Circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory and failure to explain incriminating circumstances, can establish guilt in murder cases.

JUDGMENT :

Subba Reddy Satti, J.

The sole accused in Sessions Case No.226 of 2017 on the file of the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, is the appellant. He was tried and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months.

2. Substance of the charge is that on the intervening night of 26/27.12.2016, the accused caught hold of the head of Muppina Chiranjeevi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) and struck him to a brick wall and thereafter picked up a stone and hit on his face, causing his instantaneous death, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.

3. The case of the prosecution, as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, is:

(i) The deceased, a Mechanic by profession, was a resident of Kadakatla, Tadepalligudem. The material witnesses as well as the accused are also residents of Tadepalligudem. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased; P.W.2 is the sister of P.W.1, and P.W.3 is the daughter of P.W.2 and cousin of the deceased. On 25.12.2016, P.W.1, the deceased, and P.W.3 went to Chebrolu to visit the parents’ house of P.W.1 and returned to Tadepalligudem on 26.12.2016 at about 7:00 p.m. Thereafter, the deceased went out to fetch sambar. At around 10:00 p.m., since the deceased did not return, P.W.1 called him, who in turn replied that he would be back within fifteen minutes. Thereafter, P.W.1 again called the deceased twice, who in turn, replied that he would come back within ten minutes and thereafter within five minutes. However, the deceased neither returned nor replied to the subsequent call made by P.W.1.

(ii) On the next day at about 6:30 a.m., while P.W.1 was cleaning the front yard, she observed three persons looking below the bridge. On her questioning, they informed her that somebody killed a person and the dead body was at the bridge. P.W.1 rushed to the place and identified the deceased as her son. She noticed that the face was smashed. She also found kadiyam, a cell phone and cheppals at the scene of offence. On 27.12.2016, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and gave a report.

(iii) P.W.13, Inspector of Police, Tadepalligudem Town Circle, received Ex.P1-report and registered a case in crime No.328 of 2016 under Section 302 I.P.C. He submitted copies of the F.I.R. to all concerned. Ex.P11 is the original F.I.R. He requested higher officials to depute dog squad and clues team to the scene of offence. He secured the presence of P.W.11 and others and visited the scene of offence. He prepared scene observation report-Ex.P6 and rough sketch-Ex.P12. At the scene of offence, he found a motorcycle bearing No.AP 04 AP 2404, index company cell phone, belonged to the deceased and two green colour beer bottles containing a label as Carlsberg, Elephant strong beer. He seized the Index company cell phone-M.O.1, boulder stones-M.O.6, Beer bottles (M.O.4), Blood-stained earth and controlled earth- M.O.5, slippers-M.O.2, Steel Kadiyam-M.O.3 under mediators’ report Ex P.6. P.W.13 examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and others at the scene of offence and recorded their statements. He conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W.11 and others. Ex.P7 is the inquest report. He sent the body for postmortem examination.

(iv) P.W.9, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Tadepalligudem, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the deceased died due to severe crush injury over the face due to head injury and hanging. He issued pos