Telangana High Court
Galli Prasanth Babu , Babu vs State Of Telangana on 3 April, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.2901, 3032, 3034 of 2018 and 453 of 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
These Criminal Appeals are filed by the
appellants/accused Nos.1 to 5, aggrieved by the judgment
dated 12.10.2018, in S.C.No.42 of 2016, on the file of the
Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (PoA) Act – cum
– V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad (‘trial
Court’), whereby the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 5 were
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,
365, 302, 201, and 120-B read with Section 149 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short ‘IPC‘).
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.1
to 5 and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the record.
3. Since the appellants in all the appeals are questioning the
conviction imposed by the trial Court in S.C.No.42 of 2016, all
the appeals are disposed of by way of this common judgment.
2
4. Sri R.Gopal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) and
accused No.1 were colleagues in the Office of Deputy
Commissioner Prohibition and Excise, Adilabad District.
Accused No.1 worked as a steno in the said office and
according to the prosecution case, he sold certain material
which was in the office and also threatened his colleagues. The
deceased joined the Deputy Commissioner’s Office as a Senior
Assistant. He filed a representation before the Deputy
Commissioner for the cancellation of the deputation of the
accused No.1 on the ground of the alleged act of accused No.1
in selling away certain material, which was in the office. On the
request made by the deceased, the Deputy Commissioner
cancelled the deputation and instructed accused No.1 to hand
over the charge to the deceased. Further, on the basis of the
information provided by the deceased, the charge memos were
also issued to accused No.1 by the Deputy Commissioner.
Since the deceased was the reason for the cancellation of
deputation of accused No.1 and was also responsible for
accused No.1 being issued with charge memo, accused No.1
held a grudge against the deceased and wanted to take the life
of the deceased.
3
5. Further, according to the prosecution case, accused No.1
hatched a plan to kill the deceased with the help of accused
No.6 (died during the trial). However, accused No.6’s attempts
were futile. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 5 met on 28.01.2014
and all of them went to Adilabad in a car. They gathered
information about the movements of the deceased and with the
help of accused No.6, who kept track of the deceased, accused
Nos.1 to 5 kidnapped the deceased on the road near
Shivalayam Temple, Ramnagar. He was beaten, pushed into the
car, and taken away. In the car, accused Nos.1 and 2
strangulated the deceased with a nylon rope and took him to
Metpalli Village. Later they went to a graveyard and found a
burning pyre. The burning pyre belonged to the wife of PW.26.
The dead body of the deceased was then placed on the pyre,
resulting in the body being burnt.
6. PW.1, who is the Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition
and Excise, Adilabad Division, filed a complaint, which is
marked as Ex.P1, with the police at about 10.00 P.M. on
29.01.2014. In his complaint, PW.1 alleged that the deceased
attended the office and after completion of work, he left for
4
home. However, he was informed by some of his staff members
that the deceased was kidnapped in a car near Shivalayam
Temple at Ramnagar. In the complaint, PW.1 suspected that
accused No.1 was the person behind the kidnapping.
7. The Investigating Officer (PW.29) received the complaint
and registered the FIR. He went near the Shivalayam at
Ramnagar, and conducted the scene of offence panchanama
and a rough sketch was also prepared. The call details of the
accused persons were also obtained by the Investigating
Officer. According to PW.29/Investigating Officer, accused No.1
surrendered himself before him in the Police Station on
13.02.2014 at 02.00 P.M. PW.19, who is a friend of the
deceased, also accompanied accused No.1 when he came to the
police Station to surrender.
8. After his surrender, the accused No.1 was interrogated in
the presence of PWs.23 and 24 and his confession was
recorded. Pursuant to his confession, accused No.1 took the
Police Officials and the independent witnesses to the burial
ground and showed the place where the body of the deceased
was burnt. Further, pursuant to his confession, the bone pieces
5
and some other material were also collected. The scene was
photographed and also videographed.
