CRLA/1089/2015 of DASARI RAMESH, ADILABAD DT., Vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA, REP PP., on 29 December 2023

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

[ [3388 ]]

FRIDAY THE TWENTY [NINTH DAY ][OF DECEMBER]TWO THOUSAND AND [TWENW ][THREE]

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE [SRI ][JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN]ANDTHE HONOURABLE [SMT ][JUSTICE K. SUJANA]

CRIMINAL APPEAL[N][O: ][1089 ][OF ][2015]

Criminal Appeal [Under ]Section [37 ][aQl ][ot ][Crl'P'C, ][1973 against ][the]ii-Z-ZO15 [in ][S.C.N6. 23 ][ot ][2014 ][on the file ][of ][the ][Court ][of ][the]Judgment Oatea Principal Sessions Judge, [Adilabad.]

Between:

Dasari Ramesh, S/o. [Malkanna,]Occ: Agriculture Coolie, [PJo. ][Mallapur Village,]Dilawarpur Mandal, Adilabad [District.]

...APPELLANT/ACCUSED

AND

The State of Telangana,rep. by the Public [Prosecutor']High Court at Hyderabad.

...COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT

Counsel for the APPellant: Smt B. VaijayanthiCounsel for ResPondent: Sri Muthyala Muralidhar,Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the [following:]

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

AND

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRJMINAL APPEAL NO.1089 0F 2()1s

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Smt Justice K.Sujana)

This appeal is hled by the appellant/accused against thejudgment in S.C.No.23 of 2Ol4 on the file of principal SessionsJudge at Adilabad wherein the appellant is convicted for theoffence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian penal Code (forshort 'the IPCJ and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and topay fine of Rs. I ,OOO/ -, in default of payment of fine to suffersimple imprisonment for three months. The appellant is alsoconvicted for the offence under Section 3g2 of the IpC andsentenced to sulfer rigorous imprisonment for a period of sevenyears and to pay hne of Rs.1,O00/-, in default of payment of hne tosuffer simple imprisonment for three months arld he is furtherconvicted for the offence under Section 2O1 of the IpC andsentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of threeyears and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine tosuffer simple imprisonment for three months. AII the sentences ofimprisonment were directed to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased-RoddaRajawa and the appellant/accused are resident of Mallapur villageof Dilawarpur Mandal. The family of the deceased is havingAc.2.O4 guntas of agricultural land. Earlier for about 10 years theappellant worked as farm servant with the deceased and in thatprocess, he developed intimacy with the family members ofdeceased and they completely believed him. Thereafter, theappellant left the services of the family of deceased as farm servantand started working in Sangvi Village, where he worked lor about{-rve years. Later the accused used to attend daily coolie work inthe helds of villagers, but he was not in a position to maintain hisfamily due to in sufhcient income. The accused thereby decided togain money illegally and kept an evil eye on the gold ornaments o[the deceased, but due to fear of his identity, he decided to commitmurder of the deceased. Accordingly, on 28.09 .2012 in themorning the accused was called by the deceased for sprayingpesticide to her cotton crop. Accordingly, accused attended thesaid work till noon hours. Later when the accused asked for coolieamount, the deceased replied that she will pay later, due to whichthe accused became angry, picked up quarrel with her andthreatened to see her end. The same was witnessed by Pws.2, 5

.f,

)

and 6. On the next day, when the deceased was alone in the field,the accused killed her and thrown in the well and stolen goldarticles of the deceased.the accused killed her and thrown in the well and stolen goldarticles of the deceased.

3. To prove the case, prosecution examined Pws. 1 to 14 andgot marked Exs.P. I to P.33 and M.Os. 1 to 1O are marked. Basingon the evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trialCourt convicted the accused as stated supra.

