IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C. Praveen Kumar, B.V.L.N.Chakravarthi, JJ.
Sunil Parthy Another – Petitioners
Versus
State of A.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.786 of 2015
Decided On : 31-01-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 302 r/w 34 - Offence of Murder - Common intention - Deceased along with P.W.1 worked in Electrical Sub-Station - Accused also worked there as coolies - On 12.01.2014 at about 11.00 A.M., a quarrel took place between deceased and accused. P.W.7 and P.W.8 claimed to have intervened said quarrel and separated them - Thereafter, they left their sheds by 6.00 P.M. and the accused also left shed - On next day at about 8.00 A.M., P.Ws.1, 7 and 8 went to work place and at about 8.30 P.M., they noticed dead body of deceased by side of work site with injuries over body - P.W.1, who is a contractor, is said to have set law into motion by getting First Information Report scribed through P.W.5 and lodging it before P.W.10, who was working as Trainee Sub-Divisional Police Officer, police station at that relevant point of time - Whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? - Held, In absence of any evidence on record to show as to blood group of accused or deceased, merely because 'A' group blood is found on clothes of accused and deceased, it cannot be inferred that the accused is responsible for incident - More so, as observed by Court earlier, when the arrest at time mentioned by prosecution is doubtful, consequences which arose after the arrest also have to be viewed with suspicion - Nobody knows what happened after 6.00 P.M - Things would have been different, had there been evidence to show that accused and deceased were together at 6.00 P.M in shed - But evidence of P.W.8 does not indicate same - Therefore, theory of last seen, as projected by prosecution, is not proved, as time gap between accused and deceased being last seen and time when the dead body was traced was nearly 24 hours - Criminal Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
C. Praveen Kumar, J.
Accused 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No.319 of 2014 on the file of learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, are the appellants herein. Originally, they were tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short “I.P.C.”] for causing the death of one Jithendar on 12.01.2014 at about 8.00 P.M., in the fields of Ramija Bee at the outskirts of the Orvakal village, Kurnool District.
2. Vide judgment dated 25.03.2015, the learned Sessions Judge convicted both the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C and sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
3. The facts, as culled out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, are as under:
(ii) Basing on the report of P.W.1, a case in Crime No.9 of 2014 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. Ex.P15 is the First Information Report. Information about the registration of crime was furnished to P.W.9, who was working Circle Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluk circle. On receipt of a copy of the F.I.R., P.W.9 deputed Head constable to collect the panchayatdars and he proceeded to the scene of offence at 1.30 P.M., which is situated one Kilometre behind Model School of Orvakal in the outskirts of the village. At about 2.00 P.M., he conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 under Ex.P8. During inquest, he seized M.os.1 to 10. He also examined P.Ws.1, 7, 8 & others and recorded the statements. He also got the scene of offence photographed through P.W.2. Thereafter, the body was sent for Post Mortem examination.
(iii) P.W.6, who was working as Professor, Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool, conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued Ex.P11 Post Mortem Certificate. According to him, the cause of death was ‘due to crush injury on head’.
(iv) P.W.9 continued his investigation, sent a requisition for tracker dog. Accordingly, P.W.3, who was the trainer of dog by name Ponny, brought the dog to the scene of offence. The dog got smelled the blood stains on the iron rod and then identified two persons in the mob. It is said that the dog identified A1 and A2 in the mob. The accused were arrested and their statements were recorded, which lead to discovery of M.Os.11 to 14 and the same were seized under Ex.P10 in the presence of P.Ws. 4 and 5. On 16.01.2014, P.W.9 sent M.Os.1, 2, 5 to 13 to the Forensic Science Laboratory through the Magistrate under Ex.P13. After completing the entire investigation, P.W.11-Inspector of Police, Kurnool Rural Circle, who took up investigation from P.W.9, filed charge sheet, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.40 of 2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool.
4. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were supplied to them. As the offence is triable by Court of Sessions, the case was committed to
The judgment emphasizes the high standard of proof required in cases based on circumstantial evidence and the need for a complete chain of events connecting the accused with the crime.
Conviction set aside - Prosecution failed to prove the circumstances relied upon by them to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
In a case arising out of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove each of the circumstance relied upon by them and the circumstances so proved should form a chain of events connecting th....
In circumstantial murder cases, last seen theory alone cannot sustain conviction without complete evidentiary chain excluding innocence, especially with wide time gap allowing third-party interventio....
In circumstantial evidence murder cases, prosecution must prove each link beyond reasonable doubt forming complete chain excluding other hypotheses; deficiencies in motive, last seen, confession, rec....
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.