Kommu Ramulu , Chittodu vs The State Of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp on 21 April, 2026

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Kommu Ramulu , Chittodu vs The State Of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp on 21 April, 2026

1. This Memorandum of Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') assailing the conviction and sentence passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, at Mahabubnagar District in SC No.253 of 2005, dated 28.07.2006.

2/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017

2. Appellant is the sole accused and he is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year for the charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short 'IPC'). He is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years for the charge under Section 379 of IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that appellant- accused has married three women, all of them have deserted him due to his cruel behaviour and he started sexually enjoying roadside ladies, commit theft of their ornaments and in that connection he was arrested in Crime No.83 of 1997 under Section 379 of IPC of PS Anna Sagar and in Crime No.98 of 2000 under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC of PS Jadcherla. Appellant-accused solely started enticing the women found lonely wearing some ornaments. Appellant-accused has pick up a young lady at Mahabubnagar Bus stand and took her to Maheshwari Theatre, offered Toddy at Yenugonda Village and promise to pay Rs.100/- for sexual enjoyment and took her to the outskirts of Bandameedipally. After having sexual intercourse he killed her with a boulder and committed theft of silver hand Kada which is subject matter of Crime No.1 of 2003 under Section 302 of IPC of 3/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017 PS Jadcherla, as the offence could not be detected by anybody, the appellant-accused started committing similar types of offences. Appellant-accused used to visit Peddapally Village where his sister resides, during his visit he developed illicit intimacy with one Javvadi Neelamma and enjoyed her for about a year. On 05.04.2003 appellant-accused met J.Neelamma as usual at Kavarampet and took her to First Show picture "Okkadu" at Srinivasa theatre, Jadcherla, later he offered toddy to her and took her towards Uracheruvu in the outskirts of Jadcherla, enjoyed her sexually, bet her with a boulder on the head, chest and caused multiple injuries, tied her with the saree around her neck and caused her death on the spot. Appellant-accused stealed one pair of silver leg kadas, one gold ear stick pair and one gold pusthe in all worth Rs.3,000/- from J.Neelamma and escaped, he pledged the said ornaments with the pawn broker at Jadcheral and benefited himself wrongfully. Charge sheet is filed under Sections 302 and 379 of IPC.

4. The case is taken on file by Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla and registered as PRC No.29 of 2004 and found that the case is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 04.05.2005 committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar under Section 209 of Cr.P.C.

4/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017 The learned Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar took the cognizance of the case and made over the same to First Additional Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar.

5. The learned trial Court has framed charges under Sections 302 and 379 of IPC. The appellant-accused having denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

6. Prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 18 and got marked Exs.P1 to P18, MOs.1 to 9.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused submits that the learned trial Court failed to see that there are no direct witnesses to the occurrence and the entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied by the prosecution is not proved and there is no motive for the appellant-accused to kill the deceased. The learned Judge erred in holding that the explanation offered by the appellant-accused is false and the confession made before the Police Officer is inadmissible in evidence. Mere recovery of certain incriminating articles at the instance of the accused cannot form the basis of conviction and there is a delay in lodging the FIR and the post-mortem report of the deceased goes to show that she has not consumed any intoxicated drink and the reasons assigned by the learned trial Court is unsustainable in law.

5/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017 Appellant - accused counsel in alternate submits that at the most accused-appellant can be convicted under Section 382 of IPC. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Md. Sajjad @ Raju @ Salim Vs. State of West Bengal 1 (2) Krishan Kumar and Another Vs. State of Haryana 2 (3) Mallappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka 3, (2) Battigari Shaker Vs. State of Telangana 4, prayed to allow the Appeal.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case in right perspective and rightly convicted the appellant-accused for Life Imprisonment and for the offences he is charged with, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the Appeal.

9. Heard both sides, perused the material on record.

10. Now the point for consideration is : Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it requires interference of this Court?





