Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 294 (TS)

Muchineni Ankulu v. State Of Telangana

2025-04-10

E.V.VENUGOPAL, K.SURENDER

body2025
JUDGMENT : (K. Surender, J.) This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.03.2018, in S.C.No.199 of 2015, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent-State. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.01.2015, in the early morning between 06.30 A.M. to 07.00 A.M., the appellant allegedly attacked Sri Muchineni Chinnulu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), with an axe. According to the eye-witness, the appellant attacked the deceased with an axe, severing the head from the body. A written complaint was filed by PW.1 with the police at 08.00 A.M. on 17.01.2025. In the said complaint, it is narrated that his brother/PW.3 and other villagers informed that the appellant attacked his father with an axe on the suspicion that the deceased was practicing sorcery and that the father of the appellant, namely Bheemaiah, died on account of the deceased practicing sorcery. 4. PW.12, who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, received a complaint on 17.01.2015 at 08.00 A.M. He registered the FIR and sent the copies of the same to the concerned Magistrate. 5. PW.13 took up the investigation from PW.12, and he took PW.7/photographer along with him to the scene of offence, where he found the dead body of the deceased in a pool of blood. The scene of offence was situated on the road which connects Kattakindigudem and Gandigopalpur Village, where PW.13 conducted the scene of offence panchanama and one bamboo stick, a white towel with blood stains, and control earth were seized. With the help of PW.7, Exs.P.2 to P.9 photographs were taken and Ex.P.10 is the CD on which photographs were copied. 6. The Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation. Having framed the charge under Section 302 of IPC, the learned Sessions Judge examined the witnesses produced by the prosecution. The reliance was placed on the evidence of PWs.2, 3, 4, and 5, who were the eye-witnesses to the incident. On the basis of the eye-witness account, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant. 7. Having framed the charge under Section 302 of IPC, the learned Sessions Judge examined the witnesses produced by the prosecution. The reliance was placed on the evidence of PWs.2, 3, 4, and 5, who were the eye-witnesses to the incident. On the basis of the eye-witness account, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though the prosecution has projected PWs.2, 3, 4, and 5 as eye-witnesses to the incident, however, their names were not mentioned in the complaint filed by PW.1. Further, all the eye-witnesses have given different versions, contradicting one another. In the background of such contradictions, the version putforth by the witnesses cannot be believed. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution has not examined LW.8, one Tirupathi, who had scribed the complaint/Ex.P1. 8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that PW.7, who is a photographer, took the photographs of the appellant on the date of the incident, which is on 17.01.2015, however, the arrest of the appellant was shown on 21.01.2015 by the Investigating Officer. The said infirmity in the prosecution’s case goes to the root of the case, and false implication is apparent. 9. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of P.Gangadhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh , [2006 (1) ALD (Crl.) 493 (AP)] wherein it was held that any fact deposed by witness during trial, if not mentioned in the FIR or in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., amounts to an improvement and cannot be considered. 10. Learned counsel further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Mohd. Yunus , [2024 (1) ALD (Crl.) 196 (SC)] , wherein it was held the accused cannot be convicted on the basis of evidence given by an untrustworthy witness. 11. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badam Singh v. State of M.P , [2003 AIR SCW 5551] , wherein it was held that merely because there is consistent evidence by the witnesses, the same cannot be relied upon unless the prosecution proves its case beyond any doubt. 12. Having gone through the evidence, PW.1 states that he was informed about the killing of his father by PWs.2 and 3. 