Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 12651

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

The court affirmed that circumstantial evidence can sufficiently establish guilt when linked to a common intention, leading to convictions for murder and theft.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 120-B, and 380 - Conviction of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for murder and theft; life imprisonment imposed along with fines - Accused Nos. 3 and 4, originally acquitted of conspiracy, found guilty upon review; their sentences modified for parity with co-accused - Evidence established a premeditated conspiracy to eliminate Deceased Nos. 1 to 4 due to financial disputes and misappropriation of funds, cementing the prosecution's case. (Paras 45, 46)

Facts of the case:
The appellants faced charges stemming from a fatal incident in which a family was murdered following a conspiracy related to financial misdeeds related to investments made by Deceased No. 2 in Accused No. 2's bank. The murders were orchestrated by the accused to escape liability for repayment. (Paras 3, 5, 17)

Findings of Court:
The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of all accused in the murders and theft, with substantial circumstantial evidence supporting their collective culpability. (Paras 34, 44)

Issues: Whether the prosecution substantiated evidence to uphold convictions under the relevant IPC sections, and if the previous acquittal of Accused Nos. 3 and 4 could be reversed. (Paras 13, 14)

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that circumstantial evidence formed a cogent link to the crimes, affirming that all accused acted with a common intention to commit the offenses charged, leading to their convictions. (Paras 36, 40)

Result: Appeals by Accused Nos. 1 to 4 dismissed; prosecution's appeal against partial acquittal of Accused Nos. 3 and 4 allowed, leading to uniform sentences. (Paras 47)

Table of Content
1. overview of the appeals and convictions (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. details of the prosecution's case (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. argument by the accused and prosecution (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. judicial findings and evidence analysis (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. circumstantial evidence standards (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
6. incident and evidence corroboration (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
7. identification challenges (Para 23 , 24)
8. accused's absence in identification parade (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
9. evidence recovery and its significance (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
10. ownership of recovered items (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
11. prosecution perspectives on conspiracy (Para 40 , 41 , 42)
12. court’s conclusion and rationale (Para 43 , 44 , 45)
13. final judgement and orders (Para 46 , 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 instruction

Click Here to Read the rest of this document