The court established that insufficient evidence supported the conviction of certain appellants while upholding the conviction of the principal accused based on circumstantial evidence and the shifting burden of proof in criminal law.

JUDGMENT :

K.Surender, J.

1. Crl.A.No.1219 of 2017 is preferred by A-6, Crl.A.No.1256 of 2017 is preferred by A-2, Crl.A.No.1258 of 2017 is preferred by A-5, Crl.A.No.1444 of 2017 is preferred by A-1, and Crl.A.No.546 of 2020 is preferred by A-3, questioning their conviction for the offences under Sections 120-B, 364-A, 302, and 201 r/w. 34 of IPC.

2. Since all the Appeals arise out of the judgment in S.C.No.658 of 2012, on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, all are heard together and disposed of, by way of this common judgment.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants, and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

4. The deceased, namely Srinivas, who was the son of P.W.1, went to Hyderabad on 20.06.2011 around 2:30 p.m. As P.W.1 did not receive any information about the deceased, on the next day, P.W.1 tried to contact the deceased on his phone, but his phone was switched off. On 22.06.2011, P.W.1 received a phone call from phone No.9440072821, stating that the deceased was kidnapped and the person on the call demanded a ransom of Rs.2,00,000/-. However, P.W.1 was instructed to deposit the amount in the account of a bank. On 24.06.2011, P.W.1 went to the Police and lodged a complaint/Ex.P.1. After lodging the complaint, P.W.1 was asked to deposit the ransom amount in the account of one Geethanjali who had an account in SBH, Jagtial. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was deposited on 25.06.2011. On the basis of the complaint, P.W.11 took up investigation. P.W.1 provided the account number to P.W.11. P.W.11 then went to the house of Geethanjali (not examined) in whose account the amount was deposited. Again on 25.06.2011, a threatening call was received by P.W.1, and he was asked to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/-. The call details of the deceased’s mobile number and area numbers were collected. The Investigating Officer analyzed several numbers, and two phone numbers, i.e., 9949703090 belonging to A-6 and 9000286556 belonging to one Ranganath, a resident of Warangal, were found to be suspicious. P.W.11 questioned A-6 about the suspected phone numbers, and A-6 informed that the number- 9949703090 was used by A-4 and A-1. The Investigating Officer further found that part of the amount, i.e., Rs.1,50,000/-, which was deposited into the account, was withdrawn from the ATM. The CCTV footage was collected of the time when the money was withdrawn. During interrogation, A-6 informed about the flat No.402 in ARK Residency, Uppal. P.W.11 then secured the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2, and others, and also gave a requisition to the MRO, Uppal, to break open the lock of the flat. On breaking open the flat, they found the refrigerator tied with a saree, and the body of the deceased was found in a plastic bag tied with a cable wire in the refrigerator. Inquest was conducted, and the dead body was sent for the post-mortem examination. P.W.11 also called a fingerprint expert to lift the chance prints from the scene.

5. Post mortem was conducted by P.W.7/Narender Babu.He found the following injuries:-

“1. Multiple contusion of various dimensions seen over both gleutail region.

2. Three linear bluish coloured marks horizontally placed on the back of chest measuring about 15 cm x 1 ½ cm., the subscutarious tissue under the mark is normal.

3. Bluish coloured mark three in number over the lateral 9outer) aspect of both arms, measuring 6 x ½ cm