, PW.1 learned that approximately six to seven months
prior to the deceased's death, A1 had requested the deceased to
provide a loan of approximately Rs 26,00,000 to one Madhusudhan
Reddy. The deceased had extended the loan, but only Rs 3 to 4
lakhs was recovered, while Madhusudhan Reddy failed to repay the
remaining amount and subsequently filed an insolvency petition.
Due to this, the deceased insisted that A1 repay the outstanding
amount of approximately Rs.20,00,000/-. A1 expressed his inability
to do so. PW.1 also learned that the deceased advised A1 to
subscribe to a chit fund worth Rs.20,00,000/- to repay the loan.
Accordingly, A1 subscribed to three chits--two worth Rs.5,00,000/-
each and one worth Rs.10,00,000/-. All three chits were lifted, and
the amount was taken by the deceased.
p) In this manner, A1 was compelled to repay Rs.20,00,000/- to the
deceased. Furthermore, shortly before the deceased's death, the
deceased had reprimanded A1, instructing him to leave his
business. Consequently, A1 conspired to eliminate the deceased
and take over his business. PW.1 firmly believes that the accident
that occurred on 21.4.2011, at approximately 11:30 pm, was
actually a premeditated murder orchestrated by A1, with the
assistance of A2 and A3, who were his associates. As per A1's plan,
the accident was staged with the help of A2 and A3 using an Indica
car, which was in A1's possession on that day.
q) PW.1, in her complaint, further stated that on the night of the
accident, A1 arrived at the scene within minutes, despite his house
being nearly 4 km away. PW.1 suspects A1's involvement in the
conspiracy due to his actions following the incident, such as
stealing the deceased's important business diary on the same night
and vacating his business shop, along with its documents, the
following day. A1 to A6, acting with a common intention, colluded
with each other, and in furtherance of their conspiracy, A1
murdered the deceased and staged it as an accident.
r) The conspiracy is further revealed by the fact that A1 had been in
contact with the deceased throughout the day on 21.4.2011, the
date of the accident. Yet, it was PW.14, who happened to be passing
by in a seven-seater auto en route to Vanasthalipuram, who first
informed others about the accident. However, A1 arrived at the
scene within just three minutes.
s) Additionally, A1 collected the daily business collections amounting
to Rs.3 lakhs from PW.8 even after the deceased's death, but he did
not inform PW.8 of the death until 25.4.2011. A1 also retrieved all
his documents from PW.11 on 22.4.2011, at 10:00 am, but again
failed to disclose the deceased's death. PW.1 further asserted that
an investigation into A1's mobile call records (+91 9704142595)
could help identify the individuals who executed the staged
accident to murder the deceased.
3. Upon receiving PW.1's complaint, referred by the Hon'ble II
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, LB Nagar, PW.27, who was the then
inspector of police at LB Nagar, registered a case in Cr. No. 728/2011
under Sections 406, 420, 380, 302 read with 120(b) and 34 of the IPC
and commenced the investigation.
4. During the course of the investigation, PW.27 examined PWs.1 to 5,
7 to 11, 14, and LWs 11 and 14, recording their statements. PW.26
examined and recorded the statements of PWs. 6, 13, 15, and 16, along
with LWs. 19 and 20, incorporating them into Part II CDs in Cr. No.
579/2011 under Section 304-A of IPC, which was initially registered and
later merged with this murder case.
5. Briefly, the facts of Cr. No. 579/2011 are that, on 22.4.2011, at
2:30 am, a complaint was received from PW.6, stating that on 21.4.2011,
at 11:15 pm, his brother-in-law (the deceased) was riding his motorcycle,
bearing No. AP 11 AE 3356, and while passing Saroornagar Indoor
Stadium, an unknown vehicle hit him from behind, causing him to fall
onto the road. He was immediately shifted to Omni Hospital, where he
succumbed to his injuries at 1:00 am. The case was registered by PW.27,
and PW.26 proceeded with the investigation.
6. During the investigation in Cr. No. 579/2011, PW.26 visited the
crime scene and conducted a scene-of-offence panchanama in the
presence of mediators, LWs 4 and 21. The deceased's body was later
shifted from Omni Hospital to OGH, where LW.28, who had treated the
deceased, declared him dead. PW.26 conducted an inquest over the body
at OGH in the presence of mediators, LWs. 22 and 23, and sent it for
post-mortem examination (PME). LW.29 performed the autopsy and
concluded that the cause of death was due to "multiple injuries."
7. While the investigation was ongoing, on 3.6.2011, A1 surrendered
before the Hon'ble Court and was remanded to Central Prison.
Consequently, PW.27 filed a requisition for police custody of A1, which
was granted for two days. A1 was brought from Central Prison to the
police station on 8.6.2011 for further investigation.
8. On 9.6.2011, A1's confession was recorded in the presence of
mediators, LWs. 24 and 25. A1 allegedly admitted to committing the
murder of the deceased along with A2 by ramming the deceased's
motorcycle, bearing No. AP 11 AE 3356, from behind with a TATA Indica
car, bearing No. AP 21 Q 6443, on 21.4.2011, due to business rivalry and
financial disputes. Pursuant to his confession, A1 led the police and
mediators to National Motors Shed, Ameerpet, owned by PW.9, where A1
had left the Indica car for sale. The vehicle was seized from PW.9 under a
panchanama.
