Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 115 (TS)

Konda Raju, S/o Laxmi Rajam v. State of Telangana

2025-03-13

E.V.VENUGOPAL, K.SURENDER

body2025
JUDGMENT : K.Surender, J. 1. Crl.A.No.1219 of 2017 is preferred by A-6, Crl.A.No.1256 of 2017 is preferred by A-2, Crl.A.No.1258 of 2017 is preferred by A-5, Crl.A.No.1444 of 2017 is preferred by A-1, and Crl.A.No.546 of 2020 is preferred by A-3, questioning their conviction for the offences under Sections 120-B, 364-A, 302, and 201 r/w. 34 of IPC. 2. Since all the Appeals arise out of the judgment in S.C.No.658 of 2012, on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, all are heard together and disposed of, by way of this common judgment. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants, and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. 4. The deceased, namely Srinivas, who was the son of P.W.1, went to Hyderabad on 20.06.2011 around 2:30 p.m. As P.W.1 did not receive any information about the deceased, on the next day, P.W.1 tried to contact the deceased on his phone, but his phone was switched off. On 22.06.2011, P.W.1 received a phone call from phone No.9440072821, stating that the deceased was kidnapped and the person on the call demanded a ransom of Rs.2,00,000/-. However, P.W.1 was instructed to deposit the amount in the account of a bank. On 24.06.2011, P.W.1 went to the Police and lodged a complaint/Ex.P.1. After lodging the complaint, P.W.1 was asked to deposit the ransom amount in the account of one Geethanjali who had an account in SBH, Jagtial. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was deposited on 25.06.2011. On the basis of the complaint, P.W.11 took up investigation. P.W.1 provided the account number to P.W.11. P.W.11 then went to the house of Geethanjali (not examined) in whose account the amount was deposited. Again on 25.06.2011, a threatening call was received by P.W.1, and he was asked to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/-. The call details of the deceased’s mobile number and area numbers were collected. The Investigating Officer analyzed several numbers, and two phone numbers, i.e., 9949703090 belonging to A-6 and 9000286556 belonging to one Ranganath, a resident of Warangal, were found to be suspicious. P.W.11 questioned A-6 about the suspected phone numbers, and A-6 informed that the number- 9949703090 was used by A-4 and A-1. The Investigating Officer further found that part of the amount, i.e., Rs.1,50,000/-, which was deposited into the account, was withdrawn from the ATM. P.W.11 questioned A-6 about the suspected phone numbers, and A-6 informed that the number- 9949703090 was used by A-4 and A-1. The Investigating Officer further found that part of the amount, i.e., Rs.1,50,000/-, which was deposited into the account, was withdrawn from the ATM. The CCTV footage was collected of the time when the money was withdrawn. During interrogation, A-6 informed about the flat No.402 in ARK Residency, Uppal. P.W.11 then secured the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2, and others, and also gave a requisition to the MRO, Uppal, to break open the lock of the flat. On breaking open the flat, they found the refrigerator tied with a saree, and the body of the deceased was found in a plastic bag tied with a cable wire in the refrigerator. Inquest was conducted, and the dead body was sent for the post-mortem examination. P.W.11 also called a fingerprint expert to lift the chance prints from the scene. 5. Post mortem was conducted by P.W.7/Narender Babu.He found the following injuries:- “1. Multiple contusion of various dimensions seen over both gleutail region. 2. Three linear bluish coloured marks horizontally placed on the back of chest measuring about 15 cm x 1 ½ cm., the subscutarious tissue under the mark is normal. 3. Bluish coloured mark three in number over the lateral 9outer) aspect of both arms, measuring 6 x ½ cm, the subcutaneous under the mark is normal. 4. A ligature mark of 40 x 1 cm round the neck faintly seen on the right side andprominent on the left side, the ligature mark is 10 cm below the right mastoid region, 9 cm below the right ear, 7 cm below the right angle of the mandible, 5 and ½ cm below the left ear, 6 and ½ cm below the left angle of the mandible, 6 cm below the left mastoid, 5 and ½ cm below the chin. 5. The right thumb and the left little finger amputated in the middle. 