1
  AIR 2017 SC 642
2
  2023 SCC OnLine SC 1180
3
  (2024) 3 SCC 544
4
  MANU/TL/0104/2024
                               6/30                         KL,J and BRMR,J
                                                  Criminal Appeal_1356_2017

11. Ex.P3 is the complaint dated 06.04.2003 lodged by PW.2- J.Yadaiah. Complaint goes to show that on 04.04.2003 at 12.00 hours his mother - J.Neelamma left the house in order to go to Kavarampeta and she did not return to the house on that day. On 06.04.2003, while he was in his house, police personnel of Jadcherla came and informed him that a woman was killed by someone and thrown, a slip was found therein that it is "Neelamma, Peddapally". He went to Jadcherla pond and identified the dead body of his mother Neelamma and she received injuries on her cheek, forehead is beat with a stone, black colour bruising injury is on the chest part. His mother's sarees frill was tied to her throat. On 05.04.2003, in the night at 10.00 hours, an unknown person took Neelamma to the pond situated outskirts of Jadcherla, beat her with stone, tied her saree to her throat and killed her and requested to take action. Basing on Ex.P3, PS Jadcherla has registered Ex.P17 - FIR No.50 on 06.04.2003 at 14.00 hours under Section 302 of IPC against unknown offenders.

12. PW.1 - Smt. Laxmi Sarada deposed that on 28.07.2003, she received requisition from C.I. of Police, Jadcherla to conduct T.I. parade of the suspect by name Kommu Ramulu who was lodged in District Jail, Mahabubnagar in Crime No.50 of 2000 of PS Jadcherla under Sections 302 and 379 of IPC. The requisition is 7/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017 Ex.P1. She has obtained necessary proceedings from the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar while conducting T.I. Parade and the date is fixed on 02.08.2003. She issued summons to Chennaiah - PW.3, T.Shyam-PW.6 and LW.9-D.Krishnaiah to attend the T.I. parade and she addressed a letter to Jail Authorities to make necessary arrangements. On 02.08.2003, she has conducted the T.I. parade at District Jail, Mahabubnagar from 11.30 A.M. to 12.45 P.M. The summoned witnesses were participated in the parade and identified the suspect Kommu Ramulu as accused. The suspect by name Kommu Ramulu on enquiry did not raise any objection with regard to the parade conducted by her. But he has stated that he was kept in the police station and his photographs were taken and he is falsely implicated in the offence. Prior to conducting the T.I. parade, she has recorded the statements of three witnesses.

13. The evidence of PW.2-J.Yadaiah is the replica of Ex.P3 - complaint, through him MO.1 - pair of silver anklets, MO.2- Gold pusthe, MO.3- Gold hook are marked. In his cross-examination he stated that he saw the chit containing the name of his mother along with the list of Kirana saman, it was in post card size and the name of his mother is not inscribed on MOs.1 to 3 and he had seen 8/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017 them on his mother when she was alive and later at the time of taking them from the Court as interim custody. 14.1. PW.3 - B.Chennaiah is a Gate-keeper at Srinivasa Theatre. He deposed that at the time of incident 'Okkadu' Film was running in the theatre for more than 50 days. In April, 2003 on a Saturday at about 6:00 p.m. he was attending to Rs.10/- gate at the theater. One male and one female person came together with tickets. The male was stout and the lady was wearing a saffron colour blouse and brown colour saree, both were in drunken condition. As they were drunk, he assisted them to go inside by taking the tickets, he tored the tickets into two pieces and handed over one half to those two persons. On the next day Jadcherla police came to the theatre along with one 10-rupee torned ticket and enquired with him. Later, they took him to the Tankbund on the outskirts of Jadcherla and showed him the dead body of the lady and he identified the dead body of the lady who came to the theatre on the previous day in the company of stout person to watch the movie and he identified the accused.

14.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that there are three classes in the theatre. Witness adds that there are four classes namely Rs.25/-, Rs.20/-, Rs.15/- and Rs.10/- and one Prabhakar 9/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017 Reddy is the theater owner and he is alone looking after the Rs.10/- gate continuously without any shift duty. Only 23 persons of Rs.10/- ticket have watched the movie and the accused was wearing a pant which might be of black colour and sleeves of light white colour. There were flowers on the brown saree of the deceased. He went to see the dead body at about 3.00 p.m.

