Vadde Veerappa, vs The State Of Telangana, on 15 April, 2025

Telangana High Court

Vadde Veerappa, vs The State Of Telangana, on 15 April, 2025

          THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                           AND
          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.721 OF 2018


JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant-accused,

questioning the Judgment dated 22.12.2015 in S.C.No.30 of

2014, passed by the XII Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the

accused was convicted and sentenced for the offences under

Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short

“IPC“).

2. Heard S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellant-accused and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor representing Sri Arun Kumar

Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

respondent-State and perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that PW1, the

wife of the deceased, went to the police station and lodged a

complaint on 03.12.2012, stating that her husband,

K.Srinu, was found dead at the quarry where he was

working. She suspected that some unknown person might
2

have killed him. The said complaint was registered by

PW10, and the investigation was handed over to PW11.

PW11 went to the scene of offence and took the photos of

the dead body. A rough sketch of the scene of offence was

drawn, and inquest was also held. After the inquest

proceedings, the body was sent for postmortem

examination. During the course of the investigation, on

23.12.2012, PW4, who was the Village Revenue Officer, took

the appellant to the police station and surrendered him.

According to PW4, the appellant confessed before him about

causing the death of the deceased on 03.12.2012. PW11

interrogated the appellant in the presence of independent

witnesses. Having recorded the confession, PW11, along

with independent witnesses, went to Jetturu Vagu, situated

at the outskirts of Karankote Village. There, the appellant

retrieved a weapon, which is a hunting sickle, from the

sand. According to them, the hunting sickle (M.O.10) was

used to cause injuries to the deceased. Further, the

appellant confessed that his blood-stained clothes were

thrown into the water after being placed in a plastic cover

along with stones. Since the water was deep, the recovery

could not be effected.

3

4. During the course of the investigation, PW11 further

identified the toddy shop of PW5. According to PW5, a towel

was used by the appellant to sit and consume toddy. The

appellant forgot the towel at the shop, and it was identified

as belonging to the deceased, during the investigation. The

material object that was seized at the instance of the

appellant was sent for FSL examination. Thereafter, a

charge sheet was laid against the appellant.

5. Learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the

circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution, found

that the appellant had committed the murder of the

deceased, and accordingly convicted and sentenced him.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

would submit that though the prosecution alleged that a

knife was used to commit the murder, however, the weapon

actually seized was a sickle. The other evidence is of PW4,

who is the V.R.O. According to the prosecution, the

appellant confessed before PW4, however, V.R.O., in his

cross examination, stated that the appellant was a stranger

to him. The said extra-judicial confession and the seizures

effected cannot form the basis to convict the appellant.
4

7. The Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,

would submit that PW4 is a responsible person, and for the

said reason, the appellant had gone to him and confessed to

the crime. Pursuant to the said confession, there is

corroborating evidence in the form of seizure of the sickle

and also the towel belonging to the deceased. The

irresistible conclusion is that it was the appellant who

committed the murder of the deceased.

8. The appellant was identified as the assailant on the

basis of the alleged confession made to PW4. According to

PW4, on 23.12.2012, the appellant came to the Gram

Panchayat Office at around 2:00 P.M and confessed before

him, stating that he had taken a hand loan of Rs.6,000/-

from the deceased as the said deceased was not paying

wages properly. The appellant’s wife was quarreling with

him for getting lower wages, for the said reason, he

developed a grudge against the deceased and attacked him

with a sickle. On the basis of the said confession, PW4 took

the appellant to the police station and handed him over to

the police.

5

9. In the cross examination, PW4 admitted that he did

not know the accused prior to the confession. The

prosecution has failed to come up with any reasoning as to

why the appellant would go before PW4, who is a stranger,

and confess before him when he was not even a suspect in

the case. It is not as though the police were behind him or

that he was suspected of committing the murder by PW1.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sahadev and

Another v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1 held as under:-

“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.

The Principles

(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.

1

AIR 2012 SCC 2435
6

iii) It should inspire confidence.

(iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater
credibility and evidentiary value, if it supported by a
chain of cogent circumstances and is further
corroborated by other prosecution evidence”.

10. Firstly, PW4 is a stranger to the accused. The

appellant retracted and stated that he had never confessed

to PW4, and that a false case was filed against him. One

fails to understand why and under what circumstances the

appellant would be compelled to go before a stranger and

confess to him about the murder. As seen from the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, extra-judicial

confession is a weak piece of evidence, and it must inspire

confidence in the Court that it was made voluntarily. All the

said aspects are missing in the present case.

11. After the confession of the appellant, the seizure of the

sickle was effected. According to the case of the prosecution,

the clothes of the appellant were kept in a plastic bag and

thrown into the river. If, at all, the clothes were kept in a

plastic bag and thrown into the river, one fails to

understand as to why the sickle was kept separately in the
7

bushes. The said recovery does not inspire confidence in the

present facts of the case.

12. Another connecting evidence is that of PW5. According

to PW5, the appellant went to his toddy shop and placed the

towel on the floor to sit on while consuming toddy. He left

the towel behind, and when PW5 asked him to take the

towel, the appellant replied that he would come back and

take it later, but he did not return. The evidence of PW5 is

absurd. The version is that the appellant left the towel in

the toddy shop, and when he was asked to take the towel,

he went away, stating that he would return after sometime

to take the towel back. The said evidence cannot be

believed.

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of

Navaneethakrishnan Another v. State by Inspector of

Police, 2 held as under:-

“In the present case, there is no witness of the

occurrence and it is only based on circumstantial

evidence. Before moving further, it would be apposite

to refer the law regarding reliability of circumstantial

evidence to acquit or convict an accused. The law

2
(2018) 16 SCC 161
8

regarding circumstantial evidence was aptly dealt with

by this Court in Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P.

wherein this Court has observed as under:-

“10…(1) The circumstances from which an inference of
guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and
firmly established;

(2) those circumstances should be of a definite
tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the
accused;

(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should
form a chain so complete that there is no escape from
the conclusion that within all human probability the
crime was committed by the accused and none else;

and;

(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
conviction must be complete and incapable of
explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the
guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only
be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should
be inconsistent with his innocence”.

14. The extra-judicial confession made to PW4, who is a

stranger to the accused, cannot be believed. The version of

PW5 does not inspire confidence. The seizure of the sickle is

also doubtful. There are no reasons to sustain the

conviction.

9

15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the

Judgment dated 22.12.2015 in SC No.30 of 2014, passed by

the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad,

Ranga Reddy District, and the conviction of the appellant is

hereby set aside. Appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if

he is not required in any other case. The bail bonds, if any,

furnished by him shall stand cancelled. The fine component

remains unaltered.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

_______________________
JUSTICE K.SURENDER

___________________________
JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

Date: 15.04.2025
pss
10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.721 OF 2018

Date: 15.04.2025

pss