ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
A.V. Sesha Sai, J. Uma Devi, JJ.
Deyyala Suryanarayana Suribabu - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1035 OF 2012
Decided On : 11-08-2021
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 & 392 I.P.C. - SOLE ACCUSED - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - LAST SEEN TOGETHER - CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES - BURDEN OF PROOF - EXPLANATION BY ACCUSED - REASONABLE DOUBT - FINAL DECISION - APPEAL ALLOWED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted by the trial court for the offences under Sections 302 and 392 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years for the offence under Section 392 I.P.C. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was killed by the appellant and robbed of Rs.2,00,000/-. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to prove its case.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that there were several discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and that the prosecution failed to establish a continuous chain of circumstances to link the accused to the commission of the offence. The court also found that the accused was not given a fair opportunity to explain the circumstances against him.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the learned Sessions Judge is correct in convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 392 I.P.C.? 3. Whether the impugned judgment warrants any interference of this Court under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court also held that the accused has a right to explain the circumstances against him and that the failure to give the accused a fair opportunity to explain the circumstances against him is a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused, and acquitted him of the charges.
JUDGMENT
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai)
Sole-accused in Sessions Case No.102 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kakinada, East Godavari District, is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal, preferred under sub- section (2) of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to, as ‘Cr.P.C.’). In the present Criminal Appeal, appellant herein assails the judgment dated 29.12.2011, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge in the said Sessions Case. By way of the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant herein for the offences alleged under Sections 302 and 392 I.P.C. and sentenced him with life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and with rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years for the offence under Section 392 I.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as follows:
The accused came to Gangavaram village and parked his motorcycle in the premises of K.Venkata Rao, APSRTC Complex and he brought one hammer and kept it at his waist secretly and asked the deceased to take him to Kakinada and then, the accused boarded the motorcycle of the deceased at about 8-00 p.m. The father-in-law of the deceased telephoned to him and enquired his whereabouts and the deceased informed him that he was in Gorripudi and he was returned to his house about half an hour and at about 8-10 p.m., Palepu Rambabu (P.W.12) also telephoned to the deceased and came to know that the accused was present along with him and contacted the accused and the accused informed that both of them were at Kulla village. During the night of the same day, on the way to Kakinada, when the deceased and the accused reached the fields of one Mr. Atla Venkanna, the accused asked the deceased to stop the motorcycle and accordingly the deceased stopped the motorcycle and the accused attacked him with hammer and killed him by strangulation with the belt of the bag and escaped from the scene of offence with an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. With the above
Bhupinder Singh vs. State of Punjab
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs. State of M.P.
In State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram
Kalu alias Laxminarayan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Kiriti Pal Vs. State of West Bengal
Manoj Suryavanshi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Mohd. Younus Ali Tarafdar vs. State of W.B.
Munish Mubar Vs. State of Haryana
Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others
Palvinder Kaur vs. The State of Punjab 1953 SCR 94
R. Damodaran vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police
Rajesh Kumar and another Vs. State Government of NCT of Delhi
Satpal vs. State of Haryana [(2018) 6 SCC 610
Sattatiya Alias Satish Rajanna Kartalla Vs. State of Maharashtra
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra
State of U.P. vs. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114
State, Government of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil and another
State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Sunil & Anr.
Transport Commr. V. S.Sardar Ali (1983) 4 SCC 245: AIR 1983 SC 1225
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.