Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 616 (TS)

Uradi Sailu, Medak Dist v. P. P. , HYD

2024-08-29

N.TUKARAMJI, P.SAM KOSHY

body2024
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P. SAM KOSHY) Since both the appeals are filed assailing the same judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard Mr. P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.478 of 2016; Ms. G.Jaya Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant No.2 in Criminal Appeal No.347 of 2016 and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State in both the appeals. 3. These appeals have been filed by the appellants – accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C assailing the judgment of conviction dated 07.04.2016 passed by the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Medak in S.C.No.185 of 2014. 4. Vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302, 307, 379 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/- each with default stipulation for the offence under Section 302. Similarly, they have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.200/- each with default stipulation for the offence under Section 379 of IPC; and they were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.200/- each with default stipulation for the offence under Section 201 of IPC. 5. The entire case of the prosecution revolves around:- a) The dead body of a female that was recovered on 18.06.2013; and b) The dead body was found in the Reserve Forest Area near Lothuvagu in a highly decomposed state and the face also had got defaced and could not be identified. 6. PW.1 (B.Balaiah) reported the matter to Kulcharam Police Station in respect of him being informed about an unknown dead body of a female found in the forest area. He went there and found the body of a female aged around 30-35 years in a decomposed state. Based upon the said complaint, the Kulcharam Police Station registered a case vide Cr.No.42 of 2013 and the body was subsequently subjected to post-mortem examination at the scene of offence itself after taking photographs of the dead body and the scene of offence etc., as the body was already decomposed and was not in a position to be shifted to the hospital. The photographs and other particulars were sent to all the SHOs in the State Government with a lookout notice. Meanwhile, PW.4 (A.Anjaiah) filed a missing complaint at Kulcharam Police Station in respect of his wife being missing from his house from 15.06.2013. According to PW.4, his wife Arutla Chandrakala (hereinafter, the deceased) left the house on the morning of 15.06.2013 for attending to her job, but she never returned back. Subsequently, it was PW.5 (A.Bapu Reddy) who informed PW.4 about the news item that came in the newspaper dated 19.06.2013 regarding tracing of an un-identified female dead body in the limits of Kulcharam Police Station and upon such information PW.4 reached the police station and on seeing the clothes and chappals of the deceased, he identified the body to be that of his wife. He further contended that the deceased was wearing certain gold ornaments also which was not found on the body when the police recovered the same. 7. Subsequently, on the basis of the statement recorded of PW.8 (A.Sravanthi) the daughter of the deceased, the police said to have started investigation. On the alleged suspicion made on accused No.1 who used to call frequently to the deceased and on an enquiry made by PW.8 she was informed by the deceased that she had taken some loan from accused No.1 and he used to call her in respect of the repayment of the same. It was also informed that sometimes upon receiving the call; she used to go out of the home and after sometime used to come back. The missing complaint lodged at Kulcharam Police Station stood transferred to Chilakalaguda Police Station vide Cr.No.360 of 2013 due to jurisdictional issues. Based upon the information collected from PW.8 and on the call detail record collected from the cellphone of the deceased, it was found that it was from the cellphone No.7569826571 belonging to accused No.1. There were phone calls made on the afternoon of 15.06.2013 i.e. the date on which the deceased went missing and it was also revealed that on the previous dates also there was couple of calls made during the same period, based upon which after intensive investigation accused No.1 was arrested and after having apprehended accused No.1, he was taken under police custody and then taken to Medak(R) Circle Office at Medak. 8. 8. In the course of interrogation, accused No.1 said to have confessed of having committed the said offence along with his friend accused No.2. Subsequently, it was also learnt that accused No.1 said to have pledged the gold ornaments removed from the body of the deceased in one of the Muthoot Finance establishments at Medak and PW.4, the husband of the deceased, had been called upon for identification of these stolen ornaments. The money received by selling those gold ornaments to Muthoot Finance, Medak was shared equal between accused Nos.1 and 2. 9. The investigating agency thereafter filed a charge sheet before the Trial Court and the matter stood committed to the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Medak where the case was registered as S.C.No.185 of 2014. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses PW.1 to PW.13 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P15. There was no evidence led on behalf of the defence, neither was there any document marked on behalf of defence. Later on, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded and finally the Trial Court passed the impugned judgment holding the accused guilty for the offences under Section 302, 379 and 201 of IPC and sentenced for the period already mentioned in the initial paragraphs of this judgment. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the entire case of the prosecution revolves around the circumstantial evidence. However, it was contended that though the case of the prosecution is on circumstantial evidence, but there is no cogent and strong evidence collected to complete the chain of links establishing the guilt against the accused persons. It was also the contention that even otherwise if it is a case of circumstantial evidence, there has to be sufficient cogent evidence collected by the investigating agency to establish that the offence could not have been committed by any other person, but by the accused. 11. Referring to the prosecution witnesses examined, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the entire conviction seems to have been made only on conjuncture and surmises and strong inference, without any strong proof and evidence being made available during the trial. 