CRLA/547/2015 of YENUGU GOVIND REDDY, DHARUR MANDAL., Vs STATE OF TELANGANA, REP PP., on 30 December 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEIMBEt-(TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHERANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 547 OF 2015

Crl.Appeal Under Section 374 (21 of Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the Judgmentdated 13-01-20't5 in S.C. No. 39 of 2010 on the file of Special Sessions Judgefor SCs / STS (POA) Act, 1989 - cum- Additional District and Sessions Judge,L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy Districtdated 13-01-20't5 in S.C. No. 39 of 2010 on the file of Special Sessions Judgefor SCs / STS (POA) Act, 1989 - cum- Additional District and Sessions Judge,L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District Between:

Yenugu Govind Reddy, S/o Ananth Reddy, aged 38 years. Occ. Agriculture ; R/oGodamguda village, Dharur Mandal ...APPELLANT/ Accused

AND

State Of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana...RESPONDENTHyderabad Counsel for the Appellant: SMT G. JAYA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

I

THE HON.BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHERANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAM]I

_CIIIMINAL [APPEAL ][No.547 ][OF ][2015]

JUtrGI{EI{T: [(Per Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][N.Tukaramji)]

This is the [judgment ]ofappeal directed against conviction and sentence dated 13.02,2015 in S.C.No.39 of20 10 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases underSCs & STs (PAO) Act, 1989-cum-VIII Additional District andSessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, whereby, theappellant/accused had been convicted for the charges underSections 302 and 379 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter'IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and topay fine of Rs.100/- for the offence punishable underSection 302 IPC., and also sentenced to undergoimprisonment for three years for the offence punishableunder Section 397 IPC. Both the substantive sentences ofimprisonment were directed to run concurrently.

2. t The prosecution case in brief is that Yenugu GovindaReddy/convict/accused (hereinafter'the accused') is thel\

resident of Godhamguda [village ][had ][an illicit ][affair ][wlth]Pyata Bheemamma/deceased [(hereinafter'the ][deceased')]who belongs to the Scheduled [Caste ][community, since ][10]years. On that account, the husband of [deceased ][left ][her,]thereafter the accused [used ][to ][visit ][her ][house ][and ][extended]help to her family. However, [since ][six ][months prior ][to ][the]incident, the accused began to [suspect ][that the ][deceased]had developed bad acquaintance [and ][cautioned ][her ][in ][the]presence of J. Anitha/Pw-10 and P.Ramulu/PW-11, [to ][give]up vices and to avoid [frequent visits ][to ][Vikarabad, ][or ][else ][he]will kill her. Albeit, as [she ][continued, ][the ][accused ][bore]grudge and hatched a [plan ]to do away [with ][her ][life.]

2.2 In pursuance thereof, the [accused ][instructed ][the]deceased to meet him [at ][Alpha Hotel, ][Vikarabad ][on]12.08.2008 at 2.00 [pm. ][From ][there ][he led ][her ][to]Mahashakti Chowrasta. [There he ][purchased one cheap liquor]quarter bottle and made her to consume [more alcohol ][and]from there by inducing, [taken her in an ][auto. ][Meanwhile, ][on]enquiry of one P.Narsimhulu/P.W.l2 [the ][accused ][informed]him that they are [going ][to ][Mominpet ][to ][attend ][some work']/

At Mominpet bus stand, the accused purchased one 'shortcompany' cheap liquor bottle, one kinley water bottle, onebiryani packet, two plastic glasses and taken her on foot onVikarabad road and at some distance from Mominpet village,they consumed liquor under a neem tree. Even there theaccused made her to consume more liquor and while thedeceased was in intoxicated condition, had sexualintercourse, after that he sat on the deceased and throttledher to death.

2.3 After confirming her death, the accused snatched thedeceased's ear tops, cash of Rs1,650/- and kept in his shirtpocket. He also took her gold beads, leg chains and keptthem in his pant pocket and fled away from the scene toMominpet bus stand, from there to Vikarabad and reachedtheir village. However found that the gold beads and silverleg chains are missing from his pants pocket. Later on24.08.2OO8, he pledged the gold ear tops at the pawn shopof K.Babulal/P.W. 13 for Rs.2,000/-.

