Kondapaka Sridhar @Shekar @Madhu @Gopi @Chinna vs The State Of Telangana

2026 INSC 951
Non-Reportable


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No.4512 of 2025

KONDAPAKA SRIDHAR @SHEKAR
@MADHU @GOPI @CHINNA
...APPELLANT (S)


VERSUS

THE STATE OF TELANGANA
...RESPONDENT (S)

J U D G M E N T

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

The prosecution story commences with a person having
left home for Hyderabad, who could not be reached on the
telephone, even on the next day. After two days, his father
receives a ransom call and instructions to deposit an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- in an account in a bank. Two days later, father-
PW1 lodges a complaint (Exhibit P1) with the police and also
deposits an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in the account of one
Geetanjali. Analyzing the calls between the two phone
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2026.09.03
17:33:08 IST
Reason:
numbers, the Investigating Officer (I.O) was led to A6, who was
arrested. A6 is said to have pointed out a flat, inside which the
Page 1 of 9
Criminal Appeal No.4512 of 2025

missing person’s body was recovered, tucked away in a
refrigerator. A6 also confessed about the involvement of A1 to
A5.
2. Six persons were arrayed as accused responsible for the
kidnapping and murder. A4 died in the course of trial and A1,
A2, A3, A5 and A6 stood convicted and sentenced by the Trial
Court. The High Court acquitted A2, A3, A5 and A6 but affirmed
the conviction of A1. The conviction was on the sole testimony
of PW3 and the circumstance of A1 having not explained the
presence of the body inside the apartment he leased out, found
to be incriminating under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence
1
Act, 1862 .
3. The story projected by the prosecution on the
confessions elicited from the accused was that, A1 was a
habitual criminal who met A4 while both were in jail. On release
from the prison, A1 took up residence at Siricilla, from where
A4 hailed and they indulged in politics. A1 developed intimate
relationship with A2, who was a tenant in the house of the
deceased who too had an illicit relationship with A2. A1 and A2

1
Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Evidence Act’
Page 2 of 9
Criminal Appeal No.4512 of 2025

hatched a plot to kidnap the deceased for ransom since A2
informed A1 that his father had the wherewithal to pay the
ransom. Though, A2 tried to lure him into the flat where she was
staying with A1, the deceased could not come, due to his
personal commitments. Later, A1 is said to have married A3,
with whom also he had intimacy and then A1, together with A3
to A6 hatched the plan to carry out the kidnapping of the
deceased, which led to the murder.
4. We have to immediately notice that there was nothing to
substantiate the above story but for the confessions, which
definitely cannot be relied on to inculpate any of the accused.
5. The Trial Court convicted the accused on the
circumstances of the missing of the victim for two days, the
phone call for ransom received by PW1, the amounts deposited
by PW1, money withdrawn by the accused and the cash seized
at the instance of A1 and A6. The further circumstances relied
on were the call details leading to apprehension of A6, the
information provided by A6, which led to the discovery of the
body from an apartment, the recovery of the body itself, the
circumstance of A1 having taken the flat on rent from PW4, the
Page 3 of 9
Criminal Appeal No.4512 of 2025

testimony of PW3 with respect to handing over the key of the
flat to A1 on behalf of PW4, last seen theory of PW3 having seen
A1 with the deceased entering the flat and A1 & A3 to A5 leaving
the flat after four days. The identification of A1 & A3 to A5 by
PW3 in the Test Identification Parade (TIP) was also relied on.
6. The High Court found that the CCTV footage showing the
withdrawal of the amounts, can only be disbelieved since it was
not possible to identify the accused from the footage and also
for the absence of a certificate, as required for an electronic
evidence to be brought in evidence under Section 65B of the
Evidence Act. The cellphone records, as produced by the I.O,
were also not looked into since the Nodal Officer of the service
provider was not examined and here too, there was absence of
the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
7. It was also noticed by the High Court that PW3, but for
the statement that the apartment had five floors consisting of 17
flats, could not provide the details of the occupants, neither
produced the register of visitors nor did he speak of any prior
acquaintance with A1. The TIP conducted of A1, A3 and A5
could also not be trusted since PW3 admitted that the
Page 4 of 9
Criminal Appeal No.4512 of 2025