9. After the seizures of the bones and other material objects
of the deceased from the place, the car in which the deceased
was kidnapped and killed was also identified at the instance of
accused No.1. MO.7 is the said car. On the basis of the
confession of the accused No.1, accused No.6 was
apprehended. Accused Nos.4 and 5 surrendered before the
Police Station on 04.03.2014. Accused No.2 surrendered before
the concerned Magistrate on 24.04.2014. Accused No.3
surrendered before the Police Station on 02.05.2014. The bones
recovered from the pyre were sent to the FSL for the purpose of
DNA examination after taking the samples from the mother and
the daughter of the deceased. After the arrest of accused Nos.2
to 5, the investigation was concluded, and the charge sheet was
laid against all the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 302, 201, 365, and 120B read with Section
149 of IPC.
10. The learned Sessions Judge examined the witnesses on
behalf of the prosecution, who are PWs.1 to 30, and Exs.P.1 to
6
P.46 were marked. MOs.1 to 12 were also brought on record,
among which MOs.5 and 6 are the burnt bone pieces. The
learned Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty, mainly
relying upon the evidence of PW.19 and other corroborating
evidence.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 argued
that most of the witnesses have turned hostile to the
prosecution case. PW.1, the witness to the confession and
seizure, has turned hostile. The witness to the scene of offence
panchanama, where the alleged abduction took place, has also
turned hostile. The police failed to collect any CCTV footage,
and the weapon with which the deceased was killed was also
not identified. Although bones were collected from the
graveyard, there is no expert evidence to suggest the homicidal
death of the deceased. The call recordings collected during the
course of investigation also do not disclose any kind of
complicity of any of the accused.
12. The learned counsel further argued that the entire case
rests on the evidence of PW.19, who, according to the
prosecution, is a colleague of the deceased, and the
7
appellant/accused No.1. Further the appellant/accused No.1
went to the house of PW.19 and narrated the incident of how
the deceased was abducted and killed. The said extra-judicial
confession, without any corroboration, cannot be relied upon.
13. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the
judgment of this Court in the case of Janapally Anjilaiah v.
The State of Andhra Pradesh 1, wherein it was held as
follows:
“9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh v.
State of Haryana4 has dealt with the extra-judicial confession.
Paragraph 50 of the aforesaid Judgment reads as under:-
“50. Now we need to concentrate on the relevance of the
alleged confessions of the co-accused made before Zile Singh
(PW16). In Periaswami Moopan, In re [Periaswami Moopan,
In re, 1930 SCC OnLine Mad 86 : AIR 1931 Mad 177] , Reilly,
J. observed:
(SCC OnLine Mad) “… where there is evidence against the co-
accused sufficient, if believed, to support his conviction, then
the kind of confession described in Section 30 may be thrown
into the scale as an additional reason for believing that
evidence.”
Therefore, the aforesaid extra-judicial confession against
the co-accused needs to be taken into consideration if at all it is
one, only if other independent evidence on record have
established the basic premise of the prosecution. The confession
of the co- accused cannot be solely utilised to convict a person,
when the surrounding circumstances are improbable and create
suspicion (refer to Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar
[Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184 :
(1964) 2 Cri LJ 344] ). As the confession of a co-accused is
1
2022 (3) ALT (Crl.) 113 (A.P.)
8weak piece of evidence, we need to consider whether other
circumstances prove the prosecution case.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid Judgment has
held that extra-judicial confession cannot be the sole basis of
conviction and cannot be relied on when surrounding
circumstances are improbable and create suspicion. The weak
piece of evidence is the extra-judicial confession which was
recorded in the presence of the police and the chain of (2018)
18 SCC 654 evidence is certainly not at all complete and
therefore, the conviction of the accused deserves to be set
aside.”