2.4 After apprehension of the [accused ][and ][in ][pursuance of]his confessional statement, a [pair ][of ][ear ][studs/M.O.7 ][were]recovered from the PW-13 and the [accused ][was ][remanded]to judicial custody. Subsequently, on [completion ][of]investigation final report was laid for the [offence ][punishable]under Sections 302, 379 [IPC., ]and [Section ][3(2)(v) ][of ][SC/ST](POA) Act, 1989.

3. On examination under [Section ][239 ][Code ][of ][Criminal]Procedure (CrPC), as the accusations [were ][denied, ][the]accused was made to stand trial. [The ][charges ][were ][framed]under Sections 302, 379 [IPC., ]and [Section ][3(2)(v) ][of ][SC/ST](POA) Act, 1989.

4. During trial, the [prosecution ][got ][examined ][the]complainant/P.w,14, circumstantial [witnesses/P.Ws.2 ][lo ][12]and 17, the pawn broker with [whom ][the ][accused ][pledged]the ear tops of deceased/P.W.13, [panch ][witnesses ][for]confession and recovery/P.Ws.15 [and 16, ][panch witness for]scene of offence and inquest/P.W.18, [panch witness ][for ][the]identification parade of gold ear tops/ [P.W.19, ][the-ttrctor]

who conducted autopsy over the dead body of thedeceased/P.W.20 and the investigating officer/p.W.21 andmarked Exs.P1 to P25 and material objects 1 to 12"

5. On the conclusion of prosecution evidence, theincriminating material has been put to the accused underSection 313 CrPC and the same was denied, but no defenceevidence was placed.

6. The trial Court on considering the oral anddocumentary evidence and other material on record,convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above.

7. We have heard Smt. G. Jaya Reddy, learned counselfor the appellant and the learned public prosecutor andcarefully perused the evidence and the materials on record.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused wouldplead that the prosecution case is based on circumstantialevidence and the evidence placed by the prosecution is fullof discrepancies and contradictions and far from establishing. [essential ][factual ][links. ][However, ][the ][trial ][Court ][convicted]\a..- \

a..-

DT.SAJ & NTR]CrlA_54 7_201 5

the appellant based on presumptions, surmises andconjectures. Further as the prosecution failed toconclusively establish the presence of the accused much lesshis involvement in the offence, the accused is entitled foracquittal.

9. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that theevidence placed by the prosecution is establishing themotive for the accused to commit the offence. Further theaccused and deceased were last seen together before theincident. The recovery of ornament/M.O.7 of the deceasedfrom the appellant is leaving no other possibility except hlsinvolvement in the offence. Therfore, the trial Court hadproperly analysed the evidence and rightly found guilt andconvicted the accused. Thus, prayed for confirmation of theimpugned judgment.

10. In these rival pleadings, the points that arise fordetermination are:

i)Whether the death of Bheemamma/deceased ishomicidal?homicidal?

I

ii)Whether the prosecution is able to establish theinvolvement of the appellant in the offence beyondreasonable doubt?

11APtnNThePW- 1/K.Venkataiah,

PW-2IB.Ramaiah residents of Mominpet village deposed thatsix years ago on knowing through vlllagers they went to theoutskirts of found a female The't4andhagudda, deadbody. PW-2 deposed that he dug a pit as per the directions ofpolice, buried the deadbody. The PW-18/Narsimhulu,mediator for scene of offence panchanama and the entries inEx.P-IL/ scene of observation report narrating that thedecomposed deadbody of a woman is found in Sy.No.384 ofMominpet village under a neem tree and at the scene theyhave collected wearing apparel of the deadbody, bangles,silver anklet and plastic chappal. The PW-3/brother ofdeceased/Sathaiah and his brother-in-law asFW-4/P.Yadaiah, son-in-law of the deceasedASPW-57'J.Sangaiah, daughter of the deceased PW-10/J.Anitha, son of the deceased PW-11/P.Ramesh, theneighbours PWs.6 to 9 (K.Laxmamma, Y.Yadaiah,, [S.Narsimulu, ][and ][M.Srinivas respectively) ][in ][one ][voiqe]\

B

stated that they came to know about the unknown deadbodyfound in the outskirts of Mominpet and they went to policestation, identified material objects belonging to thedeceased.

