IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C.Praveen Kumar, B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, JJ.
Meligiri Krishna Reddy, Anantapuram Dt., - Petitioner
Versus
State Of AP, Rep PP., - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1229 of 2014
Decided On : 21-10-2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302, 201 I.P.C. - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - CONVICTION - FOUR CIRCUMSTANCES RELIED UPON BY PROSECUTION - CAUSE OF DEATH BEING HOMICIDAL IN NATURE - MOTIVE FOR ACCUSED TO CAUSE DEATH OF DECEASED - EVIDENCE OF WITNESS SEEING DECEASED GOING INTO HOUSE OF ACCUSED - EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION MADE BEFORE WITNESS - ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES - FAILURE TO PROVE CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT - CONVICTION SET ASIDE.
Fact of the Case:
Accused was convicted for the murder of the deceased and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and five years imprisonment under Section 302 read with 201 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the accused, suspecting an illicit relationship between the deceased and his wife, killed the deceased with an axe and buried the body in a dilapidated well. The accused challenged the conviction, arguing that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the circumstances relied upon beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that there were no eyewitnesses to the incident and the entire case rested on circumstantial evidence. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the motive for the accused to kill the deceased, and the evidence of the witness who saw the deceased going into the house of the accused was not convincing. The court also found that the extrajudicial confession made by the accused was not reliable.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were proved beyond reasonable doubt?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that 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 proved should form a chain of events connecting the accused with the crime. The court further held that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution in the present case were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the conviction of the accused could not be sustained.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused and ordered his release.
JUDGMENT :
C.Praveen Kumar, J.
Accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.1 of 2013 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu is the appellant herein. The present Criminal Appeal came to be filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment, dated 05.11.2014, in Sessions Case No.1 of 2013 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu. Originally, A-1 was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. while A-2 and A-3 were tried for the offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C.
2. Vide judgment, dated 05.11.2014, the learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting A-2 and A-3, convicted A-1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. A-1 was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 201 I.P.C. and accordingly, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The substance of the charge levelled against the accused is that on 14.07.2012, at about 10:00 A.M., at K.P. Doddi Village, Gummagatta Mandal, he voluntarily beat one Boya Raghavendra (hereinafter, referred to as “the deceased”) with an axe on his head and neck indiscriminately with an intention to kill him and caused his death. Thereafter, A-1 to A-3, in order to screen the evidence, buried the body of the deceased in a dilapidated well, burnt the blood stained clothes and concealed the axe.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:
A-1 is the husband of A-2. A-1 is a resident of Jakkalavadiki Village, Kanekal Mandal. A-2 was residing at K.P. Doddi Village. A-3 is the sister’s son of A-1 and resident of Muradi Village of D. Hirahal Mandal. The deceased is also a resident of K.P. Doddi Village. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased while P.W.2 is the brother of P.W.1 by courtesy. P.W.1 is elder sister’s daughter of the father of P.W.3. The deceased was working as Vidya Volunteer in Upper Primary School at K.P. Doddi Village. A-2 was also working in the same school as Vidya Volunteer. The deceased and A-2 developed close acquaintance as both of them were working in the same school. A-1 developed suspicion and warned the deceased to cut off his relations with A-2. On 14.7.2012, at about 10:00 A.M., the deceased left home informing his mother -P.W.1 that he was going to Kothapalli Village for purchasing groundnut seeds. When the deceased was passing in front of the house of A-2, she asked the deceased to come into her house. The deceased went inside the house of A-2 and the same was noticed by P.W.2, who is also a resident of K.P. Doddi Village. Sometime thereafter, A-1 came and entered into the house and found the deceased and A-2 in a compromising position. On seeing it, A-1 became wild, took an axe and dealt a blow on the head, face and neck of the deceased. Due to injuries on the vital parts, the deceased died on the spot. A-1 and A-2 kept the dead body of the deceased in a gunny bag, cleaned the axe and blood stains on the floor. A-1 kept the cloth pieces used in wiping out blood stains in a plastic cover. A-1 concealed the axe in the sand of building foundation by the side of the house of A-2. A-1 informed A-3 that he has killed the deceased. A-1 took the plastic bag containing blood stained cloth pieces, a bottle of petrol and proceeded to a hillock near Adiguppa Village where he partly burnt cloth pieces. After returning from that place, A-1 met A-3 near Adiguppa cross. A-3 advised A-1 to take the bag with the dead body to the dilapidated well in his field in Muradi Village limits. Then, A-3 went to his field where groundnut sowing was taking plac
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 proved should form a chain of events connecting t....
In order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the gui....
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Extrajudicial confessions are weak evidence and require corroboration; reliance on them must be cautious and supported by credible evidence.
Extra-judicial confessions can support convictions if corroborated by independent evidence; circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt.
Extrajudicial confessions require corroboration and cannot solely establish guilt without reliable evidence.
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.