9. On 29.6.2012, A2 surrendered before the Court and was sent to
judicial remand. Upon a requisition filed by PW.28, the Court granted
police custody of A2 from 6.7.2012 until 9.7.2012. On 7.7.2012, A2's
confession was recorded in the presence of LWs. 26 and 27. Pursuant to
his confession, a scene-of-offence reconstruction panchanama was
conducted, and observations were officially documented.
10. In furtherance of A2's confession, he led the police to Decent Motors
Workshop near Sundaraiah Park, where A2 had taken the crime vehicle--
a white Indica car, bearing No. AP 21 Q 6443--to have the right-side
portion of the bonnet repaired and repainted. A2 also identified the
workshop owner, PW.12.
11. The seized Indica car, bearing No. AP 21 Q 6443, was examined by
LW.30, a scientific officer from APFSL, who issued an opinion stating that
"previously formed dents on the bonnet of car bearing registration No. AP
21 Q 6443 were removed, and that portion was repainted (at the front
side of the car)."
12. The seized car was also inspected by LW.31, who issued a report
concluding that "the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects
of the vehicle."
13. After the investigation was concluded, A1 was charge-sheeted for
offenses punishable under Sections 406, 420, 380, 302, 201 read with
120-B and 34 of the IPC, while A2 was charge-sheeted for offenses under
Sections 302, 201 read with 120-B and 34 of the IPC. No prima facie case
was established against A3 to A6
14. The learned Sessions Judge convicted A1 based on circumstantial
evidence, relying on the following circumstances:
1. A1 was closely related to the deceased, worked under him,
and also assisted him in his business.
2. A1 failed to remit the amounts collected by him during the
deceased's absence from India. Even after the deceased's return, A1
did not properly pay these amounts, leading to disputes between
them.
3. Due to these disputes, the deceased assaulted A1 at his car
shop and warned him in the presence of PW.1 not to visit his
house.
4. The deceased informed his business partners, PW.s 2, 3, and
5, about his financial troubles, specifically regarding A1's failure to
pay the collected amounts.
5. A1 insisted that PW.1 give him the diary and file related to
the deceased's financial transactions during his absence abroad.
6. The said diary and file were found missing from PW.1's
house.
7. A1 confessed to PW.1, PW.4, and other family members that
he had taken the diary and file from PW.1's house and promised to
return them but failed to do so despite repeated requests.
8. When A1 was taken to the police station to be handed over to
the police for failing to keep his word and for his suspicious
behaviour, he pierced an iron rod into his neck in an attempt to
commit suicide.
9. A case was registered in Cr. No. 600 of 2011 under Sections
309 and 506 at PS LB Nagar, which culminated in CC No. 138 of
2011. The case resulted in a conviction on 23.12.2011, and A1 paid
a fine of ₹1,500.
10. On the day of the accident, i.e., 21.4.2011, A1 visited the
wine shop and inquired whether the deceased had been there just
before the accident.
11. Immediately after the accident, A1 took the deceased to Omni
Hospital and admitted him for treatment, as per PW.23's evidence
under ExP11.
12. The Investigating Officer deposed that A1 burned the diary
and files, making it impossible to recover them as material
evidence.
13. As per ExP13, submitted by PW.24, there was no mechanical
defect in MO1/Car at the time of the accident.
14. The car mechanic stated that A1 brought MO1/Car and had
it repaired.
15. ExP21 FSL report confirms that MO1/Car was repainted.
16. There is a clear corroboration between the ExP13 report and
the ExP21 FSL report.
17. A1's confession led to the recovery of MO1/Car.
15. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to establish that
A1 committed the murder of the deceased and staged it as an accident are
as follows:
1. A1 arrived at the scene of the offence just minutes after the
deceased's accident and took the deceased to the hospital. This is
supported by the evidence of PW.23 and ExP11.
2. On the day following the deceased's death, A1 obtained the papers
of the Santro car from PW.11.
3. After the deceased's death, A1 collected a total of Rs. 3 lakhs (Rs.
1.5 lakhs on two separate occasions) from PW.8, which has been
corroborated by PW.16.
4. MO.1 was identified as the crime vehicle. Following A1's surrender,
his confession was recorded, and based on his confession,
MO.1/White Indica Car, which was used in the crime, was seized at
A1's instance in the presence of mediators, PWs.21 and 25, from
the National Motors Shop where PW.9 is employed.
5. PW.12 deposed that he carried out denting work on the damaged
MO1.
6. PW.13 testified that he had given the MO.1 car to A1 for sale.
7. PW.24, the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, inspected MO1 and
issued Ex.P13, the inspection report, opining that there were 2
damages on MO.1.
16. The first circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that A1
arrived at the scene of the offence just minutes after the deceased's
accident and took the deceased to the hospital. This is supported by the
evidence of PW.23 and Ex.P11. However, none of the witnesses have
stated that A1 was at the accident scene just minutes after the incident.
According to PW.s 2, 3, and 5, they were the ones who took the deceased
to the hospital. They testified that after shifting the deceased to the
hospital, they called A1, and only then did A1 come to the hospital.
