Telangana High Court
Kursinga Dharma vs State Of Telangana on 28 July, 2026
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
IN THE HIGH CO FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT: HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.924 OF 2019
DATE:28-07-2026
Between:
Kursinga Dharma & another .. Appellants - Accused Nos.1 & 2
Vs.
The State of Telangana, rep.by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyd. .. Respondent - Complainant
This Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)
Heard Mr. R. Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellants – accused Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. M. Ramachandra Reddy,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
respondent.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated
13.08.2019 in S.C. No.57 of 2015 passed by learned I Additional
Sessions Judge, Adilabad (hereinafter referred to ‘trial Court’).
3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, learned trial Court convicted
the appellants – accused Nos.1 and 2 for the charges under Sections –
2
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019
376-A, 376-D and 302 read with 34 of IPC and sentenced them to
undergo life imprisonment and acquitted accused No.3 of the said
charges.
4. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
i) The deceased – Kendre Ranjana was a widow. On
06.01.2013 at 12:00 hours, she left the house in order to collect
firewood from the fields and when she reached nearby canal. Accused
Nos.1 and 2 saw her loneliness, hatched a plan and accordingly they
followed her up to bushes. Accused Nos.1 and 2 attacked and caught
hold her from her back side and laid on the ground, undressed their
clothes, later they forcibly removed the clothes of woman by stinging
her nipples and committed rape upon her forcibly repeatedly one by
one. Meanwhile, accused No.3 went there and committed rape upon
her forcibly.
ii) Thereafter, the victim woman became conscious, identified
them and warned that she would inform in the village about their
committing rape upon her. Then, accused Nos.1 to 3 frightened and
caused inflicts injuries on her eyes with their hand nails by causing
damage to her eye balls not to identify them. Thereafter, accused
Nos.1 to 3 decided to kill her and took the ropes which were taken by
3
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019
the victim, tied her hands and legs and strangulated to death with
another rope. Earlier, accused No.1, who was having sexual desire on
the deceased, had tried to commit rape upon her. On seeking LW.11,
who was following with the deceased, he escaped from the spot.
Thus, accused Nos.1 to 3 committed the aforesaid offences.
iii) On receipt of Ex.P1 – report from PW.1, son of the
deceased, PW.11 – Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime
No.112 of 2013 under Section – 302 of IPC and took up investigation.
Thereafter, PW.12 took up investigation.
iv) During the course of investigation, PW.12 visited the scene
of offence, drew the panchanama in the presence of mediators and
thereafter took steps for conducting autopsy over the dead body.
PW.10 – the doctor, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the
deceased in the presence of mediators.
v) Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 3 said to have made
confessional statements before PW.13 – another Investigating Officer
in the presence of mediators, and on receipt of FSL report etc., PW.14
– Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad, laid charge sheet
against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
4
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019
5. Since the offences are triable by the Court of Sessions,
learned Magistrate committed the same to the Principal Sessions
Court, which in turn had taken on file as S.C. No.57 of 2015 and made
over the same to learned trial Court, which in turn proceeded with
trial.
6. Thereafter, the trial Court framed the charges for the
offences under Sections – 376-D, 376-A and 302 read with 34 of IPC
against the accused.
7. During trial, PWs.1 to 14 were examined and Exs.P1 to P15
were marked and exhibited MOs.1 to 15. However, no evidence, both
oral and documentary, was let in by the accused.
8. After completion of evidence on behalf of the prosecution,
the accused were examined under Section – 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter,
upon hearing both sides, learned trial Court recorded conviction
against the appellants herein for the aforesaid offences in the manner
stated above and acquitted accused No.3.
9. Challenging the said convictions and sentences of
imprisonment, the appellants herein preferred the present appeal.
5
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019
10. Learned counsel for the appellants – accused contended as
follows:
i. There is no direct evidence in this case, and the entire case rests
on circumstantial evidence. The Prosecution failed to prove the
circumstances connecting the commission of offence by the
accused.
ii. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution did not form
a complete chain and there is breach of chain of events.
iii. Prosecution also failed to establish motive on the part of the
accused in commission of offences.
iv. None of the witnesses deposed with regard to the presence of
the accused at the scene of offence.
v. The prosecution witnesses have made contradictory statements
during the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination,
revealing material inconsistencies that affect the credibility of
their testimonies.
vi. The accused were falsely implicated in the aforesaid crime as
they were unconcerned with the commission of offences.
vii. There is corroboration of ocular evidence with that of medical
evidence.
