IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M.GANGA RAO, T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO, JJ.
Mr. Kanuma Gangadhar – Appellant
Versus
SHO, II Town P.S., Madanapalle – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.625 of 2015
Decided on : 31-03-2023
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2), 313, 207 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 25, 26, 27 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Offence of murder – Appeal against conviction - Accused murdered 'deceased' by hacking with a cock-fight knife on his throat and committed murder – Held, Court feel that circumstances relied upon by Prosecution are not legally proven and sufficient to connect accused with crime - Evidence adduced by Prosecution does not give rise to any inference that it was accused person who, in all human probability, committed crime against deceased - Prosecution failed to discharge said burden – Court is of considered opinion that evidence on record does not establish guilt of accused beyond a reasonable doubt - Trial Court has arrived at recording guilt of Appellant in absence of any cogent, rational material justifying his conviction for offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C - Conviction and sentence rendered by trial Court against Appellant are considered as not based on proper factual aspects and sound principles of law and hence, liable to be set aside - Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.
1. This Criminal appeal filed by the Appellant herein under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order of conviction and sentence dated 11.12.2014 passed by learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle in Sessions Case No.306 of 2013, whereby he was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
2. The substance of the charges against the accused is that on 20.02.2013 at 10.00 p.m. at Srinivasa lodge, Madanapalle town murdered Kasireddy Jagadeesh @ Chinna (hereinafter will be referred to as 'deceased') by hacking with a cock-fight knife on his throat and committed the murder.
3. In brief, the Prosecution's case is that: The accused and the deceased were childhood friends. In 2009, the deceased asked the accused for a loan. The accused lent Rs.6,50,000/-in three installments to the deceased. The deceased used to visit the house of the accused frequently. On 13.02.2013, when the accused came to his house, he found his wife with the deceased; he warned and sent the deceased away. Subsequently, also the deceased caught hold of the accused’s wife, and she told the same to the accused. On being warned by the accused, she left his house to live with her parents. After that, the accused hated the deceased and wanted to kill him. The accused then bought two cockfighting knives from his distant relative, Sankara. On 20.02.2013 at 4.30 p.m., the accused went to the deceased's house and asked him to come with him to P.W.1-Suresh's house, where they talked and had coffee. At 5:30 p.m., the deceased and the accused went to J.C.N. Bar in Madanapalle and had one-quarter of the alcohol. The accused also invited the deceased to stay at Srinivasa Lodge.
The deceased then paid Rs.500/-to the Srinivasa Lodge Manager for Room No.110, on being directed by him P.W.5-P.Venu brought liquor bottles and biryani packets. Later the accused requested P.W.5 to get a water bottle. The accused kicked the deceased in the chest after P.W.5 left for a water bottle. The deceased fell on the cot. The accused, holding a knife, cut the deceased's throat, left the scene dropping one of the knives there. P.W.5 arrived and witnessed it. Upon P.W.1's complaint, Madanapalle II town P.S. registered Crime No.39 of 2013 under Section 302 of I.P.C.
On credible information, on 23.03.2013 at 04.00 p.m., PW.10, along with his staff and mediators, proceeded to Municipal Arch, Bangalore road, Madanapalle town and found the accused; on interrogation in the presence of mediators, the accused confessed to the offence, and as per the confession of accused, PW.10 and his team along with mediators proceeded to Thattivaripalli tank at 05.30 p.m., the accused went to big boulders brought blood stained clothes and cock fight knife; PW.10 seized the same under cover of mahazarnama; on 23.02.2013 the accused was forwarded to the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle for judicial remand. After completion of the investigation, PW.10 laid the charge sheet.
4. The II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madanapalle, has taken on file as P.R.C. No.26 of 2013. On appearance, furnished the copies of the documents to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and committed the case to the Sessions Court. Based on the material available on record, as referred to earlier, the charge came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
5. To prove the case, the Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.13, besides marking M.Os.1 to 12. After completing the prosecution evidence, learned Sessions Judge examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., concerning the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which he denied. The defence
Anwar Ali and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Mustkean @ Sirajuddin Vs. State of Rajasthan
State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram
State of Karnataka v. M.V. Mahesh
Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar
Shreekantiah Vs. State of Bombay
Once the Prosecution bases its case on Section 27 of the Evidence Act then necessarily the procedure laid down therein must be followed to the hilt, as the liberty of an individual is at stake.
Murder Charge - When a murder charge is to be proved solely on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence, including motive, in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the evidence must be cogent, trustworthy, and exclude every possible hypo....
Circumstantial evidence requires complete chain excluding innocence; long time gap invalidates last seen theory without ruling out third-party intervention; open-place recoveries lack credibility; un....
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to guilt, with the prosecution required to establish every link beyond reasonable doubt.
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.