IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C. Praveen Kumar, B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, JJ.
Adusumilli Nancharamma, W/o Laxmaiah – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondents
Crl. Appeal No.651 Of 2015
Decided On : 25-11-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 203, 302, 120-B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 372, 207, 313, 174, 235 (1) – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 25, 106, 114 (g) – Criminal Jurisprudence – Defacto-Complainant – Medical Evidence – Criminal conspiracy – Offence of murder – Appeal filed by defacto-complainant under Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure against judgment in Sessions Case delivered by learned XI Additional Sessions Judge, where under accused No.1 was found not guilty for offence punishable under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code accused Nos.2 and 3 were found not guilty for offence punishable u/s 120-B r/w 302 of I.P.C., and accused 1 to 3 were found not guilty or offence punishable u/s 203 of I.P.C., and acquitted them for said offences u/s 235 (1) of Cr.P.C – Held, It is evidence of A.S.I., (P.W.14) that as he did not find any suspicious material to confirm either it is a homicide or suicide, hence, he registered case u/s 174 of Cr.P.C – It shows that P.W.3 for reasons best known to her, improved version and deposed against A3 – It will not help case of prosecution – Court are of considered view that prosecution has failed to prove above circumstances relied by prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt – View taken by learned Sessions Judge cannot be held as not even a possible view – Court do not find any ground to interfere with finding of learned Sessions Judge that prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt – Criminal Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, J.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the defacto-complainant under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.,”) against the judgment dt.14.05.2015 in Sessions Case No.351 of 2014 delivered by the learned XI Additional Sessions Judge, Tenali, where under the accused No.1 was found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short herein after referred to as “I.P.C.,”), accused Nos.2 and 3 were found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s 120-B r/w 302 of the I.P.C., and accused 1 to 3 were found not guilty or the offence punishable u/s 203 of I.P.C., and acquitted them for the said offences u/s 235 (1) of Cr.P.C.
2. It appears that, the State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Tenali Rural Circle did not prefer any appeal questioning the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-
(i) On 13.09.2012 at about 3.30 p.m., when the Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, Kollur P.S., (P.W.14) was present in the Police Station, Musala Gopi Krishna (P.W.11), a Court Constable came to the Station along with accused No.2 and stated that on the way to the Station, at Musallapadu Village, A2, who was going on a tractor intimated that he received a telephone message from his wife (A1) stating that Adusumilli Prabhu Kishore (deceased) committed suicide in his house. Immediately A.S.I., accompanied by a Head Constable and two Constables along with A2 proceeded to the house of A2 located in Pesarlanka Village and at about 4.00 p.m., noticed the dead body of the deceased lying in the house and public gathered there. Meanwhile, the mother of the deceased (defacto complainant/P.W.1) presented Ex.P1 report stating that she performed the marriage of the deceased with the daughter (P.W.4) of her elder daughter and prior to the marriage the deceased was having illegal intimacy with the wife of A2, who is A1 in the case and after marriage the deceased discontinued his affair. On 13.09.2012 at 11.00 a.m., the deceased came to house, had lunch and taking rest in the house and at about 2.00 p.m., he received a phone call and then he proceeded towards Nancharamma Temple in the village and at about 4.00 p.m., the defacto complainant came to know that her son was found dead in the house of A1 and A2. Immediately she went there, noticed the dead body of the deceased lying in their house and there are no injuries of any kind over the body, but she noticed swelling over the throat and she suspected that A1 along with others must have killed him on the ground that the deceased was not maintaining intimacy with A1.
(ii) Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police registered Ex.P1 report as F.I.R., (Ex.P6) in Cr.No.78/2012 u/s 174 of the Cr.P.C., of Kolluru P.S., at 6.00 p.m., forwarded the original to the Executive Magistrate and copies to all concerned. He secured mediators P.Radha Krishna Murthy (P.W.12) and another M.Rambabu (L.W.18), proceeded to the scene of offence, observed the same, noticed that the dead body of the deceased was lying supine, a blue colour sari hanging to the rope nearby along with other clothes and said sari was found twisted and he also found a clutch wire and other material objects. He got photographed the scene of offence with the help of a photographer under Exs.P8 to P12, got prepared scene observation report (Ex.P3), prepared sketch showing the topography (Ex.P7), examined P.W.1 and other witnesses, recorded their statements. On 14.09.2012 he took up further investigation, secured mediators T.Krishna Mohan (P.W.9), A.Venkateswara Rao (L.W.20) and G.Venkateswara Rao (L.W.21), visited the scene of offence, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators under the cover of inquest report (Ex.P2), examined A.Lakshmaiah (P.W.2), A.Prabhu Kumari (P.W.3), A.Prabhu Jyostna (P.W.4) and one K.Siva Parvathi (L.W.4), recorded their statements a
Sheo Swarup and others Vs. The King-Emperor
Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka
Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda V State of Maharashtra
SupremeToday
(1) Section 106 of Evidence Act does not directly operate against either a husband or wife staying under same roof and being last person seen with deceased.(2) In a case of circumstantial evidence, m....
In the absence of any corroborating evidence, it would be highly unsafe to the award conviction for committing murder solely on the basis of medical evidence.
In cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of events excluding all hypotheses of innocence. Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not shift the burden of proo....
Circumstantial evidence must provide clear connections to convict; mere suspicion and lack of motive are insufficient for establishing guilt.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for cogent and unerring circumstantial evidence to establish guilt in cases based on such evidence, and the burden on the prosec....
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.