Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 12650

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. SAM KOSHY, N. TUKARAMJI, JJ
Kranthi Kiran Rathod – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh through Inspector of Police(SHO), Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.212 of 2014 | CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.182 of 2014 | CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.41 of 2023 | CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1160 of 2017

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. P.Prabhakar Reddy, Mr.T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, Smt. B. Prathibha
For the Respondents: Mr. Yasin Mamoon, Additional Public Prosecutor

Conviction for murder and conspiracy under IPC established through circumstantial evidence, including presence and recovery of belongings, emphasizing the prosecution's burden of proof.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 120-B, and 380 - Conviction for murder and theft - Accused convicted for orchestrating deaths of a family to evade financial liability - The case was built on circumstantial evidence including recovery of deceased's belongings and presence at the crime scene (Paras 5, 6, 10, 12, 45).

(B) Conspiracy - The existence of an agreement between the accused to commit the crime, involving several actions indicating a premeditated plan (Paras 17, 42).

(C) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must demonstrate guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the failure to explain incriminating evidence was pivotal (Paras 14, 43).

(D) Identification Evidence - Strength of evidence derived from test identification parades and witness credibility (Paras 26, 30, 33). (E) Appeal - The appellate court can revisit trial conclusions if supported by substantial evidence (Paras 46).

Facts of the case:
Four accused conspired to kill a family to prevent repayment of investments. After executing the murders, they attempted to dispose of the bodies and valuables; the prosecution relied on eyewitness accounts and material evidence to establish their presence at the crime scene.

Findings of Court:
All four accused found guilty of murder and conspiracy, with convictions held against the sentences awarded by the lower court.

Issues: Were the charges against the accused proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Was the trial court's decision justified in both conviction and sentencing?

Ratio Decidendi: The presence of the accused at the crime scene coupled with unrefuted circumstantial evidence warrants conviction under 302 and 120-B IPC, emphasizing the collective and conspiratorial actions leading to the crime.

Result: Appeals dismissed for accused Nos. 1 to 4; prosecution's appeal allowed modifying sentences and convictions for Accused Nos. 3 and 4.

Table of Content
1. identification of parties involved in multiple appeals (Para 1 , 3 , 4)
2. establishing background facts of the case and offense (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. arguments presented on behalf of the accused (Para 10 , 11)
4. identifying legal points for determination (Para 12 , 13 , 18)
5. conclusions drawn from the evidence presented (Para 42 , 44 , 46)
6. final judgment and sentencing of the accused (Para 47)

COMMON JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Tukaramji)

We have heard Mr. P. Prabhaker Reddy, learned counsel for Accused No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.182 of 2014; Mr. T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Accused Nos.2 and 3 in Criminal Appeals Nos.182 of 2014 and 212 of 2014 respectively; Smt. B. Prathibha, learned counsel for Accused No.4 in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2023; and Mr. Syed Yasin Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State in Criminal Appeal No.1160 of 2017.

2. Since all these appeals arise from the same judgment, we propose to adjudicate them through this common judgment.

3. Criminal Appeal No.182 of 2014 has been preferred by Accused Nos.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Accused Nos.1 and 2’); Criminal Appeal No.212 of 2014 has been filed by Accused No.3 (hereinafter ‘Accused No.3’); and Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2023 has been filed by Accused No.4 (hereinafter ‘Accused No.4’). All these appeals challenge the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.01.2014, delivered in Sessions Case No.486 of 2010 by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

4. Criminal Appeal No.1160 of 2017 has been filed by the State (hereinafter ‘the prosecution’) challenging the same judgment dated 13.01.2014 in Sessions Case No.486 of 2010, to the extent it acquits Accused Nos.3 and 4 of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘ IPC ’).

5. In the impugned judgment, Accused Nos.1 and 2 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) and sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of 10,000/- each. In default of payment, they were to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Additionally, they were convicted under Section 380 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years each, along with a fine of 5,000/- each, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

Accused Nos.3 and 4 were convicted under Section 120-B read with Section 302 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years each, with a fine of 5,000/- each; in default, they were to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. They were also convicted under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years each, with a fine of 2,000/- each; in default, they were to undergo simple imprisonment for four months.

6.(a). The prosecution’s case is based on a report/Ex.P-1 lodged by PW-1, the proprietor of RAK Lodge. According to the report, on 20.08.2009 at around 6:00 p.m., two individuals arrived at the lodge and booked three rooms—Nos. 201, 203, and 205—under the name "K. Prasad, son of K. Deraj," stating that identification would be provided upon check-in by the Prasad. Around 9:00 p.m., three men, three women, and two children (a boy and a girl) occupied the rooms.

(b). On 21.08.2009, at approximately 4:00 a.m., three men and one woman left the lodge claiming they needed to make arrangements for an additional guest and would return, leaving the rooms locked without returning the keys. In the intervening night of 21/22.08.2009 at about 3:00 a.m., following the instructions of PW-1, a room boy peered through the ventilator of Room No.205 and observed a woman lying motionless with blood from the nose on the bed. On information PW-1 also looked through the ventilator and saw the same.

(c). Suspecting foul play, PW-1 questioned his staff and then proceeded to the police station. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gopalapuram, subsequently in the prese

Click Here to Read the rest of this document