12. The Doctor/PW-20/Dr,Pavan Kumar deposed that on21.08.2008 at request of the Station House Officer, hevisited the scene of offence where he found a decomposedand mutilated deadbody by wild animals. Further the skulland soft tissues are decomposed, upper limbs are mutilatedand only bones were present. Thus, as the deadbody was inhighly marred condition, he could not give any opinion as tothe cause of death.

13. By this evidence, finding a female deadbody in theoutskirts of Mominpet/Mandhagudda and by theidentification of material objects found on the deadbody bythe witnesses, it can safely be concluded that the deadbodyfound is of the person Pyata Bheemamma/deceased and asthe medical evidence is not clear, it shall be held as thedeath other than the natural circumstances./

74. [(B) ]POINT NO.(ii):

The core prosecution case is that the accused had illicitaffair with the deceased/Bheemamma and as he suspectedthat she developed other relationships, warned her and asshe did not heed the words, bore-grudge and committed theoffen ce.

15. To prove the accusation the prosecution has beenrelied on circumstantial evidence. In regard to appreciationof circumstantial evidence, the Hon'ble Supreme Courttnlarge number of cases annunciated the guiding principles tobe followed and consistently held that while considering thecircumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy theconditions enumerated in the dictum ofharad BirdhSarda v. State of Mahshtral .

\n Anwar Ali and another vs. State of HimachalPradesh2, the Hon'ble Apex Court in reiteration held that indetermining the guilt, the circumstances taken cumulativelyshould form a chain so complete that there is no escapeArR (1984) sC 1622\'z [2o2o(10) ][scc ][166]

from the conclusion that within all human probability thecrime was committed by the accused and none else and thecircumstantial evidence in order to sustaln conviction mustbe complete and incapable of explanation of any otherhypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and suchevidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of theaccused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.

16. In the light of these principles, the materials placed onrecord need examlnation.

To establish the culpability of the accused, the prosecution put-forth (a) the motive, (b) the evidence oflast seen together, (c) the confessional statement and therecovery of ornament/M.O,7 from the accused. Thesecircumstances need careful examination to deduce the guilt.

(a) Motive:

77. The brother/PW-3, son-in-law/PW-5, daughter/PW-10,son/PW-11 of the deceased testified that the accused andthe deceased have Thedeveloped illegal intimacy. neighbour/resident of same village/PW-9 deposed that the accused used to visit the house of the deceased. However,the other neighbours PWs.5, 6,7 and 8 did not refer to anysuch acquaintance between the accused and the deceased.It is pertinent to note that the prosecution specificallyreferred that six months prior to the occurrence, the accuseddeveloped suspicion over the conduct of the deceased andone month prior to the incident in the presence of herdaughter/PW-10 and son/PW-11 warned her to stop hermovements, otherwise he will kill her. In the evidence thedaughter/PW-10 deposed that the accused came to theagricultural field and warned her mother that she haddeveloped illegal contacts with others. Whereas [pW-11]stated that six months prior to the date of death of thedeceased, the appellant came to their agricultural field andwarned his nrother that he will kill her if she had any illegalaffairs with others.

Thus, though the neighbours/PWs.3 to 8 did notapprove the alleged illicit affair, the family members of thedeceased consistently specified the affair between thedeceased and the accused, except the variance in time and \

DT.SAJ & NTRJCrlA 547 20\5

the words used by the accused in dialogue. Even if theseaspectsareaccepted, the same cannot be read assubstantive material to incriminate the accused unless theother circumstances are conclusively point the involvementof the accused.

