Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 382 (TS)

Mukthala Nagaraju v. State of Telangana

2025-04-22

E.V.VENUGOPAL, K.SURENDER

body2025
JUDGMENT : (K. Surender, J.) Criminal Appeal No.2184 of 2018 is filed by the appellant/accused No.2, and Criminal Appeal No.2571 of 2018 is filed by the appellant/accused No.1. Since both the appeals are filed questioning the judgment in SC No.397 of 2012 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, both these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard Sri Mohd.Muzaffer Ullah Khan, learned legal aid counsel for the appellants and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. 3. The case of the prosecution is that PW3, who is the father of the deceased (Swathi), went to the police station and filed a complaint with the police at 04.15 PM. In the said complaint, PW3 narrated that his son-in-law / PW4 informed PW3 that his wife/the deceased was found murdered by someone and there was a deep cut injury to her throat. PW3 and his wife/PW5 went to the flat and found that the body was lying in a supine position in the hall in a pool of blood. PW4 stated to PWs.3 and 5 that he was informed by the deceased over a phone call that a distant relative of PW4, viz.Giri, along with his friend, had gone to the house of the deceased. The almirah in the bedroom was left open and all the articles were scattered in the room. 4. On the basis of the complaint, the investigating officer/PW17 took up the investigation. PW17 went to the scene of offence, got the scene photographed, and collected the incriminating material found at the scene. According to Ex.P8/scene of offence panchanama, hairs were found near the dead body and in the left hand of the deceased, along with the blood stains. Three tea cups were also collected from the dining table. 5. The material objects were sent for the purpose of examination to the FSL. Ex.P22 is the FSL report in which the opinion was given that the hairs found at the scene and in the left hand of the deceased were of human origin. 6. After completing the inquest panchanama, the body was sent for postmortem examination. According to the postmortem examination, the death was on account of throat injury. 7. On 11.07.2011, another complaint was filed by PW3 giving details of the property lost. 8. 6. After completing the inquest panchanama, the body was sent for postmortem examination. According to the postmortem examination, the death was on account of throat injury. 7. On 11.07.2011, another complaint was filed by PW3 giving details of the property lost. 8. On 18.07.2011, while the police were conducting vehicle checking at Mettuguda X Roads, they stopped a motorcycle driven by the accused No.1 along with the accused No.2 as a pillion rider. The accused/appellants were searched and the police found gold ornaments in their possession. Then both the appellants were taken to the police station and their confession was recorded. In pursuance of their confession, the appellants took the police to various places from where the gold ornaments, including a knife, were seized. Appellant No.1 led the police to Munnapuram Finance, Patancheru, where the gold jewellery was pledged. PW7, who was the Manager of Mutooth Finance, speaks about appellant No.1 pledging the gold ornaments on 08.07.2011 and obtaining Rs.1,25,000/-. Ex.P6 is the loan application and Ex.P7 is the pledge form. The appellants then took the police to Secunderabad Railway Station where they seized the parking slip and the motorcycle. Thereafter, they went to Laxmi Apartments where the police prepared Ex.P17/seizure panchanama. 9. The visitors’ register/Ex.P26 was sent to the handwriting expert for comparing the writings therein with the specimen/admitted handwritings of the appellants. The knife that was seized and the blood stains available at the scene were also sent for examination to the FSL. 10. Having concluded the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 of IPC. 11. The learned Sessions Judge, having examined PWs.1 to 19, Exs.P1 to P26, and Ex.D1 and MOs.1 to 16, found that the prosecution had made out its case against the appellants and accordingly convicted them for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 of IPC. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the case is one of circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances beyond all reasonable doubt. Further, the circumstances did not connect the appellants to point them out as the persons who committed the crime. No witnesses have seen the appellants at the scene on the date of the incident and further, copies of the visitors’ register and the report submitted by the FSL were not furnished to the appellants. 13. Further, the circumstances did not connect the appellants to point them out as the persons who committed the crime. No witnesses have seen the appellants at the scene on the date of the incident and further, copies of the visitors’ register and the report submitted by the FSL were not furnished to the appellants. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Keshav Dutt Vs. State of Haryana , [(2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 286] and State of Maharashtra Vs. Damu S/o.Gopinath Shinde and others , [(2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 269] . In Keshav Dutt’s case (cited supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph Nos.15 and 16 observed as extracted hereunder : “15. In the instant case, the report of the handwriting expert who had not been examined indicates that a specimen writing had been given by the appellant and on a comparison of the same with the writings in Ext.PR, the handwriting expert had come to the conclusion that they had been written by the same person. The trial Court skirted the issue by holding that the defence counsel could have examined in their defence to rebut the findings of the Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana. The High Court also skirted the issue by observing that the science of handwriting being imperfect and inaccurate, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to give the opinion that the writings were in the hand of one and the same person The High Court went on to observe that the appellant did not have the courage to examine any counter expert in rebuttal of the report. The High Court recorded that the report having gone unrebutted could be relied upon without any demur. 