TELANGANA HIGH COURT
P. Naveen Rao and Juvvadi Sridevi, JJ.
State of Telangana – Petitioner
versus
Shaik Babu and Ors. – Respondents
Referred Trial No.1 of 2020 and
Criminal Appeal No.293 of 2020
Decided on 28.4.2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Minor contradictions do not go to root of matter and destroy whole prosecution which is firmly made out against accused.
(2) Protection guaranteed under Article 20(3) of Constitution of India does not extend to protecting accused from being compelled to give his blood sample during course of investigation of a criminal case.
(3) Any discovery in pursuance of confession amounts to discovery of fact.
(4) Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent – Letting guilty escape is not doing justice according to law.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 r/w 34 r/w Section 3(2)(v) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 – Rape and murder – Common intention – Death sentence – Whole prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence – Though ‘last seen theory’, as propounded by prosecution in a case based on circumstantial evidence, may be a weak kind of evidence by itself, to base conviction solely on such theory, when said theory is proved coupled with other circumstances, accused does owe explanation under Section 106 of Evidence Act with regard to circumstances under which death might have taken place – If accused offers no explanation or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established and some other corroborative evidence in form of recovery of weapon etc. forming a chain of circumstances is established, conviction could be based on such evidence – All circumstances are undoubtedly pointing to guilt of accused – A close relative who is a natural witness, cannot be regarded as interested witness – Recovery of mobile and cash and other articles such as knife and blood stained clothes of accused, at behest of accused, is a strong incriminating circumstance against them – Minor contradictions do not go to root of matter and destroy whole prosecution which is firmly made out against accused – Conviction affirmed but death sentence commuted to undergo life imprisonment with a rider to remain in custody till their last breath, without remission. (Paras 22, 56, 57, 58, 68 and 106)

(B) Criminal Law – Circumstantial evidence – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature – All circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in chain of evidence – Proved circumstances must be consistent only with hypothesis of guilt of accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence – Question whether chain of circumstances unerringly established guilt of accused needs careful consideration. (Para 22)

(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Disclosure statement – There is no rigid rule postulated in Section 27 of Evidence Act that material object(s) cannot be directly collected from accused and should be collected from anywhere else – Words “discovery of material objects on confession of accused’’ do not necessarily mean that said discovery has to be made from somewhere else – Any discovery in pursuance of confession amounts to discovery of fact. (Para 58)

(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 53A – Constitution of India – Article 20(3) – Medical examination of accused – Protection guaranteed under Article 20(3) of Constitution of India does not extend to protecting accused from being compelled to give his blood sample during course of investigation of a criminal case – In a criminal case, especially in a case involving sexual offence, drawing of blood sample from body of accused would not violate his right against self-incrimination protected under Article 20(3) – Right against self-incrimination is just a prohibition on use of physical or oral compulsion to extort testimonial evidence from a person, not an exclusion of evidence taken from his body when it may be material – Examination of person of accused is contemplated as an aid to investigation of trial to ascertain facts which may afford evidence as to commission of offence under investigation – DNA test cannot be said to be conclusive proof with regard to allegations made against accused, however, it is an important piece of corroborative evidence – If a positive result of DNA test comes out against accused, it would constitute clinching evidence against him for proceeding further. (Paras 59 and 61)

(E) Administration of Justice – Exaggerated devotion to rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and thereby destroy social defence – Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent – Letting guilty escape is not doing justice according to law – A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense – It must grow out of evidence in the case – Vague hunches cannot take place of judicial evaluation – Judge does not preside over a criminal trial, merely to see that no innocent man is punished, but he also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape – Both are public duties – Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation – Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. (Para 69)

(F) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 354(3) – Death sentence – ‘Rarest of rare dictum’ breathes life in “special reasons” under Section 354(3) of Cr.P.C. and entrenches policy that life imprisonment is rule and death punishment is an exception – Exceptions are to be construed narrowly – It is not possible to lay down standards and norms for imposition of death penalty, as degree of culpability cannot be measured in each case. (Paras 76 and 77)

Result: Referred answered.