CRLA/1370/2017 of KOMMU RAMULU , CHITTODU, MAHABUBNAGAR DT., Vs THE STATE OF TELAGANA, REP PP., on 21 April 2026

1. This Mt:morandum of criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(21 of criminal procedure code, Lgrg (for short cr.p.c.l assailing the conviction and sentence passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, at Mahabubnagar District in SC No.396 of 2OO4, dared 28.0T.2006. \ \ i i I i / rl i li i

Crininal Appeal- 137O-2O 17

2. Appellant-acclrsed was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default Simple Imprisonment for one year for the charge under Section 3O2 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPCJ. He is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous tmprisonment for three yeais for the charge under Section 379 of IPC. The period of imprisonment for the offence under Section 379 of IPC should be set off against the period of remand under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant-accu.sed started enjoying the roadside ladies by indulging in committing property offences, in that course he was arrested in Crime No.83 of L997 under Section 379 of IPC of PS Annasagar and in Crime No.98 of 2OOO under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC of PS Jadcherla. Appellant-accused has developed illicit intimary with Pullakurala Mallamma and enjoyed her for about a year. On 11.05.20O3 at about 10.OO A.M., appellant-accused visited Bhoothpur and offered toddy to Mallamma, took her to Jadcherla. Later, they both proceeded to Ranipet Village and had toddy in the shop of PW.4- B.Yadaiah Goud at about 3.O0 P.M. and purchased five more bottles of toddy, parcelled the same into two polythene covers, proceeded to Minambaram Vagu in the limits of Buddisamudram Village. They consumed toddy and enjoyed. Subsequently, : * I

Crfunind Appeal- 137O_20 I 7 appellant-accused smashed the head of P.Mallamma with a boulder arld tied her saree tightly around her neck, strangulated and comm.itted murder. Appellant-accused committed theft of gold and silver ornaments of Mallamma worth Rs.5,58O /- and pledged the same with PW.6-Anjaiah Chary and .charge sheet is filed against him under Sections 302 and 379 of IPC.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagar Kurnool took the case on file and registered as PRC No.29 of 2OO4. Since the offencr: is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate uide order dated 2O.O8.2OO4 committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar. The Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar took cognizance of the case assigned SC.No.396 of 2OO4 and made over the same to the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, at lVlahabubnagar.

5. The learned trial Court has framed charges under Sections 3O2 and 3'79 of IPC against the accused on 26.10.2004.

6. Prosecution has examined PWs.l to 19, got marked Exs.Pl to P17 and MOs.L to 12.

7. The learned trial court after analysing the evidence adduced by the prosecution has sentenced the appellant-accused for Life .* \dt Imprisonrnent as stated in Para No.2.

Criminal ApPeal- I 37O-2O I 7

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused submits that the learned trial Court failed to see that there are no direct eye-witnesses to the incident and the entire case of the prosecution is resting on circumstantial evidence. The learned Judge should have seen that there was absolutely no motive for the appellant to kitl the deceased and the confession made before the Police Officer is inadmissible evidence, mere recovery of certain incriminating articles at the instance of the accused cannot form the basis of conviction and the Test Identification Parade of the accused by PW.4 is not proper and the evidence of PW.16 is inconsistent and PW.1 has not supported the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appeltant-accused in alternate submits that Section 379 oflPC is not made out and the case falls under Section 382 of IPC. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decision in the case of Battigari Shaker Vs. State of Telanganat. g. karned Public Prosecutor submits that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses and rightly convicted the appellant-accused for the offences he is charged with, prayed to dismiss the appeal'

10. Heard both sides, perused the material on record. ' uemufruoLo4lzoz4

sl27

Criminal Appeal- I 370-2O f 7

11. Now the point for consideration is : Whether the conviction and sentenc.l imposed by the learned trial Court against the appeltant-accused suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it require interference of this Court?