16.1. PW.23 stated that he has been working as the RMO at Omni
Hospital and that his testimony is based on hospital records. He deposed
that one Venkata Ramana Reddy worked as the RMO before him and that
after the previous RMO left, he took over the position. He stated that
Ex.P11 is the MLC dated 22.04.2011, issued by Venkata Ramana Reddy.
As per the records, the deceased was brought to the casualty ward on
21.04.2011 at 11:30 P.M by V. Srinivas Rao (A1) and Ram Goud. Ex.P11,
the MLC, clearly states that A1 and one Ram Goud brought the deceased
to Omni Hospital.
16.2 However, if Ex.P11 is considered, then the evidence of PW.s 2, 3,
and 5 contradicts it and cannot be accepted. PW.s 2, 3, and 5 clearly
deposed that on 21.04.2011 at 11:00 PM, a person came to their shop
and informed them about the accident. They rushed to the scene, called
the 108 ambulance, shifted the deceased to the hospital, and
accompanied him there. They also stated that they informed A1, and only
after that did A1 come to the hospital.
16.3 If the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, and 5 is accepted, Ex.P11 cannot be
relied upon to claim that A1 and Ram Goud brought the deceased to the
hospital. Moreover, the prosecution has not examined who this Ram
Goud is, despite Ex.P11 stating that he brought the deceased to the
hospital.
16.4 Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish this circumstance due
to the contradictions in the evidence.
17. The second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that
after the deceased's death, A1 visited the shop of PW.11 and took the
papers of the Santro car from PW.11.
17.1 According to PW.1, PW.11 was known to the deceased and used to
sell second-hand cars through him. For every sale, the deceased would
give PW.11 Rs. 5000. Before the deceased's death, he had left a Santro
car at PW.11's New Age Motor Garage. PW.1 deposed that while they were
at the hospital, A1 went to PW.11 and asked him for the Santro car and
its papers but did not inform PW.11 about the deceased's death.
17.2 PW.11 deposed that A1 used to bring second-hand cars to his "2nd
Choice Car" shop and would pay him a commission if a car was sold. He
also stated that the deceased had brought a Santro car to his shop for
sale and had handed over the car papers to him. About three days before
the deceased's death, A1 and the deceased had come to his shop and
taken the Santro car. On the day after the deceased's death, A1 came and
asked for the car papers, which PW.11 handed over. Half an hour later,
A1 called PW.11 and informed him that the deceased had died.
17.3 During cross-examination, PW.11 stated that he got to know the
deceased through A1. He also mentioned that A1 was involved in the
second-hand car business and later opened Happy Motors. It was through
A1 that the deceased entered the car business. He further stated that the
deceased was mainly involved in the finance business.
17.4 From the above, it is clear that A1 went to PW.11 after the
deceased's death. However, PW.11's testimony shows that selling second-
hand cars was A1's business, not the deceased's. PW.11 also confirmed
that the deceased was in the finance business. Therefore, it was not
unusual for A1 to ask for the car papers, especially since A1 and the
deceased had already taken the car before the deceased's death.
17.5 PW.11's testimony contradicts that of PW.1, as PW.1 stated that it
was the deceased who used to pay commission to PW.11 and that A1 had
demanded the Santro car along with its papers from PW.11. Moreover,
PW.11 stated that A1 informed him about the deceased's death just half
an hour after taking the papers. This contradicts the claim that A1 was
hiding the fact of the deceased's death from PW.11.
17.6 Thus, this circumstance does not support the claim that A1
intended to take over the deceased's business after his death
18. The third circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that after
the deceased's death, A1 collected Rs. 3 lakhs from PW.8, a fact
corroborated by PW.16.
18.1 According to PW.1, the deceased used to lend money to PW.8. She
stated that A1 collected Rs. 1 lakh per day for three days from PW.8. She
also mentioned that the deceased lost his phone in the alleged accident.
PW.1 sent a relative to the Airtel office to obtain a duplicate SIM. On
Monday morning, she received a call from PW.8, who informed her that
A1 had not come to his shop for collection. PW.1 then informed PW.8 that
the deceased had died on Friday, which shocked PW.8. He later informed
PW.1 that A1 had been collecting Rs. 1 lakh per day for the last three
days without informing him about the deceased's death.
18.2 PW.8 deposed that he used to take finance from the deceased and
also supplied spare parts to him for his car business. He stated that he
knew A1, who used to collect finance amounts from customers. He also
mentioned that he had borrowed Rs. 13 lakhs from the deceased and that
although he was required to pay monthly installments, he would pay
whenever he had money. He stated that he used to call A1 to collect the
amount, and sometimes, A1 or the deceased would call him to make
payments.
18.3 However, before the court, PW.8 stated that he had paid Rs. 3 lakhs
in total--Rs. 1.5 lakhs to A1 on two occasions after the deceased's
death.ExD5, marked in PW.8's Section 161 statement, records that PW.8
had borrowed money and was repaying it as daily finance. Though PW.8
denied making this statement, PW.16 confirmed that PW.8 used to borrow
money and repay it over 100 days, with daily installments of Rs. 13,000
collected by A1. PW.16 also confirmed that PW.8 had borrowed Rs. 13
lakhs from the deceased and that payments of Rs. 13,000 were made to
A1 every day.
