Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, JJ.
Bhukya Chilaka Bai and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1071 of 2015
Decided On : 31-10-2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - SECTION 302, 201 IPC - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - PROOF OF CIRCUMSTANCES - CHAIN OF EVENTS - ACCIDENTAL DEATH - RECOVERY OF BODY AT INSTANCE OF ACCUSED - NATURAL CIRCUMSTANCE - CONVICTION SET ASIDE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of their 11-day-old daughter. The prosecution alleged that the appellants administered poison drops of FOSMITE 50% Insecticide along with water to the infant, causing her death. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the seizure of a plastic pesticide tin from the appellants' house, the recovery of the deceased's body at their instance, and the presence of insecticide poison in the deceased's body.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the circumstances relied upon beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was inconsistent and unreliable, and that there was no motive for the appellants to kill the deceased. The court also found that the recovery of the body at the instance of the appellants was a natural circumstance, and did not indicate any suspicion.
Issues: 1. Whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the recovery of the body at the instance of the appellants indicated any suspicion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the circumstances relied upon beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was inconsistent and unreliable, and that there was no motive for the appellants to kill the deceased. The court also found that the recovery of the body at the instance of the appellants was a natural circumstance, and did not indicate any suspicion.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants, and acquitted them of the charges.
JUDGMENT :
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.
1. The present Criminal Appeal came to be filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment, dated 21.10.2015 in Sessions Case No. 146 of 2014 on the file of the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, wherein accused Nos. 1 and 2 were tried and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short ‘IPC’]. Both the accused were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default to pay fine amount, simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default to pay fine amount, simple imprisonment for a period of one month each for the offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C. The substantive sentences were directed to be run concurrently.
2. The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that, on 23.06.2012 A1, on the advice of A2, who is the mother of A1, administered poison drops of FOSMITE 50% Insecticide along with some water to the daughter of A1, who was aged about 11 days on the date of the incident, which caused the death of the said baby.
3. The facts in issue are as under:
(ii) The evidence of PWs. 2 to 4 disclose that PW-2 and A1 had a female child as third issue and the said child died 11 days after her birth. PW-2 was using empty pesticide tins in his house. While so, A1 and A2 brought Castrol oil in the said tin and fed the said Castrol oil, which was brought in pesticide tin, to the infant girl by mixing the same with little water, as a result of the same, the infant girl died. Fearing PW-2, A2 is said to have buried the dead body of the daughter of PW-2 in burial ground of Papayapalem village. This happened on 23.06.2012.
(iii) On 24.06.2012, PW-1, who is the Village Revenue Officer of Papayapalem village, came to know about the incident in question and accordingly, lodged a report with Bandlamottu police station, which is placed on record as Ex.P1.
(iv) PW-9 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bandlamottu police station, who received the report from PW-1, registered a case in Crime No. 51 of 2012 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Ex.P10 is the copy of F.I.R. Immediately after Ex.P10, PW-9 deputed his staff to burial ground of Papayapalem village. On the same day, he sent a requisition to Tahsildar of Bandlamottu village to exhume the dead body of infant girl and also sent requisition to PW-8 to conduct autopsy over the dead body of infant girl. On 25.06.2012, he visited the house of PW-2, secured the presence of PW-1 and other, observed the scene of offence and seized a plastic pesticide tin, which is placed on record as M.O.1. An observation report during seizure of M.O.1 was prepared by PW-9 under Ex.P2. He also got prepared rough sketch at the hut of PW-2, which is marked as Ex.P3. It is needless to mention that the above proceedings took place in the presence of PW-1.
(v) Pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused, PW-9 along with PW-1, PW-7 and others proceeded to the burial ground where the dead body was exhumed. Mandal Revenue Officer of Bollapalli Mandal conducted inquest over the dead body of a female infant at burial ground in the presence of PW-7 and others. Ex.P4 is the inquest report. During inquest, PW-9 examined PWs. 2 to 4 and recorded their statements. Later the dead body was sent for Post Mortem examination.
(vi) PW-8, who worked as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Vinukonda at the time of incident, conducted autopsy over
AI
In a case arising out of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove each of the circumstances relied upon by them and the circumstances so relied upon should form a chain of events connect....
(1) Sentence – Power to impose punishment of imprisonment for life without remission is conferred only on Constitutional Courts and not on Sessions Courts.(2) Remission – No right accrues to accused ....
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere circumstantial evidence without a clear chain connecting the accused to the crime is insufficient for conviction.
Conviction set aside - Prosecution failed to prove the circumstances relied upon by them to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
A negative viscera report does not preclude liability for poisoning if other evidence establishes the accused's guilt.
(1) Abetment of suicide and attempt to commit suicide – If accused gave incorrect or false answers during course of his statement under Section 313 CrPC, court can draw adverse inference against him.....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