12. PW.1 has lodged Ex.Pl- complaint on 15.o5.2oo3 before the police statirrg that on 1 1.05.2003 his mother Pullakoorala Mallamma w()ke up in the early hours on 11.05.2003 at about 5.OO hours, went out without informing anybody, he was under the belief that his mother went to sell fruits. On 15.05.2003, at about

11. OO hours he received a phone ca[[ from Budha Samudram that a female dead body was found and she has telephone No.23618, animals ate the meat completely, bones are visible, corpse is in a decomposed state. On seeing the saree, house key, bag and the details found thereon, arrived at a conclusion that it is his mother's de,ad body. Basing on Ex.Pl, PW.13 has registered Ex.P12-FIR rrn 15.05.2003 at 18.00 hours under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. t3. The t:vidence of PW-l-Pullakurala Naga Rdu is in consonance with Ex.Pl-complaint and he further deposed that his mother left the house along with the jewellery. After one month after the death of his mother, the accused came to the village searching for his house and he asked him to wear on his a shirt

Criminal ApPcal- I 37O-2O I 7 and follow him as Government is paylng amount of Rs.2 La-khs in view of the death of his mother. He had suspicion and took the help of a reporter in the Village who questioned the accused, found him to be a fraudster and handed him over to Annasagar police on the same day. The police has let him off on the ground that the accused merely came to his house to threaten and collect some money. On one occasion, when his mother was vending fruits in the stand at Bhootpur, he saw the accused speaking to his rnother' MO.l-Green blouse, Mo.2-Yetlow saree, MO.3-Red petty coat, MO.4-slip having telephone number and MO.S-Amulet, MO.7-Pair of silver anklets, MO.8-Gold ear tops, MO.9-four silver bangles, MO.lO-silver chain, MO.1l-Nose screw betongs to his mother and he is seeing them today in the Court. tn his cross- examination, he stated that he did not inform the police that he saw the accused speaking with his motl:er in a stand at Bhootpur' Police has not shown him MOs.7 to' 11 earlier and once he has ptedged MO.7-silver anklets as he fell due two installments of loan with one Babu Rao of Jadcherla. He denied the suggestion that MOs.7 to 11 do not belong to his mother and they were concocted by the police.

14. PW.2-La<man Goud deposed that he did not observe the clothes on the dead body. A small betel leaves bag (MO.6) t.

7lz7 KL.J and BRMR'J Criminal APPeal- 1370-2O 17 containedarlamountofRs.T2l-atthattime(noalnountisshown inthebag).Exs.P2toP6arephotoswithnegativeswhichwere taken &t th'e scene of offence' Witness is declared hostite by the prosecution.Duringhiscross-examination,hestatedthathedid notStatetothepoliceasinEx.PT,tothateffectthedeadbodyhad Mos.lto5'Inthecross-examinationdonebytheaccusedcounsel, he stated that he has handed over MO'6-betel leaves bag with Rs.72l-to Upa Sarpanch of the village by name Shekar (not cited as a witness) and the police did not examine him'

15. PW'3-Shiva Raj deposed that he received a phone call from Thimmajipet police who informed that a d'ead body was lying in Buddasarnudram stream' which has a bag containing a chit with phone number' Mother of !W'1 was found missing for about two or three da5's, immed'iately he called PW'1 who in turn spoke to the police on Phone

16. Pv/.4-B'Yad'aiah Goud deposed that the accused and one lady aged about 3O years carne to his shop at about 4'OO P'M' at Raypet and they purchased three toddy bottles' consumed near the shop. The accused and the lady had purchased three more toddy bottlesandpouredthetoddyintoaplasticbagandwenttowards A5ryawa-ripally Village' After four or five days' Jadcherla police came tc the toddy shop along with the accused and enQuyed with I

KLJ and BRMR,J Criminal Appal-l 37 O -2O | 7 him. He informed the police that the accused has purchased toddy, consumed it along with another lady. After 1O days he received surnlrlons to attend District Jail, Mahabubnagar for identification of the accused. He was shown the photograph of the decomposed dead body and he could not make out and identiff tLre dead body. In his cross-examination, he stated that daily about 1O toddy crates will be sold and he cannot say how many customers visit their toddy shop. The accused when c€une along with the police, pointed out towards their shop saying that he consumed toddy along with the female companion and he cannot identify all the couples who consume toddy in their shop. He denied the suggestion that accused did not visit his shop, consumed toddy along with the female. l7'. Pw.s-Salauddin Khan deposed that he has taken photographs at the scene of offence which are Exs.P2 to P6 with negatives.