18.4 PW.16, PW.8's brother, deposed that the deceased was in the
finance business and knew PW.8. He reiterated that PW.8 used to borrow
money and repay it over 100 days, with daily collections by A1. He further
stated that on one occasion, A1 came to their shop and took Rs. 1 lakh,
claiming that the deceased had instructed him to collect the amount.
PW.16 also stated that they only learned about the deceased's death a
week later when PW.1 called and informed them, asking them to stop
giving money to A1. He confirmed that they had paid A1 until receiving
PW.1's call.PW.16 also stated that no receipt was obtained for the Rs. 1
lakh paid to A1, as financial transactions were based on trust and not
documented. Given that the only evidence available is oral testimony, it
requires careful scrutiny.
18.5 First, PW.8's statements contradict each other regarding whether
he took a loan from the deceased and repaid it in installments(as deposed
by him in Court) or was repaying it as daily finance (ExD5 statement).
This is significant because, according to PW.16, PW.8 was paying
Rs.13,000/- daily to A1, whereas PW.8 stated that he made monthly
payments. The purpose of daily finance is to ensure a fixed daily
repayment until the total loan and interest are cleared.
18.6 If PW.8 was indeed paying Rs.13,000/- daily to A1, as per PW.16's
deposition, it raises doubts about how he could have given Rs. 1.5 lakhs
to A1 on two separate days, totaling Rs. 3 lakhs, after the deceased's
death.
18.7 Further, PW.8's testimony before the court appears to be an
improvement over his Section 161 statement. He stated that he called the
deceased's phone, PW.1 answered, and he informed her that A1 had
collected Rs. 3 lakhs. He also claimed that he was waiting for A1 to collect
Rs. 2 lakhs and inquired why A1 had not come. PW.1 then informed him
that the deceased had died three days earlier. However, this information
is missing from his Section 161 statement, making it an apparent
improvement.
18.8 Additionally, there is a contradiction between PW.8 and
PW.16 regarding the amount collected by A1 after the deceased's death.
PW.16 stated that A1 took Rs. 1 lakh from them, whereas PW.8 claimed
to have given Rs. 1.5 lakhs on two separate occasions, totalling Rs. 3
lakhs.
18.9 Another contradiction arises in PW.16's testimony, where he
initially stated that PW.8 used to give Rs. 13,000 daily to A1 towards his
loan, but later mentioned that PW.8 gave Rs. 1 lakh to A1 on a single day.
18.10 Another contradiction arises regarding how they learned
about the deceased's death. According to PW.16, they found out a week
later when PW.1 called and informed them. However, according to PW.8,
he called the deceased's phone, PW.1 answered, and she informed him
about the death. This inconsistency raises further doubts.
18.11 It is also relevant to note that, as per PW.16's deposition,
PW.8 and the deceased were friends. This makes it plausible that PW.8
made improvements in his testimony before the court.
18.12 In light of these contradictions and the apparent
enhancements in PW.8's statements, this circumstance has also not been
conclusively proven by the prosecution.
19. According to the prosecution, MO.1 is the crime vehicle and it was
seized from the National Motors Shop, at the instance of A1, pursuant to
his confession, in the presence of mediators--PWs. 21 and 25.
20. What needs to be examined is when did the police officers get to
know that MO.1 is the crime vehicle.
20.1 Ex.P1 is the initial complaint filed by PW.6 after the death of the
deceased. In Ex.P1, it is clearly stated that the accident was caused by an
unknown vehicle. PW.27 admitted that the witness who saw the accident
did not inform that an Indica car hit the deceased's bike. Later, he came
to know about PW.14, an eyewitness, who told him the same. According
to the prosecution, PW.14 is the eyewitness who deposed that the
accident was caused by MO.1, a white Indica car. However, he later
turned hostile.
20.2 PW.6, the complainant in ExP1, deposed that he received a call
from PW.4 stating that the deceased had met with an accident and was
admitted to Omni Hospital. He rushed to the hospital, but by the time he
reached, the deceased had died. He then gave a report to the police--
Ex.P1. He further deposed that, on inquiry, he came to know that a white
Indica car had hit the deceased's bike. However, during cross-
examination, he stated that he could not say specifically who informed
him about it. He also admitted that he had not told the police that a white
Indica car hit the bike. In Ex.P1, he had only stated that an unknown
vehicle was involved in the accident.
20.3 PW.26, the then SI of Police, LB Nagar PS, deposed that on
22.4.2011, the inspector of police received Ex.P1 from PW.6, and based
on that, a case was registered as Crime No. 579/2011. He further stated
that he made efforts to trace the crime vehicle and identified it as a white
Indica with registration number AP 21 Q 6443, but he could not locate
the vehicle. Later, another case was registered in Crime No. 728/2011 as
a court-referred case.
20.4. However, it is unclear how PW.26 came to know that MO.1 was the
crime vehicle involved in the accident. He deposed that, according to his
investigation, it was a hit-and-run case. He also admitted that in Ex.P5,
the inquest report, the panchas stated that the deceased died due to
being hit by an unknown vehicle.
