Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 1434
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. SURESH REDDY, B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, JJ.
Shaik Khasim Basha S/o Shaik Mahaboob – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 386 of 2016
Decided On : 07-03-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : D. Purnachandra Reddy
For the Respondent: S. Dushyanth Reddy
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt in murder and robbery cases when the accused fail to provide a reasonable explanation for possession of the victim's belongings.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 397, 201 r/w. 34 - Conviction for murder, robbery, and destruction of evidence - Accused No. 1 and 2 were convicted for the murder of the deceased, robbery of his belongings, and destruction of evidence by burning the body. The trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment and fines. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 46)
(B) Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including possession of the deceased's car, recovery of human remains, and electronic evidence. The court emphasized that the absence of a reasonable explanation for possession of the deceased's belongings led to an inference of guilt. (Paras 10, 44)
Facts of the case:
The deceased, an IT Director, was murdered on 12.01.2013, and his body was disposed of by the accused. The prosecution established the timeline of events leading to the discovery of the body and the recovery of stolen items. (Paras 3, 4, 19)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence and the lack of explanation from the accused regarding their possession of the deceased's belongings. (Paras 45, 46)
Issues: The main issues were whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the admissibility of electronic evidence. (Paras 18, 41)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that circumstantial evidence, when corroborated by credible witnesses, can establish guilt, especially when the accused fail to explain their possession of stolen property. (Paras 44, 45)
Result: The Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the trial court's judgment. (Paras 46, 47)
JUDGMENT :
B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri D. Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/accused No. 1 and 2 and Sri S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
2. The appeal is filed by the accused No. 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No. 323 of 2014 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’). The accused No. 1 and 2 were tried and convicted by the trial Court for the offence under sections 302, 397 and 201 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘I.P.C.’) and sentenced to suffer (1) rigorous imprisonment for life, and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months each, for the offence U/s. 302 I.P.C. (2) rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each, for the offence U/s. 397 I.P.C. and (3) rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years, and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each, for the offence U/s. 201 r/w. 34 I.P.C.
3. The substance of the charge is that the accused No. 1 and 2 on 12.01.2013 at about 10.57 PM committed murder of Sri M.V. Prabhu (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) and robbed a Car, Samsung cell phone, Spice cell phone, wallet containing Rs.1,400/- six ATM cards and a Lenovo Lap Top from the deceased, and caused disappearance of the evidence by setting fire to the body of the deceased.
4. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that:
(i) The deceased is brother of Sri M.V. Guru Prasad (PW-1); Smt. M. Sumathi Vijayan (PW-2) is the mother of the deceased; the deceased was working as I.T Director in a Software Company at Bangalore; the deceased owneda car bearing No. KA 51 MC 6862; the deceased went to Hyderabad in his car on 11.01.2013 to attend an official meeting; On 12.01.2013 evening he spoke to his mother over phone and informed her that he is returning to Bangalore; 14.01.2013 PW-1 intimated PW-2 that the deceased did not attend the office at Bangalore, and he was not taking call made to the mobile phone; Immediately he started searching for the deceased but in vain; He made enquiry at various tollgates located between Hyderabad and Bangalore; He was informed at Panchalingala tollgate that the car of the deceased crossed the tollgate on 12.01.2013 at 10.57 p.m. PW-1 went to next tollgate at Veldurthi; he was informed that the car of the deceased did not pass Veldurthi tollgate on that day; Immediately, PW-1 went to Taluk Police Station, Kurnool and presented Ex.P-1 report.
(ii) Head Constable of Taluk Police Station, Kurnool (PW-15), registered a case in Cr. No. 38/2013 for man missing under Ex.P-6 FIR, and submitted copies to all the concerned.
(iii) Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Kurnool (PW-16), conducted investigation;He examined PW-1, K. Abdul Khaleed (PW-3), who is doing hotel business near tollgate, PW-4 tollgate contractor of Kurnool Tollgate and collected Ex.P-2 data entry slip; On 09.02.2013 on receipt of information about missing car, visited ‘Y’ junction of Ulchala village road, along with PW-10 (R. Subhakar) and another mediator; He noticed a Black colour Chevrolet Beat Car bearing No. AP 21 AK 1202 coming from Ulchala side; On suspicion stopped the car, noticed A-1 in the driving seat, A-2 in the left side of front seat; A-1 tried to run away; Inspector of Police verified the engine number and chassis number of the car; they matched with the car of the deceased; Then Inspector of Police arrested A-1 and A-2, as they did not give proper information about possession of car belonging the car and change of number.
(iv) On interrogation, accused No. 1 and 2 revealed about the offence; Inspector of Police seized the car (M.O-9), and recorded the con