18. Pw.6-Anjaiah Chary deposed that G.Krishna Reddy-PW.7 has introduced the accused to him saying that he belongs to his village. Accused has pledged a pair of silver anklets-MO.7, silver amulets-MO.9 and he paid Rs.6OOl- or 80O/- to the accused- About two or three months later, accused also pledged two pairs of silver anklets, pair of ear tops-Mo.8, silver chain-MO.l0, nose

'-

Criminal Appeal_ 137O_20 I 7 screw-Mo.ll and he paid Rs.2,5oo/- to the accused. After six months pc,lice Jadcherla came along with the accused to his shop on which he has returned Mos.7 to 11 to the police. In his cross- examinatic,n he stated that he maintains a small book and do not maintain emy register and he do not have an]r reeeipt book. The notebook rvhich is handed over to the police contains about 50 transactions details and each of which has a carbon copy transactiorr. He has not taken the signature or acknowledgement from the a<:cused. Mos.7 to l l are available in the market. only by virtual identification he can say tllat Mos.7 to l l vrere ptedged with him blr the accused. Mos.7 to 11 do not bear any tags to show that he has ftrrther pledged the iterns with others and his business is making jewellery and he make articles of jewellery on collecting labour cha::ges. He denied the suggestion that accused did not pledge any :Ltems and he is giving false evidence.

19. Pw.7-.G.Krishna Reddy deposed that at the request of the accused he has introduced him to pw.6 which happened about one and half yeer back 20- PW.8-Rathnaiah deposed that inquest was conducted in his presence urrder Ex.p8 and t-t.e dead body was in a skeleton form which had clothes like red petticoat and yellow saree. In his cross_

rol27 KL,J and BRMRJ Criminal APPeal-l37 O -2O 1 7 examination he stated that he do not know the contents of Ex'P8- inquest report and he signed on written white paper' 2L.Pw.g.S.Nagammadeposedthatshewenttoatod.dyshop, purchased one toddy bottte and consuneed it- Thereafter accused came and sat at a little distance. He enquired about her village and she informed that she is a native of Marikal and has been living at Jadcherla. Accused informed her that he works in railway and he has no one in the village and asked her to accompany him' Accused took her to another toddy shop near ternple at Jadcherla, he brought two to three toddy bottles and insisted her to consume it. Accused has inforrned her that he is rnarried, his wife has deserted him. she also informed the accused that she is also marriedandleftherhusband.Accusedhasenquiredwithher whether she has any jewellery, in turn she stated that except ear tops she has no other jewellery' Accused has engaged an auto and took her to Gollapally and she inforrned the accused that she has nomoneyexcepttheeartops.Accusedhasdemandedhertogive the ear tops. Meanw.hile police calne tleere and took the accused' In her cross-examination she stated that the accused calne alone to the toddy shop and she has consumed half bottle purchased by her. prior to the incident she had no acquaintance with the accusedandthedistancebetweentwotoddy^shoPsisone i tu27

Criminal Appeal_1370_20 I 7 kilometre. They reached Gollapally Railway station in an auto and they sat irr the railway station and had a discussion for half an hour, then she became scared and she came to Gollapally bus stop from the railway station after leaving the accused. By that time it was about 7.0o or 7.30 P.M. when she was at Gollapally bus stage the golice came and enquired about the accused and asked her about his whereabouts. She informed the police that the accused was at railway station. Police went to the railway station and took him into custody, came back and took her in a Jeep to the police rstation. Accused has not abused her nor beat her and they were <:ordial during their meeting. she denied the suggestion that she is giving false evidence at the instance of the police.

22. Pw.10-K.Jangamma deposed trrat the police has drafted Ex-P8-inqur3St report which bears her thumb impression and she has not seon any material objects. The photos i.e., Exs.p2 to p6 show the dt:ad body at the scene. witness is declared hostile by the prosecution. In her cross-examination she denied the suggestion that police has discovered betel leaves bag containing Rs.70o/-. witness is cross-examined by the accused counsel wherein she stated that she do not know the contents of Ex.pg-inquest report and at the' request of the police she has alfixed her thumb : impressiorr,)rl the papers. \

