Telangana High Court

The State Of Telangana vs Naiki Srinivasulu And 8 Others on 27 March, 2025

                                     1




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

       CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.175 & 1282 OF 2018
              & Crl.R.C.No.1138 OF 2018

COMMON JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

1. Crl.A.No.175 of 2018 is filed by the defacto

complainant/P.W.1, questioning the acquittal of respondents

/A-1 to A-6, A-9, A-11, and A-12, Crl.A.No.1282 of 2018 is filed

by the State questioning the acquittal of the above accused, and

Crl.R.C.No.1138 of 2018 is filed by the defacto complainant

/P.W.1 questioning the discharge of A-7.

2. Since both the Appeals and Revision arise out of the

common judgment in S.C.No.513 of 2012, on the file of I

Additional Sessions Judge, Mahbubnagar, all are heard

together and disposed of by way of this common judgment.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Arun

Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

respondent-State.

4. The case of the prosecution is that there was a political

rivalry between the deceased, namely Thota Rangaswamy, and

A-1 in Waddepally village. A-1 had conspired with A-2, A-4,

and A-6, who are his brothers, and A-3, A-5, and A-7, who are

his close relatives, to eliminate the deceased in order to claim

supremacy in political circles. A-1 to A-3 contacted A-8 to

commit the murder of the deceased. A-8 introduced A-13 and

A-14 as his associates, and an agreement was made that A-1

would pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to A-8 to commit the

murder of the deceased. A partial payment of Rs.45,000/- was

made. A-1 also contacted A-9 and offered Rs.3,20,000/- to hire

assassins, i.e., A-10 to A-12. A-1 initially attempted to kill the

deceased by hiring assassins in the first week of February

2010; however, they could not execute the plan on account of

the presence of several labourers around the deceased at that

time.

5. The accused then came together on 13.02.2010 and

decided to kill the deceased on 14.02.2010. The hired

assassins were called. A-1 secured a Toofan Cruiser vehicle

owned by P.W.8, and P.W.9 was the driver of the said vehicle.

At about 3:30 p.m., A-2 to A-6 started towards Kurnool and

stopped at the bore well shop of A-7, where A-8, A-13, and A-14

boarded the vehicle. From there, they went to a Dhaba at

Shantinagar, where A-9 to A-12 boarded the vehicle. A-3 gave

Rs.50/- to P.W.9 and asked him to get water sachets. By the

time P.W.9 returned, A-11 had taken the driver's seat. While

P.W.9 was observing the moving vehicle, A-3 arrived on a

motorcycle and asked P.W.9 to ride as a pillion. In the

meantime, the deceased left his house on his motorcycle along

with one Samuel (not examined, since died). A-7 passed on the

message to A-2 through cell phone, alerting them. On the

instructions of A-2, A-11, who was driving the vehicle, hit the

motorcycle of the deceased from the rear, causing both the

deceased and Samuel to fall to the ground. Immediately, A-2,

A-4 to A-6 and A-8 to A-14 pounced on the deceased and

hacked him indiscriminately with hunting sickles, resulting in

the instantaneous death of the deceased. The offence was

witnessed by P.W.4 while he was returning from Waddepally

village, Alampur. The hunting sickles were later hidden near a

culvert on the road. A-3 threatened P.W.9 not to disclose the

incident to anybody, and thereafter, all the accused left the

place. P.W.4 informed P.W.2, who is the elder brother of P.W.4.

P.W.2 went to the house of the deceased, and informed his

wife/P.W.1 about the death of the deceased. P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6

went to the scene where the body was lying. P.W.1 drafted

Ex.P.1/complaint and lodged it with the Police at 8 p.m.

6. The Investigating Officer/P.W.16, during the course of

investigation, found that A-1 to A-14 were responsible for the

murder of the deceased.

7. A-8, A-13, and A-14 were absconding. A-10 died, as such,

the case against him was abated. The case against A-7 was

split up, and a separate case, i.e., S.C.No.295 of 2014, was

registered and is pending since A-7 was absconding.