12. Having gone through the evidence, PW.1 states that he was informed about the killing of his father by PWs.2 and 3. However, the name of PW.2 was not mentioned in the complaint. PW.2 stated that she had witnessed the incident, however, in the cross-examination, she admitted that on hearing the shouting of PWs.3 and 5, she went there and found the dead body. PW.3 stated that while he was in the house, he heard sounds and came out from the house, and saw the appellant cutting the head of his father with an axe, and having seen him, the appellant fled away. PW.4 stated that she heard shouts and went near the house of the deceased, where she found the dead body of the deceased lying on the road, with the body separated from the head. On her enquiry, she came to know from PWs.2 and 3 that the appellant had killed her father-in-law with an axe. PW.4 is not an eye witness to the incident, based on her own admission. PW.5 stated that on the date of the incident, when she and PW.3 were in the house, they heard sounds and, when they came out, they saw the deceased being hacked by the appellant. In the cross-examination, she stated that by the time she reached the place, PW.2 was already present at the spot and was crying and except for PW.2, there was no other person present at the scene. 13. Considering the evidence of the PW.5, the presence of PW.3 cannot be believed. According to PW.2, she heard the shouting of PW.3 and then went to the scene. The said evidence of PW.5 is contradictory to the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. PW.6 stated that while he, along with PW.3 and another person, was on the road near the house of the deceased, they saw the deceased coming from his field and the appellant attacking the deceased with an axe. The evidence of PW.6 is contrary to what PW.3 stated. According to PWs.3 and 4, they were in their house when the incident happened. However, PW.6 stated that the dead body of the deceased was lying on the road. 14. The crucial evidence is of PW.7. The evidence of PW.6 is contrary to what PW.3 stated. According to PWs.3 and 4, they were in their house when the incident happened. However, PW.6 stated that the dead body of the deceased was lying on the road. 14. The crucial evidence is of PW.7. PW.7 stated that the police called him at around 07.00 A.M. When they went to the scene of offence, the appellant was found sitting, holding an axe in his hand, about 1 K.M. away from the scene of offence. He also took the photographs of the appellant, and the police apprehended the appellant and took him to the scene of offence, where the dead body of the deceased was lying. Thereafter, the police took the accused to police station. 15. PW.13 states that Exs.P.2 to P.9 are the photographs, and Ex.P.10 is the CD containing Exs.P2 to P9. On 21.01.2015 at about 05.00 A.M., PW.12 received credible information that the accused was at the bus stand of Udumpur village, and accordingly, on his instructions, PW.12, along with his men, went to the bus stand of Udumpur village and apprehended the accused. 16. As seen from the above admissions by the witnesses, photographs/Exs.P.2 to P.9 were taken by PW.7. PW.7 stated that he went to the scene at 07.00 A.M., where they found the appellant sitting and holding an axe. He took photographs of the appellant. The police apprehended the appellant and took him to the scene, where the dead body of the deceased was lying. According to PW.7, he saw the appellant sitting with an axe at a distance of 1 K.M. from the scene, where PW.2 took photographs, and the police apprehended him and took him near the dead body of the deceased. After conducting the proceedings, he was taken to the police station. However, PW.9, independent witness and PWs.12 and 13 police officers, have stated that the appellant was arrested on 21.01.2015. PW.13, having marked Exs.P.2 to P.9, admitted that the photographs were taken on 17.01.2015, which include the photographs of the appellant shown in Exs.P6 and P7. As stated to by PW.7, the appellant was found sitting with an axe, and his photographs were taken on 17.01.2015. It is not the case of either PWs.12 and 13/Police Officers or PW.7 that subsequent to the arrest of the appellant, photographs were taken again for the second time. 17. As stated to by PW.7, the appellant was found sitting with an axe, and his photographs were taken on 17.01.2015. It is not the case of either PWs.12 and 13/Police Officers or PW.7 that subsequent to the arrest of the appellant, photographs were taken again for the second time. 17. The said suppression of actual facts by the Police Officers goes to the root of the case. It is apparent that the Police have suppressed the actual version and has come up with a tainted version. The prosecution has not explained the apprehension of the appellant at the scene on 17.01.2015, however, the arrest of the appellant was shown on 21.01.2015, which is 4 days later. The conviction on this basis itself cannot be sustained. 18. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 07.03.2018 in S.C.No.199 of 2015, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad. The appellant/accused is acquitted for the said offences and he shall be set at liberty, if he is not required in any other case. The fine amount paid, if any, shall be returned. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.