20.5. PW.27, the then Inspector of Police, LB Nagar, deposed that on
22.4.2011, he received a complaint from PW.6, and Ex.P18 is the original
FIR. On 23.5.2011, at 7:15 p.m., he received a court-referred complaint
and registered it as Crime No. 728/2011. Ex.P19 is the original FIR. On
30.5.2011, he filed a requisition before the court to club both cases.
Ex.P20 is the memo. He also stated that before the private complaint was
filed, he knew that an Indica car was involved but did not know its
registration number.
20.6 It is not known how PW.s 26 and 27 came to know that a white
Indica car was involved in the accident. PW.27 recorded PW.14's
statement on 9.6.2011. If PW.14 was the only eyewitness, even though he
turned hostile, it is not known how PW.27 came to know before 9.6.2011
that a white Indica car was involved.
20.7 PW.3 deposed that when he reached the scene, the deceased was
sitting and said that a car hit him and fled, and he asked them to take
him to the hospital. However, this is an improvement, as PW.27 deposed
that PW.3 had not stated this before him.
20.8 According to PW.27, PW.26 recorded PW.14's statement in Crime
No. 579/2011. However, PW.26 deposed that while he noted down dates
regarding the examination of witnesses, he admitted that he did not
record the dates of examining PW.s 13, 15, and 16. He also admitted that
he could not say when he recorded the witnesses' statements. He did not
mention recording PW.14's statement.
20.9 PW.27's evidence states that he recorded PW.14's statement on
09.06.2011, and there is no testimony indicating that PW.14's statement
was recorded before this date. This suggests that PW.14 was introduced
as a witness to assert that the crime vehicle was a white Tata Indica, a
detail absent from the initial complaint and the testimonies of other
witnesses. Moreover, if PW.26 had already recorded the statements of
PW.13, who had given his white Tata Indica car to A1 for sale, and PW.16,
who deposed about A1 collecting money from PW.8 even after the
deceased's death, then why wasn't a suspicion raised against A1 before
PW.1 filed the complaint. PW.26 admitted that none of the witnesses he
examined expressed any suspicion against A1 and A2 or about the
incident.
30. It is apparent that only after PW.1's complaint was filed did
suspicion arise against A1.
31. According to PW.27, on 03.06.2011, A1 surrendered before the
court, and on 08.06.2011, he filed a requisition for police custody and
took A1 on 08.06.2011 itself. Further, he deposed that in the presence of
PW.s 21 and 25, he recorded the confessional statement of A1 and, at
A1's instance, seized MO.1 car from National Motors, Ameerpet.
32. The prosecution's case is that MO.1 car was seized from the shop--
National Motors--where PW.9 was working. The two panchas for the
seizure of MO1 are PW.s 21 and 25.
32.1. PW.21 deposed that on 09.06.2011, he went to LB Nagar at 12:30
PM. At that time, A1 was present in the police station. A1 confessed in the
presence of PW.21, stating that the car was in National Motors Sales and
Purchases for sale, and that he could show the car if they accompanied
him. A1 mentioned the car number as AP 21 Q 6443. However, PW.21
was declared hostile, as he denied that A1 led the police and panchas to
National Motors Sales and Purchases, pointed out the Tata Indica car,
and that the police seized it.
32.2 Though PW.21 was declared hostile, his evidence cannot be ignored
entirely. He clearly stated that while A1 confessed, he did not lead the
police and panchas to National Motors, where the car was allegedly
seized.
32.3 The other panch for the confession and seizure of MO1 is PW.25.
He deposed that, pursuant to his confession, A1 took them to a Muslim
person's car shed in Punjagutta and showed the white Indica car with the
number 6443. The police then seized the car and prepared the
panchanama. ExP14 is the relevant portion of the panchanama that led
to the recovery of MO1.
32.4 PW.25's evidence directly contradicts PW.9's testimony and the
prosecution's case. According to PW.25, the car was seized from a Muslim
person's car shed in Punjagutta, not from National Motors in Ameerpet,
as stated in ExP15--the seizure report. Moreover, PW.25 is an interested
witness. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the deceased was his
friend and that he learned about the accident at 7:00 AM on the same
day. He also visited the police station for about a week to check the
progress of the case on behalf of the deceased's family. He stated that
Inspector Sreedhar Reddy knew about his visits. Though PW.27,
Inspector Sreedhar Reddy, denied that PW.25 was an interested witness
and stated that he was independent, PW.25 was not declared hostile
regarding this aspect.
32.5 Thus, the prosecution has not fully established the seizure of MO1
from National Motors.
33. According to PW.9, he runs a shop called National Motors. He
deposed that he knows A1 and that A1 used to bring cars to his shop for
sale. A1 brought a white Indica car with the number AP 21 Q 6113 for
sale. PW.9 stated that he refused to buy the car after verifying that it had
met with an accident. A1 then told him to keep the car in the shop and
inform him if a customer was interested. About 15-20 days later, the
police brought A1 to his shop. Since PW.9 was not present, he told the
police to take the car and that he would come the next morning. However,
in his cross-examination, PW.9 stated that National Motors does not
belong to him. Instead, he is just one of eight workers, and the actual
owner is Mohd Moinuddin.