15. PW.4 - Dasaratham deposed that he is working as a Booking clerk in Srinivasa Theatre, Jadcherla and PW.3-B.Chennaiah is the gate man for Rs.10/- ticket in the theatre. At the time of the incident, 'Okkadu' film was running for more than 30 days. About two years back on a Sunday at about 2.00 p.m., the CI of Police, Jadcherla came to the theatre and shown the ticket of Rs.10/- and enquired as to for which show it belongs to. He informed the police that it is the First Show of Saturday, upon verification of the tickets serial he found that 23 tickets were issued on Saturday for Rs.10/- class and there was no much rush for the film at that time. In his cross-examination, he stated that all the workers have to attend duty continuously from 10.00 a.m. to midnight without any shift duty and he do not remember the ticket number shown by the police. It was in Green colour. Witness again says that Rs.10/- ticket was Yellow and Rs.15/- ticket was 10/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017 Green. He along with PW.3 were examined in the presence of the Manager.

16.1. PW.5 - J.Narayana is the husband of the deceased Neelamma. He deposed that his wife left the house on Friday at about 11.00 a.m. to bring kirana saman from Kavarampet. On Saturday she has sent Rs.70/- to the house through one of his villagers. On Sunday, Jadcherla police came to the village at about 11.00 a.m. and informed that his wife was murdered and took him to identify the dead body. He went to Nallacheruvu in the outskirts of Jadcherla and identified his wife, he noticed injuries on the face of dead body of his wife which is caused by a stone and stab injuries on the chest. His wife used to wear silver anklets, ear studs, nose screws and a gold pusthe which are MOs.1 to 3. 16.2. In his cross-examination he stated his wife was not addicted to drinks, he came to know through his mother-in-law that his wife stayed in her mother's house on Friday night. MO.1- silver anklets were prepared at the time of his marriage. MOs.1 to 3 were not shown to him before they were handed over to him for interim custody. Blood stained stone was found lying near the dead body. He denied the suggestion that MOs.1 to 3 do not belong to his wife.

11/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017 17.1. PW.6 - T.Shyam deposed that on 05.04.2000 at about 9.00 or 9.15 P.M., he noticed a male and a lady going towards Tankbund from the side of the temple, then he questioned the lady as to why she was going in the dark night, she did not give any reply and she proceeded with a male person who was tall and stout. He noticed that the lady was wearing anklets and the gent who accompanied the lady is the accused who is present in the Court. MO.1 is the silver anklets.

17.2. In his cross-examination he stated that there was light in front of the temple and with the help of the said light, he identified them and there is a cinema theatre beside the temple. The lady was in the age group of 30 to 35 years and she was wearing flower designed saree and he has noticed MO.1 with the help of the light of the temple, he did not observe the colour of the jacket and the anklets were bright and the saree of the lady was white with flower design. Silver anklets are available in any shop. He denied the suggestion that he is giving false evidence.

18. PW.7 - Chakali Nagamma deposed that about two years back at about 1.00 P.M. she went to a toddy shop to take toddy after attending dhobi work. Meanwhile, accused came and sat in a corner of the shop and engaged her in conversation. He informed 12/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017 her that he has nobody and she also stated that she had been living alone for two to three years. Then he offered her to take her to another toddy shop where non-vegetarian food was available. Then both of them went towards Venkateshwara Swamy temple side and brought two bottles of toddy and a packet of meat. Then he enquired whether she had any valuables and he took her towards the Kavarampet road, he has engaged an auto and they went towards Gollapally and they got down at Gollapally Railway gate, he again enquired with regard to her valuables. He has noticed that she was wearing silver anklets. She has developed a fear and was thinking to escape from the spot. In the meanwhile, Jadcherla police came there in a Jeep, apprehended both of them and took them to the Jadcherla Police Station. The accused was detained in the lockup and was interrogated. Later, she was examined by the police. In her cross-examination she stated that she gave evidence in SC No.396 of 2004 against the same accused. Four Police Officials were present in the Jeep. She denied the suggestion that police had tutored her to give evidence as she is a vagabond.

