Bablu, Madhya Pradesh And ANR., v. The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp.,

[ 341e ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL APPE AL NO: 515 oF 2017 Criminal Appeal filed under Section 37!8)^of Cr P C ' aqainst the Judgment dated 09-03-2017 passed i;"s:b.Nrr6 "i zbto on the file-of the court of the iii"ii"i"rr n"t.poritrn S..iions Judge, Cvberabad' at L'B Nagar' Between:

'l.Bablu,S/o.Pagla,Aged23Years'CastMavasi'Occtt/larblePolishingWork' R/o.[t/leeran nesiaer.ri"e,'bT i"Vih"l"];t'- Medipallv' N/o Andhivara(V)'

fftil;;iiq), siini oistiict, Madhva Pradesh State

2. Raiman @ Karan. S/o Sukhlal' SSed 28 Years Cast Mavasi' Occ Marble Poiishino Work, nlo.fVrleran 'Re"sidence'. Om Vihar Colony' Medipally'

fo i" llli'n ivriiinr, a;i,'"i;'iiq) S;tn ; Distiict' NIad hva P radesh state ...APPel lants/Accused AND The State of Telangana, Throu-gh. lnspector of P-olice' Cvberabad' at Raiendranaqar, R"p;e!;;i';; F'oiic Fios""'tor' High court of Telansana ,ni Andhra-Ptadesh, HYderabad '

...RespondenUComPlainant Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Pendiyala Suhasini Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Arun Kumar Doddla' Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: Judgment

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.AI{IL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.515 0F 2017 JUDGMENT: (per Hon,ble Sri Justice K.Surender) This appeal is fiied aggdeved by the judgment dated 09.03.2017 passed in S.C.No.26 of 2Ot6 on the frle of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,. Cyberabad, at L'b'Nagar, convicting the appenants/accused Nos.l and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian penal Code (for short lpcl and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment a.nd to pay a fine of Rs.5,OO0/_ each, in default of pa5rnr:nl of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

Heard Smt. pendiyala Suhasini Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/accused and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional public prosecutor for respondent_State. J Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that appellants . were working a-s marble polishing workers under the deceased namery Ram singh. on account of some financial disputes in bet.ween the deceased and the appellantS, it was

KS,J&JAK,J Crl.A.No.5l5 of20l7 alleged that ort 02.06'2014, the appellants committed murder of the deceased in the pent house' where they were staying along with the deceased in the under 'construction building u.rd' th."* him into the duct of the building' PW5 was also working in the under construction building where the appellants were working' While PWS was fixing the doors of the bathroom on 05'06'2024, he noticed bad smell was emanating from the ventilator of the bathroom and found dead body in the duct' PW5 informed pW+' wtro was the Supervisor of the under construction building' PW4 informed thePolice.AfterthePolicearrived,theywenttothepent house and found blood stains on the walls of the pent house' 4.

During the course of investigation' the Police came to know that the appellants were working under the deceased' as marble polishing workers and the appellants were absconding since the date of the offence' Efforts were made to trace the appellants and they were arrested on 12'O6'2OL4 in MadhYa Fradesh.

5.

Confession of the appellants was recorded by PW1l in the presence of PW1O that they admitted to committing the murderofthedeceasedandfleeingthereafter.Atthe

KS,J&JAK,J Crl.A-No 515 of20t7 instance of apperlants, Rs. r,500/- each was seized from them. According to the prosecution case, the appellants, after committing the murder of the deceased and throwiiig him in the duct, took the keys of his house, went to his house ald committed theft of Rs.1O,00O/_ and shared Rs.5,OOO/- each.

6.

Charge Sheet was filed on the basis of circumstantial evidence for the offences punishable under Sectio ns 4SZ, 3BO, 302 and 2O7 of IpC. Charges were framed against the appellalts as under:

"qHABqErl: Whereas, on 2_6_2Ot4 A7, A2 of you entered in to the house of Ram Singh yadav Q) Ram Shaka yadav, for the purpose of -committing theft of money and thereby you committed the office of ]ykin8 house trespass or house breaking by night, publishable lJ lsec. 4SZ IpC, with i., _y "og'rrir..r."a CHARGE-2: Whereas, on the same day, at about I mid night Ram Singh Vaaav 6nam Strata I11"]-** in deep sleep, you committed theft of Rs. IO,O0O/- from the house of the above person bv killing him and when the money was kept in a bag of shelf and both of you divided into Rs. i,OOO/_-.""t and thereby went away by boarding Secunderabad tcr Patna train and thereby you committed theft in the house where Ram Singh yadav @ Ram Shaka yadav was _residing i.e. Alwyn Colony, Jeedimetla, and thereby committed offence publishable U/sec.3gO IPC, with in my cognizance?

KS,J&JAK,J Crl.ANo.515 of20l7 CHARGE-3: Whereas, Al, A2 of You on the above date and time and having known that the deceased have money in his house, you killed the deceased Ram Singh Yadav with a spade upon his head, and caused his death and thereby committed offencd of murder publishable U/sec' 302 IPC' with in my cognizance.