14. Learned counsel for the appellants also relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal
Sah v. State of Bihar 2, which reads as follows:
“6. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised several
arguments during the course of the hearing. It has been pointed
out that there was absolutely no evidence to connect Gopal Sah
with the crime, as the recovery of the sickle made in September
1982 i.e. about three months after the incident was too remote a
factor. It has also been pleaded that the evidence of last seen
pertained only to Bhushan Sah and Dasrath Sah accused, as the
third person with them near the wooden bridge had not been
identified as being Gopal Sah by any of the witnesses. It has
further been pleaded that the extra judicial confession allegedly
made by Dasrath Sah could not be used as evidence against the
other accused and that in any case this evidence too was
unbelievable.”
15. Learned counsel for the appellants also placed reliance
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Moorthy vs. State of Tamil Nadu 3, which reads as follows:
2
2008 (17) SCC 128
3
2023 SCC Online SC 1027
9“6. Firstly, we will deal with the prosecution case about the
extrajudicial confession. As regards extrajudicial confession,
the law has been laid down by this Court in the case of Pawan
Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar3. In paragraph 5 it is held
thus :
“5. As far as extrajudicial confession is concerned, the law
is well settled. Generally, it is a weak piece of evidence.
However, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of extra
judicial confession provided that the confession is proved to be
voluntary and truthful. It should be free of any inducement. The
evidentiary value of such confession also depends on the 1
(2011) 11 SCC 111 2 (2013) 12 SCC 383 3 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 259 person to whom it is made. Going by the natural course
of human conduct, normally, a person would confide about a
crime committed by him only with such a person in whom he
has implicit faith. Normally, a person would not make a
confession to someone who is totally a stranger to him.
Moreover, the Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of
the confession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is
made. As a matter of rule, corroboration is not required.
However, if an extrajudicial confession is corroborated by
other evidence on record, it acquires more credibility.”
(emphasis added)
7. We have perused the evidence of PW1 Ganesan who was
posted as the Village Administrative Officer at the time of the
commission of the offence. He was not permanently posted in
Village Seekkarajapuram as he stated that at the time of
recording of evidence, he was transferred as Village
Administrative Officer to Ranipet. PW1 admitted in the cross
examination that he did not know the appellant before he came
to him and allegedly made the extrajudicial confession. The
incident is of 29 th May 2006 but the alleged extrajudicial
confession was made on 10th August 2006. It is impossible to
understand why would the appellant meet the Village
Administrative Officer, who was a total stranger to him, more
than two months after the incident for making a confession.
PW1 and the appellant were not known to each other till 10 th
of August 2006. Normally an accused will confide only with a
person in whom he has implicit faith. He would not go to a
stranger to make a confession of guilt. The fact that the alleged
confession was made by him more than two months after the
incident makes it more suspicious.”
10
16. Further, the learned counsel also relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu 4, wherein it was held as
follows:
“The Principles
22. Upon a proper analysis of the above-referred judgments of
this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which
would make an extra- judicial confession an admissible piece of
evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an
accused. These precepts would guide the judicial mind while
dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily
relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been
made by the accused.
i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It
has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution.
ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.
iii) It should inspire confidence.
iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and
evidentiary value, if it is supported by a chain of cogent
circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution
evidence.
v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction,
it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and
inherent improbabilities.
vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other
fact and in accordance with law.”
4
2012 (6) SCC 403
11
17. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrapal v. State of
Chhattisgarh 5, which reads as follows:
“11. At this juncture, it may be noted that as per Section 30
of the Evidence Act, when more persons than one are being
tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one
of such persons affecting himself and some other of such
persons is proved, the court may take into consideration such
confession as against such other person as well as against the
person who makes such confession. However, this court has
consistently held that an extra judicial confession is a weak
kind of evidence and unless it inspires confidence or is fully
corroborated by some other evidence of clinching nature,
ordinarily conviction for the offence of murder should not be
made only on the evidence of extra judicial confession. As held
in case of State of M.P. Through CBI & Ors. Vs. Paltan Mallah
& Ors.3, the extra judicial confession made by the co- accused
could be admitted in evidence only as a corroborative piece of
evidence. In absence of any substantive evidence against the
accused, the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the co-
accused loses its 3 (2005) 3 SCC 169 significance and there
cannot be any conviction based on such extra judicial
confession of the co-accused.