8. A-1 to A-6, A-9, A-10, A-11, and A-12 were tried by the I

Additional Sessions Judge, Mahbubnagar. Learned Sessions

Judge acquitted the accused mainly on the following grounds:

"1. In Ex.P.1, information was given about the

death of the deceased; however it was mentioned that

P.W.1 only suspected the accused as the perpetrators

of the crime.

2. P.Ws.4 to 9, who are the eyewitnesses to the

incident, were not mentioned in the complaint

/Ex.P.1.

3. P.W.4 was examined by the Police nearly 45 days

after the incident, i.e., on 30.03.2010, whereas the

incident occurred on 14.02.2010.

4. P.W.9, another eyewitness, was examined on

20.02.2010, which was three months after the

incident.

5. Once the evidence of P.Ws.4 to 9 is eschewed

from consideration, there remains no witness to

connect the accused with the crime."

9. After the acquittal of the accused Nos.1 to 6, 9, 11, and

12, A-7 was apprehended. A-7 filed a discharge application

only on the ground that all the other accused had been

acquitted. Learned Sessions Judge discharged A-7 since the

evidence adduced against A-1 to A-6, A-9, A-11, and A-12 was

not found to be credible. Accordingly, they were acquitted. No

useful purpose would be served, if A-7 was again tried.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would

submit that the village of the appellants was faction-driven, and

on account of the political rivalry, the murder has occurred.

P.W.4 is an independent and chance witness who saw the

deceased being murdered. It is specifically stated that due to

fear of the accused, he intentionally did not state anything

against the accused. Further, P.W.9, the Driver of the vehicle

in which all the accused travelled before committing the murder

of the deceased, was examined after three months, however,

since his presence at the scene was not disputed, the delay in

his examination is of no consequence in the present facts.

11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents/accused would submit that the learned Sessions

Judge had disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 9 since they

were planted. Further, in the inquest report, the names of

P.Ws.4 and 9 were not mentioned. Further, it was stated that

some persons were waiting in the pit, who were the followers of

A-1 and had allegedly attacked the deceased. There is a

contradiction between the version given in the inquest report

and the version projected by the prosecution. Learned Sessions

Judge has rightly dismissed the version of P.Ws.4 and 9.

12. Learned Public Prosecutor sailed with the arguments of

the counsel appearing in Crl.A.No.175 of 2018, filed by P.W.1.

13. The crucial evidence is that of P.Ws.4 and 9. It is

admitted that P.W.4 was examined nearly 45 days after the

incident and P.W.9 was examined nearly 3 months after the

incident. The version given by P.W.9, that he was sent as a

driver to different places and, for this reason, could not depose

before the Police, cannot be believed. Similarly, the version of

P.W.4, that out of fear he did not depose for a period of 45 days

is also doubtful. If at all P.W.4 had approached his brother,

P.W.2, to inform P.W.1 that the accused had committed the

murder, there is no reason why P.W.1 merely mentioned in the

complaint that she suspected some of the accused but did not

state anything about P.W.4. If P.Ws.2 and 4 are to be believed,

P.W.4's name should have been reflected in the complaint.

14. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi

Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and

another 1, 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

the 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.

15. 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:

(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536

(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450

"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 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."

16. The reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge is based on

record. There are no compelling reasons to reverse the well

reasoned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.

17. A-7 was apprehended subsequently, and based on the

discharge application filed by him, the learned Sessions Judge

discharged him. As rightly found by the learned Sessions

Judge, the evidence that would be adduced against A-7 would

be the evidence that was adduced by the prosecution during the

trial of A-1 to A-6, and A-9 to A-12. No useful purpose would

be served if A-7 was asked to undergo the trial by examining

the very same witnesses. Further, as per Section 401(5) of

Cr.P.C., the Court cannot convert an order of acquittal into