34. What worsens the matter further is that the prosecution has
brought in PW.13 to prove that PW.13 had given his white Tata Indica car
to A1 for sale.
35. PW.13 deposed that he is in the car business and knows A1 and
A2. He stated that he had given his white Tata Indica car to A1 for sale.
The car number is AP 21 Q, but he does not remember the remaining
numbers. He handed over the car and its papers to A1. He does not know
the name of the person who sold the car to him. A1 kept the car in his
shop for one or two days and then told him that the car was sold. Later,
A1 informed him that the customer had come and purchased the car.
PW.13 also stated that A1 told him the car was sold for ₹1,50,000 and
that he would pay the balance in one week, as he had only paid ₹1,20,000
to him. A1 also handed over the delivery challan to him.
36. Further, PW.13 stated that after one year, A1 paid the balance
₹30,000. He also deposed that he handed over the delivery challan and
xerox copies of the RC of the car to the police.
37. If according to PW.13, A1 had already sold the car and even paid
the money for it, then PW.9's evidence regarding A1 bringing the white car
to PW.9's shop for sale becomes doubtful. And as per PW.13's evidence,
A1 had sold the car one year prior, since PW.13 stated that after the sale
of the car, A1 first paid ₹1,20,000 to him and after one year, paid the
balance ₹30,000.
38 According to PW.9, A1 brought a white Indica car to his shop for
sale. The car brought by A1 was AP 21 Q 6113. He also deposed that he
informed A1 that he could not purchase the car since, on verification, he
found that the car had met with an accident. A1 then told him to keep the
car in his shop and inform him if a customer came. He also stated that 15
or 20 days later, the police brought A1 to his shop.
39. It is not the prosecution's case that A1 had sold the car to PW.9,
which is why the car was given to PW.9 for further sale. Nor is it the
prosecution's case that A1 was the one who purchased the car from
PW.13 and paid him the amount. Because PW.13 clearly stated that A1
told him that the car was sold to a person who worked at Mineral Waters
and that this person lived in Kachiguda. This aspect was not
investigated by the police.
40. Further, PW.27 himself admitted that he had not examined the
owner of MO1 car, which makes PW.13's evidence believable--that the car
was sold one year ago to a person in Kachiguda. This raises a doubt as to
how A1 got access to MO1.
41. Further, if PW.13 had handed over the delivery challan and xerox
copies of the RC of the car to the police, these documents ought to have
been filed by the prosecution.
42. The prosecution's evidence is not clear as to how A1 got MO1 car if,
according to PW.13, he had already sold it to another person in
Kachiguda. And it is not the prosecution's case that A1 was the one who
purchased the car a year ago and kept it with himself.
43. To further worsen the matters, PW.25's evidence is that today he
has seen the MO.1 car in the Court on the day of his deposition, and it
has no number plates on both sides. He also stated that MO.1 was
brought from the PS to the Court. He added that on the bonnet of the car,
the car number is written with paint. That he has not noticed the paint
regarding the car number when it was seized by the police. His evidence
is clear that the car number written in paint was not seen by him at the
time of seizure of the car. In light of PW.25's evidence that the car number
on MO.1 was painted, MO.1 appears to have been planted to connect A1
to the crime.
44. The further circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the
MO1 car, after the accident, was taken to the shop of PW.12 for denting.
44.1 PW.12 deposed that he owns Decent Motor Works Shop and that he
is doing car denting and painting work. That about 3-4 years back, A1
brought a white Indica car to his shop for denting work. That he does not
remember the number of the white Indica car. And that he found damage
to the bonnet and the bumper of the car. He also deposed that A1 brought
the car in the morning and within 2 hours, he did his job of denting and
handed over the white Indica car to A1. That he was not asked to do the
job of painting work. And that A1 paid him Rs 1000 for the job.
44.2 However, in his cross-examination, he deposed that he stated to the
police that one Shravan Kumar (A2) came to his shop for denting work
and he attended the denting work. That he can identify A2. He again
stated that he told the police that A2 came to his shop.
44.3 PW.12 is contradicting his own statement, and it is unclear if it was
A1 or A2 who had taken the MO1 car for denting to PW.12's shop.
Further, ExD6 was marked in PW.12's cross-examination to show that in
his S.161 statement, PW.12 stated that A2 was brought to his shop by LB
Nagar Police on 7.7.2012.
44.4 The prosecution has not been able to establish that:
a) The car was seized at the instance of A1, and
b) That A1 had gotten repairs done to MO1 car.
45. Lastly, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW.24 to prove
that there were damages to MO.1/car.
45.1 PW.24 deposed that he is working as the Assistant Motor Vehicle
Inspector, that on 29.9.2011, he received a requisition from SHO to
inspect the crime vehicle, a Tata Indica car bearing No: AP 21 Q 6443.
That on 30.11.2011, at about 9:50 AM, he inspected the said vehicle in
the PS and noted down two damages in the crime vehicle in Column No.
8. He also deposed that he did not find any mechanical damage to the
crime vehicle. He further deposed that the accident did not occur due to
mechanical defects. That he issued a Vehicle Check Report to the police.