Charge-4: Wtrereas, Al, A2 of you quarrel with a decease when he asked for return of money ald thereby caused his death on the above date during mid night about 1 am, and thereby you tried to dispose of the dead body by taking keys from the Watchman from the apartment and when he refused to give the keys A1, A2 of you pushed tbe {ead body into the duct of the Apartment and you washed the beans of the duct by pouring sand with the h€lp of wiper and water and thereby you concealed the cloths spade ald wiper in the bathroom of the deceased and thereby you suppressed the evidence of commission of murder publishable U/sec' 2O1 IPC' with in my cognizance. Do you plead guilty or claimed to be tried?"

I 7.

PWl to 13 witnesses were examined and Ex' Pl to P9 documents were marked on behalf of prosecution' l'earned Sessions Judge found that the appellants' abscondance from 02.06.2014 and recovery of Rs'1,5OOl- eadn from the appellants were sufflcient evidence to infer that it was the appellants who committed the murder of the deceased and absconded.

/ KS,J&JAI{,J crt A.No.sl5 0f2017 8.

The case is one of circumstantial evidence. The alleged scene of offence is the penthouse, where the accused attacked the deceased and killed him according to pWi3 Investigating Officer. However, no investigation was done to know whether there were any blood stains on the walls of the penthouse or bl.ood was spilled on the floor of the penthouse. The reason given is that blood stains were washed. Even if blood stains were washed, it can be detpcted by way of scientihc tests. Nothing incriminating was found in the pent house, where the alleged murder took place.

9.

The motive as projected by the prosecution is that there were disputes in between the deceased and the appellants for money. None of the witnesses have spoken about the alleged disputes or whether there was any light in between the appellants and the deceased at any point of time regarding the amount outstanding to the appellalts. Merely on the ground that ther:e was seizure of Rs. 1,500/_ each from the appellants, would not mean that they have committed theft of money from the house of deceased after committing the murder of the deceased. Strange claim of the prosecution is that the appellants, having committed the murder of the

KS.J&JAK,J Crl A-No 515 of20l7 deceased in the pent house, took his house keys, went to his house and committed theft in the absence of his wife' No witnesses have been examined to state that the appellaats were found alywhere near the house of the deceased' It is not explained as to why the deceased was staying in the under construction house when he had a house and his wife was staying in the house

10. When there are no eye witnesses to the incident of murder or theft, the evidence of motive, last' seen and abscondance have to be looked into' It was not specilically proved by prosecution that death happened on 02'06'2014'

11. The only evidence of appellants absconding cannot be madebasistoconvictthemsincethemotiveasprojectedwas also not established by the prosecution' Though it was stated that the appellants were last seen on 02'06'2014' however' when the complaint was filed, the names of the appellants were not stated nor any suspicion was expressed .by Supervisor or arry of other workers against the appellants ' It rl I wasnotevenstatedthatthedeceasedwasstayingalongwith I I I I the appellants.

I iI

KS,J&JAK.J Cr.A.No.il5 of20t7

12. The casr: is one of circumstantial evidenr:e. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtrar, laid principles as to the acceptance of circumstantia_l evidence and the basis to record conviction, which read as trnder:- " 1 . the circumstalces from which the conc.[usion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

concerned 'must, or .s established;

The circumstances hould' and not ,may be, 2.

the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, th.y J";;; not be explained on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

3. the conchrsive

4. they shouid hypot.hesis except th clrcumstances should be of a nature and tendency;

exciude every possible e one to be proved; and

5. there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave aly reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must "fr"*ii"l in all . h uman probabiiity, the act rn"rt f,.rr.

Deen d.one by the accused."

13.

I , The evidenr:e of the prosecution regarding absconding of the appellants solely cannot form basis to convict the I , appellants. The evidence of last seen together is a-lso 1 lrsa+; + scc rro

KS,]&JAK,J Crl.A.No.sl5 of20l7 doubtful. Pwl2/doctor did not speciff the time of death but stated that the cause ofdeath was due to crush injury on the head.Intheabsenceofanyspecifictimeframe'beinggiven as to when the death was caused, it cannot be assumed that thedeathwascausedon02.06.2014bytheappellants.The circumstances relied on by the prosecution are not sufficient to infer guilt of the appellants' Accordingly' benefrt of doubt is extended.

14. Criminal Appeal is a-llowed and the conViction and sentence imposed against the appellants in S'C'No '26 of 2016onthelileoftheAdditiona]MetropolitanSessions Judge, Cyberabad, at L.B'Nagar, is hereby set aside' Since it isinformedthattheaccusedareinjail'theyshallbe releasedforthwithfromprison,ifnotrequiredinanyother / case.

Sd/- K. SRINIVAS RAO //TRUE COPY// JOINT REGI TRAR ,SECTION OFFICER \ To,

1. The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, at L B'Nagar

2. The Superintendent, Central Prison' Cherlapally, Medchal - tvlalkajgiri( by speed post)

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri Pendiyala Suhasini Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CD Copies ADKgh

HIGH COURT DATED:31 l12tZ0Z4 tlE i -lA 7'e ( q o,') 0r,ii'l [25 t.

v

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.51S ot 2017 .\ * rO *..

O '.,-1, .i;

r.-i -.- -:--''

ALLOWING THE CRLA \r5 b\r