ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
M. Satyanarayana Murthy and Ninala Jayasurya, JJ.
Devarla Murali —Petitioner
versus
State of A.P., rep. by its
Public Prosecutor —Respondent
Cri.A.No.200 of 2015
Decided on 27.7.2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) It is sacrosanct duty of appellate court, while sitting in appeal against judgment of trial Judge, to be satisfied that guilt of accused has been established beyond all reasonable doubt after proper re-assessment, re-appreciation and re-scrutiny of material on record. Appreciation of evidence and proper reassessment to arrive at conclusion is imperative in a criminal appeal.
(2) Identification proceedings cannot be substantive evidence, but it can be used only for corroboration or contradiction purpose.
(3) If time gap is remote and not proximate, Court cannot convict accused based on last seen theory.
(4) Disclosure statement – If scene of offence is not within exclusive knowledge of accused alone and article recovered in pursuance of confession is available in market, Court cannot rely on such disclosure statement to connect accused with offence.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374 – Appeal against conviction – Scope and ambit – It is sacrosanct duty of appellate court, while sitting in appeal against judgment of trial Judge, to be satisfied that guilt of accused has been established beyond all reasonable doubt after proper re-assessment, re-appreciation and re-scrutiny of material on record – Appreciation of evidence and proper reassessment to arrive at conclusion is imperative in a criminal appeal – That is quality of exercise which is expected of appellate court to be undertaken and when that is not done, cause of justice is not subserved, for neither an innocent person should be sent to prison without his fault nor a guilty person should be let off despite evidence on record to assure his guilt – It is duty of Court to re-appreciate entire evidence afresh to come to an independent conclusion, uninfluenced by findings recorded by trial Court. (Paras 18 and 24)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 201 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 9 – Murder – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – When case is based on circumstantial evidence, burden of proof is always on prosecution to prove all circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must be fully established and facts so established must be consistent with hypothesis of guilt of accused and any circumstance consistent with innocence of accused, he is entitled to benefit of doubt – Identification proceedings cannot be substantive evidence, but it can be used only for corroboration or contradiction purpose – Much evidentiary value cannot be attached to test identification parade – Meaning of word “soon before death” is to be taken into consideration to find out what is live link and proximity of time between death and last seen together – If time gap is remote and not proximate, Court cannot convict accused based on last seen theory – Mere proof that deceased and accused No.1 were last seen alive together is not sufficient in absence of proximity of time – When genesis is not accepted, question of finding deceased in company of accused No.1 alive soon before his death fails – Ordinarily, direct evidence regarding conspiracy may not be forthcoming – Conviction of accused No.1/appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. is illegal and perverse since such finding is not based on any substantive evidence – Conviction and sentence set aside. (Paras 20, 34, 35, 42, 51, 52, 53, 57, 61, 78 and 79)

(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Disclosure statement – When two persons in custody are interrogated separately and simultaneously and both of them may furnish similar information leading to discovery of fact which was reduced into writing, such disclosure by two or more persons in police custody do not go out of purview of Section 27 altogether – What is relevant is that information given by one after other without any break, almost simultaneously and such information is followed up by pointing out material things by both of them then there is no good reason to eschew such evidence from regime of Section 27 of Evidence Act – If scene of offence is not within exclusive knowledge of accused alone and article recovered in pursuance of confession is available in market, Court cannot rely on such disclosure statement to connect accused with offence – Discovery evidence is only a relevant piece of evidence, but it is not a substantive piece of evidence. (Paras 62, 64 and 70)

Result: Criminal Appeal allowed.