Telangana High Court
Doti Mallesh, And 2 Others vs The State Of Telangana on 10 April, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.306 & 315 OF 2020
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. Crl.A.No.306 of 2020 is preferred by the appellants/A-2,
A-3, A-4, and A-6, and Crl.A.No.315 of 2020 is preferred by the
appellants/A-1, A-5, and A-7, questioning their conviction for
the offences under Sections 120-B, 302 r/w.34, 143, 144, 147,
148, and 302 r/w.149, 307, and 307 r/w.149 of IPC, on the file
of Principal Sessions Judge, at Nalgonda.
2. Since both the Appeals arise out of the common judgment
in S.C.No.23 of 2019, both are heard together and disposed of
by way of this common judgment.
3. Heard Sri V.Raghunath, learned senior counsel appearing
for A-2, Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for
A-1, A-5, and A-7, Smt.G.Jaya Reddy, learned counsel
appearing for A-3, A-4, and A-6, and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
4. All the accused Nos. 1 to 7 belonging to two families, were
prosecuted for committing the murders of the two sons (D.1 &
D.2) of P.W.1. A-6, A-7, and P.W.4 are brothers; A-1 and A-5
2
are sons of A-7; A-2, A-3, and A-4 are sons of A-6; D.1 and D.2
are sons of P.W.1. Admittedly, all the accused, deceased, and
the witnesses are closely related.
5. P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased/Dasari
Anjaneyulu (D.1) and Dasari Annamaiah (D.2), went to the
Police station and lodged a telugu written complaint on
22.08.2017 at 9 a.m. In the complaint, P.W.1 narrated that
around 6:30 a.m., both the deceased went to the fields, and
while they were cultivating their land and tried to stop water
from flowing into their fields due to breach of bund, A-1 to A-7,
who were hiding in the bushes near the field, attacked both D.1
and D2 with axes. At the time of attack, P.W.4 was present.
Further, according to the complaint, all the accused had
attacked and hacked both the deceased. Having received the
injuries, both the deceased fell down. P.W.4, who was present
at the scene, shouted at the accused saying not to kill the
deceased. Two of the accused, A-2 and A-4, chased P.W.4.
P.W.4 ran from the scene and went to the house of P.W.1, and
informed him about the incident. From there, all of them went
to the agricultural land, where the dead bodies of both the
deceased were found in a pool of blood. In the complaint, P.W.1
named other villagers, namely Nadyala Surapa Reddy, Prathapa
3
Reddy, Shyam Sundar, and Pentaiah, stating that they had
helped A-1 to A-7 in committing the murders of the deceased.
6. The complaint was received by P.W.14, who was working
as Sub-Inspector of Police. Having received the written
complaint at 9 a.m., he registered the crime and informed the
Investigating Officer, i.e., Circle Inspector/P.W.15. P.W.15 went
to the scene of offence at 10:30 a.m. There, he conducted the
scene of offence panchnama, photographs were taken, and
other incriminating materials were seized from the scene for the
purpose of FSL examination. P.W.15 reconstructed the scene
after arresting A-1 to A-7 on 27.08.2017. Two axes and two
sickles, which are M.Os.1 to 4, were seized at the instance of
the appellants. The bloodstained clothes of the appellants and
the deceased, along with bloodstained earth, were also seized
and sent for FSL examination.
7. Having concluded the investigation, P.W.15 filed a charge
sheet against all the accused.
8. Learned Sessions Judge framed 107 charges against A-1
to A-7 individually for the offences under Sections 302, 307,
and 149 of IPC.
4
9. Learned Sessions Judge, during the course of
investigation, examined witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.15 and also
marked documents Ex.P.1 to P.22. M.O..1 to M.O.22 were also
placed on record by the prosecutor. Accused marked Exs.D.1
and D.2, which are portions of 161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.W.4.
10. On the basis of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge
had convicted all the accused, A-1 to A-7.
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
argued on the following grounds:-
1. The presence of P.W.4 at the scene cannot be
believed, as he is a relative of the deceased, and the
entire version stated by him in the Court is an
omission, as proved through the Investigating
Officer/P.W.15.
2. The incident happened at 6:30 a.m., and the
police were present at the scene at 7:30 a.m. However,
the complaint was received at the Police Station at 9
a.m.
3. P.W.6 stated that the Police were present at the
scene at 7:30 a.m. P.W.4 was also present at that
time. If the eyewitness/P.W.4 had been present at the
scene, the Police would have taken the complaint from
P.W.4, however, no such complaint was taken.