12. In Sahadevan & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 4,
it was observed in para 14 as under:
“14. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that
extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever
the court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution
evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra-judicial
confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and
is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If, however, the
extra-judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or
inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as
per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the court to
base a conviction on such a confession. In such circumstances,
the court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of
consideration.”
5
2022 SCC Online 705
12
13. The said ratio was also reiterated and followed
by this court in cases of Jagroop Singh Vs. State of Punjab 5,
S.K. Yusuf Vs. State of West Bengal6 and Pancho Vs. State of
Haryana7, wherein it has been specifically laid down that the
extra judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself and it has
to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. It
should be truthful and should inspire confidence. An extra
judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary
value if it is supported by chain of cogent circumstances and is
further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. In the
instant case it is true that the co- accused Videshi had allegedly
made self-inculpatory extra judicial 4 (2012) 6 SCC 403 5
(2012) 11 SCC 768 6 (2011) 11 SCC 754 7 (2011) 10 SCC 165
confession before the PW-4 Bhola Singh, and had made extra
judicial confession before the other witnesses i.e., PW-5
Chandrashekhar, PW-6 Baran Singh Thakur and PW-7
Dukaluram stating, inter alia, that the other three accused i.e.,
Bhagirathi, Chandrapal and Mangal Singh had committed the
murder and he (i.e. Videshi) was asked to assist them in
disposing the dead bodies and concealing the evidence.
However, the High Court, considering the inconsistency
between the said two extra judicial confession made by the co-
accused Videshi, did not find it safe to convict the other accused
i.e., Bhagirathi, Mangal Singh and Videshi himself, and the
High Court surprisingly considered the said extra judicial
confession made by Videshi as an incriminating circumstance
against the appellant Chandrapal for convicting him for the
offences charged against him. In our opinion if such weak piece
of evidence of the co-accused Videshi was not duly proved or
found trustworthy for holding the other co-accused guilty of
committing murder of the deceased Brinda and Kanhaiya, the
High Court could not have used the said evidence against the
present appellant for the purpose of holding him guilty for the
alleged offence.”
18. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit
that the complicity of the accused is based on circumstantial
evidence. Accused No.1 had gone to PW.19 and informed him
about his involvement and that of accused No.2. Thereafter,
during the course of the investigation, the Police came to know
13
about the involvement of the other accused also and
accordingly, all of them were charge sheeted. The finding of the
learned Sessions Judge is based on the circumstantial evidence
and all the circumstances proved that it was the appellants
who had abducted/kidnapped the deceased and caused his
death.
19. PWs.1 and 4 to 8, who are the Excise Officials and spoke
about the disputes between the deceased and the
appellant/accused No.1 during investigation, have turned
hostile to the prosecution case. PWs.2, 3, 15, and 22, who are
the witnesses to the alleged kidnapping of the deceased, have
also turned hostile to the prosecution case. The person, who
was present at the burial ground at Metpally village, also did
not support the case of the prosecution. PW.26, who is the
husband of the person who died on 29.01.2014, stated that he
lit the fire on the body of his wife and, after the cremation, he
left the graveyard. PWs.20 and 21, who were the panch
witnesses of the scene of offence, have also turned hostile to
the prosecution case. PWs.23 and 24, who were the witnesses
to the seizure panchanama, also turned hostile.
14
20. PW.28 is the Doctor who examined the burnt skeleton,
and according to him, the bones were of human, and
thereafter, he sent them for DNA examination. Ex.P.45 is the
DNA profiling report. According to Ex.P.45, the bones that were
found at the instance of accused No.1 were those of the
deceased. According to Ex.P.45, the samples of the daughter
and the mother of the deceased were taken for the purpose of
DNA profiling.
21. The evidence of PW.19 has to be looked into to determine
whether it merits acceptance. PW.19 is the colleague of the
appellant/accused No.1 and the deceased. According to PW.19,
accused No.1 came to him and gave specific details about how
the deceased was abducted with the help of his friend, accused
No.2, and how the deceased was murdered.
