Telangana High Court
Namubudri Mohan vs The State Of Telangana on 2 April, 2026
Author: K.Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL.NOS.2425 AND 2704 OF 2018
DATED: 2nd APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL.No.2425 of 2018
Between :
Namubudri Mohan, S/o.Vykunta Rao @
Venkateshwar Rao, aged 23 years,
Occ: Elevation Work, R/o.H.No.5-5-980,
Hindi Nagar, Goshamahal, Hyderabad.
N/o.H.No.6-3-118, Rattkaanna (V),
Itchapuram, Srikakulam District.
... Appellant-Accused No.3
AND
The state of Telangana,
Rep by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.
...Respondent-Complainant
CRIMINAL APPEAL.No.2704 of 2018
Between :
1. Indugamalli Sheshu Kumar @ Sai,
S/o.Late Sreenu, aged about 20 years,
R/o.H.No. 5-5-980, Near Durga Maata Temple,
Goshamahal, Hyderabad.
N/o.Kutukaluru (V), Anaparthy (M),
East Godavari District,
Now under in Prison, Central Prison, Hyderabad.
2. Pondara Ravi, S/o. Hari,
Aged 21 years, Occ: Private Employee,
R/o.H.No.5-5-980, Near Durga Maata Temple,
Goshamahal, Hyderabad.
2/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
N/o.Jadupalli (V), Maliyaputti (M), Srikakulam
District, Now under in Prison, Central Prison,
Hyderabad.
... Appellants-A1 & A2
AND
The State of Telangana rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.
...Respondent-Complainant
COMMON JUDGMENT
1. These Memorandum of Criminal Appeals are filed under
Section 374 (2) of the code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for
short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by A1 to A3 assailing the judgment passed by the
learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in SC.No.389 of
2016, dated 19.01.2018.
2. Criminal Appeal No.2425 of 2018 is filed by A3-Namubudri
Mohan.
3. Criminal Appeal No.2704 of 2018 is filed by A1-Indugamalli
Sheshu Kumar @ Sai and A2-Pondara Ravi.
4. For the sake of convenience, appellants will be herein after
referred to as A1 to A3.
5.1. The case of the prosecution is that A1 to A3 came from other
Districts to Hyderabad and were staying in a room near Durga
3/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
Matha Temple, Hindi Nagar, Goshamahal, in the house of Sandhya
Shivpurkar (PW.7) who is the owner of the building. Abhay Modani
aged about 15 years was using scooter bearing No.TS-7EQ-5695
(Honda Activa Model) for running errands. A1 – I.Sheshu Kumar @
Sai befriended with the boy and he used to work in the house of
Pradeep Kumar Darak (PW.4) to help his old grandfather. A1 to A3
entertained the idea of entering Cine Field and one person has
advised them that atleast Rs.30 Lakhs is required for entering the
Field therefore, A1 to A3 conspired to kidnap Abhay Modani and
collect ransom from his parents because the boy was informing A1
that they are rich people. On 16.03.2016 at about 4.40 P.M. A1 –
I.Sheshu Kumar @ Sai saw Abhay Modani going on his Activa
Scooter at Ghode-ki-khabar and stopped the boy on the pretext of
dropping him at his rented house. The boy accepted and dropped
A1 at his rented house. A2 and A3 were in the room, they confined
the boy and informed him that they kidnapped him to get money
from his parents. As the boy was raising voice, accused plastered
his mouth and nose. Due to suffocation, the boy fell on the floor.
5.2. A1 – I.Sheshu Kumar @ Sai has contacted the family
members of the deceased boy over phone and demanded Rs.10
Crores to release their son. Family members expressed their
inability to arrange such huge amount, then A1- I.Sheshu Kumar
@ Sai demanded Rs.5 Crores. However, since the boy died and the
4/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
accused did not receive the ransom, they packed the dead body of
the deceased in an empty carton box covered with white plastic
material and engaged an auto trolley to go to Secunderabad.
Honda Activa of the deceased was left by A2 near Volga Hotel,
Darusallam area. While taking the carton box containing the dead
body of the deceased, A1 got down and sold the cell phone at a
mobile shop and purchased one China made cell phone from
another shop. Driver of the auto trolley dropped A2 and A3 with
their belongings and carton box containing the dead body of the
deceased at Jagdish Market, Abids, Hyderabad. Accused engaged
passenger auto and brought the carton box containing the dead
body of the deceased near Alpha Hotel, Secunderabad and
abandoned the box thereat, they went to Vijayawada. PW.1-
Rajkumar was asked to come to Secunderabad Railway Station.
5.3. On the complaint made by PW.1-Raj Kumar, missing case is
registered. PW.1 and his family members went to Secunderabad
Railway Station, public has gathered near Alpha Hotel where a
carton box in which the dead body of Abhay was lying. Accused
reached Vijayawada on 17.03.2016 in the early hours, they
boarded another train and reached Berhampur on the same day at
8.00 P.M., after reaching Berhampur they went to Ganesh Market
and sold the cell phone of A1 later they stayed at Anarkali Lodge
for a night and in the morning they left to Rajahmundry. Accused
5/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
Nos.1 to 3 were arrested at Rajahmundry on 20.03.2016. Police
has recovered the chappals of the deceased in the rented room and
also seized the remaining part of the plaster which was used to
silence the boy from the rented house of A1 to A3. At the instance
of A1 cell phones used by him were recovered. CCTV footages were
collected, analysed and report was obtained from the Expert
regarding the identity of the persons in the CCTV footage. On the
death of the deceased boy, FIR was altered to Section 302 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC‘) on 17.03.2016 at 1.30 A.M. After
conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet is filed against the
accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 364-A, 302,
120-B, 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
6. A1 to A3 were furnished with copies of case records in the
Committal Court and thereafter the case was committed to the
Court of Sessions and numbered as SC.No.389 of 2016.
7. The learned trial court has farmed charges against A1 to A3
for the offence under Sections 120-B, 364, 302 of IPC r/w 34 of IPC
and 201 of IPC. As there was a typographical mistake in the second
charge as the letter ‘A’ was missing by the side of Section 364 of
IPC, therefore it was corrected by way of order in Crl.M.P. No.3099
of 2017 dated 27.11.2017.
6/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
8. Prosecution has examined PW’s.1 to 43, got marked Exs.P1
to P52 and MOs.1 to 17. Ex.D1 is marked by the defence.
9. The learned trial Court after analysing the evidence adduced
by the prosecution has convicted the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the
offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC for Life
Imprisonment which shall be till their death and also to pay fine of
Rs. 1000/- each, in default of payment of fine to suffer Simple
Imprisonment for a period of three months each; they were also
sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment which shall be till their
death and also to pay fine of 1000/- each, in default of payment of
fine to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for
the offence under section 364-A r/w 34 of IPC; were are also
sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment for the offence under
Section 120-B of IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and
in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a
period of three months each. They were also sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years each and also to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months each
for the offence under Section 201 of IPC. Learned trial Court has
given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. for the remand period of
A1 to A3 and the sentences imposed against A1 to A3 shall run
7/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
concurrently and it is made clear that A1 to A3 shall not be
released and their imprisonment is till their death.
10. In Criminal Appeal No.2704 of 2018, appellant No.1-A1-
I.Sheshu Kumar @ Sai has filed an application in IA.No.1 of 2024
to determine his age by filing study certificate, birth certificate.
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.05.2024
passed orders stating that “A1 has now raised the claim of
juvenality and the Hon’ble Supreme Court repeatedly holds that
the claim of juvenality can be raised at any stage which is inclusive
of the appellate stage. We are of the considered opinion that it is a
case where this aspect needs to be examined upon. Inquiry be
conducted by Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, on proof of
age of A1 – I.Sheshu Kumar @ Sai and report be submitted within
45 days from the date of receipt of the order and thereafter listed
the matter on 24.07.2024”.The learned Coordinate B ench after
receipt of the enquiry report has passed orders on 19.08.2024
which reads as under :
“Since the appellant No.1 till date has remained in custody
for a period of more than eight years, which is far more than the
maximum sentence, which could have been imposed by the
Juvenile Justice Board and also the judicial precedents referred to
above, we do not find it proper and justifiable at this juncture to
8/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018remand the matter back to the Juvenile Justice Board for deciding
the sentence so far as appellant No.1 is concerned. Accordingly,
Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2024 stands allowed in part to the
extent that the appellant No.1’s conviction stands confirmed.
However, since he was a minor and the maximum sentence which
could be imposed under the Juvenile Justice Act is three years and
further the appellant No.1 having stayed in jail for a period much
more than the maximum sentence that could be awarded, we order
for immediate release of the appellant No.1 from the jail. Let the
authorities take necessary steps in ensuring the release of the
appellant No.1 forthwith without any further delay”.
11. Now the Appeals before us are that of A2-Pondara Ravi, A3-
N.Mohan.
12. Learned counsel for accused No.2 submits that the learned
trial Court erred in placing reliance on the interested and
discrepant testimonies of PW’s.1 to 43. The learned trial Court
should have seen that there is absolutely no motive for the accused
persons to kidnap and kill the deceased. The allegations against A2
is that he kidnapped the boy and demanded Rs.5 Lakhs for which
there are no eyewitnesses. Nobody has seen the instance which is
alleged against A2 and the phone voice, phone number which are
produced by the prosecution is not a proof for the offence against
9/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
the accused No.2. The learned trial Court has passed the judgment
without seeing the legal aspects and also failed to consider the
arguments of the accused No.2 counsel. Prosecution has depended
on the electronic evidence and failed to comply the mandatory
requirements before the trial Court, electronic evidence is not
proved by the prosecution. The sentence is unduly severe and the
judgment passed by the learned trial Court is unsustainable.
Counsel to substantiate his contentions has relied on the decisions
in the cases of (1) Kiran Vs. State of Karnataka 1, (2) Madhusudan
and others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2 (3) Arjun Pandit Rao
Kothkar Vs. Kailash Kushan Rao Gorantyal and others 3 (4) Anwar
P.V. Vs. PK.Basheer and Others 4.
13. Learned counsel for accused No.3 submits that the learned
trial Court erred in placing reliance on highly interested evidence of
PW’s.1 to 43, none of the witnesses narrated about the presence of
A3 except PW.40. The learned Judge tagged A3 though there is no
intention, motive but erroneously convicted him for all the Sections
which are not attracted to him. A3 is no way concerned with the
alleged offence and he was not present at the time of the offence.
Video footages does not disclose the face of A3 but convicted him
on mere assumptions and presumptions. The conviction of the A3
1
2025 INSC 1453
2
Crl.App.No.1509 of 2010 dated 02.05.2024 of the Supreme Court of India
3
AIR 2020 SC 4908
4
2014 11 SCR 398
10/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
is illegal and irregular, far from truth from the case of the
prosecution. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on
the decisions in the cases of (1) Raja Naykar Vs. State of
Chattisgarh 5 (2) Afghan Shah Ali Khan Vs. State of AP 6
(3) Musapuri Krishna Vs. State of AP 7 (4) Diddikadi Srinivas Vs.
State of Telangana Laws 8 (5) Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 9.
14. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the learned trial
Court has appreciated the evidence of the prosecution with that of
the exhibits marked there on coupled with material objects and
arrived at a right conclusion that A2 and A3 have committed the
offence and they were rightly convicted for the offences they are
charged with. No interference is called for and prayed to dismiss
the Appeals.
15. Heard learned counsels for A2 and A3 and learned Public
Prosecutor, perused the record.
16. Now the point for consideration is : Whether the judgment
passed by the learned trial Court convicting A2 and A3 for Life
Imprisonment which shall be till their death suffers from any
5
2024 INSC 56
6
LAWS (APH) 2020 7 29
7
LAWS (TLNG) 2019 3 190
8
LAWS (TLNG) 2019 3 231
9
LAWS (SC) 1995 9 112
11/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
perversity or illegality? If so, does it require interference of this
Court?
17. A2 and A3 have stated in their Section 313 Cr.P.C.
examination that they have taken the premises on lease from PW.7
but they have not vacated the premises. It is an admitted fact that
appellants-A2 and A3 are the tenets of PW.7 along with A1.
POINT:
18. PW.7 is the owner of the house, she let out the premises to
A1 to A3 on a monthly rent of Rs.7,000/- per month by collecting
the Aadhar Card of A1. A1 to A3 vacated the house on 16.03.2016
at about 6.30 P.M. In the cross-examination done by A1 counsel
she stated that A1 to A3 handed over the vacant possession and no
belongings of the accused were left, she found nothing in their
portion when she went and checked.
19. PW.1 – M.Rajkumar lodged Ex.P1 complaint on 16.03.2016
before Inspector of Police PS, Shahinayathgunj, Hyderabad that his
son Abhay aged 15 years is missing. PW.33 has registered a case in
Crime No.99 of 2016 as boy missing and issued Ex.P19-FIR and he
handed over the case file to PW.41-E.Srinivas for further
investigation.
20. PW.1 – M.Raj Kumar evidence is in tune with Ex.P1-
complaint. He further deposed that PW.3-Kavitha received phone
12/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
calls from kidnappers and they demanded Rs.10 Crores and
thereafter Rs.5 Crores to be brought to Secunderabad Railway
Station. He found the dead body of his son Abhay at Alpha Hotel,
Secunderabad in a carton box with hands and legs tied up, nose
and mouth was plastered. In his cross-examination he stated that
Ex.P1 is in his handwriting and his name is not written
underneath the signature, vehicle number is inserted between the
lines of Ex.P1 and MO.9 – Honda Activa bearing No.TS 7 EQ 5695
is not in the name of his family members. PW.1 denied the
suggestion that his son was sick on the day of the incident and
there was a tiffin box in the vehicle, as he did not have breakfast,
fell down suddenly while playing and that one of the accused made
a call to him and the accused never demanded any money. PW.1
also denied the suggestion that he did not go to Secunderabad
Railway Station nor observed his son’s body and deposing false.
21. PW.2-M.Anuradha is the mother of the deceased, her
evidence is in tune with the evidence of PW.1. In her cross-
examination she denied the suggestion that phone bearing No.
8019902265 do not belong to PW.3-Kavitha, they have not received
a call at 10.00 P.M. from the kidnappers demanding Rs.10 Crores.
22. PW.3-Kavitha deposed that on 15.03.2016 at about 10.00
P.M. she received a call from the kidnapper and he demanded
13/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
Rs.10 Crores otherwise the boy will be killed. She informed the
same to PW.1 and handed over her phone to him. There was no
recording facility in her phone. PW.1 inserted her SIM in the mobile
of PW.9-Brij Gopal. In her cross-examination she denied the
suggestion that PW.2 has called Abhay from her phone, the said
fact is not stated by her in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement so also, she
did not state that she handed over her phone to PW.1. PW.3 was
re-examined by the prosecution wherein she stated that deceased
left the house on 16.03.2016 but not on 15.03.2016. PW.3 denied
the suggestion that she do not know the actual date.
23. PW.4-Pradeep Kumar Darak engaged A1 through Kartikeya
Foundation to look after his grand-father Hanumandas Darak. He
identified A1 in CC TV Footage and also in Court Hall. On
17.03.2016 he along with other panch witness identified two
wheeler bearing No.TS 7 5659 at Volga Hotel, Darusalam,
Hyderabad. Ex.P20 is the panchanama, Ex.P21 is the rough
sketch and MO.15 is the Honda Activa. In his cross-examination
he denied the suggestion that CC TV footage shown to him were
morphed, created for the purpose of the case and MO.15 does not
belongs to the deceased or his family members, his signatures were
obtained on Exs.P20 and P21 in the police station, no panch chits
were affixed on MO.15.
14/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
24. PW-5-Amit Kumar Sarada acted as panch for the scene of
observation cum seizure panchanama under Ex.P2, prepared
Ex.P3-Rough sketch, seized MO.1 – Brown colour paper empty
carton box of Samsung Refrigerator, MO.2 – White colour plastic
bag, MO.3 – Wrist watch. In his cross-examination he denied the
suggestion that no panchanama and material objects were seized
before him and that he is giving false evidence at the instance of
PW.1.
25. PW.6-Umesh Kumar Rathi accompanied with PW.1 to the
police station for lodging the report about ‘Boy missing’. PW.1 has
informed him that accused have demanded Rs.10 Crores to release
the boy. He accompanied with police to Alpha Hotel, Secunderabad
and found a carton box which was already opened by the police
and the body of the deceased Abhay was found in it. He noticed a
tape around the nose and mouth tightly covered, the hands were
tied towards backside and the deceased was found wearing a black
T-shirt and Blue jeans. MO.4 is the Black coloured T-shirt, MO.5
is the Blue-colour jeans pant. He identified MOs.1 and 2. In his
cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he has not
accompanied PW.1 to the police station or police parties, has not
observed the dead body of the deceased and giving false evidence.
15/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
26. PW.8 – Lalith Kumar Jain deposed that he is doing business
in the name and style of Pushpa Laminates at Hindinagar,
Goshamahal, Hyderabad and he has installed two CC cameras, one
in front of his shop and the other one inside the shop. On
16.03.2016, police has collected the data in the pen drive. He
observed in CC TV footage that three persons came out of the
building by holding a big carton (MO.1) covered with white plastic
cover (MO.2) along with their luggage bags. Accused who are
present in the Court Hall are the three persons whom he has
observed in the CC TV footage. In his cross-examination he stated
that his shop timings are from 9.30 A.M. to 9.00 P.M., he has not
stated in his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that he can identify
MOs.1 and 2. He denied the suggestion that no CC TV is installed
in his shop.
27. PW.9-Brij Gopal deposed that on 16.03.2016 in the evening
hours PW.1 informed him about the missing of his son Abhay and
lodging of report in the police station. PW.3-Kavitha received a call
from kidnapper and they demanded Rs.10 Crores for release of
Abhay. He changed the SIM card from Kavitha mobile to his
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge (MO.6) and recorded second ransom call
that Rs.5 Crores to be paid. In his cross-examination he denied
the suggestion that SIM card of the old phone of PW3-Kavitha will
not fit in his latest phone, he has not handed over his phone
16/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
(MO.6) to the police and to express his solidarity towards PW.1 he
is giving false evidence.
28. PW.10 – Durga deposed that she is incharge of Karthikeya
Foundation old age home at L.B. Nagar. She employed A1 by
paying Rs.6000/- per month. She has sent A1 to Begum Bazar to
look after the male patient, he worked there for six months and on
the pretext of his sister’s marriage at Rajahmundry he left. A2
joined in the job two days after A1 leaving the job. In her cross-
examination she denied the suggestion that A2 was never engaged
by her.
29. PW.11 – K.Satya Murthy, sales boy in HP petrol pump
observed a carton box covered with white plastic cover and
informed the same to the police over phone. Two constables came
to the scene and opened the carton box. Dead body of a boy aged
about 15 to 16 years with hands tied towards his back, plastered
around his mouth was found in the carton. Deceased was
wearing blue coloured jeans pant and T-shirt. In the cross-
examination he stated that he has not given attendance register to
the police in proof to show that he was on duty. There are CC TV
cameras near Alpha Hotel and Secunderabad Railway Station.
30. PW.12 – A.Madhava Chary deposed that on 16.03.2016 he
received a telephonic message from North Zone Control Room that
17/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
a carton box was left in front of HP petrol pump near Alpha Hotel,
Secunderabad, he contacted PW.13-Ravi Kumar, PC.3500, LW.18-
Satish Kumar, PC.2104 who were on night patrolling duty to check
the carton box, after checking the box they informed him that they
found a dead body of 15 to 16 years boy in a carton box and
thereafter he informed the same to PW.15 N.Prabhakar. In his
cross-examination he stated that there will be an order book in the
police station with regard to their duties and he did not make any
GD entry with regard to the information received by him.
31. PW.13 – Ch.Ravi Kumar deposed that he received
information from PW.12 about carton box lying in front of HP
petrol pump near Alpha Hotel, Secunderabad, he went there and
opened the box, found a dead body of 15 years old boy with his
hands tied up back and his mouth plastered. He identified MOs.1
and 2. In his cross-examination he stated that it is not recorded in
his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement about identifying MOs.1 and 2.
He denied the suggestion that he has not gone to HP petrol pump
nor observed the dead body in the carton box.
32. PW.14 – T.Murali, Crime Scene Officer in Clues Team. He
photographed the scene and handed over the photos to
Investigating Officer.
18/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
33. PW.15 – N.Prabakar Rao, ASI of PS Market deposed that on
16.03.2016 he was on night patrolling duty. At about 11.00
P.M.PW .12 has informed him on VHF set that he received a
message about a box lying in front of HP petrol bunk near Alpha
Hotel Secunderabad. He went to the scene of offence and found a
carton box covered with a plastic bag and opened the same found
the dead body of a boy aged about 15 years with hands tied
towards backside and his mouth plastered. In his cross he stated
that he has not conducted any proceedings at the scene and was
there for one hour. He denied the suggestion that he has not
visited the scene.
34. PW.16 – G.Vaishnavi deposed that on one day at about 11.00
A.M. A1 came to the house of PW.1 and enquired about Abhay at
the gate, she informed him that Abhay went to the Hospital and A1
left the place. She observed A1 talking over phone near Colony
Gate after eight days. In her cross-examination she stated that she
came to know about the kidnap of Abhay on the night of
16.03.2016, she has not informed the family members of Abhay or
her mother about the enquiry made by A1.
35. PW.17 – A.Narender Babu acted as Inquest panch for seizure
of the clothes under Ex.P4. MO.4 – T.Shirt; MO.5 – Jeans pant;
MO.7 – Black colour under wear; MO.8 – two blood stained paper
19/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
pieces. In his cross he stated that his signatures were obtained on
the left side of the page of Ex.P4 and at the bottom of page Nos.5
and 6. It is mentioned in Ex.P4 as the colour of the jeans pant of
the deceased as black but not blue. The descriptive particulars of
the box were not noted in Ex.P4. He denied the suggestion that no
panchanama was conducted before him and he did not visit
Gandhi Hospital on 17.03.2016 and giving false evidence at the
instance of police.
36. PW.18 – Mohammad Tariq Siddiqui deposed that he went to
Volga Hotel at Darusalam with his friends, a person in blue colour
Activa was obstructing his vehicle and he asked him to remove the
same while talking over the phone. He went into the Hotel and
came back, saw the keys left to the vehicle, he removed the vehicle
and put it aside and took his vehicle and left the place. A2 present
in the Court hall is the said person whom he found with a Blue
colour Activa vehicle. He has identified A2 in the Jail, he admitted
his signature on the TI parade proceedings. In his cross-
examination he denied the suggestion that police had shown the
photo of A2 prior to conducting TI parade and that he is tutored by
the police, also denied the suggestion that he has not given any
descriptive particulars of A2 to the police in his statement. Witness
adds that he stated before the police that the person was having a
Nepali features. In his re-examination by the learned Public
20/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
Prosecutor he has identified Honda Activa vehicle (MO.9). In his
further cross-examination, he stated that he can remember the
number of the vehicle as he has seen the CC TV footage several
times.
37. PW.19 – Shabbir Khan @ Chaos is the driver of the Tata Ace
vehicle and he deposed that A1 to A3 have transported carton box
and bag (MOs.1 and 2) in his vehicle and he has also identified
them in the T.I. Parade. In his cross-examination, he denied the
suggestion that police has shown him the photos of A1 to A3 prior
to identification of TI parade proceedings and also denied the
suggestion that he is not the driver of Tata Ace goods vehicle
bearing No.AP 13 Y 0844 and that the accused never engaged his
vehicle and he has not carried carton box or any other luggage and
he has identified MOs.1 and 2 at the instance of police.
38. PW.20 – Hayath Ali Khan is the owner of Tata Ace vehicle
bearing No.AP 13 Y 0844 and he speaks about engaging PW.19 as
the driver of the vehicle. In his cross-examination, he stated that
he has not handed over any documents in proof of his ownership of
Tata Ace vehicle and he do not possess any license to run the
transport business. He denied the suggestion that PW.19 is not
working under him and he is giving false evidence at the instance
of police.
21/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
39. PW-21 – Mohammed Farhan Omar runs a plastic shop under
the name and style of “Supreme Plastics” at Begumbazar,
Hyderabad. On 15.03.2016 at about 6.00 or 7.00 P.M. A3 came to
his shop and purchased one roll of brown plaster tape, he
identified A3 in the T.I. Parade and also in the Court. In his cross
examination he denied the suggestion that police has shown the
photo of A3 thereby he identified him in the jail, A3 never came to
his shop and purchased any tape and he is giving false evidence at
the instance of police and also identified A3 before the Court today
at the instance of police.
40. PW.22 – Mohd. Farooquddin deposed that he is having a
mobile shop in the name of SM Mobiles at Jagadish Market, Abids,
Hyderabad. On 16.03.2016 at about 6.30 P.M., he sold second
hand cell phone (Mo.10) to A1. He identified A1 in Test
Identification Parade. In his cross-examination, he denied the
suggestion that he identified A1 at the instance of police and police
has accompanied him to the Chanchalguda Jail, he has not sold
MO.10 to A1.
41. PW.23 – Shiva Parvathi is working as a cleaner on contract
basis in Railway Department at Vijayawada. On 17.03.2016 at
about 11.50 A.M., while she was cleaning the Railway Track, found
22/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
a cell phone of ‘FUJE ZONE’ with its battery and SIM (MO.10). She
called her supervisor K.Krishnam Raju-PW.25 and his Brother-in-
law V.Ravi Kumar-PW.24. After ten days police came from
Hyderabad and seized MO.10 from her. In her cross she denied
the suggestion that she has not called PWs.24 and 25 and she
identified MO.10 at the instance of police.
42. PW.24 – V.Ravikumar deposed that PW.23 has called him
over phone on 17.03.2016 and informed that she found the phone
on the Railway track between Yarrakatta and Singinaru bridge.
In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that PW.23 has
not called him and did not inform about the finding of the phone at
railway track and he is giving false evidence.
43. PW.25 – K.Krishnam Raju, Supervisor of PW.23 deposed that
on 17.03.2016, PW.23 has called him and informed that she found
a cell phone while cleaning the railway track. After ten days, police
came from Hyderabad and enquired him about the cell phone.
In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that PW.23 has
not called him and informed him about the phone at railway track.
44. PW.26 – Surju Behra deposed that he has a mobile shop in
the name and style of ‘Mohini mobile point’ at Ganesh Market,
Berhampura, Orissa. On 18.03.2016, A1 and A2 came to his shop
and offered to sell ‘Samsung Grand Quatro phone (MO.11)’. A2
23/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
has given the photocopy of his ID proof (Ex.P5) and he purchased
the same for Rs.2,200/-, after a week he sold the same for
Rs.2,500/-. After ten days, police from Hyderabad came along with
A1 to A3 and enquired him about purchasing the cell phone.
In his cross-examination he stated that there is no seal of his shop
or signature and date on Ex.P5. He denied the suggestion that he
do not have mobile shop and he is giving false evidence that he has
purchased a mobile phone from A1 and A2 for Rs.2,200/- in turn
sold it to customer for Rs.2,500/-.
45. PW.27 – Asish Kumar Padhy is the Manager in Anarkali
Hotel at Ramalingam Tank Road, Berhampur, Orissa. On
18.03.2016 at about 7.30 P.M. to 8.00 P.M., A1 and A2 came to
their Hotel and asked for a room. He has taken the Aadhar card of
A2, entered the details in the Hotel register and gave them a room
on rent of Rs.800/- per day and they vacated on 19.03.2016
evening. On 30.03.2016, police from Hyderabad came and
enquired about A1 and A2. In his cross-examination he denied the
suggestion that he has not stated before the police that he can
identify A1 and A2 and also denied the suggestion that he
identified A1 and A2 at the instance of the police.
46. PW.28 – B.Laxman deposed that on 26.03.2016, he
purchased MO.11 – Mobile phone from the shop of PW.26 for
24/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
Rs.2,500/- or Rs.3,000/-. Police has seized MO.11 from his
possession. In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that
he has not purchased any phone nor police has seized MO.11 from
him.
Panch for confession of A1 to A3 and seizure:
47. PW.29 – K.Sravan Kumar deposed that on 20.03.2016 at
about 11.00 A.M., Shah Inayat Gunj police have called him and
N.V.Partha Sarathi-LW.27. Inspector asked them to act as
witnesses for confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 to A3.
Accused stated the manner in which they have committed the
offence, prepared Ex.P6- scene of offence panchanama at Hindi
Nagar and seized MO.12 -spectacles of Abhay at the instance of
A1. A1 has led them to Begum Bazar and Jagdish market,
Hyderabad, there they prepared Exs.P7 and P8 – scene of
observation panchanama at Begum Bazar, Jagdish Market. A1 to
A3 led them to Secunderabad Railway Station there they prepared
Ex.P9 – scene of observation panchanama. A2 has confessed the
offence, Ex.P10 is the admissible portion of the confession
panchanama of A2. A3 has also confessed that he has committed
the offence. Ex.P11 is the admissible portion of the confession
panchanama of A3. A2 has led them to their rented house at
Gosha Mahal, Hyderabad, there they seized MO.13 – Brown Tape
under Ex.P22 – Seizure report; MO.14 – pair of Black chappals
25/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
with green stripes under Ex.P23 -Seizure report. A1 to A3 led
them to Vijayawada, Police conducted panchanama under Ex.P24
and seized MO.10 -cell phone with SIM and battery. Ex.P25 –
Rough sketch of the scene of offence dated 29.03.2016. In his
cross-examination he stated that he has not received any written
requisition from the police to act as panch witness. MO.10 was not
having any panch chits and was in loose condition and it is intact
at present. He denied the suggestion that no panchanama is
prepared in their presence and no material objects are seized.
MOs.12 to 14 are not having any panch chits or were in sealed
condition.
48. PW.30 – Dr.Ch.Laxman Rao deposed that on 17.03.2016, he
received a requisition from SHO of PS Shah Inayat Gunj to conduct
autopsy over the dead body of Abhay Modani, aged 15 years.
On external examination, bluish discoloration of nails present,
circum oral pallor (pale) seen, eyes congested, peteeheal
hemmorages seen over upper half of face, Cyanosis seen on upper
half of face and he found the following antemortem injuries:
1. Contusion surrounding lower part of nose seen.
2. Multiple small lacerations varying in size present
over inner side of both lips.
3. Contusion 5 x 3 cms seen over right waist.
4. Diffused contusion seen over occipital area of scalp.
26/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
Hemotoma 5 x 3 cms seen over mid occipital area.
Minute hemoragic spot seen over layers of scalp.
5. Contusion over lower lip seen.
6. On opening of chest contusion 4 x 3 cms, 3 x 2 cms,
seen over medial side of middle of left side of chest.
7. Multiple small clots seen in base of tongue.
8. Blood stained frothy fluid seen in trachea.
The cause of death to the best of his knowledge and belief
was due to smothering and the approximate time of death is about
12 to 24 hours prior to postmortem examination. Ex.P12 is the
PME report issued by him. A1 to A3 reported no cross.
Test Identification Parade :
49. PW.31 – Y.Govinda Reddy, XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate has conducted T.I. Parade by following the procedure on
23.04.2016 and 10.06.2016 in which PW.18, PW.19, PW.21, PW.22
and Mohd. Khaja Pasha participated and identified the accused.
Exs.13 and 15 are the requisitions. Exs.P14 and P16 are T.I.
Parade proceedings dated 23.04.2016 and 10.06.2016. In his
cross-examination, he stated that suspects and non-suspects are
wearing pants and shirts of different colours. Second TI parade
proceedings were conducted beneath the tree in the jail premises
but not in the video linkage room. He denied the suggestion that he
has not followed the procedure for conducting the TI parade and
27/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
also denied the suggestion that the witnesses have identified A1 to
A3 at the instance of police.
50. PW.32 – S.Deepak Kumar, Nodal Officer of Bharati Airtel has
furnished the call detail reports of mobile No.9849030527 from
15.03.2016 to 17.03.2016. Ex.P17 is the covering letter with call
details (20 Pages) and Ex.P8 is the certified copy of customer
application form in the name of ZEN Enterprises. A1 to A3
reported no cross examination.
51. PW.34 – R.Srinivas is working as Alternate Nodal Officer in
Tata Tele Services. He has provided the call data record and
customer application form of mobile Nos.8019902265,
7842276480, 7416859752 on 15.06.2016 along with covering
letter (Ex.P26) and certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence
Act (Ex.P27). The mobile No.8019902265 belongs to Sanju Modani.
Ex.P28 is the customer application form with I.D Ex.P31 is the call
data record. Mobile No.7842276480 belongs to Jitender Bhoyar.
Ex.P29 is the customer application form with I.D. Ex.P32 is the call
data record. Mobile No.7416859752 belongs to Srinivas Kallepu.
Ex.P30 is the customer application form with I.D. Ex.P33 is the call
data record. In his cross-examination he stated that Ex.P29 and
P30 are having the stamp and seal of the distributor and retailer
with date of sale.
28/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
52. PW.35 – C.Ramudu, S.I. of Police, Shahinayathgunj deposed
that on the intervening night of 19.03.2016, 20.03.2016 he along
with other P.C’s have arrested A1 to A3 at Rajahmundry Bus
stand. In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that they
have not gone to Rajahmundry on 19.03.2016 and did not
apprehend the accused and deposing false.
53.1. PW.36 – A.Srikanth Reddy spoke about installing CCTV
cameras in the limits of Shahinayathgunj police station, he has
retrieved the CCTV footage, converted them into 14 CD’s (MO.16)
and issued Section 65-B certificate (Exs.P34-P44). The above said
exhibits were marked subject to objection by the defence counsel
that the witness is not competent or lawful custodian of the
computer from which the CDs were extracted.
53.2. In the cross-examination he stated that configuration and
name of the maker of the computer was not mentioned in Exs.P33
to P44. The process of extracting the footages, converting and
making into CD with the help of computer and software is not
mentioned in Exs.P34 to P44. The date, time and duration of his
visit and stay for collection of the computer files from PS Begam
Bazar, PS Abids and Razzaqpura Welfare Colony is not mentioned
in Exs.P34 to P44. The lawful custodian of the computers at the
concerned police station would be the Station House Officer of the
29/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
police station. No proceedings were conducted at the time of
collection and preparation of the CDs, the CDs were not sealed and
packed with the seal of the company. He denied the suggestion
that he did not hand over the CDs and the certificates to the police
on 12.04.2016. He has not obtained any permission from the
Managing Director of their company for issuing certificates marked
under Exs.P34 to P44. He denied the suggestion that he is not
competent to issue certificates under Exs.P33 to P44 and he has
no knowledge in computers, giving false evidence at the instance of
police and that he has not collected any CCTV footages and
converted them into CDs.
54. PW.37 Jitesh Gandhi, Proprietor of Suraksha Surveillance
solutions at Begam Bazar, Hyderabad deposed about installation of
CCTV at Pushpa Laminates, retrieving the CCTV footage into DVD
(MO.17) in the month of March, 2016 and issued Section 65-B
certificate under Ex.P45. MOs.17 and Ex.P45 are marked subject
to objection by the accused counsel on the ground that witness is
not competent or lawful custodian of the computer from which the
CD was extracted. In his cross-examination he stated that no
stamp or seal of his company was affixed on Ex.P45 and he signed
in the capacity of the Proprietor of the company. CD is different
from DVD and it is mentioned in Ex.P45 that the information was
given in the shape of a CD but not DVD and the configuration and
30/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
the name of the maker of the computer was not mentioned in
Ex.P45, also the date, time, duration of his visit and stay for
collecting the computer files from Pushpa Laminates is also not
mentioned therein so also the time taken for extracting the footage
and converting the same are missing. Company name of the DVD
is not mentioned in Ex.P45. No requisition is given by the police to
him and the lawful custodian of the computer at Pushpa
Laminates would be the owner of the said company. No
proceedings were conducted at the time of collection of the
preparation of DVD and Ex.P45 does not bear any date of its issue.
He denied the suggestion that he is not competent to issue Ex.P45
certificates and he has no knowledge in the computers, giving false
evidence at the instance of police nor he has collected any CCTV
footage nor converted them into DVD.
55. PW.38 – B.Santosh Kumar, Nodal Officer in Idea Cellular
Limited, Hyderabad has furnished identity proof, customer
application and call details (Ex.P46) of mobile No.9912633485 of
Anuradha Modani from 14.03.2016 to 16.03.2016. A1 to A3
counsel reported no cross- examination.
56. PW.39 – Mohd. Khaja Pasha, Owner of Choice Mobiles,
Jagadish Market, Abids, Hyderabad deposed that he has
purchased Cellcon Mobile of A1 on 16.03.2017 between 6.00 P.M.
31/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
to 7.00 P.M. (year should be 2016, it is wrongly typed as 2017). He
identified A1 in T.I. Parade. In the cross-examination he denied
the suggestion that choice mobile shop do not belong to him and
police has shown the photo of A1 before conducting T.I. Parade,
thereby he identified him in the jail.
57.1. PW.40 – D.Venkateswarlu, Assistant Director, TS FSL,
Hyderabad deposed that on 11.05.2016, he received three sealed
card board boxes from Shah Inayath Gunj P.S. The sealed card
board box labeled on it as crime No.99 of 2016, Shah Inayath Gunj
PS contained 14 CDRs of Sony make each of capacity 700 MB.
DVD-R of Frontech make of capacity 4.7 GB marked by IO as S15
said to be contained questioned video footages marked by him as
item No.1. A sealed card board box contained a black colour T-shirt
bearing blue, yellow and pale green colour design on front side
marked by him as item No.2A. A black colour trouser and
underwear marked by him as item No.2B (item Nos.2A & 2B were
marked by IO as S16). A sealed card board box contained six paper
covers marked on them as S17 to S22, four colour photographs of
Honda Activa bearing No.TS 07 EQ 5695 he marked them as item
No.3. Three colour photographs said to be the photographs of the
deceased Abhay marked by him as item No.4. Six colour
photographs of Tata Ace Goods carrier vehicle bearing No.AP 13Y
0844 marked by him as item No.5. Four colour photographs said to
32/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
be the photographs of A1- Sheshu Kumar marked by him as item
No.6. Four colour photographs said to be the photographs of A2-
Ravi marked by him as item No.7. Four colour photographs of A3-
Mohan marked by him as item No.8.
57.2. He has examined the CC video footages present in item No.1
by using AMPED five software and furnished the list of video
footages in Annexure-1. He has observed all the CCTC footages and
compared the persons, vehicles and clothes worn by them with the
photographs and clothes marked as item Nos.2A, 2B, 3 to 8 and all
the observations are furnished in Annexure-2. Based on the
examinations and observations, he is of the opinion that :
1. All the CC footages (CD’s/DVD) marked S1 to S15 of
item 1 are continuous without editing.
2. The colour and model of Honda Activa observed in
questioned recording of item 1 are similar to those of the
vehicle in the photographs item 3. Registration number
found on the above questioned vehicle is ‘TS 07 EQ 5695’
and is same to the vehicle registration number present in
the specimen photographs item 3. (refer serial no.2, 8, 9
and 16 in Annexure -2)
3. Colour and design of T shirt item 2A is similar to those
of the T shirt worn by the person on pillion of the blue
colour Honda Activa (refer Sl.Nos.1 and 15 in Annexure –
2).
4. The visible facial features of the person on the pillion
of the Honda Activa vehicle are similar to those of the
person in the specimen photographs item 4 (refer serial
No.1, 6 and 15 in Annexure -2).
33/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
5. The colour and model of goods carrier vehicle observed
in questioned recording of item 1 are similar to those of
the vehicle in the photographs item 5. Registration
number found on the above questioned vehicle’ AP 13 Y
0844′ and is same to the vehicle registration number
present in the specimen photographs item 5 (refer serial
no.14 in Annexure 2).
6. The visible facial features of the rider (suspected to be
A1) of the Honda Activa vehicle are similar to those of the
person in the speciman photographs item 6 (refer serial
No.1, 6 and 15 in Annexure – 2).
7. The visible facial features of the rider (suspected to be
A2) of the Honda Activa vehicle are similar to those of the
person in the speciman photographs item 7 (refer serial
No.3, 9, 16, 17 and 18 in Annexure-2).
8. No sufficient facial features of the person suspected to
be A3 are visible in CC footages present in item 1 to
compare with the person in the specimen photographs
item 8.
9. All the relevant photographs are furnished in
Annexure-3.
57.3. On 24.05.2016 he received a sealed paper cover through
T.Kiran Kumar PC.8284 of Shah Inayat Gunj PS under the seal
intact which tallied with the sample seal in crime No.99 of 2016 of
PS Shah Inayat Gunj. A Samsung mobile phone bearing IMEI No.
359030/06/036790/5, S/N:RF8G31FTBBM, Model: (SAMSUNG)
56 edge G925I, made in : YATELEY, U.K. without SIM and memory
card marked by him as item 1. As per the Court order, he recorded
the specimen voice of A1- I Seshu Kumar on 25.05.2016 and
captured into CSL-4500 system. Specimen voice of the
complainant M.Raj Kumar is recorded by the Scientific Officer on
34/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
31.05.2016 and captured into CSL-4500. He has examined the
mobile phone item No.1 by using UFED touch ultimate
hardware/software and found a question ED voice call recording by
file name ‘call_23-11-34_IN_ + 917416859752. AMR’ in the file
path ‘/Phone/CallRecordings/2016-03-16/call_23-11-34_IN_ +
917416859752.AMR’. He has extracted the questioned audio call
recording and captured into Computerised Speech Lab (CSL 4500)
and also with ACU – Expert Software System for examination. The
questioned recording is 2 minutes 32 seconds which is continuous
without editing. He has segregated the questioned voice of the
suspect and the complainant separately marked them as QA1 and
QC respectively. He has examined and compared the segregated
questioned voice marked QA1 with the specimen voice of A1 and
the questioned voice of the complainant with the specimen voice
marked QC by conducting auditory and spectrographic
examination and his observations are as under:
1. The questioned recording by file name ‘call_23_11-
34_IN_+917416859752.AMR’ present in item 1 is
continuous without editing.
2. The segregated questioned voice of the
suspect/accused marked QA1 (extracted from call
recording present in item 1) and the Specimen voice
recording of A1 (I.Seshukumar, S/o.Srinu) are of the
same person.
3. The segregated questioned recording of the
complainant marked QC (extracted from the questioned
recording present in item 1) and the Specimen voice
35/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
recording of the complainant (M.Raj Kumar, S/o. Bankat
lal) are of the same person.
Ex.P-47 is the opinion dt.15-06-2016 (Eng/35/2016).
Ex.P-48 is the opinion dt. 17-08-2016 (Eng/33/2016).
MO.16 are the 14 CD’s examined by him.
MO.17 is the DVD examined by him.
Ex.P-49 are the photographs cographs marked as S17
to S22 sent to him by the IO.
MOs.4 and 5 are the clothes of the deceased sent to
him by the IO.
MO.6 is the Samsung cell phone examined by him, it
bears his signature on the phone as well as on the
panch chit.
57.4. In his cross-examination he stated that there is no
explanation for the delay in sending the material objects by the IO
and there was a battery in MO.6 cell phone, it was 9% as on today
(31.05.2017) and it was 11 months since the date of his
examination, his report does not disclose the percentage of the
battery charged. The charge of the battery is sufficient as on the
date of his examination, he cannot say that the stand by period for
MO.6 is only for eight days. Witness adds that it varies by the
model and company and if it was switched off the battery may
remain even after several months. He has switched off the battery
after conducting the examination. His report does not disclose
about switching off the battery but it was the usual practice
36/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
followed. MO.6 is a smart phone having facilities of the computer
and it was switched on at the time of his evidence before the Court.
Witness adds that it might be switched on accidentally while
handling the MO at the time of recording the evidence. The battery
would have been exhausted if MO.6 was kept on for a longer time.
Cardboard boxes were sealed but the material objects present
inside them were kept in closed covers which were not sealed. No
Magistrate was present at the time of recording the voice of A1 at
FSL. The specimen voice recording of A1 was not sent to the Court
as it is not the usual practice, he denied the suggestion that
MOs.16 and 17 are morphed and created with that of Ex.P49 and
also denied the suggestion that the questioned voice recording in
MO.6 does not belong to the accused No.1 and he gave a false
report under Ex.P48 and that he is giving false evidence at the
instance of police, he is not competent to conduct the examination
of voice recording and the series.
Evidence of Investigating Officers :
58. PW.41 – E.Srinivas, S.I. of Police received the case file from
PW.33 and recorded the statement of PW.1 and after knowing the
murder of Abhay altered the Section of Law from ‘boy missing’ to
Sections 363 and 302 of IPC under Ex.P50, visited Chhatarpur
Mandal, Ganjam District, Orissa state recorded the statement of
PW.28 – B.Laxman and seized MO.11 – Samsung phone. In his
37/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
cross-examination he stated that they have not taken the passport
and permission in writing from the Commissioner to visit other
states for conducting investigation. Witness adds that the
Commissioner gave permission and passport to visit Orissa. He
denied the suggestion that he has not recorded the statement of
PW.28 and MO.11 is a planted object.
59.1. PW.42 – Ramakrishna, Inspector of Police took up the
investigation from PW.41 on 17.03.2016, examined PWs.1 to 4, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 – 16, 19, 21, 22, 23 – 25, 26, 27, 39.
• Secured PW.5 and conducted scene of offence cum seizure
panchanama under Ex.P2 and seized MO.1 – carton box;
MO.2 – polythene bag; MO.3 – wrist watch, prepared rough
sketch under Ex.P4.
• Secured PW.17 and conducted inquest panchanama over the
deceased and seized MO.7-Black colour under wear; MO.8 –
Two blood stained paper pieces.
• conducted scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P20,
prepared rough sketch under Ex.P21 and seized Hero Honda
Activa under MO.15.
• PW.35 and LWs.51 – 54 arrested A1 to A3 at Rajahmundry
bus station at 2.00 A.M. on 20.03.2016.
• Secured PW.29 recorded confession of A1 to A3, conducted
scene of offence cum seizure panchanama under Ex.P6 and
38/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
seized MO.12 – Spectacles of deceased in the presence of
PW.29, prepared scene of offence panchanama at all places
separately under Exs.P7 to P9. Visited Hindi Nagar,
Ghoshamahal and seized MO.13 – Brown tape; MO.14 – Pair
of chappal under Exs.P22 and P23 – seizure report, went to
Vijayawada i.e., Railway track over Budamaneru, prepared
scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P24, rough sketch
under Ex.P25. PW.23 handed over MO.10.
• Altered section of law under Ex.P51.
• PW.9 handed over MO.6.
• Collected DVR from the shop of PW.8 with the help of PW.37.
• On 27.03.2016 took the custody of A1 to A3 as per the Court
orders.
• PWs.36 and 37 collected CCTV footages.
• He was transferred and handed over the file to PW.43.
59.2. In his cross examination he stated that MOs.1 to 3 are in
loose condition at present and the box was folded as such it was
mentioned as pieces in the FSL report dated 07.06.2016 and he
has not conducted investigation about the ownership of MO.15
Honda Active vehicle. PW.2 has not stated before him that she
called the deceased through phone from the mobile of Kavitha.
PW.2 has not stated before him that the kidnappers called and
informed that if they would not give Rs.10 Crores, they would
39/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
murder their son. Witness adds that PW.2 has stated before him
with regard to the kidnappers calling and demanding Rs.10 Crores.
PW.3 has not stated before him that PW.2 called the deceased from
her phone No.8019902265 and enquired. PW.3 had not stated
before him about the kidnappers stating that they would kill the
deceased if their demands were not met, so also she has not stated
before him that she has handed over the phone to PW.1 as there
was no recording facility on her phone and PW.1 inserted her SIM
in the mobile phone of PW.9. PW.4 has not stated before him that
he went to Mangalhat PS and observed the CCTV footages. He has
not examined the owner or workers of Volga Hotel nor examined
the surrounding shop owners with regard to the parking of the
vehicle in front of the Hotel and he has not asked for collection of
fingerprints or DNA from MOs.1 to 3.
59.3. He further stated in his cross that he cannot say whether
there was any cellar to the house of PW.7 and his proceedings do
not disclose the same. He has not examined any of the tenants of
PW.7 so as to check to whom MO.1 belongs to. Ex.D1 is the
attested copy of rough sketch of the document. The said document
is also available in the CD file without attestation and he cannot
say whether the rough sketch in Ex.D1 belong to second floor of
House bearing No.5-5-981, Hindi Nagar. Bedroom, bathroom,
kitchen and hall were shown in Ex.D1. No slippers and spectacles
40/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
were shown in Ex.D1. Nowhere in the CD file it is mentioned that
MO.1 was folded and sent to FSL. He has not collected any proof of
ownership of MO.6 from PW.9. PW.10 has not stated before him
that A2 joined in the job two days after A1 leaving. Witness adds
that PW.10 stated before him that A2 joined his job four months
prior to the date of incident, he has not collected the attendance
register of HP petrol pump besides Alpha Hotel, Secunderabad to
show that PW.11 was on duty.
59.4. His investigation does not disclose that he visited the houses
of the accused. His investigation is confined to the portion of the
accused in second floor at Hindi Nagar. He is aware of Preventive
Detention Orders passed against A1 to A3 subsequent to the case.
There is no stamp or seal on FSL on MOs.1 and 2. He has not
examined the mother of PW.16 by name Mangala Bai. PW.16 has
not stated before him about informing to Kavitha about observing
A1 at the colony gate and the enquiry made by A1 about the
deceased. PW.19 has not stated before him that he can identify
MOs.1 and 2. He has not collected the driving license of PW.19 and
he cannot say whether PW.19 is competent to drive Tata Ace
vehicle. PW.22 has not given the descriptive particulars of MO.10
as of black and silver colour with FUJEZONE written on the
backside of it on the silver path.
41/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
59.5. He has not collected the Municipal Trade License of PW.22.
He has not conducted any panchanama for collecting MO.10 from
PW.23. PW.26 has not stated before him that when he questioned
A1 and A2 for the bill of MO.11, they stated that they would give it
after three to four days. PW.26 has not stated before him about the
police coming to his shop along with A1 to A3. Ex.P5 does not
contain any seal or stamp of the police station or Court. He has not
mentioned in Ex.P4 – Inquest panchanama about the presence of
tooth clips on the teeth of the deceased. So also he has not
mentioned about any sticky substance on the face and hands of
the deceased due to applying the plastic tapes in Ex.P4. He has not
registered any case against LW.34- K.Santosh Prasad or his
employer for selling the SIM card without ID proof. There is no
stamp or seal on Ex.P49-photograph with date. He do not know
that the phones like MOs.6, 10, 11 are available in open market.
He has not examined any person from Mahalakshmi Tiffin Centre
at Aghapura, Hyderabad. He denied the suggestion that he has not
recorded the statements of the witnesses nor seized the material
objects and he has created a story of kidnapping and murder and
has falsely implicated A1 to A3. He also denied the suggestion that
the exhibits marked thereon and material objects collected are
created for the purpose of the case.
42/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
60. PW.43 – M.Ravindar Reddy, Inspector of Police deposed that
on 09.05.2016, he took up the case file from PW.42 and conducted
further investigation, got conducted voice recording of A1 and
PW.1, got conducted T.I. Parade of A1 to A3 through PW.18.
PW.41 examined PW.28 and recorded his statement. Collected
Ex.P52 – FSL report from LW.48 – G.V.Jagadamba, Joint Director,
TSFSL, Hyderabad and filed charge sheet. In his cross-examination
he stated that he has not filed the extract of GD register, movement
register and property register for the relevant period of the case, so
also he has not filed the written requisition given to the MRO and
the order given by him to the panch witnesses. Attestation on
Ex.D1 pertains to him. He denied the suggestion that PW.41 did
not go to Berhampur nor recorded the statements of PW.28 nor
collected MO.11, he also denied the suggestion that MO.11 is a
planted one and Exs.P22 and P23 are created for the purpose of
the case, also denied the suggestion that MO.6 and the voice file
therein are also planted for the purpose of the case.
61. Ex.D11 – Rough sketch is marked through PW.42 which
shows the House numbers as 5-5-980, 5-5-971 and 5-5-981,
Hindi Nagar. Towards the North of House No.5-5-980 there is a
kitchen, bathroom, hall and bedroom.
43/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
62.1. In Kiran, the Apex Court held that “the sentence of Life
Imprisonment cannot be directed to be till the end of natural life by
the Sessions Court which direction would be in conflict with the
provisions of the Cr.P.C“. The power of remission or commutation
conferred on the State cannot be taken away.
62.2. In Madhusudan, the Apex Court held that “A Court may alter
or add to any charge before Judgment is pronounced but when
charges are altered, opportunity must be given under Section 217
of the Cr.P.C., both to the prosecution and the defence, to recall or
re-examine witnesses, in reference to such altered charge more
importantly in case charges are altered by the Court, reasons for
the same must be recorded in the judgment.
62.3. In Anwar Biwi, the Apex Court laid down the conditions
which are required under Section 65-B(4) in para 14, which reads
as under:
14. Under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is
desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining
to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the
following C conditions are satisfied:
(a) There must be a certificate which identifies the
electronic record containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the
electronic record was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the
device involved in the production of that record;
44/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable
conditions mentioned under Section 65B(2) of the
Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a
responsible official position in relation to the operation of
the relevant device.
62.4. The Apex Court in Arjun (3 Judge Bench) in reference has
reiterated that the certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a
condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of
electronic record as correctly held in Anwar Biwi4.
62.5. In Raja Nayakar, the Apex Court held that “Merely on the
basis of suspicion, conviction would not be tenable. It is the duty of
the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it is only
the accused and the accused alone who has committed the crime.”
62.6. In Afghan Sha Ali Khan, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
has held that “identification evidence cannot be a substantive
evidence, but it is only a piece of evidence when test identification
parade is held in accordance with law”.
62.7. In Musapuri Krishna, the High Court of Telangana held that
“conviction cannot be based on the extrajudicial confession made
by the accused and the evidence of last scene has always been
considered as a weak piece of evidence.
45/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
62.8. In Diddikadi Srinivas, this Court held that “conviction can be
based on the testimony of a sole eye-witness, the sole eye- witness
has to be a witness of his sterling worth. If his testimony suffers
from defects then it is highly unsafe to convict the accused relying
on the testimony of an untrustworthy witness”.
62.9. In Balwinder Singh, the Apex Court dealt with extrajudicial
confession and the last seen theory which are not been established
beyond reasonable doubt and the chain of circumstantial evidence
snaps so badly that it is not necessary to consider any other
circumstances.
63.1. Learned counsel for the appellant-A2 submits that the
learned trial Court has altered the charge from Section 364 to 364-
A of IPC, when charges are altered, opportunity should be given to
the accused with reference to the altered charges to recall and
reexamine the witnesses in reference to the altered charges.
63.2. The learned 16th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad has taken the charge sheet on file and taken
cognizance of offence under Sections 364-A, 302, 120-B, 201 r/w
34 of IPC against A1 to A3. The charge sheet along with the
material papers were furnished to the accused (A2 and A3) as
contemplated under law. The learned trial Court has framed all
together four charges on 09.11.2016. Charge No.2 is framed
46/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
against A1 to A3 for the offence under Section 364 r/w 34 of IPC.
A single sheet comprising of four charges is signed by the learned
trial Judge.
63.3. A separate sheet is prepared for the plea of the accused on
09.11.2016 for the charges under Sections 120-B, 364-A, 302 r/w
34 and Section 201 of IPC where in all the accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
63.4. The learned trial Court has noticed that the letter ‘A’ was
missing after Section 364 of IPC in the single sheet comprising of
four charges has amended the charge as per the orders in Criminal
MP.No.3099 of 2017, dated 27.11.2017 and the word ‘A’ is added
to Section 364 IPC and the charge is read as 364-A of IPC. By the
date of amendment of charge No.2 on 27.11.2017 prosecution
evidence and Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination of the accused is
completed. The learned trial Court has assigned cogent reasons
while altering the charge under Section 364 to 364-A and the
contention of the appellant-A2 counsel that after altering the
charges opportunity is not given to the accused is incorrect.
Accused-A2 and A3 know that a charge under Section 364-A is
framed against them on 09.11.2016 itself which is evident from the
plea of the accused person wherein they signed on it. The
contention of the appellant-A2 counsel is negatived in view of the
47/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
reasons above and the decision in Madhusudan is not applicable to
the case on hand.
64. Learned counsel for the appellants-A2 and A3 submits that
Section 364 of IPC is only applicable to the facts of the case but not
364-A. Section 364 of IPC talks about kidnapping or abduction in
order to murder. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order
that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of has to
be put in danger of being murdered. Whereas Section 364-A of IPC
speaks of kidnapping for ransom. Entire case of the prosecution is
that accused Nos.1 to 3 have kidnapped the deceased Abhay and
demanded Rs.10 Crores. To that effect, prosecution has led
evidence about the demand of the accused Nos.1 to 3 of Rs.10
Crores from PW.1 and his family members. On reading of the entire
material, the case falls within the ambit of Section 364-A of IPC but
not under Section 364 of IPC. Hence the contention of the
appellant’s counsel is negatived.
65. Learned counsel for the appellants-A2 and A3 submits that it
is a classic case of Section 304 of IPC but not the case of Section
302 of IPC. Section 304 of IPC reads as under:
304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to
murder.– Whoever commits culpable homicide not
amounting to murder shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either
48/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is
caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of
causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,or
with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the
act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause
death, but without any intention to cause death, or to
cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
66. The case of the prosecution is that A1 brought the victim boy
Abhay to the rented house on 16.03.2016. A2 and A3 were also
present there at and they informed Abhay that he was kidnapped
for ransom as Abhay was raising cries, they have tied his hands
backward, legs, mouth and nose with a plaster. A1 to A3 while
committing the offence know that it is so eminently dangerous that
in all probability it may cause death or such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death. It cannot be said that the case of the
prosecution falls under Section 304 of IPC. The evidence led by the
prosecution goes to show that it is a murder which falls within the
ambit and scope of Section 300 of IPC punishable under Section
302 of IPC, hence the contention of the appellant’s counsel is
negatived in view of the reasons above.
67. Learned counsel for the appellants – A2 and A3 contended
that Exs.P34 – P45 and MO.17 are marked subject to objection and
49/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018prosecution has not complied with Section 65-B of the Indian
Evidence Act. Ex.B27 is the Section 65-B certificate issued by
PW.34 where in the appellants-A2 and A3 have not raised any
objection in marking the document. Exs.P34 to P44 (11 in number)
are issued by PW.36. Ex.P45 -Section 65-B certificate and MO.17
DVD are issued by PW.37.
68. The learned trial Court has observed in Para 13 of its
judgment that “it has to be seen that PW.36 deposed about the
certifying and his substantial evidence cannot be ignored.
Therefore Exs.P34 to P44 are valid. PW.37 issued Ex.P45 certificate
regarding the CCTV footage at Pushpa Laminates, Hindi Nagar,
Goshamahal. Though PW.37 did not issue the certificate on the
Letter Head of the company, he affirmed that CD of the CCTV
footage is authentic hence, his evidence is accepted.
69. In so far as authenticity of CCTV footage is concerned, the
learned trial Court observed in Para 14 of the judgment that “the
objection regarding the admissibility of CCTV footage is not
tenable, since the prosecution has examined the witnesses who
had installed the CCTVs, the evidence of the person who had
retrieved the CCTV footage and the expert who had observed the
CCTV footage”, in the CCTV the clothes worn by the deceased are
50/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
very much visible thus it is clear that the deceased boy did not go
anywhere else except into the room of the accused.
70. The learned trial Court has recorded in the judgment at Para
No.13 that “I have seen the CCTV footage in the presence of the
accused and their counsel”.
71. In so far as the TI Parade is concerned, PW.18 deposed that
a person on a blue colour Activa was obstructing his vehicle, who
is none other than A2 and he identified him in the jail and in
Court. PW.19 is the driver of Tata Ace vehicle in which the accused
were carrying big carton box, two college bags and one suitcase
and he identified all the accused in T.I. Parade. PW.21 evidence is
that A3 came to his shop and purchased one roll of brown colour
plaster tape, he identified A3 in the jail as well as in the open
Court. PW.22 and PW.39 have also identified A1. A2 and A3 in
Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination contended that the TI parade is
conducted in the jail and the defence taken by the accused is that
police have shown their photographs to the witnesses prior to the
TI parade which led to identifying them. Though PW’s.18, 19 and
21 were cross examined, nothing incriminating could be elicited
from them. The learned trial Court observed in Para 15 of its
judgment that Test Identification Parade is only supporting
evidence, identification in the Court is substantive evidence and
51/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
can be believed. The above said witnesses have supported the case
of the prosecution in all aspects. PW.31 conducted T.I. Parade by
following the procedure.
72. MO.17- CCTV footages coupled with the evidence of PW.8
and PW.40 proves that the deceased was last seen alive in the
company of A1 and going upstairs and A2 was coming downwards
after some time, took the Activa and returned back by walk. CCTV
footages further goes to show that A1 to A3 came out of the
building with a big carton covered with a white plastic cover which
is identified by PW.8 which are MOs.1 and 2.
73. PW.4 has identified MO.15 -Honda Activa at Volga Hotel,
Darusalam, Hyderabad. PW.40 after analysing the material
observed that registration number found on the vehicle No.AP 13Y
0844 is the same vehicle registration number present in the
specimen photograph of item No.5 and the visible feature of the
rider is A2.
74. Through PW.7, MOs.4, 5, 7 and 8 were seized under Ex.P4.
Ex.P5 is the ID proof of A2 which is given to PW.26 by A1 and A2
while selling MO.11. A suggestion is put to PW.1 in his cross-
examination by the accused counsel that his son was sick on the
day of incident and there was a tiffin box in the vehicle, as he did
not have breakfast, fell down suddenly while playing and that one
52/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
of the accused made a call to him and the accused never
demanded any money. A2 and A3 did not state the same in their
Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination.
75. The mobile phone of A1 is thrown while crossing the
Vijayawada Railway Station which was found by PW.23. The
evidence of PW.42 is also significant as to the manner in which the
offence has taken place with that of the exhibits marked thereon.
The admissible portion of confession statements of A2 and A3 are
marked as Exs.P10 and P11 through PW.29 with that of the
material objects seized thereon at the instance of A2 and A3.
76. The decisions cited by the accused counsel in Para Nos.62.5
– 62.9 are distinguishable from the facts of the present Appeal and
they are of no assistance, hence they are not applicable.
77. Learned counsels for A2 and A3 pointed out omissions and
contradictions from the prosecution witnesses, they are minor in
nature. On reading of the depositions of prosecution witnesses with
that of exhibits and material objects marked thereon, prosecution
has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences they are
charged with and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted them
for Life Imprisonment for the offences under Sections 302 r/w
Section 34 and Section 364-A r/w Section 34 of IPC but the further
sentence i.e., “which shall be till their death” is in conflict with the
53/53 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal Nos_2425
and 2704_2018
provision of the Cr.P.C. in view of the decision of the Apex Court in
Kiran. Sentence of Imprisonment under Sections 120-B and 201 of
IPC is confirmed in view of our reason above.
78. Appeals are partly allowed, modifying the sentence of
Imprisonment for Life which shall be till their death to Life
Imprisonment for the offences under Sections 302 r/w Section 34
of IPC, Section 364-A r/w Section 34 of IPC. The Sentence of
Imprisonment for the offence under Sections 120-B and 201 of IPC
is confirmed, set-off is permitted under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. All
the sentences shall run concurrently.
Pending applications, if any shall also stand disposed of.
____________________
K.LAKSHMAN, J
______________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
2nd April, 2026
PLV