6
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019viii. No appeal is preferred challenging the impugned judgment
acquitting accused No.3.
ix. There is discrepancy with regard to number of ropes.
x. Only one nylon rope was produced before the Court.
xi. There was rain on that particular day. Therefore, the version of
prosecution that the deceased went to fields to collect firewood
is false.
xii. Prosecution did not examine the owner of the scene of offence
and also Mr. Kale Narayana.
xiii. The alleged recovery is from open place and, therefore, the
same cannot be believed.
xiv. Accused No.2 was not identified by anybody and in the
deposition of PW.4 and PW.6 there is no reference of accused
No.2.
xv. There is discrepancy with regard to arrest of the accused and it
is evident from the deposition of Pw.13. After five (05) days,
they were picked up by the police. SI was present at that time.
xvi. Blood and semen of the accused were not collected as admitted
by PW.13.
7
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019xvii. Recovery of MO.14 and MO.15 Voter ID Card of accused No.1
and Aadhar Card of accused No.2 is doubtful.
xviii. Confession of the accused has no evidentiary value.
xix. PW.8 – panch witness for alleged recovery is Villager of the
deceased. His evidence is not useful to the prosecution.
xx. Full shirt with black lines (MO.6) was not sent for FSL.
xxi. Without considering all the said aspects, the learned trial Court
erred in convicting the accused.
With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel sought to set aside
the convictions and sentences imposed on the appellants.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on
the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
following decisions:
b) Mohammed Sameer Khan v. State rep.by Inspector of
Police2.
e) Krishna Kumar Mailk v. State of Haryana 5.
1
. (2019) 19 SCC 447
2
. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2298
3
. (2025) 8 SCC 545
4
. (2023) 6 SCC 742
5
. (2011) 7 SCC 130
8
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019
12. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
would submit as under:
i) Though there is no direct evidence in this case, still the
prosecution could able to establish the commission of offences
by the accused through circumstantial evidence.
ii) If there are any inconsistencies/contradictions in the evidence of
prosecution witnesses, the same are minor in nature and do not
tilt the case of prosecution.
iii) There is ample evidence to prove the offences against the
accused.
iv) Having considered all the aforesaid aspects, the trial Court
convicted the appellant and, therefore, there is no error in it.
v) The offence committed by the accused is grave and serious in
nature.
With the aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
sought to dismiss the appeal.
13. In the view of above rival submissions, the point that falls
for consideration by this Court is:
Whether the convictions and sentences of imprisonment
recorded by the trial Court for the charges under Sections –
9
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019376-A, 376-D and 302 read with 34 of IPC against the
appellants herein – accused Nos.1 and 2 are sustainable,
both on facts and in law?
14. This is a gruesome and brutal murder, reflecting
exceptional cruelty in its commission. This being a criminal appeal
against a conviction for the charges under Sections – 376-A, 376-D
and 302 read with 34 of IPC, this Court, as the appellate Court, is
duty-bound to undertake an independent reappraisal of the prosecution
evidence and examine the correctness and sustainability of the
findings recorded by the learned trial Court. Therefore, before
embarking upon a reappraisal of the evidence and examining the
findings recorded by the learned trial Court, it would be appropriate to
first consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in a sequential
manner.
15. PW.1 is the son of the deceased. He gave Ex.P1 – report to
the police on 07.10.2013 at about 9.30 A.M. He also identified
accused No.1 at the time of his evidence before the trial Court. He
deposed that his mother used to work as coolie. On 06.10.2013 at
around 12.00 noon, his mother went out to fetch fire-wood and did not
return home. He searched for her along with PW.2, LW.4, LW.5 and
10
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019
others. In the next morning at around 8.00 A.M., they found the dead
body of his mother near the fields of one Kale Narayana which is
situated near the rivulet. The dead body was found with her hands and
legs tied with nylon rope. Her blouse was open and the body was
covered with a saree which was removed from her body. He found
bleeding from her two eyes and on her right toe. It appeared that her
mother was killed after committing rape upon her. The police
examined him and recorded his statement.
i) During cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that he did not
state before the police that he searched for deceased along with PW.2,
LW.4, LW.5 and others and that he could identify accused No.1 and
that his mother was killed after committing rape.