16. We are afraid that we cannot concur with the views either of the trial Court or of the High Court in the above regard. When the trial Court chose to rely on the report of the handwriting expert (Ext.PR), it ought to have examined the handwriting expert in order to give an opportunity to the appellant and the other accused to cross-examine the said expert. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant and the other respondents had admitted to the report of the handwriting expert.” 14. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant and the other respondents had admitted to the report of the handwriting expert.” 14. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that, at most, the case pertains to the offences of theft and possession of stolen articles, and the appellants cannot be convicted for the offence of murder. 15. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, argued that although the watchman who was on duty on the date of the incident could not be examined, however, the ornaments of the deceased, which were seized from the appellants and pledged by the appellant No.1/accused No.1 on the next date of incident, would clearly show that it was the appellants who committed the murder. 16. The first circumstance is the visit of the appellants to the flat of the deceased. According to PW4, his wife/the deceased called him and informed him that one of his relatives, viz. Giri, had come along with another friend. However, in the cross- examination, PW4 stated that he did not try to contact the said Giri, who visited his house in his absence. He further admitted that his uncle Somaiah’s son’s name is Yadagiri. PW4 admitted that he was not aware whether the said Yadagiri was also called Giri. PW4 further admitted that both appellant No.1 and the said Yadagiri, S/o.Somaiah did not visit their house regularly. 17. The only evidence to show that the appellants visited the house of the deceased is Ex.P26/visitors’ register, wherein the appellants have written their names and other particulars. Ex.P25 is the FSL report. Admittedly, Ex.P25/report was not furnished to the appellants. PW17/investigating officer admitted during his cross-examination that the FSL report was not furnished to the appellants. The Court also did not take any steps to direct the prosecution to furnish a copy of Ex.P25 to the appellants, so as to enable them to cross-examine the witnesses on Ex.P25. Further, the handwriting expert was also not examined. In the said circumstance, and in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred to supra, the handwriting expert’s report cannot be taken into consideration. Once Ex.P25 cannot be relied upon, there is no other connecting evidence to say that the appellants visited the apartment of the deceased. 18. In the said circumstance, and in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred to supra, the handwriting expert’s report cannot be taken into consideration. Once Ex.P25 cannot be relied upon, there is no other connecting evidence to say that the appellants visited the apartment of the deceased. 18. At the time of investigation, under Ex.P8, the hairs were collected from the dead body and also from the left hand of the deceased. Further, the tea cups were collected from the dining table. Though the hairs were sent for examination to the FSL, the report/Ex.P22 stated that the hairs found at the scene were of a human origin. The investigating officer has not taken any steps to conduct a DNA examination or made any request to conduct a DNA test of the hairs found at the scene to connect the appellants. Further, the tea cups, which were found at the scene, were not sent for fingerprint examination to find any finger impressions of the appellants on the tea cups. In view of the same, it cannot be conclusively said that the appellants visited the house of the deceased on the date of the incident. 19. The other circumstance relied upon by the prosecution to connect the appellants to the crime is the gold jewellery that was found in the possession of the appellants when they were arrested on 18.07.2011, and pursuant to their confession, the other ornaments seized from the finance company. PW7 worked as the Manager of Muthooth Finance and speaks about appellant No.1 pledging the gold ornaments on 08.07.2011 and obtaining Rs.1,25,000/-. Exs.P6 and P7 are the loan application and pledge form. The said evidence reflects that the appellant No.1 obtained loan by pledging the gold ornaments stolen from the house of the deceased. 20. With regard to circumstantial evidence, 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: 20. 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. ......”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” 21. 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, 22. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, 23. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and 24. 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. 25. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.” 21. As already discussed supra, the prosecution failed to prove that the appellants were at the house of the deceased when the incident of murder took place. However, the prosecution has proved that it was the appellant No.1/A1 who had pledged the gold ornaments with Muthoot Finance. Therefore, for being in possession of the stolen property, the accused No.1 is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 of IPC is set aside. 22. In the result, Criminal Appeal No.2184 of 2018, filed by the appellant/accused No.2 is allowed. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 of IPC is set aside. 22. In the result, Criminal Appeal No.2184 of 2018, filed by the appellant/accused No.2 is allowed. The bail bonds of the accused No.2 shall stand cancelled and the fine amount, if any paid by him before the trial Court, shall be refunded to him. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.2571 of 2018, i.e., the Accused No.1 is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the said offence. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No.2571 of 2018 filed by the appellant/accused No.1 is partly allowed. The accused No.1 is directed to surrender before the trial Court for serving the remaining sentence of imprisonment, if any. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 shall stand cancelled. He is entitled to the benefit under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.