Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Telangana) 272

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. SAM KOSHY, SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU, JJ.
Bheemanolla Dasu @ Ramadasu - Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana represented by its Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2016
Decided On : 03-04-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Smt. Vasundhara Reddy.
For the Respondent: Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor.

IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment underscores the principle that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to guilt, with no reasonable doubt of innocence.

Headnote:
Criminal - Murder and Theft - IPC Sections 302, 379; Cr.P.C. Sections 235(2), 374(2) - The court emphasized the necessity of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, and highlighted the prosecution's failure to establish a complete chain of evidence linking the accused to the crime.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of the deceased and theft of her belongings, with the prosecution alleging a motive related to a loan. The appellant contended that the evidence was insufficient and inconsistent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the offenses of murder and theft.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must be established beyond reasonable doubt and must exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the appellant is acquitted of all charges.

JUDGMENT :

Sambasivarao Naidu, J.

This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), by the sole accused in Sessions Case No.258 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad. The appeal challenges the sentence of conviction recorded by the trial Court vide Judgment dated 23.11.2015 where under the trial Court found him guilty for the offenses punishable under Sections 302 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘IPC’) and convicted him under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C.

2. The appellant-accused was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and the appellant was further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 379 of IPC. The trial Court directed that both the above referred sentences would run concurrently and any remand period, if applicable, would be given set off.

3. The appellant has filed the present appeal on the ground that the trial Court committed a grave error by convicting him for the above referred offences on the basis of insufficient evidence. The trial Court failed to recognize that the evidence presented by the prosecution was highly insufficient and did not adequately address the discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The appellant also contends that the trial court overlooked their arguments regarding the inconsistency in the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 16, and should not have accepted the prosecution’s case concerning the alleged incident. Consequently, the appellant seeks to set aside the impugned Judgment and requests acquittal.

4. As could be seen from the case facts in the charge sheet that was filed against the appellant, it is alleged that one Nallolla Laxmi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was a resident of Siddalakunta Village and she is the wife of PW.4 (Nallolla Ganganna) and mother of PW.6 (Nallolla Nikhitha @ Prathyusha). PW.5 (Nallolla Chinna Ganganna) is the brother-in-law and PW.8 (Nallolla Chinna Nadikudaiah) is the father-in-law of the deceased. The prosecution asserts that the appellant had a distant relationship with the deceased and frequently visited her house.

5. The prosecution alleges that due to PW4’s illness, the deceased managed both household affairs and agricultural work, during which she developed an illicit relationship with the appellant. They purportedly engaged in intimate activities, and the appellant requested Rs.50,000/- from her to buy a harvester. Later, when the deceased’s relatives learned about their relationship, she demanded the money back, stating that Pw4 had admonished her. The appellant claimed financial difficulties and refused to repay. When the deceased persisted, the appellant intending to avoid repayment planned her murder.

6. The prosecution has alleged that on 20.03.2012 in between 07.00 A.M. and 08.00 A.M., the deceased again contacted the appellant and requested him to return her money, therefore, the appellant hatched a plan to avoid the repayment of loan, decided to eliminate her thereby lured the deceased to Nirmal under the pretense of sexual intercourse and on a promise that he will return her money. The appellant said to have collected a razor blade from his house, and by keeping it in his pocket, reached Nirmal on his motorbike and met the deceased, who was waiting near the Cinema Hall in front of the Nirmal Bus stand. The appellant took the deceased to the forest area of Chincholi on the pretext of having sexual intercourse. After engaging in sexual activity, the appellant proceeded to beat the deceased with a stick, causing severe bleeding injuries to her, subsequently, he retr