19.1. PW.8 - Anjaiah Chary R. deposed that his second son by name Venu is running a gold shop in Jaganmohan Reddy complex, Jadcherla and they also do pawn broker business. In the month of 13/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017 January, 2003, while he was in the shop, the accused came there and offered to pledge some ornaments and he has pledged two pairs of silver anklets, one gold pusthe, two small ear rings and four toe rings and he gave Rs.300/- to the accused. The accused used to visit the shop casually and he used to pay him money on some occasions by pledging gold ornaments. He paid Rs.5000/- in four installments by pledging the ornaments brought by him. C.I. of Police came to his shop and shown him some pledge receipts and enquired about their identity and he stated that it was issued by him to the accused previously (Ex.P4) and he has returned MOs.1 to 3 to the police.

19.2. In his cross-examination he stated that he gave evidence in SC No.396 of 2004, SC No.41 of 2005 on the file of SC/ST Court, Mahabubnagar and he do not have Pawn broker business license and all the writings in Ex.P4 belongs to him, there are no names inscribed on MOs.1 to 3 and they are available in the open market and no chits are pasted on MOs.1 to 3. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not pledge the ornaments in his shop.

20. PW.9 - R.Sathyanarayana deposed that he is running a Kirana and general shop under the name and style of Vishnu Kirana and General Stores and that Neelamma is his customer.

14/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017 About four months after the death of Neelamma, the Jadcherla police came to his shop and showed him a chit containing his handwriting and Kirana particulars bill amount of Rs.102.50. In his cross-examination he stated that the chit was dated 01.03.2003, it was not a Saturday. Neelamma did not visit his shop on Saturday. 01.04.2003 was a Tuesday. He denied the suggestion that he is giving false evidence.

21. PW.10 - K.Gopal Reddy deposed that Neelamma belongs to his village. Police has conducted panchanama over the dead body of the deceased Neelamma and obtained his signature which is Ex.P5 and he did not notice any injuries on the dead body as it was covered by a bedsheet. She is wearing a Brown colour saree and they all opined that Neelamma was murdered by someone by hitting with stones. In his cross-examination, he stated that he do not know the contents of Ex.P5.

22.1. PW.11 - Dr.S.M.Mallamma deposed that on 07.04.2003, she received a requisition from SI of Police, Jadcherla to conduct PME on the dead body of one J.Neelamma, aged 48 years. The post- mortem was conducted from 10.30 A.M. to 12.30 P.M. On examination, she found the following injuries:

1. Laceration 2 x 1" on the right side of fore head.

15/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017

2. Laceration 1 x 2 cm. Below the right eye.

3. Laceration 1 x 1/2" on the right cheek.

4. Contusion 5 x 6" over the chest.

She further deposed that on internal examination she found fractures on the rib Nos.2 to 9 on right side. On Left side, Rib Nos.2 and 3 were broken. The cause of death is due to haemorrhage and shock due to the injuries caused to both lungs.

The approximate time of death is about 36 hours prior to Ex.P6 - PME report.

22.2. In her cross-examination, she stated that the injuries are possible due to a fall from a height faced downwards. Shock and haemorrhage were also possible due to fall from the height and she enquired about the inquest report prior to her examination, she has not noted the silver anklets or toe rings of the deceased.

23. PW.12 - K.Krishna Reddy deposed that he is doing finance business at Jadcherla and he owns a shopping complex. PW.8 is running goldsmith business in one of the shops of his complex and he knows the accused who belongs to Pothireddypally. About two years back, accused approached him and informed him that he intends to pledge some silver ornaments like anklets, he introduced the accused to PW.8 on one occasion. In his cross-

16/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017 examination he stated that the accused family members may be having silver anklets and other ornaments and he do not remember whether he stated in SC.No.41 of 2005 on the file of SC/ST Court, Mahabubnagar that he introduced the accused to PW.8. PW.8 and his son are running the shop jointly, they prepare ornaments by collecting preparation charges and nobody visits the shop of PW.8 for pledging the ornaments. He denied the suggestion that the police have tutored him to give evidence. 24.1. PW.13 - Mohd. Fareed deposed that he knows LW.18- K.Mohan Reddy. On 17.07.2003 at 8.00 P.M. while he was in his house, police came along with K.Mohan Reddy and took him to Gollapally bus stop. The accused and one lady were found in the custody of C.I. C.I. requested him to inquire the accused as to why he was apprehended by the police. He confessed the murder of one Neelamma after committing rape. Accused stated that a pair of silver anklets, one gold pusthe and a pair of ear studs belonging to Neelamma were pledged by him with a goldsmith by name Anjaiah Chary at Badepally and the admissible portion is Ex.P7. After confession, the accused handed over some pledge receipts pertaining to the ornaments pledged by him with the goldsmith. They showed pledging of ornaments for different amounts of Rs.200/-, R.300/- etc. Police has seized the same under cover of 17/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017 panchanama under Ex.P8. On the next day, he was taken to the shop of PW.8. PW.8 on seeing the accused produced gold pusthe, gold hook, silver anklets belonging to the deceased (MOs.1 to 3). Police has seized them under Ex.P9.

