SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 899

HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K.SURENDER, ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, JJ
MR. POTHAM JAGANNADHAM NAIDU CHERLAPALLY JAIL – Appellant
Versus
P.P. HYD – Respondent
CRLA/405/2016



Advocates:
Smt.Indira, Sri D.Arun Kumar, Sri Thomas Lloyd

The prosecution must establish a clear and conclusive chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt to support a conviction in murder cases.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 379, 201, 120-B, 364, 380 - Murder conviction and acquittal - Accused No.1 convicted for murder and related offences, sentenced to life imprisonment; Accused No.2 acquitted - Prosecution failed to establish a clear chain of evidence linking A1 to the crime, leading to reasonable doubt regarding guilt. (Paras 1-40)

(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Principles - The prosecution must prove circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, establishing a clear connection to the accused, which was not achieved in this case. (Paras 37-39)

Facts of the case:
The case involved the murder of K. Sunitha, with Accused No.1 allegedly confessing to the crime and implicating Accused No.2, who was a business partner of the deceased's husband. The investigation revealed inconsistencies and lack of concrete evidence.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of Accused No.1 and dismissal of the appeal against Accused No.2.

Issues: The main issues included the reliability of circumstantial evidence and whether the prosecution proved the connection between the accused and the crime.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution must establish a clear and conclusive chain of evidence to support a conviction, which was lacking in this case.

Result: Appeals allowed; Accused No.1 acquitted.

Table of Content
1. accused tried for murder (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. complaint lodged by husband (Para 5)
3. investigation details (Para 6 , 7)
4. confession and recovery (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
5. prosecution's reliance on evidence (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
6. doubts on circumstantial evidence (Para 36 , 37)
7. principles of circumstantial evidence (Para 38 , 39)
8. acquittal of accused no.1 (Para 40)
9. dismissal of state's appeal (Para 41)

COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were tried for the offence of murder by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in SC.No.374/2015, wherein, A1 was convicted and A2 was acquitted.

2. Criminal Appeal No.405 of 2016 is filed by Accused No.1 questioning his conviction recorded by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in SC.No.374/2015 for the offences under Sections 302 , 379 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC ; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 379 of IPC ; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 201 of IPC .

3. Criminal Appeal No.1262 of 2017 is filed by the State questioning the acquittal recorded against Accused No.2 by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in SC.No.374/2015 for the offences under Sections 120-B , 364 read with 109 , 302 read with 109 , 380 read with 109 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code .

4. Since both the appeals are questioning the very same Judgment of the Sessions Court, both the appeals are disposed off by way of this common Judgment.

5. PW.1-defacto complainant, is the husband of deceased- K.Sunitha. PW.1 went to the Police Station on 18.06.2014 and lodged a complaint before the Police which is Ex.P1. In the complaint, PW.1 stated that the deceased, his son-PW.2 and his daughter-PW.3 were residing in Bapunagar, Ambepet, Hyderabad. PW.1 was working in Bihar and he used to visit the house once in every two months. PW1 also stated that, two months earlier, the deceased received an obscene message on her mobile phone No.8978099333 from another phone No.9010927814. After receiving the obscene message, PW.2-son of the deceased called the said number and reprimanded him. PW.1 visited Hyderabad in April, 2014 and returned to Bihar on 14.05.2014. In the evening of 16.06.2014, PW.1 received a message from his wife’s (deceased) phone number stating that she was eloping with someone and asked PW.1 to take care of PWs.2 and 3 (children of deceased). A message was also received by PW.2 (son) to his phone number saying that the deceased was leaving the house and asked PW.2 to take care of PW.3. Attempts were made by PWs.1 and 2 to contact the deceased’s phone, however, it could not be reached. PW.1 called up PW.2 and PW.2 informed PW.1 that the deceased informed PW.2 that she was going to see a doctor at Mehdipatnam on Monday i.e., on 15.06.2014. PW.1 then came to Hyderabad on 18.06.2014 and directly went to Amberpet Police Station and lodged a written complaint. He expressed in the complaint that he suspects the person who sent the obscene message, two months earlier, as the person responsible for deceased’s missing.

6. PW.25-Investigating Officer registered the case as ‘woman missing’ and the investigation was taken up by PW.26-Inspector. PW.26 recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 3 and also informed the other police stations. The call details of both cell phone numbers of the deceased and suspect were called for and analysed. The cell phone of the deceased was found to be used by PW.4 on the basis of the IMEI Number of deceased’s mobile. PW.4 was then questioned by PW.26, and PW.4 stated that he found the cell phone with the deceased’s SIM number, however, he threw the deceased’s SIM

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top