Nayakamdu Ramesh v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: K.SURENDER,ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-12-19. Nayakamdu Ramesh v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINEIEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER THE HoNouRABLE sRr ,. flr? ", ANrL KUMAR JUKANTT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 60s oF 2016 Appeal under Section 374 (z) of cr. p. c. against the Judgment dated 19-0s- 20't6 made in S. c. No. 41 of 2o1s on the fire of the court of the Vilr Additional Sessions Judge, at Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. Between: Nayakapodu Ramesh, S/o. Sathyanarayana Aged about 24 years, Occ: Meason H. No. 5-39, Tenuguwada, pachala"Nidrkud" . Rl/o Viiuitll V"fpoJi Ma nd al, N izama bad District. (CT=. fVo. A60S, Disiiict . Ji i f , f. f iza ma UJO'i ... Appellant / Accused AND The State of Telangana, Rep public prosecutor, by its High Court at Hyderabad ... Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 3g9 (1) of cr. p. c.
preying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the order passed in S. c. No. 41 of 2o1s on the file of the vlll Additional sesslons Judge, at Nizamabad and grant bail to the petitioner till the disposal of the above Criminal Appeal No. 605 of 2016. Counsel for the-Appellant Sri Shaik Karimulla Counsel for the Respondent Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following Judgment : I JUSTICE K. SURENDER THE HONOURABLE SRI AND JUSTICE J. ANTL KUMAR HONOURABLE SRI No. 6O5 OF 2016 CRIMINAL APPEAL (per Hon'ble Sri Juslice K. Surender) JUDGMENT: Iiled aggrieved by the judgment dated This appeat is in S. C. No-41 of 2015, on the file of the VIII lg. 05. 2016 Sessions Judge, at Nizamabad, Nizamabad District, Additional offence Section of the appellant for the under 3O2 convicting to life imprisonment for committing murder sentenced Hussain' of P. W.
6 namely Shaik Saheb husband for the appellant and the Heard the learned counsel Prosecutor for respondent-State. Additional Public prosecution that on 29. 05. 2015, The case of the is the shifted lrom Mamidipally village to Pachala Nadukuda and there he unloaded his household articles. The decided to stay in a tin shed. However, on the next morning, his dead body was found. P. W. 7 is the person that on the night of previous day of dead body who stated being along with some others including the found, he deceased arld appellant cards at the poultry farm PlaYed of one Gudala and the appellant lost his money in the game. Thereafter, they left. On the next day, the said Saheb Hussain iI*. F ::(Erlsf-. St&. r*; was found dead in the tin shed, where he arrived on the along with household articles' previous day the Police arrested the course of investigation, 4. During the At his instance' M-Os'1 and 2 which appellant on 15.
06'2014' were seized' after' with hammer/M'O'7 are cell phones along recorded' the appellant was the confession of on the evidence 5 l*arned Sessions Judge placing reliance and M'O'7/hammer of M. Os. 1, 2, Blcell phones of recovery appellant found that mobile in possession of the which were was being used by the appellant phone of the deceased/M'O'1 his in the name of his sim which was taken by inserting mother. M. O. 1 was identifred by P'W'6/wife of the deceased' evidence' The Hon'lcle 6. The case is one of circumstantial Sarda v' State of Court in Sharad Birdhichand Supreme as to the acceptance of laid principles Maharashtrar, to record conviction' and the basis circr-rmstantial evidence which read as under: - from which the " I . the circumstances should be of guitt is to be drawn . ir"rr"io" The circumstances ililr established' not 'may be' 'should' and . lti. ". ". J- *ust' or established; I lrsa+1 + scc tro I &r \ J 2.
the facts so established should be ot consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt the accused, that is to say, they should nol' except be explained on any other hypothesis that the accused is guiltY; 3. the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendencY; 4. they should exclude every possible: hypotheiis except the one to be proved; and 5. there must be a chain of evidence so complet<: as not to leave any reasonable ground for tht: conclusion consistent with the innocence of th<: accused and must show that in aII human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. " 7. Apart from the alleged recovery of cell phone/M'O'1 from the accused aJter his arre st on 15. 06. 2014, no other evidence is placed on record by the prosecution. Though P. W.
7 states that all of them, he along with appellart, accused and some other persons played cards arld left, however, it is not stated by P'W'7 that there was any quarrel or that the appellant stayed back or followed the deceased to his house. There are no witnesses who I t I have seen the appellant near the house of the deceased on the I day before his dead body was found. 8. The case of the appellant is one of denia-l The prosecution has not collected any evidence as to where from the cell phone was purchased by the deceased. In fact, sim card that was used in M. O. l was that of mother of the appeltant. Even assuming that the celt phone of the deceased was in possession of the appellant, the only circumstance cannot form basis to suggest that it was the appellant who had committed murder of the deceased. At most, the case is one of being in possession of theft article. The said possession of theft articre is punishable under Section 41 1 of IpC. 9.
Accordingly, conviction under Section 302 of IpC is hereby set aside while convicting the appellant under Section 4l l of IPC and sentenced to undergo two years of rigorous imprisonment. Since, it is informed that the appellant is in jail, in view of completion of serving two years of imprisonment, he shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. 10. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. sd/- A. v. s,s. c. s. M. RMA JOINT RE ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Vlll Additional Sessions Judge, at Nizamabad, Nizamabad District (with records, if any) 2 The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor, Nizamabad District 3 The Superintendent, District Jail, Nizamabad ( By Speed Post ) 4 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT] 5 One CC to Sri Shaik Karimulla, Advocate [OPUC] 6 Two CD tes VA . ---- :=. =::-:r= HIGH COURT DATED:19t12t2024 tiTA 1 HE 7 t' ( q $ JUDGMENT J ,' o (.
) 2O IEC MH z a ]l CRLA. No. 605 of 2016 IJ r. ,1 -ili,l. rr--a I t PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLA I
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.