11. Referring to the prosecution witnesses examined, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the entire conviction seems to have been made only on conjuncture and surmises and strong inference, without any strong proof and evidence being made available during the trial. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, plain reading of the evidences itself would show that there is no proof adduced during the course of trial to show as to on what basis were the accused apprehended and the so-called case of the prosecution that the accused having been napped on the basis of the call details collected from the mobile phone of the deceased again is not one which stands established or proved by cogent evidence being led by the prosecution. In the absence of which, it was contended that the entire case of the prosecution itself would stand collapsed and the benefit of which has to go in favour of the accused. The further contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that even the recovery of the gold ornaments also has not been proved as is required under Section 35 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 1990, nor was there any proof or evidence collected from the family members of the deceased to show the ownership of the said gold ornaments to be that of the deceased. 12. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that in addition to the aforesaid grounds, the prosecution also has miserably failed in establishing a strong motive for the appellants to have committed the said offence. Further, the ground of challenge was that there were no witnesses to establish the last seen theory, nor was there any technical evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish the last call made by the appellants or by the deceased to accused No.1. Neither, have the prosecution produced the call detail report that from the mobile number of the deceased or for that matter the mobile number of accused No.1, nor has it been technically proved as is required under the provisions of Section 5B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 13. For all the aforesaid grounds and reasons, the learned counsel for the appellants prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment of conviction and also prayed for acquittal of the accused persons. 14. 13. For all the aforesaid grounds and reasons, the learned counsel for the appellants prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment of conviction and also prayed for acquittal of the accused persons. 14. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposing the appeal contended that bare perusal of the evidence recorded on behalf of the prosecution itself is sufficient enough to establish the guilt of the accused persons. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it was a case where the call details of the deceased was got verified and it was revealed that the phone calls on the date of her going missing was made to the cell phone of accused No.1. Likewise, in the course of interrogation, the accused persons said to have confessed they having committed the offence. 15. Further, the recovery of the gold ornaments from the possession of the accused and which stood identified by the husband of the deceased are sufficient circumstantial evidences collected in the course of investigation. So also, it was contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that accused No.1 is also an accused in other cases of similar nature which further makes the case of the prosecution stronger. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the evidence of PW.10 (B.Anandam) who is the witness to the confessional statement made by the two accused persons and contended that there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW.10. 16. On all the above grounds, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor pressed for dismissal of the appeal. 17. At the outset having perused the evidence that have been collected by the prosecution, this Bench finds that none of the thirteen prosecution witnesses examined right from PW.1 to PW.13 have stated anything in respect of the investigation having been initiated on the basis of the call details collected from the cell phone of the deceased. The case record also does not show the statement of PW.4, the husband of the deceased, or for that matter PW.8, the daughter, having made any reference about the mobile phone of accused No.1 to have been received by the deceased and PW.8 is also silent in respect of the mobile phone and the phone calls made by accused No.1 to the deceased on the date when she went missing in her Court statement. Neither is there any cogent material in respect of the mobile phone of the deceased and also the mobile phone of accused No.1 to have been examined so far as substantiating the prosecution case of the investigation to have been commenced on the basis of the call data records. 18. Though the prosecution is said to have collected certain statements against accused No.1, but there does not seem to be any cogent and material evidences collected so far as accused No.2 is concerned except for the vague statement of he being in company of accused No.1 in the course of committing the offence. This again is only on the basis of the so-called confessional statement which itself is not an acceptable piece of evidence, as from the statement of PW.10, the confession was firstly recorded in the Police Station, and secondly, it was recorded while the accused persons were in police custody. 19. Admittedly, the recovery of the gold ornaments also were not proved and established in accordance with the requirement under Section 35 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 1990, nor is there any proof led by PW.4 of PW.8 in respect of the ornaments recovered from the possession of the accused persons to be that belonging to the deceased. In the absence of these material evidences, the benefit of doubt would definitely would go in favour of the accused persons and it cannot be under any circumstances be held that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The benefit of doubt being tilted in favour of the accused persons, the impugned judgment of conviction cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside/quashed and the accused persons stand acquitted of all charges leveled against them. If the accused persons are in jail, they may be released forthwith. 20. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Appeals are allowed. 21. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.