L2lzt

Criminal Appeal_I37o_2o I 7

23. Pw.11-Mohd.Fareed deposed that the police has took him and K.Mohan Reddy-LW.l4 to the police station at Jadcherla where accused was present in the police custody. Accused has confessed the crime and he disclosed that the gold and silver jewetlery stolen from the deceased were pledged with one Goldsmith. on 17.07.2oo3 accused has led them to a Hillock near Bandameedipally (Sangam gutta). Accused informed that he removed the gold and silver items from the dead body, from there they went to Nalla Cheruvu area of Jadcherla there the accused disclosed his participation in another crime near the bushes. Accused informed them that he removed the gold and silver jewellery from another dead body of another woman. Ex.P9 is the confession panchanama. on 18.07.2003 the accused led them to the shop of PW.6-Anjaiah Chary where the police has recovered gold and silver jewellery. Ex.PlO is the seizure panchanama. MOs.7 to 11 are the items of jewellery and the panch chits bear his signatures. [n his cross-examination he stated that on 17.O7.2OO3 he went to Jadcherla PS through a constable at about 7.OO or 8.OO P.M. On 17.O7.2OO3 at about 11.30 A.M. all of them including the accused went to Hillock at Bandameedipally. Mohan Reddy-LW.14 did not accornpany them to the Hillock and they remained at the Hillock from 11.00 A.M. to 2.oo p.M. panchanama was da drafted at the Hillock on 17 .07.2oo3 and another panchanama was L3lZ7 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal AppeaI_I37O_2O l7 drafted at llalla cheruvu area at about 2.30 p.M. on the same day. On 18.07.2rO03, he along with the police went to Krishna.Reddy compound to recover material objects-Mos.l to 6. About 5 to 6 persons went to the shop of PW.6. The policemen had Mos.7 to 1l with them when they reached the shop of prv,6, in his presence police has :thown MOs.7 to 1l to pW.6 and asked him whether he has acceptr:d the pledge from the accused. pw.6 stated that Mos.7 to 11 were pledged and he paid money to the accused and he gave evidence irr different courts. The panch chits were pasted on Mos.7 to 1 1. He denied the suggestion that no panchanama took place and ro material objects were seized at the instance of the accused.

24. Pw.12-A.Prakash Mudiraj deposed that on receipt of a memo from the h::spector of Police (pw.l6) he has altered the section of law to 302 ef IPC and Ex.Pl l is the section alteration memo. In his cross-examination he stated that on tg.oz.2o19 at about 1o.oo A.M., he re<:eived the memo from the Inspector of police. 25- Pw.l 3-Md. Suleman has registered Ex.pl2-FIR. In his cross-examination he stated that he has not noted the reference number of G.D. in the FIR. In the printed FIR he has not mentioned the date, time and the name of the person who d;livered the FIR to the Court.

14127 KLJ and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal-l 37 O -2O I 7

26. PW.l4-R.Narsimhaiah deposed that on L7.o7.2oo3 himself, Inspector of Police (PW.16) and other constables were on patrolling duty. At about 7.00 P.M. they reached Gollapally bus stage on NH-7 in the Jeep and has observed the accused taking to a woman, proceeding to the bus stage in a suspicious manner. They stopped them and on enquiry they discovered that the accused and the lady were not husband and wife and they also discovered the name of the accused as Kommu Ramulu and the lady is Chakali Nagamma (PW.9). The Inspector of Police suspected that the accused have been involved in crimes. He went to Jadcherla in a Jeep secured PW.l1 and Mohan Reddy-LW.l4 and produced them before the Inspector of Police at 8.00 P.M. The lnspector of Police thereafter interrogated the accused. In his cross-examination he stated that he do not know whether PW.1 was shown MOs.7.to 11 in the police station and he secured PW.l 1 and another person from the MRO ofhce at about 8.00 P.M. and he has directly taken the panch witnesses to Gollapally bus stage and not to the police station. He has not gone to Gollapally Railway Station and has not seen the accused there at. The arrest of the accused in the present case and in other cases was at Gollapally bus stage. PW.lS-Abdul Rahman has not participated in the arrest of the accused in this case. He denied the suggestion that they have taken the accused in a Jeep Lsl27 KL,J and BRMR'J Criminal APPeal- 1370-20 1 7 andpickedupPw.g,notdraftedanypanchanamaatGollapally bus stop an(l a false case is registered against the accused'

27. Pw.l5-Mohd.AbdulRahamandeposed'thaton15.05.2003 atabout8.ooA.M.hereceived'informationabouttheunknown deadbody.Immediatelyherushedtothesceneofoffenceatabout 9.3O A.M. and the dead body was partly eaten away by wild animals, hr: found one small bag and in it a chit bearing telephone No.36l32ofMallamma.Hecalledtheabovesaidnrrmberand ShivarajhasreceivedthecallandaskedhimtocallMallamma. Pw.3-ShivarajinformedtoPW.l.Pw.lcametothespotalongwith his relatives and identified that it is Mallamma, thereafter P\M' 1 haslodgedEx.Plcomplaint.Pw.l3hasregisteredthecaseand issued FII?. He has examined PW.1 and recorded his statement' He a]soexanrinedPWs.2to5andrecordedtheirstatementsandhe hasconductedinquestoverthedeadbodyofthedeceasedinthe presenceofPW.loandanotherandtheinquestreportisEx.P8.He gaverequisitiontotheMedicalofficertoconductautopsyonthe spot. Au.topsy was conducted' at the scene of offence' PW'2 has statedbeforehimasinEx.PT.Inhiscross-examinationhestated thathehasnotexaminedandrecordedthestatementofPW.lon thedateofcomplaintandhedonotknowwhoscribedEx.Pl.He has exa.mined PW.1 lirst and thereafter conducted inquest: 49-!er *\

16127 KL,J and BRMRJ Criminal APPeal- I 37O-20 I 7 Ex.P8-inquest report in column No'8' there were seven 1OO/- rupee notes, one 50/- rupee note and four 1O/- rupee notes apart from other items found in the betel bag' PW' 1 has given him the physicaldescriptionoftheaccusedinhisstatement.PW.2was present at the inquest and he has examined Pw.1 at his grocery shop at Bhootpur' He has not enquired with PW'4 as to how many vendors were present at the shop. He denied the suggestion that he has conducted table investigation'

28. Pw.16-Ch.RajaiahdeposedthatontT.oT.2oo3ataboutT'0o p.M. himself, pw.14 and I.D.party policemen while patrolling in the areaofJadcherlaonNationalHighwayNo.TatGollapallybus stage, they have noticed the accused in the company of one lady- Pw.g.Theystoppedandquestionedtheaccusedandtheaccused wasreadytoconfessthecommissionoftheoffences.Hisstaffhas broughtPw.llandMohanReddy-LW.|4atabout8.3oP.M.and he has interrogated the accused at Goltapally bus stage in the presenceofpanchwitnesses.Theaccusedduringthecourseof interrogationconfessedofcommitting^theoffenceinthepresent crimeandalsoinCrimeNos'1/03'5O/O3'54103'll4lO3ofPS Jadcherla.Accusedhasconfessedthathehaspledgedtheitems withPW.6andconfessionpanchanama'isEx.Pgandalsoinformed themthathewouldshowthestoneusedintheoffence.on

tTlzt

Criminal Appeal_ I 370_2O 1 7 l8-o7.2oo3, the accused has led them to scene of offence at about 10.3o A.M. at chiliveru Village, they have seized the stone (Mo.l2) under Ex.l)13-recovery of stone panchanama. Accused has led them to thr: shop of PW.6 and pw.6 admitted to have accepted the pledge of jewellery from the accused and produced them on demand i.e., MOs.7 to 11 and he has also seized pledge book from Pw.6 which contains the thumb prints of the accused on various dates. He has sent a memo to SHo, Thimmajipet to alter the section of law to sections 302 and 379 of Ipc and he has taken the fingerprintr; of the accused in the office and sent the pledge book along with the admitted thumb prints to the fingerprint expert for comparison. on 18.07.2003 he produced the accused before the court. on :2 l.o7 .2oo3 he has secured the accused on p.T. warrant. Thereafter he submitted a requisition before the chief Judicial Magistrate. Mahabubnagar to nominate a Magistrate to conduct T.l. Parade. The learned Magistrate has conducted T.l. parade on o2.o8.2o0ii and gave report under Ex.p16. pw.l has identified Mos.7 to 1.1. PWs.l to 4 have participated in the T.l. parade and identified the accused. Mos.7 to r 1 are the valuables seized from the shop of PW.6 at the instance of the accused. In his cross- examination he stated that he took up the investigation on