4. Heard Smt B.Vyjayanthi, learned counsel for the appellantand Sri Muthyala Muralidhar, learned Additional publicProsecutor for the respondent-State.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there isno evidence on record to prove that accused is responsible for thedeath of deceased and there are no eye witnesses to the incident,except recovery of stolen articles to connect the accused with theoffence. Mere recovery of stolen articles from the possession ofappellant is not sufficient to prove the offence tnder Section 302of the IPC. Therefore, prayed the Court to set aside the judgmentof trial Court by acquitting the appellant.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional other hand, learned Additional learned Additional Additional Public ProsecutorProsecutorwould submit that though there is no eye witness to the incident, On the other hand, learned Additional other hand, learned Additional learned Additional Additional Public ProsecutorProsecutor there is evidence on record to [prove ]that there is [quarrel ][between]the deceased and accused with regard to [payment ]of [coolie]amount. Further the stolen articles [were ][recovered ]from [the]possession of accused which is sufficient to [prove ]the [offence]against him. As such, prayed the Court to dismiss [the ][appeal.]

7 . Now, the point for consideration is whether [the ][prosecution]proved the guilt of the accused for the offences under [Section ][3O2,]382 ar'd 20 I of the IPC ?

POINT:

8. Pw. 1 is the husband of deceased, Pw.2 is the son, [Pw.5 ][is]daughter-in-law of the deceased, Pw.6 is [the ][person residing ][in ][the]house opposite to the house of deceased and [Pw.3 ][is ][the ][person]who is also having Ac.4.O0 of land in the [village and used ][to ][go ][to]the helds at 8.00 a.m., and he saw the [deceased ][at ][about ][8.O0]a.m., while going to her held. His evidence is that [on ][the ][date of]incident he went to Kanjera Village to attend [funerals ][of ][his]relative and his wife went to the field. The [deceased ][used to ][go ][to]the lreld by 8.00 a.m, and return back at [l2.OO ]or [1.O0 ][p.m., ][and]after having food, she again used [to ][go ][to the field and ][return ][by]6.00 p.m. On the date of incident also at [8.O0 ][a.m., ][she ][went ][to]held and in the afternoon his son informed over [phone ]that [his]

)

wife did not return from the held. Thereafter his son went to thefreld and searched for his wife, but she could not be traced and [in]the evening when he returned to the village he along with [his ][son]went around their field but could not trace her. On the next daymorning by 5.00 a.m., himself, his sons and other villagers went totheir field and searched for his wife. While searching they havenoticed some dragging marks of a body in the held and they havealso noticed beans on the way and dragging marks up to the weli.Then, they searched in the water with iron hooks and bucket andthey found deceased body floating on the water. He furtherdeposed that his wife was wearing gold poosalu, Savukulu, [gold]ear studs, budeelu, side sticks and Kathera Baleelu, but the samewere not found on the body. He also deposed that the accusedworked with him for seven years as farm servant and he left theservices and two years thereafter, he came to attend coolie work [in]his held and one day prior to the incident he quarreled with hiswife for coolie amount and threatened her to see her end.Therefore, he suspected the accused.

9. Pw.2 is the son of deceased. He also deposed on the samelines as that of Pw. 1 .

10. Pw.3 is the neighbour and he deposed that on the date ofincident, he saw the deceased at 8.00 a.m., while going to her heldalong with a basket. At that time, he observed gold ornaments onher body which were regularly worn by her. In the evening hecame to know that the deceased has not returned home, on thathe went to held and by then all the villagers were searching forher. They also noticed broken maize plants suggesting dragging ofa person and also noticed beans and half burnt beedi piece in theheld and dragging marks upto the well. He further deposed thatas it became dark, they returned to homes and on the next daythey searched in the well, where the dead body of the deceasedwas found.

11. PW.4 is a photographer who took photographs of the sceneof offence. PW.5 is the daughter-in-law of deceased and she alsodeposed on the same .lines as that of PW. 1. She also deposed thaton 28.09.2012 accused attended the Coolie work of spraying thepesticides in their field along with her mother-in-1aw. In theevening he requested her mother-in-law for payment of coolieamount. Her mother-in-law said that she has no money and thatshe will pay the same later. On that the accused threatened her tosee her end.