22. The manner in which the deceased was taken in a car,
subjected to assault resulting in his death, and thereafter his
body being taken to the burial ground and thrown into the
burning pyre of the wife of PW.26 has been narrated. Later,
PW.19 took accused No.1 and handed him over to the police.
15
23. The incident happened on 29.01.2014, and 14 days
thereafter, the appellant/accused No.1 met PW.19 and narrated
the entire incident with minute details. Accused No.1 was the
suspect even according to Ex.P1 complaint. Even according to
the prosecution case, he was absconding till the date of his
surrender before the police on 13.02.2014.
24. As seen from the evidence of the Investigating
Officer/PW.29, after the surrender of accused No.1, he took
accused No.1 to the burial ground, where accused No.1 pointed
out the burnt pyre and the spot where the deceased was
thrown after the murder was committed. The bones that were
collected from the burial ground were subjected to DNA
examination and were identified as those of the deceased.
25. Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 on
information given by accused No.1, the Investigating Officer
discovered the bones of the deceased. Accused No.1 had
exclusive knowledge about the burnt bones of the deceased. It
is not the case of the prosecution that prior to the confession of
accused No.1, the Investigating Officer had identified that the
16
deceased had died or that he was burnt. Only at the instance of
accused No.1, the Investigating Officer came to know about the
death of the deceased and the body being burnt.
26. The confession made by accused No.1, in respect of other
accused’s involvement cannot be treated as evidence, in the
absence of any independent corroborating evidence. However,
to the extent of the recovery of the bones at the instance of
accused No.1, can be treated as a strong circumstance against
him.
27. Several judgments were relied upon by the counsel to
buttress their argument about the solitary testimony of PW.19
to whom the extra-judicial confession was made and his
evidence cannot be relied upon to form the basis to convict.
28. In the present case, the extra-judicial confession made by
accused No.1 to the extent of the death of the deceased and the
body being burnt is corroborated. The bones of the deceased
were found at the instance of accused No.1. Until the pyre was
pointed out by accused No.1, there was no clue about the
whereabouts of the deceased and his fate. To the extent of the
17
death of the deceased and the subsequent recovery of the
bones are circumstances that can be read against accused
No.1.
29. The other accused were found to be complicit along with
accused No.1 only on the basis of confession of accused No.1 to
the police and the extra-judicial confession made to PW.19.
Neither the confession of A1 to police nor to PW.19 about the
involvement of accused Nos.2 to 5 can be taken into
consideration as there is no independent corroboration.
30. The police had already discovered the fact that the
deceased died and that he was burnt at the instance of accused
No.1. Thereafter, the other accused were arrested. The
recoveries effected or the confession of other accused is of no
consequence in the present case. There is no reliable
circumstance adduced by the prosecution against accused
Nos.2 to 5.
31. In the present facts, the prosecution has failed to prove
the involvement of accused Nos.2 to 5. However, for the reasons
discussed, the involvement of accused No.1 can be believed,
18
and accordingly, the appeal preferred by accused No.1 is
dismissed, while the appeals preferred by accused Nos.2 to 5
are allowed.
32. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No.3032 of 2018 is
dismissed, while Criminal Appeal Nos.2901, 3034 of 2018, and
453 of 2019 are allowed by setting aside the judgment dated
12.10.2018 in S.C.No.42 of 2016, on the file of the Special
Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (PoA) Act – cum – V
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad, as against
the appellants/accused Nos.2 to 5. The appellants/accused
Nos.2 to 5 are acquitted for the said offences and they shall be
set at liberty, if they are not required in any other cases. The
fine amount paid, if any, shall be returned.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________
K.SURENDER, J
_____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 03.04.2025
PNS
19
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.2901, 3032, 3034 of 2018 and 453 of 2019
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
Dated 03.04.2025
PNS
[ad_1]
Source link