45.2 PW.24 received the requisition from the police on 29.9.2011, but
the inspection of MO1 was done on 30.11.2011. There is a clear delay of
two months in the inspection.
45.3 PW.24 gave an explanation for the delay, stating that the police did
not furnish the details of the crime vehicle to him. He deposed that the
police did not provide the vehicle registration certificate of the crime
vehicle, the driving license of the accused person A1, and the insurance of
the crime vehicle at the time of inspection.
45.4 However, this explanation cannot be believed since PW.13 clearly
deposed that he handed over the delivery challan and xerox copies of the
RC of the car to the police. If PW.13 is believed, there is no reason why
the police did not hand over the documents to PW.24 on time.
45.5 PW.24 also deposed that he cannot say how long the crime vehicle
was in the PS before his inspection. He also does not know if any denting
was done to the crime vehicle before his inspection.
45.6 If the car number on MO1 is painted, if the place from where the
car was seized is not proved, if seizure at the instance of A1 is not proved,
if denting and painting of MO1 by A1 is not proved, there is no reason to
rely upon PW.24's evidence and his inspection report--ExP13. Further,
the FSL report--ExP21--which shows that painting and denting were
done to the car--cannot be relied upon since there is a breakage in the
chain. Moreover, PW.27 admitted that the witnesses examined by
him did not state that A1 drove the car at the time of the incident.
46. Lastly, none of the requisitions were filed before the Court by the
prosecution, and although PW.27 stated that he had submitted a
requisition to obtain A1's mobile phone call data records, those records
were also not submitted.
47. Hence, considering all the above circumstances, the prosecution
has failed to prove the circumstances relied on by them, beyond
reasonable doubt, to prove that A1 was behind the accident of the
deceased.
48. If there is no circumstantial evidence connecting A1 to the crime,
the motive of A1 is irrelevant. Nevertheless, the evidence of witnesses can
be considered to see if A1 had any motive.
49. PW.1 deposed before the Court that:
"The deceased used to run the daily finance business from his house,
and he employed A1 in the year 2008. She further deposed that in the
year 2011, petty disputes arose between A1 and the deceased.She also
deposed that A1 brought one person by name Madhusudhan and
asked the deceased to provide him a loan of Rs 26 lakhs, assuring that
he would be the guarantor. Accordingly, the deceased paid Rs 26 lakhs
to him at her house.She also deposed that A1 used to tell the deceased
that he was lending money to particular persons and, by saying so, he
used to take money from the deceased. The deceased used to mention
the same in his diary, recording to whom he lent the money, the date,
and the phone number.PW.1 also deposed that in the year 2011, i.e., on
8.4.2011, the deceased left for Hong Kong and came back to India on
14th April. That before leaving for Hong Kong, the deceased instructed
A1 to hand over the daily collection to PW.1. PW.1 deposed that A1
failed to deposit the said amount. She also deposed that the deceased
used to call her from Hong Kong and ask if A1 had deposited the daily
collection.PW.1 also deposed that the deceased instructed her not to
give the diary and file to A1. She further stated that on the third day of
her husband being in Hong Kong, A1 came to her house and asked for
the diary and file. PW.1 told A1 that the deceased had hidden the
diary, and she had no idea where he had kept it. She also deposed that
when she questioned A1 about the daily collection, he told her that he
had deposited the amount in the bank.PW.1 also deposed that the next
day after her husband returned was Ugadi, and at that time, the
deceased enquired A1 about the daily collection. A1 told the deceased
that he had deposited the amount in the bank and that he would get it
tomorrow. She also deposed that the next day, A1 came to their house
and gave a small part of the amount to the deceased but failed to pay
the total collection for the week. At that point, the deceased scolded A1,
saying that if A1 was not interested, he should stop doing business
with him. A1 assured the deceased that he would pay the amount the
next day as it was deposited in the bank and some other places and
that he would do his job regularly without any fault.PW.1 deposed
about another instance around the 18th, when the deceased told her
that it appeared A1 was not interested in the job. He said he would
look after the job himself and collect the amounts from borrowers.PW.1
further deposed that on the 18th, the deceased again scolded A1 and
asked him not to come to the house to give the collection but to hand it
over at Sagar Wines. Even then, A1 came to the house on the 18th and
19th and paid the amount. On the 21st, A1 came to the house at 8:30
AM, paid the money, and left.PW.1 also deposed that the deceased
informed her that on the 21st, while returning home, he visited A1's
store, Happy Cars, where there was an exchange of words, and at that
time, the deceased slapped A1.PW.1 further deposed that on the same
day, around 6 PM, A1 called the deceased and informed him that two
second-hand cars were coming from Nalgonda for sale. A1 also told the
deceased not to leave the house until he called him. Until 9:30 PM, the
deceased did not receive a call from A1. At 9:30 PM, the deceased
informed PW.1 that he was going to LB Nagar Wines shop and left on a
motorcycle."
50. However, the entire evidence of PW.1 regarding disputes between
A1 and the deceased, A1 stealing the diary and files, the deceased
abusing A1, and A1 collecting amounts but not giving them back--
appears to be an improvement. This is evident from the testimony of
PW.27 in his cross-examination. The entire evidence of PW.1 before the
Court was denied by PW.27, who stated that PW.1 never told him these
details in her earlier statements. So, it is clear that PW.1 has largely
improved her statement.