\._

.. 'l-"-"y,/

12. PW.6 is a neighbour and he deposed that on the previousday of the incident he saw quarrel between the deceased andaccused. PW.7 is the Kirana shop owner andhe deposed thataccused is in the habit of smoking Beediesand he used topurchase Vani Beedies from his shop.

13. PW.S is the adjacent field owner and he deposed that thedeceased used to go to her field in the morning at 8.0O A.M andhis held is adjoining to the field of deceased. She came to the helda bit earlier to him and he saw the deceased while cutting beans.The accused came to the fleld of deceased on the earlier day andhe did not notice accused on the date of offence in the field ofdeceased. On the date of missing, he also went to the held ofdeceased, searched for her and noticed damage caused to themaize crop and also noticed dragging marks up to the well.

14. PW.9 is the panch for scene of offence. Pw.10 is the panchfor confession and his evidence is that accused confessedcommission of offence and also shown the gold ornaments M.Os. 1to 7 and the same were seized by the police. The police also seizedfutl shirt of the accused. Pw. I 1 is the Tahsildar and he conductedpanchnama for identification of the properry. He issued notice forconducting panchnama for identifying the properties.

KL,J &SKS,JCrl.A No 1089 of 20 I5

15. Pw. 12 is the investigating ofhcer; [Pw. ][13 ][is ][the ][doctor ][who]conducted post mortem examination. [According to ][him, ][the death]of the deceased is due to Asphyxia due [to ][throttling ][of ][neck.]Pw. 14 is the investigating ofhcer who [filed ][charge sheet ][after]completion of investigation.

16. The prosecution tried to [connect ][the ][accused ][with ][the]oflence on the following grounds [:]

i. Basing on the confession of accused [and ][recovery ][of ][M.Os.1]to 8.

ii. Basing on the evidence of [Pws.2, ]5 [and ]6. [According ][to]Pws.2, 5 and 6, one day prior [to the ][incident when ][the ][accused]asked for coolie amount, the deceased did [not ][pay ][the ][same, on]which the accused threatened her to see [her ][end.]

iii. Basing the evidence of Pw.3 that [on ][the date of ][incident, ][he]saw the deceased [going ]to the [held ]with [a ][basket. ][According ][to]him, he saw the deceased on the date of [incident working ][in ][the]field and she is cutting beans. He [further ][deposed ][that ][he ][saw ][the]accused on the previous day, but [he ][has ][not ][seen ][him on ][the date]of incident and;

iv. Recovery of M.O.8 half burnt beedi.

r-J

r' 7',

77. The trial Court convicted the accused reiying on theevidence of prosecution that the accused is responsible for thedeath and motive for the commission of offence is as he wasunable to maintain his family, he committed theft of gold articlesand as he is a known person to screen the evidence he killed thedeceased. The prosecution relied on the hrst circumstance thatquarrel between the deceased and accused one day prior to theincident and later recovery of gold ornaments from the possessionof accused basing on his confession, whereas there is no evidenceon record to prove the previous conduct of accused as he workedwith the deceased family as a farm servant for about 10 years.Pw. 1 or Pw.2 have not deposed anything against the accusedabout his conduct during his tenure as a farm servant, except thequarrel that took place between the accused and deceased a dayprior to the incident which according to Pws. I, 2 and 6 is that hethreatened the deceased that he will see her end.

18. Further there is no evidence to show that accused anddeceased were last seen together or the accused was seen in thefield of deceased on the date of incident though, the prosecutiontried to prove the same with the help of the evidence of Pw.8. Pw.8clearly deposed that accused was not present in the field on thedate of incident and he was declared as hostile to that extent by the prosecution. In cross-examination [also ]he [denied ][that ][he]stated to the police that accused was [present ]in the [field ][of]deceased along with her on the date of incident.