6. The hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage intact. 7. Blood stained frothy material seen in both nostrils. 8. Sub conjuntival heamorrahge seen in both eyes. Further, P.W.7 opined that the cause of death was Asphyxia due to smothering, associated with strangulation. 6. 5. The right thumb and the left little finger amputated in the middle. 6. The hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage intact. 7. Blood stained frothy material seen in both nostrils. 8. Sub conjuntival heamorrahge seen in both eyes. Further, P.W.7 opined that the cause of death was Asphyxia due to smothering, associated with strangulation. 6. The information of the flat being rented out to A-1 was provided by P.W.3, and based on the information provided by A-6, P.W.11 arrested A-1 and A-3 to A-5 on 15.07.2011 at Peddapalli railway station. A-1 and A-3 to A-5 were interrogated, and pursuant to their confessions, the seizure of ATM cards was effected. On further enquiry, it was revealed that A-1 was involved in several offences, and he confessed to the murder of the deceased with the help of the other accused. 7. Cat card of the deceased-M.O.18 was recovered from A- 1, and the driving license was recovered from A-3. An amount of Rs.50,000/- was recovered from A-2, and Rs.48,500/- was recovered from A-6. The CCTV footage, which was filed in the form of CD/Ex.P.32, was collected to show the withdrawal of the amount by the accused. 8. On the basis of the evidence collected during the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against A-1 to A-6. A-4 died during the trial, and the case was abated against him. 9. Learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution, found favour with the prosecution case, and convicted the appellants on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. 10. The prosecution relied on the following circumstances:- 1. The deceased went missing on 20.06.2011, and on 22.06.2011, P.W.1 received a phone call from the phone of the deceased, and a report was given to the Police on 24.06.2011. On 25.06.2011, the amounts were deposited by P.W.1 and withdrawn by the accused. During the investigation, the amounts were seized at the instance of A-1 and A-6. 2. On analysis of the area call details by P.W.11, A-6 was apprehended. 3. On the basis of the information provided by A-6, the flat at Uppal was identified. 4. When the flat was broken open, the dead body was found. 5. A-1 had taken the flat on rent from P.W.4, who is the owner of the flat. P.W.3 is the watchman who gave the key of the flat to A-1 on behalf of P.W.4. 6. 4. When the flat was broken open, the dead body was found. 5. A-1 had taken the flat on rent from P.W.4, who is the owner of the flat. P.W.3 is the watchman who gave the key of the flat to A-1 on behalf of P.W.4. 6. P.W.3 saw A-1 getting the deceased to the apartment two days prior to 26.06.2011. 7. On 26.06.2011, A-1 and A-3 to A-5 left the apartment and went away. 8. P.W.3 identified A-1, A-3, and A-5 during the Test Identification Parade. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants argued on the following grounds:- 1. There is no evidence regarding the kidnapping of the deceased by the accused. 2. The evidence of P.W.3 is suspicious since there is no lease deed executed by A-1 to take the flat on rent. 3. Nothing was produced by the prosecution to show that P.W.3 worked as a watchman in the said flats. 4. There is a delay of nearly 3 months in conducting the Test Identification Parade, which is fatal to the prosecution case. 5. P.W.3 admitted in his cross-examination that he was shown the photographs of the accused before the Test Identification Parade. 6. The CCTV footage that was filed cannot be considered- firstly, due to the absence of 65-B certificate, and secondly, because the CD was disbelieved by the Court, stating that none of the accused were seen in the CCTV footage. 7. None of the circumstances projected by the prosecution make out any case against the appellants. 12. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that the flat was taken on rent by A-1. The burden is on A-1 to prove the reason for the dead body being found in the flat. Further, the accused absconded after 26.06.201.Mere abscondance can be treated as a circumstance in the chain of circumstances to establish the case against the appellants. 