51. PW.27 also admitted that PW.2 did not depose that the deceased
complained to him about A1 or that the deceased abused A1. So, PW.2's
evidence regarding disputes between A1 and the deceased also appears to
be an improvement.
52. Regarding PW.4's evidence before the Court that A1 told them he
had kept the file and diary with him and that even though they searched,
they could not find them, PW.27 stated that PW.4 never mentioned this
before him.
53. Lastly, though PW.1 filed a private complaint against A1, none of
the allegations in the complaint were proven against him.
54. In the private complaint, there were mainly three allegations:
54.1 Firstly, that A1 allegedly stole the diary belonging to the deceased.
On 26.04.2011, when he was being taken to the police station because he
was not disclosing where the diary was kept, he attempted to commit
suicide to avoid revealing the same. He did so by piercing a small iron rod
into his throat. Subsequently, a case was registered as Cr. No. 600/2011
under Sections 309 and 506 of IPC, which ended in conviction on
23.12.2011 in CC No. 138/2011, and A1 paid a fine of Rs. 1500.
However, no evidence was submitted to prove this. The records of the
crime registered against A1 were not filed, nor was any medical evidence
presented regarding his neck injury. Though PW.1 stated before the court
that A1 inflicted the injury when he was being taken to the police station
since they could not find the diary of the deceased, PW.27 confirmed that
PW.1 had not mentioned this to him earlier.
54.2 Further, though PW.2 deposed about A1 inflicting the injury, he did
not say that he witnessed it. In his cross-examination, he admitted that
he only came to know about it later, making his testimony hearsay. The
same applies to PW.s 3 and 4, whose statements about A1 injuring
himself are also hearsay.
54.3 Secondly, according to PW.1, A1 attempted suicide because he was
being taken to the police station for not revealing where he had kept the
deceased's diary, which allegedly contained financial transactions.
However, the diary was not recovered from A1 or at his instance.
According to PW.27, A1 confessed that he had burnt the diary, but the
court cannot make assumptions based on PW.1's suspicion that A1 must
have done so.
54.4 Thirdly, PW.1 also alleged that A1 was forced to pay Rs. 20,00,000
as he stood as a guarantor for one Madhusudhan Reddy, to whom A1 had
arranged for the deceased to lend Rs. 26 lakhs. Since Madhusudhan
failed to repay, A1 had to pay instead, and he allegedly held a grudge
against the deceased for this reason. However, PW.27 admitted that no
evidence of a Rs. 26 lakh transaction to Madhusudhan was filed. The only
document mentioned was a blank cheque issued by Madhusudhan and
kept by A1. However, Madhusudhan was not examined, nor was any
documentary proof of the transaction submitted.
54.5 In her private complaint, PW.1 further alleged that the deceased's
accident was, in fact, a planned murder by A1 in conspiracy with A2.
Since there was no direct evidence, the prosecution relied on
circumstantial evidence. However, none of the circumstances were proven
to form a complete chain that could disprove the accused's innocence and
establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
54.6 Lastly, PW.2 deposed that the deceased had complained to him
about A1 playing fraud and misusing the money collected by him.
However, according to PW.5, who was also present in the shop with PW.2
when the deceased allegedly made this complaint, the deceased had only
mentioned that A1 was not collecting the amounts properly, and
therefore, he (the deceased) had started collecting the amounts himself.
The evidence of PW.5 contradicts the prosecution's claim that A1 collected
money and did not return it, as deposed by PW.1.
54.7 It is clear that PW.1 had a suspicion against A1 and, based on that
suspicion, lodged a private complaint. This suspicion was echoed by PW.s
2, 3, 4, and 5. However, suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot form the
basis of a conviction in the absence of evidence directly connecting the
accused to the crime.
55. 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:
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,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 268
(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."
56. The Honourable Supreme Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of
Assam, 2 held as follows:
"13. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of
proof, and there is a large difference between something that "may
be" proved, and something that "will be proved". In a criminal trial,
suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to
take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance
between "may be" and "must be" is quite large, and divides vague
conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a
duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the
place of legal proof. The large distance between "may be" true and
"must be" true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and
unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an
accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule
must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance
between "may be" true and "must be" true, the court must maintain
the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to
be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny,
based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all
(2013) 12 SCC 406
features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the
evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage
of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so
demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused,
keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial
or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon
reason and common sense. (Vide Hanumant Govind
Nargundkar v. State of M.P. [(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 :
1953 Cri LJ 129] , State v. Mahender Singh Dahiya [(2011) 3 SCC
109 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 821 : AIR 2011 SC 1017] and Ramesh
Harijan v. State of U.P. [(2012) 5 SCC 777 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 905] )"
57. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution failed to prove its
case against the appellant. Accordingly, benefit doubt is extended to the
appellant.
58. Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction recorded by
the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Ranga Reddy District, in
SC. No. 736 of 2013, dated 5.12.2017, and the appellant is acquitted.
Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
_____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 27.03.2025
tk
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.198 OF 2018
Dt. 27.03.2025
tk