18. o7-2ooli from pw.15. Exs.p9 and p13 are drafted by pc zs4 who has attested the panchanamas and they prepared

18127 Criminal L7 identification slips with the signatures of panchas on Mos'7 to 11' Pw.6istheowneroftheshop.Hedidnotfindanyidentification tags to MOs'7 to lt when PW'6 has produced them' He has not examined the employer of PW'4 and has also not examined the toddy shop owner at Badepally to know the accused along with a lady visiting his shop' He denied the suggestion that no recoveries were made on 18.07'2003' Witness voluntarily stated that confessionwasrecordedon|T.oT.2oo3tiltlatenightandalso denied. the suggestion that MOs '7 to 11 were in their custody and compelledPw.6toidentifythem.Healsodeniedthesuggestion that PW.6 is only a Goldsmith but not Gold' merchant or Pawn brokerandalsodeniedthesuggestionthatpriortoT.I.Parade,he tooktheaccusedinaJeepandshownhimtoPWs.lto4inthe shop.Healsodeniedthesuggestionthataccusedisfalsely imPlicated in the case'

29. PW'17-Selvaraj-Finger Print Expert deposed that he received aletteron13.L2.2oo3fromlnspectorofPolice,Jadcherlaincrime No.SOof2OO3underSections302arrd'37gofIPCalongwith documents' They are pledge book' fingerprint slip of Kommu Ramulu@Chittoduforcomparisonandexamination.Fourthumb impressions were found on the pledge book' They are marked as D,DL,D2,andD3'ThespecimenimpressionofKommuRamuluis .:

19127

Criminal Appeal_ I 370_20 I 7 marked as 's,'and after cornparison, he opined the disputed finger impression nrarked as D, D1 - D3 are identical with the fingerprint marked as s of Kommu Ramulu @ chittodu. Ex.p14 is the Xerox copy of his report. In his cross-exarnination he stated that t]le book is titled as pledge book. Page number is not found in the photos which contains thumb impressions. The thumb impressions were found in the original receipts. He denied the suggestion that his report is incorrect.

30. Pw.18-P.Lakshmi sarada deposed that on 3o.or.2oo3 she received a rt:quisition from CI of police, Jadcherla for conducting T.l. Parade of the culprit in crime No.2z of 2003 of ps Thimmajipet. The requisition is Ex.p15 and she fixed the date as 02.08.2003 and directed the police to serve the summons on the witnesses. T.l. Parade is held on o2.08.2oo3 from 3.1s to 4.15 p.M. by following; the formalities and procedure. pw.l and pw.4 identified the suspect as culprit and she drafted Ex.p16 proceedings. suspect did not raise any objection for the T.I. Parade but rstated that he was detained in the police station and his photos u/ere taken by the police and he is falsely implicated in the case. In her cross-exarnination she stated that she recorded the statement oi PW.l and pw.4 prior to the commencement of the parade and Ln the statements they stated that culprit is tall, b[ack I ll --1

20127 KL,J and Criminal APPeal- 1 370-20 I 7 in complexion, stout and had a beard. suspect stood at place No'4 at the time of identification by PW'l and PW'4' PW'l and PW'4 have correctly identified the suspect as culprit'

31.1. PW.lg-B.Vijaya Laxmi deposed that Dr.S-Chakradar Goud has conducted PME on 16.05.200 3 at 12.20 P.M- over the dead bodyofP.MallammaontherequisitionofASlofPolice, Thimmajipet and found the following external antimortem injuries: ol/igaturemarkaroundtheneck.Transverselyand completely encircling the neck' 35 to 40 cms' in length and 4to5cms.widthwithirregularinshape.Haemmorrhagic pacheswerenoted.Belowtheskinonfrontalsideofthe neck. Body was completely putrified' No mass was found onface,upperandlowerlimbs.Greenishyellowcolourwas foundontheskinoftheabdomenwithmissingorgans". 3L.2. Haemorrhaghic patches found in the ligature indicates antemortem in nature. The cause of death of the deceased is due to asphyxia,duetostrangulation.Ex.PlTisthePMEreport.tnternal examination reveal fracture of thyroid, cartlege and the time of death is 5 to 7 days prior to PME. In her cross-examination she stated that she has not brought the hand-writings of Dr'chakradar Goud for comparison with Ex.p17. pieces of liver, kidney and stomachandsmallintestinesweresenttotheFsL.Shedeniedthe suggestion that she cannot identify the signature of "t 2t127

