CRLA/515/2017 of BABLU, MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR., Vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA, REP PP., on 31 December 2024

[ [341e ]]

IN THE HIGH [COURT ][FOR ][THE STATE ][OF ][TELANGANA]AT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY, [THE THIRTY FIRST ][DAY ][OF ][DECEMBER]TWO THOUSAND [AND TWENTY FOUR]

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE [SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER]ANDTHE HONOURABLE [SRI ][JUSTICE ][ANIL ][KUMAR JUKANTI]

CRIMINA[L ][APPE][ AL ][NO: 515][ oF ][2017]

Criminal Appeal [filed ][under Section ][37!8)^of ][Cr ][P ][C ][' ][aqainst ][the ][Judgment]dated 09-03-2017 [passed ][i;"s:b.Nrr6 ]"i [zbto ][on ][the ][file-of ][the court of ][the]iii"ii"i"rr n"t.poritrn [S..iions ][Judge, ][Cvberabad' ][at ][L'B ][Nagar']

Between:

'l.Bablu,S/o.Pagla,Aged23Years'CastMavasi'Occtt/larblePolishingWork'Medipallv' [N/o ][Andhivara(V)']Medipallv' [N/o ][Andhivara(V)']R/o.[t/leeran [nesiaer.ri"e,'bT ][i"Vih"l"];t'- ]fftil;;iiq), [siini ][oistiict, ][Madhva Pradesh ][State]fftil;;iiq), [siini ][oistiict, ][Madhva Pradesh ][State]

2. Raiman @ [Karan. ][S/o ][Sukhlal' ]'Re"sience'. SSed[28 ][Years ]Om Vihar [Cast ][Mavasi' ]Colony' [Occ ]Medipally'[Marble]Poiishino Work, [nlo.fVrleran ]fo i" llli'n ivriiinr, [a;i,'"i;'iiq) ][S;tn ][; ][Distiict' ][NIad ][hva ][P ][radesh ][state]Poiishino Work, [nlo.fVrleran ]fo i" llli'n ivriiinr, [a;i,'"i;'iiq) ][S;tn ][; ][Distiict' ][NIad ][hva ][P ][radesh ][state]

...APPel lants/Accused

AND

The State of [Telangana, ][Throu-gh. ][lnspector ][of ][P-olice' ][Cvberabad' at]Raiendranaqar, R"p;e!;;i';; [F'oiic ][Fios""'tor' ][High ][court ][of ][Telansana],ni Andhra-Ptadesh, [HYderabad ][']

...RespondenUComPlainant

Counsel for [the Appellants ][: ][Sri ][Pendiyala ][Suhasini ][Reddy]

Counsel for [the ][Respondent ][: ][Sri ][Arun ][Kumar ][Doddla' Additional]Public Prosecutor The Court [delivered ][the ][following: ][Judgment]

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDERANDTHE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.AI{IL KUMAR

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.515 0F 2017

JUDGMENT: (per Hon,ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

This appeal is fiied aggdeved by the judgment dated09.03.2017 passed in S.C.No.26 of 2Ot6 on the frle of theAdditional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,. Cyberabad, atL'b'Nagar, convicting the appenants/accused Nos.l and 2 forthe offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian penalCode (for short lpcl and sentenced to undergo lifeimprisonment a.nd to pay a fine of Rs.5,OO0/_ each, indefault of pa5rnr:nl of fine, to undergo simple imprisonmentfor three months.

Heard Smt. [[pendiyala ]]Suhasini Reddy, learned Reddy, learned learned counsel 2Heard Smt. [[pendiyala ]]Suhasini Reddy, learned Reddy, learned learned counselfor the appellants/accused and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla,Suhasini Reddy, learned Reddy, learned learned counselfor the appellants/accused and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla,learned Additional public prosecutor for respondent_State.respondent_State.

JBriefly, the case of the prosecution is that appellants .were working a-s marble polishing workers under thedeceased namery Ram singh. on account of some financialdisputes in bet.ween the deceased and the appellantS, it waswere working a-s marble polishing workers under thedeceased namery Ram singh. on account of some financialdisputes in bet.ween the deceased and the appellantS, it was

that [ort ][02.06'2014, ][the ][appellants ][committed]alleged murder of [the ][deceased ][in ][the ][pent house' ][where ][they ][were]staying [along ][with ][the ][deceased ][in ][the ][under ]['construction]building [u.rd' ][th."* ][him into ][the duct ][of ][the building' ][PW5]was also [working ][in ][the ][under ][construction ][building ][where]the appellants [were ][working' ][While ][PWS ][was ][fixing ][the ][doors]of the bathroom [on ][05'06'2024, ][he ][noticed ][bad ][smell ][was]emanating [from the ][ventilator ][of the ][bathroom ][and ][found]dead body [in ][the ][duct' ][PW5 ][informed ][pW+' wtro ][was ][the]Supervisor [of ][the ][under construction ][building' ][PW4 ][informed]thePolice.AfterthePolicearrived,theywenttothepenthouse and [found ][blood ][stains ][on the ][walls ][of ][the pent ][house']

4. During the [course ][of ][investigation' ][the ][Police ][came ][to]know that [the ][appellants were ][working ][under the ][deceased']as marble [polishing workers ][and ][the ][appellants ][were]absconding [since the date of ][the ][offence' ][Efforts ][were ][made]to trace [the appellants and ][they were ][arrested ][on ][12'O6'2OL4]in MadhYa [Fradesh.]