photographs of the suspects were shown to him before he was
taken to the jail for the purpose of identification of the unknown
accused.
8. Despite this, on the two circumstances hereinabove, the
High Court confirmed the conviction and sentencing of A1 while
acquitting the other accused who were put to trial.
9. One of the circumstances relied on by the High Court
was the testimony of PW3. PW3 is said to have been working as
a watchman in ARK Residency, Uppal, from where the body was
recovered. His testimony was that A1 had taken Flat No.402 on
lease on 17.06.2011 and that he moved in with his wife-A3, her
brother-A5 and A4. Two days prior to A3 and A5 leaving the
house, he saw A1 bringing the deceased to the apartment. He
does not speak as to who owned the flat in his chief examination
or that he gave the keys of the flat, to A1 on the owner’s
instructions. There was, of course, no lease agreement entered
into. There was nothing produced by the prosecution to prove
that PW3 was a watchman of the apartment complex.
10. As rightly found by the High Court, there was no register
of visitors produced and there was no lease deed between A1
Page 5 of 9
Criminal Appeal No.4512 of 2025

and the owner produced by PW3. PW3 was also not able to
speak of the details of the persons living in the apartment nor
did the prosecution examine any residents of the apartment to
prove the presence of A1 and A3 to A5 in the said apartment
complex.
11. PW4 was proferred as a witness to prove the ownership
of the flat. No documents were produced by PW4 to substantiate
the claim of ownership and he responded to a question in cross
examination that the police had not sought for any document to
prove his ownership. It was the testimony of PW4 that he
entrusted PW3 to let out Flat No.402. This was not specifically
corroborated by PW3. Though he spoke on the name and
identity of the owner in cross examinaiton. The absence of
prooof of ownership of the flat from which the corpus delicti was
recovered and the employment of PW3 as a watchman in the
flat, debunk the theory of lease to A1 and consequently reliance
placed on Section 106 of the Evidence Act; ie: no proper
explanation for the dead body’s presence in the apartment
occupied by A1, on lease. It also casts a long shadow of doubt
Page 6 of 9
Criminal Appeal No.4512 of 2025

insofar as the last seen theory of A1 having taken the deceased
to the apartment from where his body was recovered.
12. As we noticed at the outset, there was no substantive
evidence led before the Trial Court by the prosecution. The
investigation was shoddy and merely relied on the confessions
and the lewd story coming out of the confessions connecting
A1 to A2 & A3 and A2 to the deceased. The money recovered at
the instance of A1 and A6, was not traced to the crime of
‘kidnapping and ransom demand’. As we already found, the
prosecution case was that, it was on analyzing the call records
that PW11, the I.O, was led to A6, resulting in his arrest and
confession. The call records having not been properly proved
through the Nodal Officer of the service provider and no
certificate under Section 65B having been produced and
proved, the entire story of careful analysis of the call records,
falls flat.
13. It is said that A6 led the police to the apartment but no
independent witness is examined for either the statement
regarding the concealment of the body or the discovery on the
pointing out of the body by A6, from the place of its
Page 7 of 9
Criminal Appeal No.4512 of 2025

concealment. A6 having been acquitted, his statement leading
to the discovery, if at all proved, cannot incriminate A1.
14. The money too, though, asserted to have been
withdrawn by the accused as evident from the CCTV footage
taken from the ATM counter, the CCTV footage could not be
properly proved in evidence for reason of non-production of
certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The High
Court has also noticed that there was no clarity in the footage to
identify the accused as such. The money recovered from A1 and
A6, hence, cannot be connected with the crime. More
importantly, there was a deposit made in an account in the
name of one Geetanjali, there was no investigation on that front
and the person who maintained that account has not been
brought to the dock. The account statement showing the
withdrawals through an ATM counter were also not produced
and proved, by examining an official of the Bank, in which the
account was maintained.
15. That the deceased died of ‘asphyxia due to smothering,
associated with strangulation’, is established by the post-
mortem report and the dead body was detected, tucked away
Page 8 of 9
Criminal Appeal No.4512 of 2025

in a refrigerator inside an apartment. But for these, there is no
scrap of evidence, worthy of reliance, to connect A1 to A6 to the
murder or even the flat. The I.O definitely was led by the
confessions and failed to collect any substantive evidence
connecting the accused to the crime.
16. We, hence, find absolutely no reason to sustain the order
of conviction entered against A1 by the High Court, and
therefore, we set aside the same.
17. We have already directed A1 to be released and if he has
been so released, the bail bonds executed shall stand
cancelled. If A1 is still in custody, he shall be released forthwith,
if not wanted in any other case.
18. The appeal stands allowed.

19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.


.......…….……………………. J.
(J. B. PARDIWALA)


....……….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 03, 2026.
Page 9 of 9
Criminal Appeal No.4512 of 2025