19. The only evidence on record in this case [is ][recovery ][of ][stolen]articles from the possession of accused. The [contention ][of ][learned]counsel for ttre appellant is that mere recovery [of ][stolen ][articles ][is]not sufficient to connect the accused with the offence. In [support]of the same, learned counsel for the appellant relied on [the]judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhan Raj Alias DhandVs State of Haryanar, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court [while]discussing about this issue, relied on the [previous ][judgments in]Mano V State of Tamiluadu2 and also Madhu V State of [Kerala3]and observed that it is not safe to draw inference that [the ][person]in possession of stolen property had committed murder [also. ][The]recovery of looted articles at the instance of accused could [not ][be]relied upon in the absence of any details as to when and [where]such recovery was made and in the absence of any [confession ][of]commission of offence by the accused. In the [present ][case]prosecution case is that accused robbed the gold articles of thedeceased as he is known person to her and committed [murder ][of]

t 1ZO [ta; ][O ][Supreme ][Court ][Cases 745]1ZO [ta; ][O ][Supreme ][Court ][Cases 745]2 (2OO7) 13 SCC 795

3 (2012) 2 SCC 399

ar

the deceased. To prove the confession-cum-recovery, Pw. 10 wasexamined and his evidence is that they enquired accused in thepresence of police and he confessed the commission of offence andshown the articles which are kept in his house, whereas in cross-examination he admitted that police enquired the accused but notby them. Further he has not stated that what are the gold articlesrecovered from accused. Therefore, the evidence of Pw. l0 cannotbe relied wholly to prove the recovery. The Court has to examineentire evidence in its entirety especially in case of circumstantialevidence and ensure that the only inference drawn from theevidence is the guilt of accused. If more than one inference can bedrawn then the accused must have the beneht of doubt as it is notthe Court's job to assume and only when guilt beyond reasonabledoubt is proved, then it is fair to record conviction. In case ofcircumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be provedbeyond reasonable doubt by independent evidence, and thecircumstances so proved must form a complete chain withoutgiving any chance of surmise or conjecture and must also beconsistent with the guilt of the accused as observed by the ApexCourt in Munish Mubar V State of Haryanaa.

4 (2O12) l0 scc 464

20. Further, the prosecution also tried to [connect ][the ][accused]with M.O.8 half burnt beedi and also examined Kirana [shop owner]to connect the accused with the offence. But [the ][said ][evidence]cannot be relied on as the accused is not only [person ][to ][smoke]Vani Beedies in that village. As such, the said [evidence ][is ][not]helpful to the prosecution to connect the accused [with ][the ][offence.]Except recovery of gold ornaments, there is [no ][evidence ][on ][record]to connect the accused with the offence. The [triai ][Court ][basing ][on]the said evidence erroneously convicted the accused [as ][observed]by the Honble Supreme Court that mere recovery [of stolen articles]is not sufficient to connect the accused with the [offence.]Therefore, the prosecution failed to [prove ]the [guilt ][of the ][accused]for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. As such [he is ][entitled for]the beneht of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

21. IN THE RESULT, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and [the]appellant/accused is found not guilty for the offences [punishable]under Sections 302, 382 and 2Ol of the IPC. [Hence ][he ][is]acquitted of the said offences and the [judgment ]dated 31.07.2015in S.C.No.23 of 2Ol4 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge,Adilabad is set aside. The bail bonds of the accused shall [stand]cancelled. The appellant/ accused shall be set at liberty forthwith,if he is not required in any other case or crime.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.

Sd/- B.S. CHIRANJEEVIJOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//SECTIONFFICER

HIGH COURT

DATED:2911212O23

ORDERCRLANo.1089 of 2015R[1HE ][S14]r€.$ol'2 s DEt zZfrZ|o*oE3p4'; si :,)

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL