Kaveti Nageshwar Rao And Others vs State of Telangana

K.Surender, J

Criminal Appeal No.1280 of 2017 is filed by the appellants/A1 to A3 and Criminal Appeal No.2479 of 2018 is filed by the appellant/A4, aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the IV Additional Sessions Judge at Karimnagar, in S.C.No.191 of 2013, dated 24.07.2017, for the offences under Sections 302, 201 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal code; and sentencing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence under Section 302 r/w.34 of IPC; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years each, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, for the offence under Section 201 of IPC.

Heard Sri D.Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for A1; Sri K.Neelakanteswara Rao, learned counsel for A3; Smt.J.Kusumavathi, learned counsel for A4, and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

Accused No.2 was released on remission by the Government. The learned Counsel submits that their arguments are confined to A1, A3, and A4.

PW.1-Swaroopa, is the wife of the deceased, namely Avula Srinivas. She stated that around 12.30 hours, on 09.09.2012, the deceased went out on his motorbike. In the evening, around 4.30 p.m., when PW.1 called the deceased on phone, the deceased informed her that someone was trying to kill him and immediately, the phone was switched off. At about 8.00 P.M., PW.1 came to know that the deceased died with a cut injury to his throat. Then she visited the Government Hospital at Peddapalli and found a cut injury on the throat of her husband. She came to know that her husband was killed at Jaffarkhanpet village. Accordingly, she drafted Ex.P1 complaint and handed it over to PW.16.

PW.16-Sub-inspector of Police stated in his examination that on 10.09.2012, at about 2.00 A.M, PW.1 came to the police station and lodged written complaint Ex.P1, and then he immediately rushed to the scene of offence and shifted the dead body to Government Hospital, Peddapalli. The investigation was then handed over to PW.18.

According to PW.18, on 10.09.2012, having received the information from PW.16 Sub-inspector, he went to the mortuary of Peddapalli government hospital and found the dead body with an injury on his throat. The body was photographed and the wearing apparel of the deceased were seized. He also seized one motorcycle bearing No.AP 15 AD 6153-M.O.7 at the scene. PW.18 sought details of call data of phone number of the suspect, i.e., 9866494067 and other suspects’ phone numbers, which are, 9177368884 and 8106292525. According to PW.18, the call data information provided

prima facie evidence of involvement of A1 to A4 in the offence. On 18.09.2012, A1 to A4 were arrested and in the presence of independent mediators, PW.12 and another, the accused were interrogated. In pursuance of their confession, mobile phones of A10 and A3 were seized. A1 further led the police to bus stand, where the motorcycle bearing No.AP 15 AC 9787, which is M.O.3, was seized. A1 further led the police party to the scene of offence, where the knife-M.O.5 was seized. M.O.6-blood stained shirt of the accused was also found at the scene and seized.

On 20.10.2012, the Test Identification Parade of A2 was conducted at District Judge, Karimnagar. PW.17 is the Magistrate, who conducted Test Identification Parade.

Having concluded investigation, charge sheet was filed by PW.18-Inspector of Police.

The crucial witnesses, who were examined by the prosecution and relied on by the learned Sessions Judge to record conviction, are PWs.3, 4, and 5.

PW.3 stated that he found three male persons and one female person nearby the bushes at the side of the road in Jaffarkhanpet village. He found a person in a pool of blood, struggling for life. He also found a motorcycle next to the dead body. The number of the motorcycle is AP 15 AD 6153. PW.3 then informed PW.4 about the body being found. Immediately, PW.4 went to the scene and found the dead body with an injury on the neck. According to PW.4, he informed Sub-inspector on phone.

PW.3, in his cross-examination, stated that he has seen the accused for the first time and they are all strangers. He was examined before the Court on 21.04.2015, which is nearly 2 ½ years after the incident. According to PW.3, he saw the accused near the place of the incident. However, he did not give any descriptive particulars of the accused, when he was examined by the Police. The identification of PW.3, 2 ½ years after the incident, without any Test Identification Parade, raises doubt regarding his identification for the first time in Court. Further, PW.3 stated that he informed PW.4, who came to the scene. PW.4 stated in his cross-examination that he informed the Sub-inspector on phone and immediately, the Police came to the spot at 6.00 P.M., after receiving information about the body being found, and body was shifted to hospital after arrival of the Circle Inspector.