18. [(b) ]Last seen toqether:

The foremost plea of the prosecution is that on thedate of the occurrence the accused and the deceased wereseen together. The neighbour/PW-6 deposed that on oneday an auto came to the house of the deceased and sheboarded in the auto. As per the auto driver/PW-l7 in theyear 2008 the deceased boarded his auto at the village andgone to Vikarabad. Further the PWs.3 and 5 stated that thedeceased went to Vikarabad. As [per ]the PW-4 the deceasedwent to the Market, Vikarabad. The neighbour/PW-7 statedthat the deceased left her house. S.Narsimhulu/PW-B statedthat P.Narsimhulu/PW-12 informed him that the accused anddeceased went to Vikarabad to purchase [pesticides. ]Theson/PW-11 stated that on that day his mother informed himthat she is golng to Vikarabad but she did not return.

However, the PW-12 deposed that he had seen the deceasedand the accused at MRP Petrol Bunk and when he informedabout his daughter's marriage, the deceased conveyed thatabout his daughter's marriage, the deceased conveyed thatshe will attend the marriage.

19" In these testimonies, except the versions of pWs.6, 17and 12 the other testimonies are hearsay. By the version ofPWs.6 and 17 the deceased had left alone to Vikarabad. It ispertinent to note that the prosecution case is that on theinstructions of the accused the deceased went to Vikarabadto meet him at Alfa Hotel. No witness including the pW-12referred to this aspect. As per the pW-12, he saw thedeceased and the accused at MRP petrol Bunk. To note, thePW-12 also stated that after receiving information about thedeath of the deceased, the police had arrested and beat himindiscriminately and thrown him at his house. For discussion,if this statement is considered, it is suggesting that thepollce also speculated the involvement of pW-12 in theoffence. When it is so, in normal course of conduct, he/pW-12 should have informed the police about he noticing thedeceased and accused together at MRp petrol hunt,\

DT.SAJ & NIUCrlA_547_2015CrlA_547_2015

Vikarabad, no such act has been claimed. Further theprosecution case is that the PW-12, saw the deceasedboarding the auto at MRP Petrol Bunk to go to Mominpetalong with the accused, which is not spoken by thewitness/PW-12.boarding the auto at MRP Petrol Bunk to go to Mominpetalong with the accused, which is not spoken by thewitness/PW-12.

20. It is noteworthy that in the evidence of Doctor/PW-20who conducted post mortem examination of the putrefiedbody of the deceased, specifically stated that the deathwould have been caused 4 to 6 days prior to autopsy. Asper the prosecution the incident occurred on 12.08.2008. Ifthe medical evidence is taken into account the death shouldhave possibly occurred on 15.08.2008 but not12/13.08.208. In that case/ even last seen together on12.08.2008 is taken as it is, as there is a long gap of 2 to 3days, the possibility of contact with other persons cannot beruled out.

21. In this context, a mentionable authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court between Bodh Raj @ Bodha and others v/

o

{

State of Jammu and Kashmir3, wherein the last seentheory has been explicated in para 31 as under:

"The last seen theory comes into ptay where the time gapbetween pointing out that the accused and the deceased wereseen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so smallthat possibility of any person other than the accused being theauthor of the crime becomes improbable himsetf. It woutd beeven in some cases to positively establish that the deceased waslast seen with the accused, when there is a long gap andpossibility of other persons coming in between exists. In theabsence of any other positive evidence to complete that theaccused and the deceased were last seen together, it would behazardous to come to a conclusion of the guitt in those cases.,,

22. Thus, in absence of the reliable evidence particularlythe unconvincing evidence of pW-12 that the deceased andthe accused were seen together finding of the body of thedeceased in a open and accessible place drawing anyinference against the accused would be unjustified. Forthqse reasons, the circumstance of last seen together put_

3 ruR 2ooz sc 316

forth by the prosecution basing on the evidence of PW-12 islacking foundation and not inspiring confidence to rely on.23. [(C) ]Confessional statement and recoverv ofthematerial obiects:

The Investigating Officer/PW-21 deposed that theappellant made the statement of admission in the presenceof PWs.15 and 16 and recorded the statement of accused astnEx.P-20lpanchanama (relevant portion had beenmarked). Thereupon, a receipt Ex.P-2 and cash ofRs.1620/- were seized from the possession of the appellant.In furtherance thereof, the appellant led them to lai BhavaniPawn Brokers shop and shown the receipt to the shopowner/PW-13/Babulal. Thereupon, a pair of ear studs/MO.7were shown by the shop owner/Pw-13 and it was seizedunder Ex.P-21 panchanama. However, both the mediatorsPWs.15 and 16 did not support the prosecution version andcategorically stated that their signatures were obtained bythe police on white papers, however identified theirsignatures. Nonetheless, the confessional statement of theaccused during the course of investigation made in theI

presence of police cannot be proved against him as thesame is hit by the Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.same is hit by the Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

24. With regard to recovery of pair of ear studs/Nl.O.7, thepawn broker/Pw-13 deposed that six years ago the accusedpledged the pair of ear studs/M.O.7 under receipt Ex.p_2and police came to his shop along with the accused andseized the ear studs/M.O.7. However, in the crossexamination stated that he issued Ex.p-2 receipt to thepolice when police brought the accused to him and as theaccused pledged the articles in the night of 23.09.200g, hecould not hand over the receipt, and yet, on the next dayi.e. 24.O8.2008 when the police brought the accused, thereceipt/Ex.P-2 was handed over, as such he could not obtainthe counter signature of the accused on the duplicatereceipt.

25. When this evidence is carefully considered, as per theinvestigating officer/pW-21 the accused was apprehended bythe police on 01.09.2008 at 11 a.m. Whereas the evidenceof Pawn broker/pW-13 is that the accused was brought to DT.sAJ & NTRJCrlA_547 _201,5CrlA_547 _201,5

him on 24.08.2008. Thus the custody and the issuance ofreceipt on 24.09.2008 to the police when they came alongwith the accused is giving scope to entertain any amount ofdoubt as these aspects are shaking the foundation of theprosecution case.

26. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that thecircumstances projected by the prosecution i.e. last seentogether, confessional statement and recovery of materialobjects are as standing open ended, falling short to bear upagainst the Iegal scrutiny, resultantly it shall be held that theprosecution had failed to establish the chain ofcircumstances giving rise to the hypothesis to conclusivelyhold that it is the accused alone and none else hascommitted the offence in consequence the benefit of doubtshall be extended and accordingly the accused is entitled foracq u itta l.

27. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment ofconviction and sentence dated 13.02.2015 in S.C.No.39 of2010 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases underSCs & STs (PAO) Act, 1989-cum-VIII Additional District and/

\

Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District are hereby set asideand the appellant/accused is acquitted of the charges withwhich he is charged. The accused shall be set at libertyforthwith, if he is not required in any other case or crime.The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused shallbe refunded.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any inthis Appeal, shall stand closed.

\sd/-B.S. CHIRANJEEVI,JOINT REGISTRAR..,t) SECTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

To

'1. The Special Sessions Judge for Cases Under SCs / STs ( POA) Act1989 cum Vll Additional District & Sessions Judge [at L.B.Nagar, ][Ranga]Reddy District. ( with record)1989 cum Vll Additional District & Sessions Judge [at L.B.Nagar, ][Ranga]Reddy District. ( with record)2. The Judicial First Ctass Magistrate , [Vikarabad, ][Ranga Reddy ][District]3. The Station House Officer , Mominpet [Police ][Station, ][Ranga Reddy]District.3. The Station House Officer , Mominpet [Police ][Station, ][Ranga Reddy]District.

4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, [Cherlapally, ][Ranga Reddy ][District.]( By Special Messenger)( By Special Messenger)5. Oni: CC to Smt" G. JAYA REDDY Advocate [OPUC]6. Two C.D.Copies,\r-6. Two C.D.Copies,\r- I

HIGH COURTDRSAJ & NTRJDATED:30/1212022

JUDGNTENICRL.APPEAL No.547 of 2015

ALLOWTNG THE CRL.APPEAL

("mA--V>

siA. r: r-;r. [.t\]i.n,/:*#.tf[1 [I[\\ ][?'$8]li,-\\-]