IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. SURESH REDDY, T.C.D.SEKHAR, JJ.
P.Mohan (A-1) S/o. Pandurangaiah - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Ap Rep PP - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 881/2017
Decided On : 13-02-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 364, 201, 404 read with 34 - Conviction of accused for murder and related offences - Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of reliable evidence from witnesses - Conviction and sentence set aside. (Paras 14, 15)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Examination of accused - Accused denied incriminating evidence against them, leading to a lack of confidence in the prosecution's case. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The accused were charged with abducting and murdering the deceased, a jeweler, and disposing of his body. The prosecution's case relied on witness testimonies that were found unreliable.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the conclusion that the conviction was unsustainable.
Issues: The main issues were the reliability of witness testimonies and the sufficiency of evidence to support the charges against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that suspicion alone cannot lead to conviction and that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Result: Criminal Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside, and the accused acquitted.
JUDGMENT :
K.Suresh Reddy, J.
All the three accused in Sessions Case No.346 of 2012 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, are the appellants. They were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges :-
1st charge was under Section 364 IPC against A.1 to A.3, 2nd charge was under Section 302 IPC against A.1 to A.3, the 3rd charge was under Section 201 against A.1 to A.3, 4th charge was under Section 379 IPC against A.1 to A.3 and the last charge was under Section 404 read with 34 IPC against A.1 to A.3.
2. Substance of the charge is that on 12.12.2011 at about 9.00 a.m. all the accused abducted one C.Gowtham Chand (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), and demanded gold and cash and on the same day at about 7.30 P.M. they strangulated him to death with a coconut rope and took three sovereign of gold chain and gold ornaments from the body of the deceased, caused his death and thereafter poured kerosene on the dead body and set fire to it at Rakshasi gutta forest near Jonnagurukala village in order to screen away the evidence and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 201, 404 read with 34 IPC.
3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted all the three accused under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for 'LIFE' and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. They were further convicted under Section 364 read with 34 IPC and were sentenced to suffer simple Imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. They were further convicted under Section 201 read with 34 IPC and were sentenced to suffer simple Imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. They were further convicted under Section 404 read with 34 IPC and were sentenced to suffer simple Imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. All the substantive sentences imposed against the accused No.1 to 3 were directed to run concurrently.
4. Case of the prosecution, as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, is as follows:-
The deceased is a resident of Chittoor and he is doing jewellery business under the name and style of “Gowtham Jewellery” Shop at Bazar street. P.Ws.1 and 5 are the sons of the deceased, P.Ws.2 and 3 are the adjacent gold shop owners. A.1 and his family members were regular customers of the deceased. A.1 purchased a gold chain in the shop of the deceased and paid some amount and he was due an amount of Rs.4,500/- to the deceased. A.1 used to postpone to pay the same on one pretext or the other. While so, on 12.12.2011 A.1 telephoned to the deceased asking him to come to Vijayalakshi theatre centre, Gandhi road to collect the said amount. Immediately, the deceased, who was at his residence, left on his Suzuki Access two wheeler to collect the amount. On the same day, at about 1.00 P.M., P.W.1 received a phone call from his father i.e., the deceased informing that A.2 will visit the shop and advised him to give three sovereign of gold chain weighing 24 grams. At about 2.00 P.M., A.2 visited the shop of the deceased on the two wheeler belonging to the deceased and collected the chain. P.W.1 used the cell phone of P.W.2 for confirming the transaction in the presence of A.2. Thereafter, the deceased did not return either to his shop or to his residence. P.W.1 searched for the deceased throughout the day, but could not trace him. On 13.12.2011 at about 7.30 P.M., P.W.1 went to the police station and gave report-Ex.P1. P.W.15 Sub Inspector of police received Ex.P1 from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.153 of 2011 under the
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, and the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
Circumstantial evidence must be complete and conclusive to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
The conviction of the accused for murder and theft was upheld based on established circumstantial evidence, confirming the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, leading to their acquittal.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as per established legal principles.
Conviction set aside - Prosecution failed to prove the circumstances relied upon by them to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
where the Test Identification of properties for the reason that in Rule 35 of the Criminal Rules of Practice as well as Clause 474 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, it is clearly mentioned that th....
The conviction under conspiracy and murder was overturned due to insufficient and unreliable evidence, highlighting the need for beyond reasonable doubt to establish guilt.
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.