13. Prosecution has filed the cell phone records. Though the Investigating Officer collected the call records pertaining to the deceased, A-6, and A-1, the location of the said cell phone was neither found out by the Investigating Officer nor reflected in the call records. The Nodal Officer of the service provider was not examined before the Court. 13. Prosecution has filed the cell phone records. Though the Investigating Officer collected the call records pertaining to the deceased, A-6, and A-1, the location of the said cell phone was neither found out by the Investigating Officer nor reflected in the call records. The Nodal Officer of the service provider was not examined before the Court. In the absence of any certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, and the non-examination of the Nodal Officer, who had provided the call details, the cell records cannot be looked into. 14. Ex.P.32 is the CD filed by the prosecution to show that accused had withdrawn the amount from the ATM. The said CD was marked subject to objection. Admittedly, there is no 65-B certificate provided by the person who transferred the contents of the CCTV footage onto the CD. No witness was examined who had collected the CCTV footage or copied the CCTV footage onto the CD. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandrabhan SudamSanap v. State of Maharashtra , [2025 LawSuit (SC) 117] , held that, in the absence of a 65-B certificate or any other evidence requiring certification under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, such evidence cannot be looked into. 16. The crucial evidence that has been relied upon by the prosecution is the evidence of P.W.3. P.W.3, in his evidence, stated that on 17.06.2011, A-1 took the flat on a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- with Rs.500/- as maintenance charges. In advance, Rs.5,000/- was paid. A-3 is the wife of A-1, A-4 is the brother of A-1, and A-5 also resided in the same Apartment. According to A-3 to A-5, A-1 left the house on 26.06.2011 in the afternoon, which was a Sunday. The Police went to the Apartment on Thursday, i.e., on 30.06.2011. According to P.W.3, A-1 took the deceased to the Apartment two days before leaving the Apartment, i.e., 24.06.2011. 17. In the cross-examination, P.W.3 stated that the Apartment has 5 floors consisting of 17 flats. He could not provide the details of the occupants of the flats. There is no register for visitors and he could not give any particulars of the persons who had visited the flat on a given day. He also admitted that he had no prior acquaintance with A-1 but still leased out the flat, and no lease deed was executed. 18. There is no register for visitors and he could not give any particulars of the persons who had visited the flat on a given day. He also admitted that he had no prior acquaintance with A-1 but still leased out the flat, and no lease deed was executed. 18. The test identification of A-1, A-3, and A-5 was conducted on 01.10.2011 by P.W.5/Magistrate. The Test Identification was conducted after a requisition was given by P.W.11 on 17.09.2011. P.W.3 admitted that the Police have showed him the photographs of the suspects at his apartment before he was taken to the jail for the purpose of identification. 19. P.W.3 did not speak specifically about the accused as to when he found A-3 to A-5 living along with A-1. According to P.W.3, A-1 brought the deceased to the flat on 24.06.2011. It is not the case of P.W.3 that A-3 to A-5 were in the house when A-1 took the deceased to the flat. It is strange that the Investigating Officer did not take any steps to examine any of the neighbours of the flat. The examination of neighbours or neighouring flat owners would have lent credibility to the version of the prosecution that A-1, A-3 to A-5 stayed in the said flat. 20. The statement of P.W.3 that A-3 to A-5 left the flat on 23.06.2011 becomes doubtful in the background of the admission in his cross-examination that the photographs of the accused were shown to him prior to the test identification parade. Admittedly, several persons stayed in the apartment complex. A-1 had leased out the flat 10 days prior to 26.06.2011. In the background of the extent of stay and P.W.3 not specifically speaking about A-3 and A-5 being present in the apartment on 24.06.2011, the date on which the alleged murder of the deceased took place, the inference of complicity of A-3 & A-5 cannot be drawn. As assessed by the prosecution, on the basis of the approximate time of death given by the postmortem Doctor, the time of death was around 24.06.2011. On that day, according to P.W.8, A-1 brought the deceased to the apartment. 