Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 100 (TS)

KUKATLA KOMARAIAH, KARIMNAGAR DT, TS v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA, REP PP.

2025-03-06

ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, K.SURENDER

body2025
JUDGMENT : K.SURENDER, J. 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. 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 , [2023 SCC OnLine SC 268] , 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. 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, (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. 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.