24.2. In his cross examination, he stated that Ex.P9 has been drafted at a stretch for two hours. The accused made confession of several cases and he gave evidence in two other Sessions Cases. He did not state in SC No.41 of 2005 that the police have shown gold and silver ornaments at the police station and obtained his signature. He denied the suggestion that he is a stock witness to to the police.

25.1. PW.14 - R.Narasimhaiah deposed that on 17.07.2003 during the course of patrolling, when they reached Gollapally bus station around 8.00 P.M. they found a male person along with a lady near Gollapally bus stage. On suspicion police stopped and enquired the two persons about their presence at the spot. The male person revealed his name as Kommu Ramulu and the female disclosed her name as Chakali Nagamma. On instructions of C.I. of Police he visited MRO Office, Jadcherla and secured PW.13 and LW.18- K.Mohan Reddy. C.I. has interrogated the accused in the presence of panchas and continued investigation.

18/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017 25.2. In his cross-examination he stated that 8.00 P.M. is not office hours of MRO Office and the distance between MRO Office and Gollapally bus stage is 5 kilometres, he did not try for residents of Gollapally bus stage to act as panchayatdars. He denied the suggestion that at about 8.00 A.M. on the next day, C.I. of police secured the panchas from MRO Office to the station by deputing a constable and drafted all the panchanamas at the police station and also denied the suggestion that the whole incident is false.

26. PW.15-A.Narayana Reddy deposed that on 06.04.2003 in the afternoon he received reliable information that the dead body of a woman is lying in Oora Cheruvu in the outskirts of Jadcherla, it was appearing to have been murdered. He along with the C.I. and S.I. of Jadcherla proceeded to the spot. He has noticed one chekkudu sanchi lying by the side of dead body and found a chit with the name Neelamma, Peddapally. C.I. has deputed him to Peddapally for identification of the dead body. Accordingly he proceeded to Peddapally and met PW.2 and enquired about the dead body. PW.2 identified the dead body of his mother Neelamma.

19/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017 27.1. PW.16 -Ch.Rajaiah deposed that on 07.04.2003, he took up investigation in Crime No.50 of 2003 of PS Jadcherla from PW.18- Shakeer Hussain and he recorded the statements of the witnesses. On 02.05.2003, he issued a letter of advice to the FSL for chemical examination of blood-stained earth (MO.4), Control earth (MO.5), Blood-stained stone (MO.6), Blood-stained blouse (MO.7), Blood- stained langa (MO.8) and cream colour saree (MO.9) which were seized from the scene of offence and Ex.P5 is the inquest. On 17.07.2003, he along with ID party were on High Way patrolling, at about 7.00 P.M. they noticed the accused along with PW.7 at Gollapally bus stage under suspicious circumstances and the accused was in the mood to make confession. He deputed PW.14 to secure the presence of PW.13 and LW.18 - Kosgi Mohan Reddy to Gollapally bus stop. In their presence at about 8.30 P.M. he recorded the confession of the accused. Ex.P7 is the admissible portion of confession regarding the gold and silver ornaments of the deceased Jawadi Neelamma and he also confessed that he has pledged the ornaments in the shop of PW.8. On 18.07.2003, the accused led the police and panchas to the house and shop of PW.8. At the request of the accused, PW.8 produced one gold pusthe (MO.2), one pair of silver kadas (MO.1), one gold hook (MO.3) and he seized the same. PW.8 has also produced some more 20/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017 ornaments pertaining to Crime No.1 of 2003, 54 of 2003, 114 of 2003 of Jadcherla PS in Crime No.27 of 2003 of Thimmajipet PS. PW.8 has also produced pledge book containing the signatures of the accused (Ex.P4). The seized properties are MOs.1 to 3 and also seized other properties under common panchanama under Ex.P9. Later, he has recorded the statements of PWs.7, 8 and 12. Before producing the accused before the Court, he obtained the fingerprints of the accused for comparison. He issued a letter dated 13.12.2003 for comparison of the fingerprints and received Ex.P10