16. PW.2 is a circumstantial witness. He deposed about
searching of the deceased along with PW.1, LW.4 and LW.5. His
testimony is almost on the same lines as the evidence of PW.1 and
does not materially differ from it. He further deposed that he
informed the matter to the villagers and police who came to the spot.
11
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019
i) During cross-examination, PW.2 admitted that he did not
remember whether he stated before the police that PW.1 came along
with him to search his mother.
17. PW.3, Photographer, who took the photographs of the dead
body of the deceased. However, he deposed that on observing the
body it appeared that the deceased was killed after committing rape
upon her and that her hands and legs were tied with a nylon rope and
strangulation with a nylon rope.
18. PW.4 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. She
specifically deposed that the deceased used to attend coolie work
along with PW.5 and LW.9. The deceased informed her that the farm
servant of PW.6 used to look at her while she was going to attend
work. The deceased was a widow by that time. She told the deceased
that she would inform the matter to PW.6, but the deceased died on
the next day. On the day of incident, the deceased went out at 12.00
noon, but she did not return home. On the next day, she came to know
that the deceased found dead near the fields of Kale Narayana and she
went there and saw the dead body. She also observed the hands and
legs of the deceased were tied with a nylon rope and her blouse was
12
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019
open and her saree was removed. Her underwear was also found near
the dead body. Her eyes were also damaged. The police examined her
and her statement was also recorded.
i) No incriminating material was elicited during cross-
examination of PW.4 to discredit her testimony.
19. PW.5 is the neighbor of the deceased. She deposed that she
used to attend coolie work along with the deceased and LW.9 and also
other villagers. Two days prior to the incident, the deceased informed
her that accused No.1 was looking at her while she was going to
attend coolie work by passing through the fields of PW.6. Accused
No.1 was the farm servant of PW.6. The deceased also disclosed that
accused No.1 asked her to sleep with him. On the day of incident, the
deceased went out alone and thereafter she and others went on work,
but the deceased did not return home. In the next morning, she came
to know that the deceased was found dead near the fields of Kale
Narayana. She also went and saw the dead body of the deceased,
found a nylon rope and a strangulation mark around the neck, her
hands and legs were tied with a nylon rope. She further observed the
teeth marks on her breast, her eyes were damaged and her right leg toe
13
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019
was injured. Her petticoat and underwear were found on a bush. Her
blouse was open and her body was covered with her saree. She
further deposed that since the time of missing of the deceased, accused
Nos.1 and 2 were also not found in the fields.
i) During cross-examination, PW.5 admitted that on the day of
missing of the deceased, they did not go for work as it was raining and
so their owner asked them not to come. The deceased did not
complain with the police or to the village elders about accused No.1
looking at her.
20. PW.6 is the Master of accused Nos.1 and 2. However, he
did not support the case of prosecution and, therefore, he was declared
hostile by learned Additional Public Prosecutor and cross-examined
him.
21. PW.7 is the panch witness for the scene of offence. He
deposed that he observed the dead body at the scene of offence and
found that her hands and legs were tied with a rope and a rope was
also found tied to her neck. They also observed one petticoat and one
underwear lying near to the dead body. They found one white colour
bag with green colour design and that was a rice bag provided by the
14
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019
Government and one pink colour old petticoat, one full shirt with
black lines, a piece of saree were present in that bag and one pair of
blue slippers near to the said bag. The police seized the said things in
their presence as in Ex.P5 – seizure panchanama. MO.1 is the blue
colour petticoat, MO.2 is the underwear, MO.3 is white bag with
green design, MO.4 is the pink colour petticoat, MO.5 is the pair of
slippers and MO.6 is one shirt with lines. Ex.P6 is the rough sketch
map.
i) Nothing useful was elicited in the cross-examination of PW.7
to discredit his testimony.
22. PW.8 is the panch witness for inquest. He deposed that he
observed the dead body of the deceased and there were bleeding
injuries on both the legs and both eyes. They also observed that both
the legs, hands and neck of the deceased were tied with ropes and also
bite marks on her chest. Her blouse was opened and her body was
covered with her saree. The police recovered one dark green colour
blouse, one red colour floral printed saree, one Tulasi mala, one Nalla
Pusala chain, Bangle pieces, one nylon rope and silver anklets from
the body of the deceased under cover of panchanama, which is Ex.P7.
MO.7 is the green colour blouse, MO.8 is the red floral printed saree,
15
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019
MO.9 is the Tulasi Mala, MO.10 is the Nalla Pusala chain, MO.11 is
the bangle pieces and MO.12 is the Nylon rope.
i) No incriminating material was elicited in the cross-
examination of PW.8 to discredit her testimony.
23. PW.9 is the panch witness for the confessional statement of
accused, recovery of material objects and seizure of the same. He
deposed that on enquiry by the police in their presence, accused No.1
confessed that he was the farm servant of PW.6 and that he used to
observe the deceased while she was going to attend agriculture work
in the adjacent field by passing through the fields of PW.6. Accused
No.1 further disclosed that he asked accused No.2 to follow him by
stating that he was following the deceased with an intention to commit
sexual assault upon her. Accused No.1 further disclosed that he
caught hold of the deceased from her back by closing her mouth and
accused No.2 pulled her to the ground by holding her legs and then
accused No.1 committed rape upon her and thereafter accused No.2
also committed rape. Accused No.1 also disclosed that he again
committed rape on the deceased and that at that time accused No.3
came there in search of accused No.2 and found accused No.1
16
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019
committed rape on the deceased and then accused No.3 also
committed rape upon the deceased.
i) PW.9 further deposed that when the deceased told accused
Nos.1 to 3 that she would disclose the matter to village elders and to
conduct panchayat, accused No.1 tried to pull out the eyes of the
deceased due to which she started bleeding and accused No.3 advised
that if the deceased was left she would disclose the matter to the
villagers. On that, accused Nos.2 and 3 tied the legs of the deceased
and accused No.1 tied the rope to her neck and killed her. Thereafter
they left the place after throwing the remaining rope into the bushes.
Accused No.1 further confessed that from there, three of them went to
the farm house of PW.6, had bath and due to fear they left to the
house of accused No.3 and after 5 or 6 days, they came back to the
concrete machine on receiving the information from the wife of
accused No.1 that villagers were suspecting them for the death of the
deceased and police were searching for them and were waiting for
lorries to go to Nagpur and at that time the police apprehended them.
ii) PW.9 further deposed that thereafter he enquired accused
Nos.2 and 3 and they also confessed on the same lines of accused
17
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019
No.1. Pursuant to their confessions, they led them to the scene of
offence situated near the fields of Kale Narayana. There accused
No.1 showed them one Nylon rope (MO.13) and thereafter showed
the place where accused No.1 removed his clothes before committing
the offence. On observation of the said place, they found one Voter
Identity Card of accused No.1 with his name which is MO.14. Then,
accused No.2 also showed the place where he removed his clothes
where they found Aadhar of accused No.2, which is MO.15.
iii) Nothing useful was elicited in the cross-examination of
PW.9 to discredit his testimony.
24. PW.10 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead
body of the deceased. He found the following ante mortem injuries
on the dead body:
a. One ligature mark is measuring 37×1 cms. present over the
neck below the level of the thyroid cartilage. Transversely
encircling the neck. On dissection the hyoid and thyroid
are intact.
b. Contusion measuring 3×2 cms. present over the left side fore
head red in colour.
c. Laceration measuring 5×1.5 cms. x muscle deep present over
the right eye brow red in colour.
18
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019d. Abrasion measuring 4×1 cms. present over the back of the
chest red in colour.
e. Lacerated wound measuring 2×1 cms x muscle deep present
over the right big toe red in colour.
f. Teeth bite marks present over the both nipples red in colour.
i) PW.10 further deposed that he preserved the viscera and
vaginal swabs and smear. Basing on RFSL report, he opined that the
cause of death of deceased due to asphyxia as a result of ligature
strangulation. The vaginal swabs and smears which were sent to FSL
contain human semen and spermatozoa detected. The above injury
No.1 is possible by the use of rope or any cloth material. The other
injury Nos.2 to 5 are possible by manual with hands and legs. Injury
No.6 is possible with teeth. All the aforesaid injuries except injury
Nos.1 and 6 are possible when a person is struggling against assault.
Ex.P8 is the post-mortem examination report issued by him. Ex.P9 is
the RFSL report and Ex.P10 is the final opinion issued by him.
ii) He further deposed that he also conducted potency test upon
accused Nos.1 to 3 and on their examination he found nothing to
suggest that the persons examined are incapable of doing sexual
19
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019
intercourse. Exs.P11 to 13 are the potency test reports of accused
Nso.1 to 3 respectively.
iii) During cross-examination, PW.10 admitted that he did not
mention in Ex.P8 – post-mortem examination report that injury No.1
was possible with a rope and injury Nos.2 to 5 were possible with
manual by hands and legs and injury No.6 was possible with teeth,
and all the injuries were possible when a person is struggling against
assault.
25. PW.11 is the Sub-Inspector of Police. He deposed with
regard to receipt of Ex.P1 – report from PW.1 and registration of
Crime No.112 of 2013 for the offence under Section – 302 of IPC
against unknown offenders and issuance of Ex.P14 – FIR.
26. PW.12 is the Investigating Officer. He deposed with
regard to visiting the scene of offence, securing mediators and
drawing panchanama at the scene of offence and rough sketch map,
taking steps for conducting autopsy over the dead body of the
deceased, seizure of material objections available over the dead body
etc.
20
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019
27. PW.13 is second Investigating Officer. He deposed with
regard to apprehending the accused, recording confessions made by
the accused in the presence of mediators and pursuant to their
confessional statements, visiting the scene of offence, recovery of
material objects used in the commission of offence by the accused and
seizure thereof etc.
28. PW.14 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police. He deposed
that after receipt of FSL report and potency certificates of accused
Nos.1 to 3, he laid charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid
offences.
29. During cross-examination, nothing incriminating or
favourable to the defence was elicited from the cross-examination of
PW.11 to PW.14.
30. In view of the aforesaid evidence, it is not in dispute that
the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. It is also not in
dispute that the deceased was a widow and attending coolie works.
PW.1 and PW.4, son and mother-in-law of the deceased, respectively,
deposed that the deceased went out to fetch fire-wood on 06.10.2013
noon and did not return home.
21
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019
31. PW.4 has also specifically deposed with regard to the
motive on the part of accused Nos.1 and 2 in commission of the
aforesaid offences. She specifically deposed that the deceased
informed her that the farm servant of PW.6 used to look at her while
she was going to attend work. On the next day, the deceased died.
The said evidence was corroborated by PW.5, neighbor of the
deceased. She also specifically deposed that two days prior to the
incident, the deceased informed her that accused No.1 was looking at
her while she was going to attend coolie work by passing through the
fields of PW.6. Accused No.1 was the farm servant of PW.6. The
deceased also disclosed her that accused No.1 asked the deceased to
sleep with him. PW.5 further deposed that since the time of missing
of the deceased, accused Nos.1 and 2 were also not found in the fields.
In view of the same, the prosecution could able to establish the motive
on the part of the appellants herein in the commission of aforesaid
offences.
32. Now, coming to the commission of offence, the evidence
of PW.9 is significant as he is a panch for confessional statement of
accused. He specifically deposed that accused No.1 confessed to have
admitted the commission of offence in the manner stated above. The
22
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019
said evidence is substantiated by the medical evidence. PW.1 to P5,
PW.7 and PW.8 have specifically deposed that the dead body was
found with her hands and legs tied with nylon rope. Her blouse was
open and her saree was removed. Her underwear was also found near
the dead body. Her eyes were also damaged. The case of prosecution
is that after committing rape upon her by the accused, she told them
that she would inform the same to the village elders. Then, the
accused caused injuries to her eyes so as to not identify them and
thereafter they tied the legs of the deceased and accused No.1 tied the
rope to her neck and killed her by strangulation. Causing
damage/injuries to the eyes is corroborated by medical evidence
through PW.10, the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead
body of the deceased and Exs.P8 to 10. The details of the injuries
have already mentioned above while discussing the evidence of
PW.10. PW.10 specifically deposed that all the injuries except injury
Nos.1 and 6 are possible when a person is struggling against assault.
Cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of ligature
strangulation. This goes to establish the prosecution case that the
accused are stated to have caused the homicidal death of the deceased
by tying a nylon rope around her neck and strangulating her. PW.5
23
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019
specifically deposed that when she saw the dead body of the deceased,
she found a strangulation mark around her neck. She also observed
the teeth marks on her breast, her eyes were damaged and her right leg
toe was injured. With regard to teeth marks on the breast of the
deceased and injury to leg toe is also supported by the medical
evidence.
33. In view of the same, it is clear that that the appellants
committed rape upon the deceased and thereafter killed her and the
same is also supported by other evidence, such as recovery and
seizure of MOs.12 and 13 – nylon ropes at the scene of offence apart
from MOs.1 to 11 and 14 and 15 pursuant to the confessional
statement made by the appellants herein. Significantly, Exs.P11 and
P12 – potency test reports of accused Nos.1 and 2 also supports the
case of prosecution with regard to committing rape by them upon the
accused. There is no contra evidence put forth by the accused to
contend that PW.5 and PW.9 are interested witnesses to speak against
them and that their evidence is untrustworthy of acceptance.
34. As per the case of prosecution, the incident occurred on
06.10.2013. Ex.P1 – report was given to the police by PW.1 on
07.10.2013. PW.9 deposed that accused No.1 further confessed that
24
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019
after commission of offence, due to fear, they left to the house of
accused No.3 and after 5 or 6 days, they came back to the Concrete
Machine on receiving the information from the wife of accused No.1
that villagers were suspecting them for the death of deceased and
police were searching for them and were waiting for lorries to go to
Nagpur and at that time, the police apprehended them. PW.13, the
Investigating Officer deposed that on 12.10.2013, he arrested the
accused. The date of incident is 06.10.2013 and they were
apprehended by the police after 5 or 6 days is supported by the
evidence of PW.13, who arrested them on 12.10.2013.
35. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the
motive was established by the prosecution through the evidence of
PW.4 and 5 as accused No.1 looked at the deceased and even asked
her to sleep with him. On 06.10.2013 when the deceased went out to
fetch fire wood, accused No.1 caught hold of the deceased from her
back by closing her mouth and accused No.2 pulled her to the ground
by holding her legs and then accused No.1 committed rape upon the
deceased and thereafter accused No.2. When the deceased told them
that she would inform the same to the village elders, they tried to pull
out the eyes of deceased due to which her eyes started bleeding.
25
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019
Thereafter, accused tied the rope to her neck and killed her and left the
place. Causing injuries to the eyes of the deceased is supported by the
medical evidence.
36. With regard to commission of rape by the appellants herein
is further supported by the medical evidence. PW.10, the doctor, who
conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, deposed that
when the vaginal swabs and smears sent to FSL, semen and
spermatozoa were detected. The time of death about two days prior to
post-mortem examination, this was commenced on 08.10.2013 at
12:35 P.M. and concluded by 1.40 P.M. The date of incident was on
06.10.2013. Thus, the prosecution could able to establish the date or
time of incident by the medical evidence. That apart, PW.5 has
specifically deposed that she observed the teeth marks on her breast.
PW.12, the Investigating Officer also deposed that he also found teeth
bite injuries on her breast. The said evidence is also supported by the
medical evidence i.e., PW.10, the doctor deposed that teeth bite marks
were present over the both nipples red in colour. This also shows the
commission of offence by the appellants herein.
26
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019
37. As stated above, the prosecution also proved recovery and
seizure of MOs.1 to 6 in the presence of PW.7 under cover of Ex.P5 –
panchanama, MOs.7 to 12 in the presence of PW.8 under the cover of
Ex.P7 – inquest report and MOs.13 to 15 in the presence of PW.9 and
the evidence of PW.7, 8 and 9 also supported by the evidence of
PW.12 and 13.
38. It is also not in dispute that PW.1 and PW.5 identified
accused No.1 at the time of his evidence in Court. PW.6, PW.7 and
PW.9 also identified accused Nos.1 and 2 at the time of their evidence
in the Court. All of them belong to the same village.
39. In view of the aforesaid evidence let in by the prosecution
witnesses, it is clear that there is no direct evidence in this case to
prove the commission of offences by the appellants – accused herein.
The entire case rests on circumstantial evidence.
40. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 6,
the Apex Court held as under:
“152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by
the High Court we would like to cite a few
decisions on the nature, character and essential6
. (1984) 4 SCC 116
27
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019proof required in a criminal case which rests on
circumstantial evidence alone. The most
fundamental and basic decision of this Court is
Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1952) 2
SCC 71:AIR 1952 SC 343:1952 SCR 1091: 1953
Cri LJ 129]. This case has been uniformly
followed and applied by this Court in a large
number of later decisions up-to-date, for instance,
the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar
Pradesh [(1969) 3 SCC 198:1970 SCC (Cri) 55]
and Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra [(1972) 4
SCC 625: AIR 1972 SC 656]. It may be useful to
extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in
Hanumant case [(1952) 2 SCC 71:AIR 1952 SC
343:1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129]:
“It is well to remember that in cases where the
evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance
be fully established, and all the facts so
established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again,
the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency and they should be such
as to exclude every hypothesis but the one
proposed to be proved. In other words, there
must be a chain of evidence so far complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for a
conclusion consistent with the innocence of
28
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019the accused and it must be such as to show
that within all human probability the act must
have been done by the accused.”
153. A close analysis of this decision would show
that the following conditions must be fulfilled
before a case against an accused can be said to be
fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be
fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated
that the circumstances concerned “must or
should” and not “may be” established. There
is not only a grammatical but a legal
distinction between “may be proved” and
“must be or should be proved” as was held
by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v.
State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC
793:1973 SCC (Cri) 1033:1973 Crl LJ 1783]
where the observations were made: [SCC
para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
“Certainly, it is a primary principle
that the accused must be and not
merely may be guilty before a court
can convict and the mental distance
between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is
long and divides vague conjectures
from sure conclusions.”
29
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019
(2) the facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the
guilt of the accused, that is to say, they
should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible
hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so
complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for the conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and must show that
in all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say
so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case
based on circumstantial evidence.”
The aforesaid principle was also reiterated by the Apex court in catena
of decisions. Therefore, conviction can be recorded basing on
circumstantial evidence provided the circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution form a complete chain.
41. In view of the above, the contentions of learned counsel for
the appellants that the prosecution witnesses have made contradictory
statements during the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination,
30
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019
revealing material inconsistencies that affect the credibility of their
testimonies; that there is no direct evidence and that the entire case
rests on circumstantial evidence and the same was not proved etc., are
unsustainable. In a matter like this, certain omissions and
contradictions which are minor in nature are not fatal to the
prosecution case. The appellant cannot seek acquittal relying on faulty
investigation on certain aspects.
42. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the
appellants committed rape upon the deceased and thereafter caused
injuries to her eyes and killed her by tying a nylon rope around her
neck and strangulating her. Thus, it is a gang rape, constituting a
grave and heinous offence. The nature and manner of the alleged acts
reflect exceptional brutality and underscore the seriousness of the
offences alleged. The same was proved and established by the
prosecution by examining PW.4, 5 and 9 and the same is supported by
medical evidence through PW.10, the doctor and recovery and seizure
of material objects at the scene of offence etc., form a complete and
unbroken chain pointing unmistakably towards the guilt of accused
Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the aforesaid decisions relied on by learned
counsel for the appellants are not helpful to the present case.
31
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.924 of 2019
43. Learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence
on record and rightly convicted the accused for the charges under
Sections – 376-A, 376-D and 302 read with 34 of IPC. There is no
perversity, illegality, or mis-appreciation of evidence warranting
interference by the High Court. Accordingly, the convictions and
sentences imposed by learned trial Court deserve to be confirmed and
the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
44. The present Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed
confirming the convictions and sentences of imprisonment recorded
and imposed against the appellants – accused Nos.1 and 2 vide
judgment dated 13.08.2019 in S.C. No.57 of 2015 passed by learned I
Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending
in this appeal shall stand closed.
____________________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
____________________________
B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
28th July, 2026
Mgr