5
4. The seizure of M.Os.1 to 4 (2 axes and 2 sickles)
are also doubtful.
5. According to P.W.13, the Police took A-1 to A-7
into custody, and on the next day, they went to the
land of P.W.1, from where M.Os.1 to 4 were recovered.
6. There is an inordinate delay of 12 hours in the
complaint reaching the Court, which is not explained
by the prosecution.
7. The eyewitness account of P.W.4 does not tally
with the injuries received by the deceased when
compared to the postmortem injuries found on the
deceased and narrated by P.W.12.
8. P.W.12 did not state that the injuries on the
deceased were possible with M.Os.1 to 4.
12. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submits
that the argument of the learned counsel highlight minor
discrepancies, which are bound to occur in cases such as this.
Since the discrepancies does not go to the root of the case, the
same can be overlooked as the evidence of eye-witness/P.W.4 is
believable.
13. As already narrated, the complaint was filed at 9 a.m. by
P.W.1. In the said complaint, he stated that P.W.4 informed
him about the assault of his two sons by A-1 to A-7. When D.1
6
and D.2 went to the fields, all the accused Nos.1 to 7, who were
hiding in the bushes, attacked and injured them
indiscriminately, resulting in their deaths. From there, P.W.4,
who was at the scene, ran to the house of P.W.1 and informed
him about the incident.
14. P.W.4 is the main witness to the incident, and the entire
case rests on his evidence. P.W.4 narrated before the Court
that when he went to his field at 6:30 a.m., he found A-1 and A-
3 in the fields. Abutting his field and field of Yadiah, there is
land belonging to Bantu Ravi (not examined), which was
cultivated by A-3/Kiran as a lessee. According to P.W.4, A-3
breached the bund between Bantu Ravi’s field and Yadaiah’s
field, resulting in water flowing into the fields of P.W.1. Both
the deceased went there and found that water was flowing into
their fields and they tried to close the breach. An altercation
then took place between A-1, A-3, and both the deceased.
P.W.4 tried to pacify them. Initially, A-1 and A-3 attacked the
deceased, and thereafter, the other accused also joined in the
attack.
15. The said version of P.W.4 before the Court is contrary to
what was mentioned in the complaint/Ex.P.1. The version
given by P.W.4 before the Court is a complete omission, and
7
this omission is proved through the Investigating
Officer/P.W.14, who stated as under:-
“It is true that Dothi Yadaiah (P.W.4) did not state
before me that “I had gone to my fields to irrigate
them. At that time Mallesh (accused No.1) and Kiran
(accused No.3) were in their fields. It is true that
Dothi Yadaiah (P.W.4) did not state before me that
“Mallesh and Kiran said why are you closing the
breach we made. Annamaiah and Anjaneyulu replied
that you are letting water from your fields into our
fields and damaging our crops and this not proper.
Mallesh and Kiran were near the place of breach
saying that the breach cannot be closed. Hearing the
argument, I went near that place apprehending that
they all might start physically fighting. At that time
Saidulu carrying an Axe and Bharath carrying a
Munja kodavali were coming from the village towards
the fields. They also reached the place where we all
were standing.” It is true that Dothi Yadaiah (P.W.4)
did not state before me that he had seen the bund
being breached. It is true that Dothi Yadaiah (P.W.4)
did not state before me that “seeing that I shouted at
Annamaiah to run away saying that his brother has
been attacked”. It is true that Dothi Yadaiah (P.W.4)
did not state before me that “I saw Venkatesh,
Pandaraiah and Akkalaiah coming towards the fields
carrying sticks at a distance of about Ac.2-00. Seeing
8me running Pandaraiah said that I am the only
witness and I am running away and I should be
killed”. It is true that Dothi Yadaiah (P.W.4) stated
before me that as in Ex.D.1 and D.2. It is true that
Dothi Yadaiah (P.W.4) did not state before me that he
can identify the weapons used if he sees them.”
16. As seen from the above, P.W.4 came up with a version
that is contrary to what was stated in the complaint/Ex.P.1.
17. The complaint/Ex.P.1, according to P.W.14, was lodged at
9 a.m. P.W.6, who is an independent witness, stated that he
came to know about the incident at 6:15 a.m., and the Police
arrived at the scene at 7:15 a.m. By the time he reached the
scene, the Circle Inspector, police constable, and P.W.4 were
present, and he overheard P.W.4 informing the Circle Inspector
about the incident. P.W.4, during his statement, stated that
the incident happened at 6:30 a.m. and he went to the house of
P.W.1 and informed him. According to him, the Police came to
the scene at 9 or 9:30 a.m., and his statement was recorded at
9:40 or 10 a.m. Neither P.W.14 nor P.W.15/Police Officer
stated about the Police visiting the scene either at 7:30 a.m. or
9 a.m. According to them, they visited the scene for the first
time at 10:30 a.m. The version given by P.W.4 and others
9
regarding the arrival of the Police at the scene of offence is
contradictory to the evidence of police officer.