- Report. Later, he issued a requisition for conducting T.I. Parade to the Judicial Magistrate. Accordingly, T.I. Parade was conducted on 02.08.2003 by PW.1 through PWs.3, 6 and LW9 - D.Krishnaiah. They have identified the accused as culprit. Ex.P11 is the FSL report and Ex.P12 is the rough sketch prepared by him at the scene of the offence. Ex.P13 are the bunch of photographs with negatives prepared by him at the scene of the offence and he filed charge sheet.

27.2. In his cross-examination he stated that LW.3-B.Narsimha Reddy is the first person who has seen the dead body, he informed the same to PW.2 who in turn lodged the complaint. PW.18 first visited the dead body on 06.04.2003 along with his subordinates. He has seized one cinema ticket and Kirana items list from the 21/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017 dead body and he has seen those two chits during the course of his investigation and the chit was dated 01.04.2003. The Kirana items are not mentioned in the statement of Satyanarayana. He has not seized the counterfoil tickets from the cinema theatre and has not examined the Manager of the cinema theatre, he do not remember the colour of the cinema ticket and he has shown MOs.1 to 3 to the husband (PW.5) of the deceased for identification. In the inquest report, stab injuries are not mentioned. Witness adds that the injuries were named as bloodstained. He has obtained the photographs of the accused for the purpose of maintaining M.O. criminals and the accused was produced in the Court on 19.07.2003. He denied the suggestion that PW.3 and PW.4 are not the employees of Srinivasa Theatre, Jadcherla and they did not identify the deceased in the theatre and that their statements are false and also denied the suggestion that he has shown the photo of the accused to the witnesses at the time of T.I. Parade for the purpose of identification. Witness adds that face covered masks were published in the Newspaper since the accused has committed five sensational murders and he has shown false recovery from PW.8 and also did not secure the presence of PW.13 and LW.18- Mohan Reddy at M.R.O. office at 8.00 P.M. and they are stock witnesses and in all the murder cases, those two witnesses are 22/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017 figured as panch witnesses for the police and Ex.P4 is a fabricated document seized from PW.8.

28. PW.17- E.Selvaraj deposed that he has received two documents i.e., (1) pledge book - Ex.P4 (2) FP slip of Kommu Ramulu @ Chittodu for comparison and report. The disputed finger impressions are marked by him as D, D1, D2, and D3 and the admitted finger impression is marked as 'S' for identification. After examination of the disputed finger impressions and the admitted finger impressions, he gave the opinion that disputed finger impressions and admitted finger impressions are identical with one another and the disputed finger impressions also belong to Kommu Ramulu @ Chittodu S/o. Papaiah. Ex. P15 is the report issued by him along with the photo comparison chart - Ex.P10. Ex.P14 is the fingerprint comparison report and Ex.P16 is the requisition report. In his cross-examination he stated that printed page numbers are not mentioned in Ex.P4. In Ex.P10 wrong date has been typed by mistake and he has corrected the same in all four photos by putting his initial. Ex.P4 does not contain the printed letters as 'Manikanta Jewellers'. He denied the suggestion that at the instance of police he gave a mechanical opinion.

