Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 28373
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Not specified, Not specified
Accused No.1 – Appellant
Versus
CBI – Respondent
Crl.A. No.1391 of 2017 | Crl.A. No.1382 of 2017 | Crl.A. No.1572 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Nageshwara Rao Pappu, Mr. E. Uma Maheshwar Rao, Mrs. N. Sasikala
For the Respondents: Mrs. S. Anandi
The court emphasized that extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence and require corroboration; convictions based solely on circumstantial evidence must prove a complete chain of events beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 409, 411, 420, 471, and 511 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) - Criminal conspiracy, corruption, and forgery - Accused Nos.1, 3, and 4 convicted for conspiracy and corruption; accused No.1 additionally convicted for criminal breach of trust and misuse of position as a public servant - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession, later deemed insufficient without corroboration. (Paras 3, 4, 10, 134)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 30 - Extra-judicial confessions considered weak evidence without corroboration - Burden on prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in cases relying on circumstantial evidence. (Paras 55, 134)
(C) Court's findings: Prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence; thus, convictions set aside. (Paras 134, 135)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal appeals against conviction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. prosecution's allegations and charges. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. trial court's findings and observations. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. arguments from the appellants. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. court's reasoning and legal principles. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. discussion on circumstantial evidence. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. expert opinion and evidentiary standards. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 8. conclusions and implications of evidence. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 9. final judgment and acquittal. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
COMMON JUDGMENT
Heard Mr. Nageshwara Rao Pappu, learned senior counsel for appellant - accused No.1 in Crl.A. No.1391 of 2017, Mr. E. Uma Maheshwar Rao, learned counsel representing Mr. Enuganti Sudhanshu Rao, learned counsel for appellant - accused No.4 in Crl.A. No.1382 of 2017, Mrs. N. Sasikala, learned counsel for the appellant - accused No.3 in Crl.A. No.1572 of 2017 and Mrs. S. Anandi, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI appearing on behalf of respondent.
2. Criminal Appeal No.1391 of 2017 is filed by accused No.1 challenging the judgment dated 15.11.2017 in C.C. No.33 of 2007 passed by the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, while Criminal Appeal No.1382 of 2017 is filed by accused No.4 and Criminal Appeal No.1572 of 2017 is filed by accused No.3 challenging the very same judgment.
3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, dated 11.11.2017, the trial Court found the appellants - accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 guilty of the charge under Section - 120B of IPC . Apart from the above charge, the appellant - accused No.1 was also found guilty of the charges under Section - 409 and Section - 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act, 1988’), accused No.3 was found guilty of the charge under Section - 411 of IPC and accused No.4 was found guilty of the charges under Sections - 420 , 420 read with 511 , 471 and 471 read with 511 of IPC and accordingly imposed respective sentences of imprisonment in the following manner:
i) Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (03) years each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven (07) days each for the charge under Section - 120B of IPC .
ii) Accused No.1 was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five (05) years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen (15) days for the charge under Section - 409 of IPC . He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven (07) days for the charge under Section - 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Act, 1988.
iii) Accused No.3 was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen (15) days for the charge under Section - 411 of IPC .
iv) Accused No.4 was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month for the charge under Section - 420 of IPC . He was further sentenced to undergo for a period of one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen (15) days for the charge under Section - 420 read with 511 of IPC on two counts. He was also sentenced to undergo for a period of five (05) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) and in default to undergo simple impriso
