Circumstantial Evidence Chain Fails: Telangana HC Acquits Accused in Murder Case, Citing Flawed DNA Report (S.302, 379, 201 IPC) - 2025-04-27

Telangana High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Citing Flawed Evidence Chain and Unreliable DNA Report

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court, in a significant judgment, has acquitted an accused previously convicted for murder, theft, and causing disappearance of evidence. The court highlighted critical gaps in the prosecution's chain of circumstantial evidence and deemed a key DNA forensic report unreliable due to glaring discrepancies.

A division bench of Justices K. Surender and Anil Kumar Jukanti allowed the appeal filed by Accused No.1, Potham Jagannadham Naidu alias Jagan (Crl.A.No.405 of 2016), setting aside his conviction and life sentence under Sections 302, 379, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Concurrently, the bench dismissed the State's appeal (Crl.A.No.1262 of 2017) challenging the acquittal of Accused No.2, Kallu Vijaya alias Vijaya Reddy, by the trial court.

The case originated from the disappearance and subsequent discovery of mutilated body parts of the deceased, K. Sunitha , wife of the defacto complainant (PW.1). The prosecution alleged that A1, a private typist with police contacts, murdered the deceased at the instigation of A2. The motive was purportedly A2's business dispute with PW.1, the deceased's husband. The prosecution's narrative involved A1 luring the deceased, killing her in his flat, dismembering the body, and disposing of the parts in the Moosi river. A1 allegedly sold the deceased's jewellery, part of which was supposedly deposited into A2's bank account.

The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including call detail records, recovery of body parts and jewellery based on A1's confession, bloodstains found in A1's flat, and a DNA report linking the recovered body parts to the deceased's family.

However, the High Court meticulously examined each link in the prosecution's chain and found numerous inconsistencies and failures of proof. Key points of doubt raised by the court included:

• Timeline Confusion: Contradictory testimony from prosecution witnesses regarding the exact date the deceased went missing (15th or 16th June 2014).
• Unproven Mobile Usage: Failure to conclusively prove that A1 used the phone number allegedly used to contact the deceased or that the SIM card belonged to PW.5 and was stolen by A1. Relevant documents like SIM application forms were not collected.
• Messages Not Proved: The crucial messages allegedly sent from the deceased's phone just before she went missing were not retrieved or formally placed on record.
• Jewellery Sale Doubts: Lack of proof that the recovered jewellery belonged to the deceased, failure to follow proper identification parade procedure (Rule 34 of Criminal Rules of Practice), and the jeweller (PW.19) failing to produce receipts or registers for the transaction, despite admitting to issuing them. The link between this sale and the deposit in A2's account was also not satisfactorily established.
• Recovery Issues: Suspicious recovery timeline of the deceased's handbag from A1's flat, found on the second police visit but not the first. The alleged weapon (knife) and the car used for transport were not sent for forensic analysis.
• Hostile Witness: A key witness regarding the purchase of a butcher knife turned hostile.
• Lack of Direct Evidence: No witness saw A1 and the deceased together, and neighbours were not examined to corroborate the "last seen" theory.

Crucially, the court found the DNA report (Ex.P25), essential for identifying the recovered body parts, unreliable. The report showed a date of Friday, June 07, 2013, beneath the printout, despite the incident occurring in 2014 and the report being prepared and dispatched in 2015.

The Assistant Director from FSL appeared in court, and a letter was produced citing a "printing error" due to "issue with the settings of the printer." However, the court rejected this explanation, stating, "Apology by the expert cannot form basis to accept the FSL report... A casual statement that discrepancy was due to an error cannot be accepted." The court noted the failure to examine the FSL experts during the trial to clarify this discrepancy.

Applying the principles of circumstantial evidence laid down by the Supreme Court in cases like Shankar v. State of Maharashtra (which followed Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra ), the High Court emphasized that every circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the chain of evidence must be so complete as to exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.

Finding the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution doubtful and inconsistent, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain unerringly pointing towards A1's guilt.

Consequently, the appeal by A1 was allowed, setting aside his conviction. The State's appeal against A2's acquittal was dismissed as the fundamental link of A1's culpability, allegedly instigated by A2, was broken. A1, who was in jail, has been ordered to be released forthwith.