23/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017 29.1. PW.18 - M.Shakeer Hussain deposed that on 06.04.2003, PW.2 came to the police station and lodged Ex.P3 - complaint thereby, he registered Ex.P17 - FIR. He secured the presence of PW.10 and LW.15 -Chinna Tirupathi Reddy and LW.16 - Laxmamma and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased on the spot (Ex.P5). Panchas opined that Neelamma was murdered by some unknown offenders. He has recorded the statements of PW.2, LW.2 -A.Venkataiah, LW.3 - B.Narsimha Reddy. During the course of inquest, he seized MO.7 - Jacket, MO.8 - Petticoat, MO.9- Saree of the deceased and he conducted scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P18, drafted rough sketch under Ex.P12 in the presence of PW.10 and LW.15 -Chinna Tirupathi Reddy. During the course of panchanama, he seized bloodstained stone (MO.6), cinema ticket, a small chit containing the name of Neelamma and broken bangle pieces. He visited the cinema theatre and recorded the statements of PWs.3 and 4. 29.2. In his cross-examination he stated that he deputed a constable to Peddapally to trace the relatives of the deceased and they secured PW.2 and took him to the dead body. Thereafter, PW.2 has lodged Ex.P3 - complaint. The facts and particulars are not mentioned in column Nos.3(b) and 3(c) of Ex.P17 and the chit contains only the name of the deceased but not any other writings 24/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017 and he discovered only one chit in her possession. He did not find any weapon except a stone by the side of the dead body. PW.18 has not recorded the statement of PW.10, Ch.Tirupathi Reddy and J.Laxmamma. He has denied the suggestion that the chit seized by him from the dead body contained other writings but not alone the name of the deceased. He also denied the suggestion that he has falsely implicated the accused and he is giving false evidence. 30.1. In Md.Sajjad @ Raja @ Salim1, the Supreme Court observed at Para No.18 as under:

"Pare No.18----The identification parade itself was held 25 days after the arrest. Their chance meeting was also in the night without there being any special occasion for them to notice the features of any of the accused which would then register in their minds so as to enable them to identify them on a future date. The chance meeting wa also for few minutes. In the circumstances, in our considered view such identification simplicitor cannot form the basis or be taken as the fulcrum for the entire case of prosecution".

30.2 In Krishan Kumar, the Supreme Court observed at paragraph Nos.21 and 22 as under:

"21. We think it apposite to consider the question whether the 'last seen theory', in its application, could brook presumption as to the presence of the deceased along with the accused just prior to the occurrence, as drawn by the trial 25/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017 Court, in the absence of positive ocular evidence of prosecution witnesses of having seen the deceased in the company of the accused together and alive at a time proximate to the occurrence".

22. We have absolutely no hesitation to answer it in the negative as otherwise the application of the theory of 'last seen' in the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together would be hazardous".

30.3. When two views are possible, following the one in favour of innocence of the accused is the safest course of action : See Mallappa.

30.4. In Battigari Shaker, this Court observed at Para No.20 as under:

Para No.20 : The case falls under Section 382 of IPC an aggravated form of theft. But the trial Court wrongly framed the charge under Section 379 of IPC and modified the Sentence of Imprisonment to the period already undergone i.e., eight and half years.

31. The evidence of PW.14 and PW.16 is that on 17.07.2003, while they were on highway patrolling, at that time they noticed the accused along with PW.7 at Gollapally bus stage under suspicious circumstances at about 7.00 P.M. On the instructions of PW.16, PW.14 secured the presence of PW.13 and LW.18-Kosgi Mohan 26/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017 Reddy at about 8.30 P.M. and recorded the confession of the accused. The evidence of PW.14 and PW.16 goes to show that they secured the presence of PW.13 and LW.18 - K.Mohan Reddy on 17.07.2003 at about 8.30 P.M. PW.13 who is the Village Assistant Officer of Badepally deposed that on 17.07.2003 at about 8:00 PM. while he was at his house, Jadcherla PS came along with LW.18 - Kosgi Mohan Reddy but whereas PW.14 stated that he has visited the MRO office, Jadcherla and found PW.13 and LW.18 -Kosgi Mohan Reddy present in the office and PW.16 also stated that PW.14 went to the Gram Panchayat office in Kaverampet and brought PW.13 and LW.18 -Kosgi Mohan Reddy to Gollaplly bus stop.

