Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY & M.S.K. JAISWAL, JJ.
Mallepally Sridhar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 947 of 2010
Decided On : 04-04-2016
Criminal Law – Criminal Trial – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Offence of Murder – Appeal against conviction – Accused No.1 is a resident of Rama Krishnapur Village, Adilabad District and so is accused No.2. Accused No.3 is the second wife of deceased and she developed intimacy with accused No.1. deceased was running granite businesses and the accused were working under the deceased – Sister of accused No.1 is the neighbour of the deceased and accused No.3 – On the day of occurrence, PW.1, the son of the deceased, came to his father’s house and stayed in the house after finishing the dinner. At about 2.00 am, on hearing loud voice, PW.1 woke up and went inside the room where the deceased and accused No.3 were sleeping – At that time, accused No.3 was shouting and her hands were tied on her back. PW.1 untied accused No.3 and found the deceased on the floor with bleeding injures. PW.1 called the police – On receiving a telephonic message from PW.1, rushed to the scene of offence on PW.10 recorded statement of accused No.3 and submitted the same to PW.9 at police station. PW.11, Circle Inspector of Police, rushed to the scene of offence and received FIR and took up investigation – Held, in a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof – Large distance between “may be” true and “must be” true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between “may be” true and “must be” true, the court must maintain the vital distance between conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record – Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense.” (Emphasis added) – As held by Supreme Court, though the injuries to the appellant and some recoveries from him pertaining to the alleged gold ornaments of accused No.3 (though not legally proved, as PW.5 turned hostile) create strong suspicion against the appellant, howsoever strong the suspicion might be, it cannot take the place of proof. The prosecution has left too many loose ends to connect appellant to crime disabling this Court to hold him guilty of committing murder – Criminal Appeal is allowed. (Paras 15, 16 and 17)
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.
1. This criminal appeal is filed by accused No.1 in S.C.No.149 of 2008, on the file of the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, whereunder he was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:-
Accused No.1 is a resident of Rama Krishnapur Village, Adilabad District and so is accused No.2. Accused No.3 is the second wife of the deceased and she developed intimacy with accused No.1. The deceased was running granite businesses and the accused were working under the deceased. The sister of accused No.1 is the neighbour of the deceased and accused No.3. On the day of occurrence, PW.1, the son of the deceased, came to his father’s house and stayed in the house after finishing the dinner. At about 2.00 am, on hearing loud voice, PW.1 woke up and went inside the room where the deceased and accused No.3 were sleeping. At that time, accused No.3 was shouting and her hands were tied on her back. PW.1 untied accused No.3 and found the deceased on the floor with bleeding injures. PW.1 called the police. On 04.03.2005, PW.9, head constable, received Ex.P21 report, recorded statement of accused No.3 and registered a case in Crime No.242 of 2005 under Sections 394 and 392 IPC and issued Ex.P20, FIR. PW.10, Sub-Inspector of Police, Panjagutta on receiving a telephonic message from PW.1, rushed to the scene of offence on 03/04.03.2005 at 3.00 am. PW.10 recorded the statement of accused No.3 and submitted the same to PW.9 at police station. PW.11, Circle Inspector of Police, Panjagutta rushed to the scene of offence and received FIR and took up investigation. He has drafted scene of panchanama in the presence of PWs.10 and 11 and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence with the assistance of PW.10. PW.8 has taken photos of the scene of offence. MOs.1 to 11 were seized at the scene of offence. PW.11 prepared Ex.P22 seizure report and accused No.3 was sent to hospital on 04.03.2005 itself. As she has received injuries, the doctor issued Ex.P26, medical certificate. PW.11 prepared inquest in the presence of PW.4 and another and sent the dead body of the deceased for post mortem examination.
3. On 10.03.2005, PW.11 seized some articles at the scene of offence and sent the same for chemical examination. PW.11 examined PWs.13 and 14, collected Exs.27, 28 and 29 call particulars of the phones of accused No.1 and accused No.3 and based on those documents, PW.11 suspected accused No.1 and arrested him on 14.03.2006 at his sister’s house. On interrogation, accused No.1 confessed about the incident before PW.5. The confession was reduced to writing and marked as Ex.P30. PW.11 arrested accused No.2 and recorded Ex.P31 his confessional statement-cum-seizure panchanama. MO.14 was recovered from accused No.1’s house and Ex.P33 is the seizure panchanama. PW.11 has recovered gold ornaments from the house of accused No.1. He has also recovered MO.23 at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2. On 14.03.2005, accused No.3 was arrested. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were sent for medical examination. PW.7 examined the accused and also collected their hair strands. PW.7 handed over the collected hair strands to PW.11 who has forwarded the same to the FSL for DNA test. PW.6, Assistant Professor in the Department of Forensic Medicine, Gandhi Medical College, Hyderabad conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the cause of death is due to stab injuries caused by a sharp weapon and issued Ex.P13, post mortem certificate. PW.12, Joint Director, FSL, Hyderabad received Ex.P24 requisition on 15.03.2005 to collect the blood samples from the accused and he has issued Ex.P25, report. PW.13, Assistant Director, FSL Hyderabad received Ex.P12 requisition from PW.11 for analysis of item Nos.1 to 18 including, item Nos.12 and 13 ‘two strands of hair’ each and submitted Ex.P37 repor
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