5. Confession [of ][the ][appellants ][was ][recorded ][by PW1l ][in]the presence [of ][PW1O ][that ][they ][admitted ][to ][committing ][the]murderofthedeceasedandfleeingthereafter.Atthe instance of apperlants, Rs. r,500/- each was seized fromthem. According to the prosecution case, the appellants,after committing the murder of the deceased and throwiiighim in the duct, took the keys of his house, went to hishouse ald committed theft of Rs.1O,00O/_ and sharedRs.5,OOO/- each.after committing the murder of the deceased and throwiiighim in the duct, took the keys of his house, went to hishouse ald committed theft of Rs.1O,00O/_ and sharedRs.5,OOO/- each.

6. Charge Sheet was filed on the basis of circumstantialevidence for the offences punishable under Sectio ns 4SZ,3BO, 302 and 2O7 of IpC. Charges were framed against theappellalts as under:

"qHABqErl: Whereas, on 2_6_2Ot4 A7, A2 ofyou entered in to the house of Ram Singh yadav Ram Shaka yadav, for the purpose of [-committing]Q)theft of money and thereby you committed the officeof house trespass or house ]ykin8 breaking by night,publishable lJ lsec. 4SZ IpC, with i., _y "og'rrir..r."a CHARGE-2: Whereas, on the same day, atabout I mid night Ram Singh Vaaav 6nam Strataof Rs.I11"]-** [in ][deep sleep, ][you ][committed ][theft ]IO,O0O/- from the house of the above person bvkilling him and when the money was kept in a bag ofshelf and both of you divided into Rs. i,OOO/_-.""tand thereby went away by boarding Secunderabad tcrPatna train and thereby you committed theft in thehouse where Ram Singh yadav @ Ram Shaka yadavwas _residing i.e. Alwyn Colony, Jeedimetla, andthereby committed offence publishable U/sec.3gOIPC, with in my cognizance?

I

CHARGE-3: Whereas, [Al, ][A2 ][of ]You [on ][the]above date and [time ][and ][having ][known ][that ][the]deceased have [money ][in ][his ][house, ][you ][killed ][the]deceased Ram [Singh ][Yadav ][with ][a ][spade ][upon ][his]head, and caused [his ][death ][and ][thereby committed]offencd of murder [publishable ][U/sec' ][302 ][IPC' ][with]in my cognizance.

Charge-4: [Wtrereas, ][Al, ][A2 of ][you quarrel ][with]a decease when [he ][asked ][for ][return ][of money ][ald]caused [his ][death ][on ][the ][above ][date during]thereby mid night about [1 ][am, ][and ][thereby ][you ][tried ][to]dispose of the [dead body ][by ][taking ][keys ][from ][the]Watchman from [the ][apartment and when ][he ][refused]to give the keys [A1, A2 ][of ][you ][pushed tbe ][{ead ]into the duct [of ][the ][Apartment and you ][washed ][the]beans of the [duct by ][pouring ][sand ][with ][the ][h€lp ][of]wiper and water [and ][thereby ][you ][concealed ][the]cloths spade ald [wiper ][in ][the ][bathroom ][of ][the]deceased and [thereby ][you ][suppressed the ][evidence ][of]commission [of murder ][publishable ][U/sec' ][2O1 ][IPC']with in my [cognizance. ][Do ][you ][plead ][guilty ][or]claimed to [be tried?"]

7. PWl to 13 [witnesses ][were examined ][and Ex' ][Pl ][to ][P9]documents were [marked ][on ][behalf ][of ][prosecution' ][l'earned]Sessions Judge [found ][that ][the appellants' ][abscondance ][from]02.06.2014 and [recovery ][of ][Rs'1,5OOl- eadn ][from ][the]appellants were [sufflcient ][evidence ][to ][infer ][that ][it ][was ][the]appellants [who ][committed ][the murder ][of ][the ][deceased ][and]absconded.

/

8. The case is one of circumstantial evidence. The allegedscene of offence is the penthouse, where the accusedattacked the deceased and killed him according to pWi3Investigating Officer. However, no investigation was done toknow whether there were any blood stains on the walls of thepenthouse or bl.ood was spilled on the floor of the penthouse.The reason given is that blood stains were washed. Even ifblood stains were washed, it can be detpcted by way ofscientihc tests. Nothing incriminating was found in the penthouse, where the alleged murder took place.

