IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, JJ.
Boya Thimmappa - Appellant
Versus
The State of A.P., Rep. P.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 189 of 2017
Decided On : 02-11-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 392, 380 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2), 207, 209, 313 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - Offence punishable – Offence of murder - Punishment for robbery - Theft in dwelling house -First Information Report - Court may presume existence of certain facts- Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents- Present Criminal Appeal came to be filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, in Sessions Case –Held, Court held that to base a conviction in a case arising out of circumstantial evidence, three conditions are required to be satisfied viz., (1) circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established, (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of accused and (3) circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from conclusion that within all human probability, crime was committed by accused and none else and it should also be incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of guilt of accused – Court shall now deal with case on hand, who is neighbour of deceased, in her evidence, categorically states that, deceased came to her house - At that time, there were gold ornaments i.e., two rows gold chain, four gold bangles, gold ear studs and one gold ring on her person - She was there in house for half an hour and thereafter, left - It is to be noted here that this witness was not cross examined by accused and cross examination was reported as “nil” - This witness speaks about event which took place, a day prior to date on which dead body was recovered - Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
C. Praveen Kumar, J.
Heard Smt D.S. Lakshmi, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant/accused and Sri S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.
2. The present Criminal Appeal came to be filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment, dated 07.10.2015, passed by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu at Gooty in Sessions Case No.277 of 2013.
3. The sole accused in Sessions Case No.277 of 2013 was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 I.P.C. Vide judgment, dated 07.10.2015, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused on both the counts and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 392 I.P.C.. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
4. The graveman of the charge levelled against the accused is that on 04.09.2012, at Housing Board Colony, Guntakal, the accused intentionally caused the death of one T. Mahalakshmi (hereinafter, referred to as “the deceased”) and thereafter, committed robbery of four gold bangles, gold chain and a pair of gold ear studs.
5. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, is as under:-
P.W.1 is the daughter of younger sister of the deceased. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the residents of the same locality. On 04.09.2012, in between 6:30 and 7:00 P.M., the deceased visited the house of P.W.3. At that point of time, there were gold ornaments i.e., M.Os.1 to 4 on the person of the deceased. She was there in the house of P.W.3 for about half an hour and thereafter, left to her house. It is also to be noted here that the deceased, who lost her husband, was living alone in her house situated in Housing Board Colony, Guntakal. On 05.09.2012, as the deceased did not appear outside the house till 10:00 A.M., P.W.2 informed about the same to one of her relatives by name Sathyamma. At the instance of the said Sathyamma, P.W.2 accompanied her to the house of the deceased where they found the front door of the house unlocked, either from outside or inside. They called the deceased but there was no response. The said Sathyamma informed the same to her husband – Rajendra Prasad Reddy, who in turn, instructed them to come out by closing the door stating that the deceased might have gone somewhere and she would come back. On the same day, at about 11:00 or 11:30 A.M., at the instance of one Shaik Shabeera, P.W.2 and Sathyamma again went to the house of the deceased and called her but there was no response. Both of them went inside the house and found the deceased on the ground in the kitchen room facing downwards and with a towel around her neck. Almyrah in the house of the deceased was found open and the clothes and other articles were in pelmel condition. The gold ornaments found on the body of the deceased were missing. Suspecting foul play, they initially informed one P.N. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, who in turn informed the same to P.W.1., who was at Bellary. On receipt of information, P.W.1 came down to Guntakal along with her husband and other family members. They noticed the deceased in the kitchen room which they saw through the window of that kitchen room. Law was set into motion by P.W.1 by lodging a report with P.W.12 – Sub Inspector of Police, Guntakal I Town Police Station. Ex.P-1 is the report. Basing on the said report, P.W.12 registered a case in Crime No.102 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 I.P.C. and issued Ex.P-17 – F.I.R. Further investigation was taken up by P.W.13 – Inspector of Police, Guntakal Urban
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for a complete chain of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the inadmissibility of confessions, and the need to connect recovered material obje....
Point of law : whenever the charge is framed for higher offence, the Court retains the power to convict an accused for a lesser offence even in the absence of a charge being framed for lesser offence....
Circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain pointing solely to the guilt of the accused; confessions made in police custody are inadmissible unless they lead to the discovery of facts.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to guilt, excluding any possibility of innocence, to sustain a conviction for murder and robbery.
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.