The said version of PW.4 is contradictory to the version given by PW.16-Sub-inspector. According to PW.16, after he received complaint at 2.00 A.M., on 10.09.2012, he rushed to the scene of offence and shifted the body to the Government Hospital. According to PW.4, he gave details of the incident, when the Police arrived at the scene. One fails to understand, as to why the information, that was given to police at 5.00 P.M. itself by PW.4, was not acted upon by the Police. The Police pleads ignorance and denies having received any such information, or going to the scene at 6.00 P.M. on 09.09.2012. The very first information, which was received by the Police, was by PW.16 at 2.00 A.M., after the written complaint was filed. Either PW.3 and PW.4 are speaking false about the incident, or PW.16-Inspector statement is false.

PW.5 is another witness who saw A2 proceeding along with the deceased at Kunaram X roads. According to PW.5, the deceased introduced A2 as his cousin and both of them left on the bike. PW.5 further identified A2 in the Test Identification proceedings conducted in the jail. PW.5 in his cross-examination stated that on the same night, he saw news about the death of accused on Television. Immediately, he and his relatives went to Government Hospital, where the Circle Inspector was present. The Inquest took place after he went to the hospital. The police examined PW.5 and relatives of the deceased at the time of inquest. The inquest was conducted in the hospital on 10.09.2012, at 8.00 A.M., and concluded at 10.00 A.M.

PW.6 speaks about the seizure of M.O.3. M.O.3 was marked during his evidence. According to PW.3, the vehicle was seized by the Police from his house. However, Inspector-PW.18, stated that M.O.3 was seized from the bus stand, at the instance of A1.

The prosecution relied on the statements of PW.7 and PW.11 that were made during the course of investigation, regarding the accused confessing before them, about committing the murder of the deceased. Both PWs.7 and 11 turned hostile to the prosecution case and did not support the version of the prosecution that the accused had confessed before them about committing the crime.

The evidence of PW.3, who saw the accused at the scene, become doubtful, in view of his statement that he was identifying the accused for the first time, before the Court, 2 ½ years after the incident. Admittedly, no Test Identification Parade of all the accused, was conducted for the purpose of PW.3 identifying the accused. In the inquest report-Ex.P3, neither the name of PW.3, nor PW.4 is mentioned as witnesses to the incident. In the inquest report, it was mentioned that the first person who has seen the dead body, is PW.5. As already discussed, the evidence of PW.5 is falsified by the evidence of PW.16-Inspector.

The evidence of PW.3 is doubtful since his name is not mentioned in the inquest, and identification of accused by him was after 2 ½ years of the incident. In the inquest report, PW.5 though stated that he called the Police and at 6.00 p.m., and the police arrived, however, PW.10 stated that he went to the scene of offence after receiving complaint from PW.1 at 2.00 A.M., on 10.09.2012.

PW.6 stated that M.O.3 was recovered from his house at the instance of the Police, however, PW.16-Investigation Officer states that M.O.3 was recovered at the instance of A1, from the bus stand. The witnesses, PW.7 and PW.9, on whom the prosecution relied on, to speak about the extra judicial confession of the accused, have turned hostile to the prosecution case. The only evidence left is that of PW.5, who has seen A2 and the deceased at around 4.30 p.m., and thereafter, the deceased was found dead. Though, call records were filed by the prosecution, it does not connect the accused to the crime.

The Honourable Supreme Court in Musheer Khan alias Badshah Khan and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh(2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 748

, held that:

“39. In a case of circumstantial evidence, one must look for complete chain of circumstances and not on snapped and scattered links which do not make a complete sequence. This Court finds that this case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. While appreciating circumstantial evidence, the Court must adopt a cautious approach as circumstantial evidence is “inferential evidence” and proof in such a case is derivable by inference from circumstances.”

In the cases such as these, when there is no eye-witness account and the prosecution relies on the circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied on by the prosecution, have to be convincingly established, and there should not be any room for doubt. The link between the circumstances should be so interconnected, that it should rule out the possibility of the accused not being guilty and conclusively determine the involvement of accused in the offence.

As already discussed, except the evidence of PW.5 seeing A2 along with the deceased, few hours prior to his dead body being found, all the other circumstances are doubtful, and cannot be relied on to prove the case insofar as A1 and A3 are concerned.

In view of the foregoing discussion, benefit of doubt is extended to A1, A3, and A4. Since A2 was released on remission, no findings are given against A2.

Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.2479 of 2018 and Criminal Appeal No.1280 of 2017 insofar as A1 and A3 are concerned, are allowed, setting aside the conviction recorded by the IV Additional Sessions Judge at Karimnagar, in S.C.No.191 of 2013, dated 24. 07.2017. A1, A3, and A4 are acquitted. Since A1, A3, and A4, are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged.