Telangana High Court
Thirlapuram Ram Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 3 October, 2024
HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
HON'BLE JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Crl.A.No.723 of 2022
Counsel for the appellant: Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy.
Counsel for the respondent-State: Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
JUDGMENT:(Per Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya) The Criminal Appeal arises out of a judgment dated 27.01.2022 passed by the Trial Court convicting the appellant (accused No.1).
2. There were 2 other accused persons before the Trial Court. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and were accordingly acquitted by the Trial Court. The appellant is hence before us.
3. I.A.No.1 of 2023 was disposed of by an order dated 08.07.2024. We heard the Criminal Appeal for the purpose of pronouncing the judgment.
4. The case of the Prosecution before the Trial Court was that the Sub Inspector (SI) of Police, Kosgi received a report from one Gopal Reddy on 29.01.2015 at 1:00 PM alleging that the appellant had committed murder of the elder sister of Gopal Reddy. The name of the deceased is Thirlapura Neelamma. Gopal Reddy in the report stated that the 2 MB,J & MGP,J Crl.A.No.723 of 2022 deceased married one Late Siva Reddy who died on 17.04.2014. The deceased and Late Siva Reddy had a daughter who also died subsequently. The deceased thereafter adopted a son viz., Sandeep Kumar Reddy. The report stated that the Late Siva Reddy owned a house and land in Gundumal Village and shared it equally with his brothers including the appellant and that the deceased tried to sell the land which is succeeded from her husband/Late Siva Reddy but the appellant did not allow her to sell the land and used to quarrel with the deceased in that connection. The report states that the deceased was staying in her house at Narayanpet along with the family of the de facto complainant/Gopal Reddy. On 28.01.2015 at 11:30 AM, the deceased and the de facto complainant went to the Tahsildar's office at Kosgi to obtain signatures on the copies of Pahanis for waiver of a Gold Loan taken from Canara Bank, Naarayanpet but returned home as the Tahsildar was not available on that day. The deceased thereafter went to the house of her relative, Chinna Reddy, at Gondumal village on that day i.e., 28.01.2015.
5. On 29.01.2015 at 7:30 AM, the deceased made a call to the wife of Gopal Reddy to send the de facto complainant/Gopal Reddy to Gundumal Village and informed that the deceased was staying in the house of her brother-in-law (the appellant). On the same day i.e., on 29.01.2015 at 9:30 AM, one Anantha Reddy made a phone call to Gopal Reddy/de facto complainant informing him that the deceased has died. 3
MB,J & MGP,J Crl.A.No.723 of 2022 The de facto complainant along with other relatives went to Gundumal Village and found the body of the deceased lying in the kitchen in the house of the appellant. Anantha Reddy also informed that the appellant killed the deceased by pouring kerosene oil on the deceased and set her ablaze.
6. The case of the Prosecution is also that the SI of Police registered a case pursuant to which the police conducted investigation and prepared crime details form-cum-rough sketch. Police after visiting the scene found a white colour half-burnt cell phone belonging to the deceased, red colour bangle pieces, burnt saree, burnt parrot-green colour plastic pot, a 5 Litre kerosene oil tin, burnt firewood stick and a long stick. These objects were seized in the presence of Golla Krishnaiah (LW-10), Vallampally Bhagavanthu (LW-11) and Dhada Aashamma (LW-12). The police also examined and recorded the statement of the de facto complainant and other witnesses and conducted post-mortem examination of the dead body and sent the root hair, right femur bone, right upper limb and nails of the deceased for DNA profiling. The FSL opinion was that the cause of death of the deceased was Neurogenic shock due to burns.
7. On 05.02.2015, Thirlapuram Bichi Reddy (LW-8) produced the accused Nos.1-3 before the SI of Police stating that they had confessed to commission of the murder of the deceased.
4
MB,J & MGP,J Crl.A.No.723 of 2022
8. The impugned order also records that the Prosecution stated that the evidence produced, proved prima facie that the appellant had a strong objection to the deceased selling the property of his brother/Late Siva Reddy and quarelled with her on 29.01.2015 and poured kerosene oil on her body and set her on fire with the help of the accused Nos.2 and 3 who are his son and daughter-in-law, respectively. This caused death of the deceased.
9. The impugned order records the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor which was that the appellant, along with his son and daughter-in-law, committed the murder of the deceased on 29.01.2015 around 8:00 AM in Gundumal Village by pouring kerosene oil on her body and setting her on fire.
10. The impugned judgment records the defence of the accused persons who argued that the wife of PW-1, Chandrakala, who was informed by the deceased that she was in the house of the appellant, was not examined even though Chandrakala was a material witness. The appellant also took the defense of a delay of 3 hours in filing the report in the Police Station and the fact that the report was given only to implicate the appellant.
11. The Trial Court recorded the reasons for holding the appellant guilty of the offence. These reasons will be discussed in the later section of the judgment.
5
MB,J & MGP,J Crl.A.No.723 of 2022
12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, who has been charged with the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC, submits that the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence and there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. Counsel submits that no evidence was produced before the Trial Court to implicate the appellant in the commission of the offence. Counsel further submits that there is no evidence that the appellant set the deceased on fire or even that the deceased caught fire while cooking since the dead body was found in the kitchen. Counsel submits that PW-7, before who the appellant made an extra-judicial confession, did not support the case of the Prosecution and was declared hostile. Counsel submits that no independent witnesses were examined with regard to the alleged motive i.e., disputes between the appellant and the deceased with regard to the land left by the husband of the deceased.
13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) submits that the Prosecution established the case for the appellant's conviction beyond reasonable doubt and that the Prosecution was also able to prove the motive of the appellant for killing the deceased. The APP submits that the circumstances form a complete chain which conclusively proved the guilt of the appellant. The APP also relies on the recovery of the Material Objects (MOs) from the scene of offence which established that kerosene 6 MB,J & MGP,J Crl.A.No.723 of 2022 oil was poured on the deceased and the deceased was set ablaze by the appellant.
14. We have carefully considered the impugned judgment dated 27.01.2022 and the material on record including the evidence given by the 12 witnesses. The witnesses are described as under.
• PW-1 is the brother of the deceased and the de-facto complainant who had given the report to the police on 29.01.2015. • PW-2 is a resident of Gundumal Village who knew the deceased (Neelamma).
• PW-3 is the brother of Chandrakala (LW-2) who received the phone-call from Chandrakala that the deceased was killed by the appellant due to property disputes.
• PW-4 (LW-11) is a resident of Narayanpet who deposed that the police had conducted panchanama and inquest over the dead body of the deceased and found certain MOs.
• PW-5 is a resident of Gundumal Village who knew the appellant and the deceased who deposed that he did not know any facts of the case and did not see the burnt dead body of the deceased.
• PW-6 deposed that he had advised the appellant and the deceased on quarrels about properties and he had advised the appellant to settle the matter.
• PW-7 (LW-8) is a resident of Gundumal Village and knew both the appellant and the deceased. PW-7 deposed that the appellant never made any extra-judicial confession to PW-7 on 05.02.2015, that the appellant had killed the deceased by pouring kerosene oil and setting her on fire on account of property disputes. • PW-8 is a photographer who took photographs of the deceased on the instructions of the police.
• PW-9 is a Surgeon who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found anti-mortem injuries on the dead body. 7
MB,J & MGP,J Crl.A.No.723 of 2022 • PW-10 is a Panchnama Witness who deposed that the appellant confessed that the appellant had concealed his clothes soaked with Kerosene and he would show that kerosene oil tin and firewood stick used for the commission of the offence. PW-10 also mentions MO.Nos.7, 8 and 9 which are polyester shirt of the appellant, a kameez of the accused No.2 and a dhoti of the appellant.
• PW-11 is the S.I. of Police, Pentlavalli P.S. • PW-12 is the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Police Commissionerate, Hyderabad.
15. It is clear from the evidence of the 12 witnesses that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence.
16. The evidence of PW-1/de facto complainant is that his sister (deceased) went to the house of P.Chinna Reddy and spent the night there. Further, the evidence is that one Anantha Reddy (LW-5) informed PW-1 that the deceased suffered severe burn injuries in "her house". PW-1 further deposed that he found the dead body of the deceased in the kitchen along with kerosene oil tin, match box and stick. The important part of the evidence is that PW-1 "suspected" that the appellant and the 2 other accused persons killed the deceased by pouring kerosene oil and there were disputes between the deceased and the accused persons with regard to the sale of land.
17. PW-2 (wife of P.Chinna Reddy) deposed that the deceased came to the house of PW-2 in 2015 and slept in the house of PW-2 on that date 8 MB,J & MGP,J Crl.A.No.723 of 2022 and on the next day she woke up and went to her house. The evidence of PW-2 is that PW-2 found the dead body of the deceased in the kitchen with burn injuries.
18. PW-3 deposed that his sister, Chandrakala (LW-2) informed PW-3 that the deceased was killed by her brother-in-law (appellant) due to property disputes.
19. PW-5 and PW-6 deposed that they do not have any knowledge of the facts of the case and were examined by the police.
20. PW-7 deposed that the appellant and the 2 other accused persons did not make any extra-judicial confession to PW-7 on 05.02.2015 with regard to their killing the deceased by pouring kerosene oil on her. PW-7 was hence declared hostile.
21. The evidence given by the other witnesses are not material for establishing the chain of circumstances which the Prosecution relied on for proving the guilt of the appellant.
22. The evidence of the material witnesses not only proves that there were no eye witnesses to the appellant killing the deceased but also that none of the witnesses gave evidence of even seeing the appellant either in the company of the deceased or in the vicinity of the house of the deceased. This constitutes a serious dent in the "last seen theory" which usually sets up a case of circumstantial evidence. 9
MB,J & MGP,J Crl.A.No.723 of 2022
23. In the present case, there was not an iota of evidence showing that the appellant was seen entering or leaving the house of the deceased or even seen in the vicinity of the house to lead to an inference of the involvement of the appellant in commission of the crime.
24. The entire case is built on suspicion of the motive of the appellant for killing the deceased on the ground that there were alleged disputes between the two with regard to the deceased selling the land which fell to her share after the death of her husband. More particularly, PW-1 suspects that the appellant killed the deceased by pouring kerosene oil on her and PW-3 was informed by his sister Chandrakala (LW-2) that the deceased was killed by the appellant and others due to property disputes.
25. However, Chandrakala, the sister of PW-3, who informed PW-3 on 29.01.2015 that the appellant had killed the deceased over property disputes, was not examined by the Prosecution. This is significant since Chandrakala is described as the sister-in-law of the deceased and a 'circumstantial witness' in the Charge Sheet. It is further significant that the PW-3 was not examined with regard to the information received from Chandrakala (LW-2). Hence, the information received/evidence of LW-2 can only be categorized as hearsay evidence.
26. PW-3 also did not bring to the notice of PW-1 the information given by his sister - Chandrakala (LW-2) in respect of the incident. Moreover, 10 MB,J & MGP,J Crl.A.No.723 of 2022 the Prosecution did not place importance on the phone call received by PW-3 from Chandrakala (LW-2) which is inexplicable since PW-3 deposed that Chandrakala informed him that the deceased had been killed by the appellant due to property disputes.
27. Therefore, the only witness was PW-7 who had earlier made an extra-judicial confession but subsequently retracted the same. This means that the Prosecution did not have any evidence of the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the crime or any circumstances pointing to the appellant killing the deceased.
28. It is also relevant that seizure of MO.Nos.7 and 9 - polyester shirt and dhoti of the appellant, respectively - were seized at the instance of the 2 other accused persons. However, these MOs were not sent for forensic examination. The evidence of PW-10, stating that the appellant confessed that he had concealed his clothes soaked in kerosene oil and that he would show the kerosene oil tin and firewood stick used in commission of the offence, is contrary to the statements made in the cross-examination of PW-10 wherein PW-10 deposed that the slip-chits containing the signatures of PW-10 were not found on MO.Nos.7 and 9 at the relevant point of time. This fact leads to a serious doubt whether MO.Nos.7 and 9 belonged to the appellant.
29. The other fact which casts a serious doubt on the case of the Prosecution is the statement made in the FIR that the offence occurred 11 MB,J & MGP,J Crl.A.No.723 of 2022 on 29.01.2015 at about 8:00 AM but the information was received at 13:00 hours. The evidence of PW-1 however states that PW-1 lodged a report at 7:10 PM on 29.01.2015. The endorsement of the registration on the FIR shows that FIR was received on 29.01.2015 at 10:00 PM. The inconsistency in the time gives rise to a presumption that the FIR may have been manipulated to avoid delay and was not received at 13:00 hours as mentioned in the FIR.
30. The above 2 factors along with the fact that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and that none of the witnesses examined by the Prosecution led evidence that the appellant was last seen in the company of the deceased or even in the vicinity of the scene of offence before the burnt body of the deceased was discovered by PW-1 and 2 dislodges and disintegrates the case of the Prosecution.
31. The deposition with regard to the alleged role of the appellant in killing the deceased is admittedly a matter of conjecture and surmises an attempt to attribute a motive to the appellant for committing the offence.
32. As stated above, Chandrakala (LW-2), who informed PW-3 that the deceased was killed by the appellant due to property disputes was not examined. Hence, the statement made by Chandrakala amounts to hearsay evidence. It is also material that none of the evidence or other material witnesses made any statement with regard to land disputes 12 MB,J & MGP,J Crl.A.No.723 of 2022 between the appellant and the deceased or that there were strained relations between the appellant and the deceased.
33. The impugned judgment of conviction of the appellant rests entirely on conjectures and surmises. The Trial Court opines that;
"Prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances leading to the role of the appellant in killing the deceased on 29.01.2015 between 7:30 AM and 9:30 AM. Further that the appellant beat the deceased with a stick and caused her head injury and poured Kerosene oil on her and set her on fire, which resulted in her death"
34. The impugned judgment however does not refer to an iota of evidence to show that the Trial Court considered the obvious lacuna with regard to the absence of eye witnesses or evidence linking the appellant to the offence.
35. More significantly, the Trial Court records that the evidence with regard to the complicity of 2nd and 3rd accused persons is silent and also that there is no evidence to prove that accused Nos.2 and 3 had any intention to kill the deceased along with the appellant or took any part in commission of the offence. Curiously, the Trial Court deemed it fit to acquit the accused Nos.2 and 3 by reason of lack of evidence but proceeded to place the appellant on a totally different footing despite there being no evidence to link the appellant to the commission of the crime.
13
MB,J & MGP,J Crl.A.No.723 of 2022
36. The law with regard to the circumstantial evidence has been explained in several judgments of the Supreme Court including in Raja Naykar Vs. State of Chattisgarh 1 wherein it was held that however strong the suspicion, it cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt and the accused cannot be convicted on the ground of mere suspicion.
37. In Ram Pratap Vs. State of Haryana 2, the Supreme Court reiterated the principles of a conviction based on circumstantial evidence and held that it is necessary for the Prosecution to establish each and every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt and that the circumstances so proved must form a complete chain of evidence so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion of the innocence of the accused and must show, in all human probability, that the act was done by the accused. The Supreme Court in Ganpat Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 3 held that in a case which rests on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain of circumstances should be present to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that the circumstances must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused. The Supreme Court further held that the mere fact that the appellant was last seen with the deceased is an unsafe hypothesis to find a conviction on the charge of murder. In Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra 1(2024) 3 SCC 481 2(2023) 2 SCC 345 3(2017) 16 SCC 353 14 MB,J & MGP,J Crl.A.No.723 of 2022 Pradesh 4 , the Supreme Court reiterated the law on the subject that substantial evidence must satisfy the following tests:
(i) The circumstances from which the inference of guilt is said to be drawn must be firmly established.
(ii) The circumstances should unerringly point towards guilt of the accused.
(iii) The circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused and no one else.
(iv) The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any hypothesis other than guilt of the accused and should be consistent that the innocence of the accused.
38. The law with regard to circumstantial evidence as reiterated by the Supreme Court, fully fits in the facts of the present case for the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs.
39. One of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence is that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
40. The above factors are sufficient to hold that the Appeal must succeed and the impugned judgment should be set aside.
41. Criminal Appeal No.723 of 2022 is accordingly allowed and disposed of. The impugned judgment dated 27.01.2022 in S.C.No.110 of 2016 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, 4AIR 1990 Supreme Court 79 15 MB,J & MGP,J Crl.A.No.723 of 2022 FAC VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar is set aside. The appellant/accused No.1 shall be released forthwith, and not later than 48 hours from the date of this judgment, if not wanted in any other case, upon execution of a bond to the satisfaction of the Trial Court which shall remain in force for a period of 6 months in terms of section 437A of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Any amount deposited by the appellant should be returned by the respondent to the appellant within 14 days from the date of this judgment.
42. The Trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment shall be returned to the Trial Court for necessary action.
All connected miscellaneous applications are disposed of in terms of this Judgment.
__________________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J ________________________________ M.G. PRIYADARSINI, J October 03, 2024 Note: Furnish C.C. today.
B/o. BMS