Criminal Appett _l 37 O _2O 17

32. It is the case of the prosecution and the evidence of pw.14 and Pw.l(; that the accused was apprehended at Gollapally bus stage on ItlH-7 along with PW.9 and confessional panchanama is drafted under Ex.P9. The evidence of pw.g is material wherein she has admit:ed in her cross-examination that she and the accused boarded Auto rickshaw at the auto stand near the temple and reached Gcllapally Railway station and got down. They sat in the railway stzrtion and had a chat, walked for an half an hour in the railway station itself and she was scared, came back to the bus stage of tiollapally from the railway station after leaving the appellant-accused. By that time it was 7.o0 or 7.3o p.M. and when she was ett Gollapally bus stage, the police came and enquired about the appellant-accused and asked for his whereabouts, then she inforrned the police that the accused was at the railway station. Police went to the railway station took him into custody and came back to Gollapally bus stage, took her in the Jeep to the police steLtion. The admissions made by pw.9 falsifies the contentior of the prosecution witnesses i.e., pws.l4 and 16 that they have apprehended the appellant-accused at Gollapally bus stage.

33. Insofar as securing the panch witnesses at the time of recording confessional panchanama under Ex.p9, it is the evidence 22127 KLJ and BRMRJ Criminal Appeal -l 37 O 20 17 of Pw.14-R.Narsimhaiah that he went to Jadcherla in a Jeep to fetch PW.11 and Mohan Reddy-LW.14 and produced them before Inspector of Police at about 8.0O P.M. and thereafter, the Inspector of Police interrogated the accused. The evidence of PW.16 is that he has sent for two panch witnesses and his staff has brought PW.ll and Mohan Reddy-Lw.l4 to him at about 8.30 P.M. and he has interrogated the accused at Gollapally bus stage in the presence of the above said panch witnesses. It is apt to refer to the evidence of PW.ll who deposed that the police has taken him and LW.14- K.Mohan Reddy to the police station of Jadcherla where the accused were present in the police custody. The evidence of PW.11 does not support the case of the prosecution with that of the evidence of PWs.14 and 16 about interrogating the appellant- accused at Gollapally bus stage. PW.ll stated in his cross- examination that on 17.07.2003 at about 11.30 A.M. the accused along with the police officers and himself went to the Hillock at Bandameedipally. The admission made by PW.l1 goes to show that the appellant- accused was in the police custody when they were taken to the police station, no credence can be placed on the evidence of PWs.14 and 16 with regard to apprehending the accused at Gollapally bus stage 23127

Criminal Appeal_ l37O_20 17

34. Insofar as the recovery panchanama under Ex.p9 by pw.I l, it is the evidence of pw.l l that the accused has led them to the Hillock r.ear Bandameedipalry by name Sangam Gutta on 17.07.2003 and he confessed that he has removed gold and silver items frorn the dead body and the confessional panchanama is drafted at the Hillock near Bandameedipally in the present crime. The evidertce of Pw.16 is that they along with the panch witnesses, accused went to the scene of offence on 1g.07.2oo3 at about 1o.3o A.M. at chiliveeru Village and he has seized the stone _ Mo.l2 under cov(:r of panchanama-Ex.pl3 and later the accused led them to the shop of PW.6 that he has pledged Mos.7 to 1t with him and has seized the same under Ex.plO-seizure panchanama. pw.11 stated in his cross-examination that Mos.l to 6 were recovered on

18. o7.2ooit and the porice had Mos.T to 11 with them, when they reached the shop of pw.6 and in his presence, the police has showed Mos.7 to l1 to pw.6 and asked him whether he accepted the pledge of MOs.Z to 11 for money from the accused. In turn, Pw.6 stated that on recommendation of pw.7 he has accepted Mos.7 to 11 on pledge. The evidence of pw.6 is that in two spells the appelftrnt-accused has predged the material objects. The admissions made by pw.ll is that Mos.7 to 11 were in the custody of rhe police and they were shown to PW.6 which itself is sufficient tr> come to a conclusion that Mos. 7 to 11 were not 24127

Criminal Appeal- l37O-20 I 7 pledged by the appellant-accused with PW.6 but they were in the police custody.

