Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DINESH MAHESHWARI, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Dakkata Balaram Reddy and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2019
Decided On : 21-04-2023
(A) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal by special leave – Article 136 of Constitution does not confer a right of appeal on a party and only confers discretionary power on Supreme Court to be exercised sparingly to interfere in suitable cases where grave miscarriage of justice has resulted from illegality or misapprehension or mistake in reading evidence or from ignoring, excluding or illegally admitting material evidence. (Paras 6 and 7)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 397 and 450 – Murder, dacoity and house trespass – Conviction and sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty, before Court can convict and facts established should be consistent only with hypothesis of guilt of accused – Trivial defects in investigation or process are not enough, in themselves, to disbelieve prosecution’s case – To acquit solely on the ground of defective investigation would be adding insult to injury – Recovery of stolen property from accused would not be sufficient in itself to convict them for murder – However, weight of evidence on record, taken cumulatively, unerringly points to guilt of accused, leaving no room for second thoughts – There was no time or possibility for police to hoist a false case upon them – Minor discrepancies and shortcomings in statements made by witnesses after passage of a few years would necessarily have to be discounted in such a scenario – No patent illegality or manifest injustice having been committed by Trial Court and High Court, warranting exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of Constitution – Criminal Appeal dismissed. (Paras 8, 21, 24, 26 and 27)
Facts of the case:
By judgment dated 30.08.2016 passed in Sessions Case No. 81 of 2012, VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sompeta, held the accused therein, viz., Dakkata Balaram Reddy (A1) and Chinapana Gopi (A2), guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302, 397 and 450 IPC and sentenced them accordingly. Their conviction and sentence stood confirmed when the High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 915 of 2016 filed by the two accused, vide judgment dated 03.10.2018. Aggrieved thereby, both the accused are before this Court.
Findings of Court:
PWs 4, 6, and 10, who were witnesses independent of each other and who had no animosity or enmity with accused, spoke in unison about seeing them running away from the house of PW-1 of the fateful night with bags in their possession. No explanation is forthcoming as to why three separate witnesses would choose to implicate the accused falsely.
Result : Criminal Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR, J
1. By judgment dated 30.08.2016 passed in Sessions Case No. 81 of 2012, the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sompeta, held the accused therein, viz. Dakkata Balaram Reddy (A1) and Chinapana Gopi (A2), guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302, 397 and 450 IPC and sentenced them accordingly. Their conviction and sentence stood confirmed when the High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 915 of 2016 filed by the two accused, vide judgment dated 03.10.2018. Aggrieved thereby, both the accused are before this Court.
2. Heard Shri R. Basant, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants/accused; Shri Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, learned counsel, appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh; and Shri Y. Raja Gopala Rao, learned counsel for the second respondent, viz. the complainant.
3. The case of the prosecution: The complainant, Vetcha Kesava Rao (PW-1), is a resident of Ichapuram and his house is situated on Chinnamedaraveedhi, wherein he also did his gold and silver business. A1 is a civil contractor while A2, his brother-in-law, is an ex-serviceman. On 21.08.2008 at about 9.00 pm, in PW-1’s absence, A1 and A2 trespassed into his house concealing iron rods under their shirts and brutally killed his son, Vetcha Kiran Kumar (deceased No. 1) and his wife, Vetcha Venkatagopala Lakshmi (deceased No. 2); robbed gold ornaments, weighing about 3.543 Kgs. and cash of Rs. 18,340/-. At about 11.00 pm on the same night, PW-1 lodged a written report against them at Ichapuram Town Police Station. Thereupon, Crime No. 61 of 2008 was registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ichapuram Rural P.S. (PW-23), and he informed the Inspector of Police who was holding additional charge of Ichapuram Circle (PW-26). PW-26 immediately took up investigation. He visited the scene of offence and held an inquest over the dead bodies in the presence of mediators. Upon receiving information, he arrested A2 at 01.15 am on 22.08.2008 at Radhamveedhi, Jagannadhaswamy Temple, Ichapuram, in the presence of mediators and recovered from his possession part of the stolen property, i.e. gold ornaments weighing 1748 grams 750 milligrams and cash of Rs. 18,340/-. He then arrested A1 at 04.00 am on 22.08.2008 from Gollaveedhi, Ichapuram, and recovered gold ornaments weighing 1794 grams 370 milligrams from his possession in the presence of mediators. Thus, PW-26 recovered the gold ornaments weighing 3.543 Kgs. from the accused along with the cash. He also examined several witnesses. He went to the scene of the offence and prepared a Rough Sketch. At his request, the Inspector of Police, FPB Unit, Srikakulam (PW-24), went to the scene of the offence along with the Clues Team and developed four chance fingerprints. Thereafter, the Inspector of Police, Ichapuram Circle (PW-27), took up further investigation. He visited the scene of offence, examined witnesses and recorded their statements. After completion of the investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused. Charges were framed against them under Sections 302, 379, 394 r/w 397, 411 and 450 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During the trial, the prosecution examined 27 witnesses and marked Exs.P-1 to P-21 in evidence, apart from producing Material Objects (MOs) 1 to 99. The accused did not adduce evidence but were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Upon considering the evidence and the MOs, the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sompeta, held the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 397 and 450 IPC. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each; imprisonment for a period of 10 years under Section 450 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and imprisonment for 7 years under Section 397 IPC. Further imprisonment was directed for default in payment of fines.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the accu
Minor discrepancies and shortcomings in statements made by witnesses after passage of a few years would necessarily have to be discounted.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for a complete chain of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the inadmissibility of confessions, and the need to connect recovered material obje....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the need for corroborated evidence and reliable witness t....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in circumstantial evidence cases, with each circumstance established and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of events in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasona....
Conviction set aside - Prosecution failed to prove the circumstances relied upon by them to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The court emphasized the necessity of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, finding insufficient evidence to uphold convictions for murder and robbery.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