18. The timing of the lodging of complaint and the complaint
reaching the Court, in the present case, gains significance.
According to P.W.14, the complaint was received at 9 a.m.
During cross examination of P.W.14, the defence counsel
repeatedly asked the very same question regarding the delay in
the FIR reaching the Court. On three occasions, when the
counsel posed questions about the Magistrate Court being only
half-an-hour away, P.W.14 consistently answered that, since it
was a grave case, six copies of the FIR had to be submitted to
different officials, which caused the delay. The questions and
answers during P.W.14’s cross examination are as follows:
“Question: Whether one can reach the court of
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda from
Kangal police station within half an hour?
Ans: As it is a grave case there will be six copies of FIR
to be submitted to different officials and therefore
there was delay.
Question: Whether one can reach the court of judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda from Kangal police
station within half an hour?
10
Ans: As it is a grave case there will be six copies of
FIR to be submitted to different officials and therefore
there was delay.
Question: Whether one can reach the court of judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda from Kangal police
station within half an hour on a vehicle?
Ans: It takes one and half hour to reach the court on a
vehicle. The distance between Nalgonda and Kangal is
18 kms. The road is a State Highway.
Question: I put it to you that it takes only half an hour
to reach the court at Nalgonda from Kangal?
Ans: Not true.”
19. As seen from the answers given by P.W.14, it is not only
evident but also apparent that P.W.14 was trying to cover up
the delay in submitting the complaint to the Court.
20. In Rajeevan and Another vs. State of Kerala 1, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case where there
was a delay of 12 hours in filing the FIR. The delay in placing
the FIR before the Magistrate coupled with the unsatisfactory
explanation given by the police officer, was held to adversely
affect the prosecution’s case.
1
2003 (3) SCC 355
11
21. In Suresh @ Subhash & Ors vs. State of Kerala 2, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the delay in the FIR reaching
the Magistrate was not properly explained by the Investigating
Officer. In Teja Singh and Ors vs. State of Rajasthan 3, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there was a delay in sending
the FIR to the Magistrate. The explanation given was that due
to holidays, the delay occurred. The Court found the
explanation to be neither convincing nor acceptable. In Buta
Singh vs. State of Punjab 4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was
dealing with a case where there was a delay in lodging the
report and the FIR reaching the Junior First Class Magistrate
Court. In Thulia Kali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu 5, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the delay in lodging the report
raises considerable doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence
of the two witnesses, and that it points to an infirmity in their
testimony and renders it unsafe to base a conviction of the
appellant upon such evidence.
22. The prosecution has to give reasons regarding the delay in
submitting the FIR to the Court. In the background of the
versions given by P.W.4 and P.W.6 regarding the presence of
2
2009(15) SCC 121
3
2001(3) SCC 147
4
1991 (2) SCC 612
5
1972 (3) SCC 393
12
the Police at the scene and the recording of their statements,
when viewed vis-a-vis the versions of P.W.14 and P.W.15, the
same is totally contradictory to the version given by P.W.4/eye
witness. It can only be inferred that the complaint was filed
after due deliberations, implicating all the family members. As
already discussed, the manner in which the incident took place
as narrated in the complaint on the basis of P.W.4’s
information, contradicting the version of P.W.4 in the Court, is
a total improvement. The evidence of P.W.4 cannot be believed.
Once the evidence of P.W.4 is doubtful, there is no other
evidence to connect the appellants with the crime. Though
recoveries were made, in the absence of any corroborative
evidence, the recoveries are of no consequence and the same
cannot be made basis to connect the appellants.
23. Though arguments have been advanced regarding the
evidence of eyewitness account of P.W.4 and the injuries found
on the bodies, however, since the presence of P.W.4 is doubtful,
we are not inclined to delve into the variation between the
ocular and medical evidence regarding the injuries.
24. In view of the above discussion, the appellants succeed.
Since the appellants are in jail, they shall be set at liberty
forthwith.
13
25. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
_____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 10.04.2025
dv
14
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.306 & 315 OF 2020
Dt. 10.04.2025
dv
[ad_1]
Source link