Important Point—Conviction can be based on incriminating circumstances.

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

1. The challenge in this Criminal Appeal, at the instance of Appellant/A1, is the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Siddipet in his Judgment dt.28.09.2010 in S.C.No.154/2009 whereby and whereunder the learned Judge while acquitting A2, found A1 guilty of the charges under Sections 302, 379, 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short “D.P.Act”) and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for LIFE and other sentences as mentioned in the judgment.

2. The facts which led A1 to file the instant Criminal Appeal briefly are that the deceased is the wife of A.1 and since after the birth of a male child namely Nootan, A.1 started harassing the deceased for additional dowry and inspite of her parents paying amounts to him from time to time, he was not satisfied and he used to harass her physically and mentally for additional dowry. Besides he was addicted to vices like playing cards and consuming alcohol. The deceased refused to have sexual intercourse with him on the apprehension that he was suffering with HIV disease. A.1 misunderstood her refusal as her having some extra marital affairs and decided to kill her ultimately. On the intervening night of 12/13.09.2008, A1 brutally killed her by hacking with an axe in their rented house situated at Ganesh Nagar, Siddipet. After investigation, the I.O laid charge sheet against the accused.

(a) On appearance of accused, the trial Court framed charges against A1 and A2 for the offences under Sections 302, 379, 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(b) During the trial, PWs.1 to 15 were examined and Exs.P1 to P14 were marked and MOs.1 to 14 were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. No defence evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, but Exs.D1 and D2 were marked from the portions of the Section 161 Cr.P.C., statements of PWs-3 and 6 respectively.

(c) The defence of the accused is one of total denial of the offence.

(d) The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence, found A1 guilty for the charges framed against him and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra, however acquitted A2.

Hence, the Criminal Appeal by A1.

3. Heard arguments of Smt. C. Vasundhara Reddy, learned counsel for appellant/A1 and learned Public Prosecutor for the State (Telangana).

4 (a) Severely fulminating the Judgment, learned counsel for the appellant/A1 firstly argued that it is a case based purely on ‘circumstantial evidence’, as admittedly, there were no eye-witnesses for the offence allegedly committed by A1 but the trial Court erroneously convicted the accused even though the prosecution failed to establish the suspicious circumstances projected against him. Hence, the conviction and sentences are legally not tenable and liable to be set aside. In expatiation, learned counsel would submit that PWs.1 to 4, 7 and 8 were highly interested witnesses and the trial Court placed implicit reliance on their evidence without any corroboration and came to a wrong conclusion as if A1 demanded additional dowry and harassed the deceased and even murdered her. No independent witnesses were examined to establish the guilt of the accused.

(b) Secondly, she argued, there was absolutely no reliable evidence to hold that A1 and the deceased were last seen together and in that regard the evidence of PWs.5 and 6 was highly doubtful and unbelievable and therefore, the Trial Court ought to have rejected their evidence as unnatural and improbable.

(c) Thirdly, learned counsel would argue that the entire prosecution case is unbelievable and liable to be discarded for the main reason that in this case most of the investigation such as inspection of scene of offence, recovery of dead body, examination of the main witnesses etc., were completed long prior to the registration of FIR and hence the FIR is hit by Sec.162 Cr.