Devarla Murali vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(AP) 754

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, Ninala Jayasurya, JJ.
Devarla Murali – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Crl. A. No. 200 of 2015
Decided On : 27-07-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : D. Kodandarami Reddy
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Appeals against conviction for murder - The appellant challenged his conviction under IPC Section 302, claiming the prosecution did not prove essential links in circumstantial evidence - Trial Court's reliance on last seen theory without sufficient proximity of time between the death and last seen - The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish vital circumstantial connections, particularly regarding the hiring of the vehicle used in the crime and the procedural validity of identification testimonies through the test identification parade, which was not conducted according to established rules. (Paras 1, 16, 20, 50)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Reappraisal of evidence - High Court reiterated that it must independently assess evidence without being influenced by the Trial Court's conclusions but confirmed the trial was tainted, leading to a reversible error. (Paras 16, 18)

(C) Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 25 and 27 - The admissibility of confessions and discovery statements and the requirement of their voluntary nature were emphasized, in view of the tainted investigation procedures noted in the case. (Paras 62, 64, 70) Facts of the Case: Appellant was found guilty of murdering Thanga Perumal based heavily on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution's assertion of a premeditated plan with his companions, which the appellant contested. Evidence included hiring a vehicle, last seen theory, and confessions of co-accused.

Findings of Court:
The Court found insufficient corroboration in the evidence relating to the murder, citing issues with the identification process of the appellant, lack of proof regarding the hiring of the car, and the absence of credible evidence connecting the appellant to the crime.

Issues: Whether the conviction was sustainable given the circumstantial evidence's inadequacies and procedural errors in evidence collection.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that due to the significant lapses in circumstantial evidence—particularly pertaining to the admissibility of confessions and procedural inaccuracies—the conviction could not stand.

Result: Appeal allowed, conviction set aside, and appellant acquitted.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. investigation details and key evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. trial court proceedings initiation. (Para 7 , 8)
4. arguments against conviction. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. legal principles on circumstantial evidence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
6. jurisdiction and appeal scope. (Para 16 , 17)
7. burden of proof in circumstantial cases. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
8. requirement of 'last seen' evidence. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
9. test identification parade scrutiny. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
10. issues identified in identification procedures. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
11. admissibility and corroboration in evidence. (Para 33 , 34 , 35)
12. legality of hiring private vehicle. (Para 36 , 37 , 38)
13. essential conditions for vehicle hiring. (Para 39 , 40)
14. doubts raised on prosecution's claims. (Para 41 , 42)
15. prosecution's failure to meet burden of proof. (Para 43 , 44 , 45)
16. confirming death by homicide. (Para 46 , 47 , 48)
17. insufficient evidence for last seen conviction. (Para 49 , 50 , 51)
18. analyzing the significance of time proximity. (Para 52 , 53 , 54)
19. need for corroborative evidence. (Para 55 , 56)
20. consideration of context and evidence integrity. (Para 57 , 58 , 59)
21. concluding remarks on conviction status. (Para 60 , 61)
22. final decision based on overall assessment. (Para 62 , 63 , 64)

JUDGMENT :

M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

1. Accused No. 1-Devarla Murali in Sessions Case No. 236 of 2013 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (for short "Cr.P.C."), challenging the conviction and sentence passed in calendar and judgment dated 9.12.2014, whereby accused No. 1 was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short "I.P.C."), convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, while acquitting accused Nos. 2 to 5 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C. and accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B and 404 of IPC.

2. Appellant is the accused No. 1, who allegedly approached Thanga Perianal on 23.10.2012 at 6.30 p.m., to engage Innova Car on hire to go to Kanipakam. Thereupon, Thanga Perianal took accused No. 1 to PW 2-A Venkatesh, who informed the accused No. 1 that hire charges of the car is Rs. 4,000/-, thereupon, the appellant-accused No. 1 informed PW 2 that he would pay hire charges at Tirupati and they would come back at 11.00 p.m., during night. On the way, accused No. 1 had a talk with his friend accused No. 3 and asked him to be present at Municipal Park, Tirupati while informing him that he is coming in a car. On 23.10.2012 at about 7.30 p.m., accused No. 1 reached Municipal Park, Tirupati in Innova Car bearing No. AP 03 AT 9567 driven by Thanga Perumal. Accused No. 1 picked up accused No. 3 and informed that they are going to Kanipakam and return during the same day night. Thereafter, accused Nos. 1 and 3 went to Mangalam Auto Stand and picked up accused No. 2. Accused No. 1 took a rope from the auto of accused No. 2 and kept in his pocket. From there accused Nos. 1 to 3 proceeded to Rajiv Nagar Colony in Innova Car bearing No. AP 03 AT 9567 and picked up accused Nos. 4 and 5. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 left Tirupati at about 9.00 p.m., in Innova Car bearing No. AP 03 AT 9567 driven by Thanga Perumal, reached Kanipakam at about 10.30 p.m. on 23.10.2012. Accused No. 1 asked Thanga Perumal to be present at the stand keeping the vehicle there itself. Accused No. 1 arranged food to accused Nos. 2 to 5 in a hotel. After completion of dinner, accused No. 1 informed accused Nos. 2 to 5 that either by killing the driver of Innova Car bearing No. AP 03 AT 9567 or by doing something, they would takeaway the car and sell it for Rs. 5,00,000/- and each of them can get Rs

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(AP) 754

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATIM. Satyanarayana Murthy, Ninala Jayasurya, JJ.Devarla Murali – AppellantVersusState of Andhra Pradesh – RespondentCrl. A. No. 200 of 2015Decided On : 27-07-2020

Cases Referred (18)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, Ninala Jayasurya, JJ.
Devarla Murali – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Crl. A. No. 200 of 2015
Decided On : 27-07-2020