35. Insofar as the TI Parade is concerned, PW.18 has fixed the date of TI Parade on 02.C,8.2003 and her evidence goes to show that PW.1 and PW.4 have identified the suSp.it. fh" evidence of PW.l is material at this stagb, he stated in his chief-examination that accused came to his house, during that time he was cooking meals, he had suspicion on him. Thereby, he has handed over the accused to Annasagar police station on the same day and the police has let him go. PW.1 has already seen the accused before TI Parade itself. The evidence of PW.4 is also important wherein he stated that the accused has purchased toddy in his shop and he has received summons to attend the TI Parade. PW.l and PW.4 have not given any identification marks or disclosed special features in their evidence. In our considered view such identilication simplicitor cannot form the basis or be taken as the fulcrum for the entire case of the prosecution. Hence, benefit of doubt should be given to the appellant-accused. PW.2 evidence is that he has not observed any clothes on the dead body but a small betel leaves bag which contained an amount of Rs.72l- is noticed (MO.6). He handed over Mo.6-betel leaves bag with Rs.72/- to Upasarpanch, PW.10 also did not support the case of the prosecution with regard to inquest report under Ex'PF'

2s127

Criminaf Appeel- 1370_2O I 7

36. Pw.16 stated in his chief-examination that on tr.or.2oo3 he has apprehended the appellant-accused at Gollapally bus stage and recorded the confession panchanama. on the next date i.e., 18.07.2oo3 they recovered Mo.12 under recovery panchanama. [n the cross-,:xamination he stated that he took:up the investigation in the case from Pw.15 on 18.07.2003 itsetf. when he has taken up the investigation on 18.o7.2oo3, the question of him apprehending the appellant-accused at Gollapally bus stage creates a <loubt in the mind of the court and as per his evid.ence Mos.7 to I 1 were seized from the shop of pw.6 but whereas pw.l l stated in his cross-exarnination that Mos .T to 11 were with the police. The learned trial court has failed to look into the discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, erroneously arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved 1tr6' guilt of the appellant-accused for the offences he is charged with.

37. when two views are possible, following the one in favour of innocence of the accused is the safest course of action : See Mallappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka2. 21zoz+13 scc 5z+4 i i i I i : i j I i i I

26127 KL,J and BRMR'J Criminal Appeal- r 37O-2O I 7

38. We are of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges framed against the appellant-accused' Appellant-accused has filed depositions of S.Nagamrna-Pw.9, Anjaiah chary-PW.6, K.Mohan Reddy and Md.Fareed-Pw.11 during the course of his Section 313 Cr."p.C. examination pertaining to sc No. 41 of 2005. The learned trial court has not considered the same as they were not confronted to PWs'6 and 9 to contradict or ad.mit their previous statements. Even otherwise prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt' The observations of the learned trial Court in Para Nos'45-49 are perverse, requires interference of this Court'

39. We are not discussing the alternate arguments advanced by the appellant-accused counsel that Section 382 of IPC is applicable, since prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The decision cited by the appellant counsel in Battigari Shaker Vs. State of Telanganar is not applicable to the case on hand.

40. In view of the reasons above, the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court in SC No.396 of 2004, dated 28.07.2006 is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be bk set aside and is-accordingly set aside'

27lz7

Criminal Appeal_ I 37O_20 I 7

41. Criminal Appeal No.137O of 2OI7 is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, at Mahabubnagar in SC.No.396 of 2OO4, dated 28.07.2006, is set aside and the appellant-accused is acquitted of the charger;, he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other offenr:e. Misct:llaneous applications, if any, stands closed. SD/.T. KRISHNA KUMAR JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The I Additional sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar (with records in any)

2. The Judicierl First Class Magistrate, Nagarkurnoot

3. The Superintendent, Central prison, Warangal.

4. The statior House officer, Thimmajipet porice station 5' Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. One CC to Sri Rapotu Bhaska(LEGAL AtD) IOUTI

7. Two CD Copies G To, VH/BA Ny /

r' HIGH COURT DATED i 21104t2026

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.13'70 of 2017 ALLOWINGTHE CRLA (HE STAIg ,c ,J 2t rPfl 2026 * *