9. The motive as projected by the prosecution is that therewere disputes in between the deceased and the appellants formoney. None of the witnesses have spoken about the allegeddisputes or whether there was any light in between theappellants and the deceased at any point of time regardingthe amount outstanding to the appellalts. Merely on theground that ther:e was seizure of Rs. 1,500/_ each from theappellants, would not mean that they have committed theftof money from the house of deceased after committing themurder of the deceased. Strange claim of the prosecution isthat the appellants, having committed the murder of the I

iI

deceased in the [pent ][house, ][took his ][house keys, ][went ][to ][his]house and committed [theft ][in ][the ][absence ][of his ][wife' ][No]witnesses have [been examined ][to ][state ][that ][the ][appellaats]were found alywhere [near ][the ][house ][of ][the ][deceased' ][It ][is]not explained as [to ][why the ][deceased ][was ][staying ][in ][the]under construction [house ][when ][he ][had a ][house ][and ][his ][wife]was staying in [the ][house]

10. When there [are ][no ][eye ][witnesses ][to ][the ][incident ][of]murder or theft, [the ][evidence ][of ][motive, ][last' ][seen ][and]abscondance have [to ][be ][looked ][into' ][It ][was ][not ][specilically]proved by [prosecution ][that ][death ][happened on ][02'06'2014']

11. The only [evidence ][of appellants ][absconding ][cannot ][be]madebasistoconvictthemsincethemotiveasprojectedwasalso not established [by the prosecution' Though ][it ][was ][stated]that the appellants [were ][last ][seen ][on 02'06'2014' ][however']when the complaint [was filed, ][the ][names ][of the ][appellants]were not stated [nor ][any ][suspicion ][was ][expressed .by]Supervisor [or arry ][of ][other ][workers ][against ][the ][appellants ][' ][It]wasnotevenstatedthatthedeceasedwasstayingalongwiththe appellants.

I,,

12. The casr: is one of circumstantial evidenr:e. TheHon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.State of Maharashtrar, laid principles as to the acceptanceof circumstantia_l evidence and the basis to record conviction,which read as trnder:- " 1 . the circumstalces fromwhichtheconc.[usion of guilt is to be drawn should befully established.The circumstancesconc.[usion of guilt is to be drawn should befully established.The circumstancesconcerned 'must, or [.s]hould' and not [,may ]be,established;be,established;

2. the facts so established should beconsistent only with the hypothesis of theguilt of the accused, that is to say, th.y J";;;not be explained on any other hypothesisexcept that the accused is guilty;

3. theclrcumstances should be of aconchrsivenature and tendency;

4. they shouidexciude every possiblehypot.hesis except the one to be proved; and5. there must be a chain of evidence socomplete as not to leave aly reasonableground for the conclusion consistent with theinnocence of the accused and must in all "fr"*ii"l. [h ][uman probabiiity, ][the act ][rn"rt ]f,.rr.Deen d.one by the accused."

13. The evidenr:e of the prosecution regarding abscondingof the of the appellants solely cannot form basis to convict theappellants. The evidence of last seen together is a-lso 1 lrsa+; + scc rrolrsa+; + scc rro I

,

\

doubtful. Pwl2/doctor [did not ][speciff ][the ][time of death but]stated that [the ][cause ][ofdeath ][was ][due ][to ][crush ][injury ][on ][the]head.Intheabsenceofanyspecifictimeframe'beinggivenas to when [the ][death ][was ][caused, ][it ][cannot ][be assumed ][that]thedeathwascausedon02.06.2014bytheappellants.Thecircumstances [relied ][on ][by the prosecution ][are ][not ][sufficient]to infer [guilt ][of ][the appellants' ][Accordingly' benefrt ][of ][doubt]is extended.

14. Criminal [Appeal ][is ][a-llowed ][and the ][conViction ][and]sentence imposed [against ][the ][appellants ][in ][S'C'No ]['26 ][of]2016onthelileoftheAdditiona]MetropolitanSessionsJudge, Cyberabad, [at ][L.B'Nagar, ][is ][hereby ][set ][aside' ][Since ][it]isinformedthattheaccusedareinjail'theyshallbereleasedforthwithfromprison,ifnotrequiredinanyother /

case.

Sd/- K. SRINIVASRAOJOINT REGI TRAR,SECTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

To,

1. The Additional Metropolitan [Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, ][at ][L ][B'Nagar]2. The Superintendent, Central [Prison' Cherlapally, ][Medchal ]- [tvlalkajgiri( ][by]speed post)3. Two CCs to the Public [Prosecutor, High ][Court ][for the ][State of ][Telangana at]Hyderabad [OUT]4. One CC to Sri Pendiyala [Suhasini ][Reddy, ][Advocate ][OPUC]5. Two CD Copies ADKgh HIGH COURT

DATED:31 l12tZ0Z4

JUDGMENTCRLA.No.51S ot 2017

ALLOWING THE CRLA

\r5b\r

tlE [i ][-lA ][7']e(qvo,')0r,ii'lt.[25.\*O '.,-1, .i; r.-irO[*..]-.- -:--''