32. PW.13 stated in his cross-examination that he has given evidence twice in other Courts with regard to Ex.P9. The inconsistent evidence of PW.14 and PW.16 with that of the evidence of PW.13 do not match with the case of the prosecution. At one breath PW.13 stated that on 17.07.2003 he was at home and the police came to his house at 8.00 P.M. Whereas, PW.14 stated that he visited the MRO office in Jadcherla and secured PW.13 and Kosgi Mohan Reddy, same statement is made by PW.16. PW.13 stated in his cross-examination that the accused has confessed about several cases under Ex.P9. In view of the 27/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017 inconsistent evidence of PW.13, PW.14 and PW.16, Exs.P7 and P9 are not proved by the prosecution.

33. PW.15 evidence is that he has found a chit with the name Neelamma, Peddapally and he has not spoken anything about the movie ticket. PW.18 evidence is that he has seized blood-stained stone (MO.6) and a cinema ticket, a small chit containing the name of Neelamma. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the chit only contains the name of the deceased but not any other writing. Whereas PW.16 stated in his cross-examination that PW.18 has first visited the dead body on 06.04.2003 along with his subordinates and he seized one cinema ticket and kirana items list from the dead body. The cinema tickets and kirana item list are not marked by the prosecution for the best reasons known to them. It is the case of the prosecution that PW.3 and PW.4 have seen the deceased and the accused when they took a Rs.10/- ticket and watched the movie. In the absence of cinema tickets, the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

34. Another important aspect is that PW.3 stated that the lady was wearing a saffron colour blouse and a blue colour saree. PW.6 stated in the cross-examination that the lady was wearing a flower design saree, white in colour. Further, PW.10 stated in his chief-

28/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017 examination that the deceased Neelamma was wearing a brown colour saree. As per MO.9, the saree is in cream colour. Hence, the evidence of the above said witnesses cannot be given any credence. Furthermore, PW.15 does not speak about the movie tickets. The prosecution has not marked the kirana list items, the evidence of PW.9 is not much helpful to the case of the prosecution.

35. As per the evidence of PW.16, the accused was produced before the Court on 18.07.2003 and PW.1 has received the requisition on 28.07.2003 and fixed the date of TI Parade on 02.08.2003. Appellant-accused was arrested by PW.16 on 17.07.2003 and TI Parade was conducted on 02.08.2003 in the presence of PW.3 and PW.6 after 15 days of the arrest. PW.3 has not given any identification marks or disclosed the special features of the appellant-accused except stating that he is a stout person whereas, PW.6 stated that the gent was tall and stout. In view of non-disclosure of special features or identification of the appellant- accused, in our considered view the identification simplicitor cannot form the basis to accept the case of the prosecution. The decision in Md.Sajjad @ Raju @ Salim is applicable to the case on hand.

36. The last seen theory projected by the prosecution is the evidence of PW.3, PW.4 and PW.6 which is also not helpful to the 29/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017 case of the prosecution in the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the appellant-accused and the deceased were last seen together. The decision in Krishan Kumar is squarely applicable to the case facts.

37. When two views are possible, the one favourable of innocence of the accused is the safest course of action as held by the Supreme Court in Mallappa case. Furthermore, there is no evidence on record to show that whose blood is found on MO.6 - stone. Ex.P11 only states that human blood is detected on item Nos.1 and 3 to 6. Item No.3 is the stone (MO.6). Whereas 'AB' group is found on MO.7 (Blouse), MO.8 (Petticoat) and MO.9 (Cream colour saree).

38. 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 in Battigari shaker is not applicable to the case on hand.

39. The learned trial Court has not considered the discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, PW.8 and PW.13 are the witnesses connected in SC.No.41 of 2005 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge, SC/ST, (POA) Act at Mahabubnagar and in 30/30 KL,J and BRMR,J Criminal Appeal_1356_2017 SC.No.396 of 2004 pending on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar.

40. The learned trial Court has erred in convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 302 of IPC and 379 of IPC. In view of the reasons above, the conviction rendered by the learned trial Court is perverse and the same is liable to be set aside. The Appellant-accused is acquitted on benefit of doubt.

41. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The conviction recorded by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar in SC.No.253 of 2005, dated 28.07.2006 is set aside and the Appellant-accused is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, stands closed.

____________________ K.LAKSHMAN, J ______________________________ B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J 21st APRIL, 2026 PLV

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Telangana High Court