21. A-1 was found in the possession of the cat card of the deceased. An amount of Rs.50,000/- was seized from A-1, and an amount of Rs.48,500/- was seized from A-6. A-6 had given a cell phone to A-1 for use. On that day, according to P.W.8, A-1 brought the deceased to the apartment. 21. A-1 was found in the possession of the cat card of the deceased. An amount of Rs.50,000/- was seized from A-1, and an amount of Rs.48,500/- was seized from A-6. A-6 had given a cell phone to A-1 for use. A-6 was nowhere seen in the apartment by P.W.3. There was no Test Identification Parade in respect of A-6. However, the flat was discovered by the police at the instance of A-6, where the dead body was found. Only for the reason of A-6 showing the flat to the Police, it cannot be inferred that he was complicit in committing the murder of the deceased, especially when A-6 was not seen anywhere near the apartment where the dead body was found. 22. The circumstances indicate that (i) A-1 had taken the flat on rent, (ii) A-1 brought the deceased to the apartment on 24.06.2011, (iii) A-1 was absconding from 26.06.2011, and (iv) the cat card of the deceased was seized at the instance of A-1, along with cash, for which no explanation was provided. 23. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution, insofar as A-2 and A-3 to A-6 are concerned, are doubtful. As already discussed, the presence of A-3 to A-6 on the date of death of the deceased was not stated by any of the witnesses. Mere assumption that they were responsible for causing the death solely because they were living with A-1 cannot form basis to infer guilt of A-2, A-3 to A-6. 24. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for A-1 submits that none of the ingredients of Section 364-A of IPC are made out. Section 364-A of IPC reads as under:- “364A. Kidnapping for ransom, etc.— Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter-governmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” 25. P.W.3 stated that it was A-1 who had brought the deceased to his apartment on 24.06.2011. Admittedly, the deceased went missing from 20.06.2011. Though there is no evidence regarding the whereabouts of the deceased from 20.06.2025 to 24.06.2025, however, the deceased was brought to the flat on 24.06.2011 by A-1. Pursuant to the phone calls made to P.W.1, the amounts were transferred into the account and subsequently withdrawn. P.W.1 was threatened, and pursuant to the said threat received over the phone, the amount was deposited into the account. 26. The ingredients of Section 364-A of IPC are:- (i) Any person being kidnapped, abducted, or detained. (ii) Threatening to cause death or hurt to such a person. (iii) Conducting in a manner that gives rise to apprehension that the abducted person may be hurt or killed. (iv) Such act or conduct, which is deliberate with the intent of compelling any person to pay ransom or abstain from doing some act. 27. Admittedly, after the deceased went missing, he was found in the company of A-1, subsequently, the dead body was found in the flat leased out to A-1 and there was ransom call made to P.W.1, pursuant to which, amount was deposited. All the ingredients of Section 364-A of IPC are made out. 28. The prosecution has laid the foundation regarding the deceased being taken to the house rented by A-1. Since the dead body of the deceased was found in the flat of A-1, the burden is on A-1 to explain how the dead body was found in his flat. Although, the general burden in a criminal case rests on the prosecution to prove its case, however, in the present circumstances, it shifts onto the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. A-1, except for denying his role in the homicidal death of the deceased, has not placed anything on record to discharge the burden shifted onto him. 29. Accordingly, all the offences alleged against A-1 are confirmed. 30. In the result, Crl.A.No.1444 of 2017 is dismissed. Criminal Appeal Nos.1219 of 2017, 1256 of 2017, 1258 of 2017 and 546 of 2020 preferred by A-6, A-2, A-5, and A-3, respectively, are allowed. Since A-6, A-2, A-5, and A-3 are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.