Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G. Radha Rani, J.
Thonne Michael @ Mahesh S/o. S. Kallappa @ Peter - Appellant
Versus
State of A.P., through Public Prosecutor by Inspector of Police, P.S. Begumpet - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1443 of 2007
Decided On : 28-01-2022
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 304-I IPC - [Last Seen Evidence] - [Section 304-I IPC] - The court acquitted the appellant-A1 of the offence punishable under Section 304-I IPC based on weak circumstantial evidence and inadmissible confession, and declared the evidence insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the appellant-A1, along with A2 and A3, killed the deceased with boulders. The case rested on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory and a confession, and the appellant-A1 was convicted based on the testimony of a witness who was later declared hostile.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It noted contradictions in witness testimony, inadmissible confession, and lack of direct evidence or motive. The court emphasized the need for a complete chain of evidence to justify conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
Issues: The issues included the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, admissibility of confession, and the reliability of witness testimony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a complete chain of evidence and the inadmissibility of the confession and unreliable witness testimony. It held that the evidence did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant-A1 of the offence punishable under Section 304-I IPC, set aside the conviction and sentence, and directed the appellant's release from judicial custody.
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant-A1 aggrieved by the conviction and sentence inflicted by the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad in SC No.243 of 2007 vide judgment dated 08.10.2007 convicting him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 4 months for the offence punishable under Section 304-I IPC.
2.1. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 26.08.2006 at 4.00 AM, P.C. No.6448 of Begumpet Police Station lodged a written report in the police station stating that while he was on crime beat patrolling duty in the limits of Begumpet Police Station along with LW.2 – HG 5883 and were patrolling in Shyamlal area on the intervening night of 25/26.08.2006 at about 3.00 AM while proceeding towards Dhaniyalagutta area, found an unknown male dead body lying on the road in a pool of blood. On observing it, they noticed severe bleeding injuries on head and face of the deceased by smashing with granite stones which were found nearby the body. There was pool of blood near the head of the deceased and found blood stains spilled over the rocks nearby. On further observation, they noticed that the deceased seemed to be a Hindu. They also found three empty arrack sachets near the dead body. On their enquiry with hut dwellers, situated about 100 meters from the scene of offence towards Tatachari Colony, Shyamlal buildings, it came to light that a few persons went in an auto rickshaw about 1.00 AM towards Dhaniyalagutta and after twenty minutes, the auto returned back and they also heard hue and cries from Dhaniyalagutta side. The complainant gave the descriptive particulars of the body and the clothes that were found on the dead body and the identification marks which they observed. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.300 of 2006 under Section 302 IPC was registered.
2.2. A press note was issued along with the photograph of the deceased and the same was published in the news papers. On seeing it, the blood relatives of the deceased approached the police and stated that since 26.08.2006 Mr. Satish @ Chinna did not return home and found missing along with Auto bearing No.AP 28 W 9994. While they were searching for him, they found the auto abandoned with damages in front of Sree Ramulu Theatre, Bharat Nagar, Moosapet, Hyderabad and one of the witnesses, by name, N. Janardhan, employee of Sai Leela Fast Food Centre, opposite Sree Ramulu theatre, Moosapet, Hyderabad informed that on the intervening night of 25/26.08.2006 at about 00.15 hours the driver of the auto bearing No.AP 28 W 282 came in high speed and hit the stationed auto bearing No.AP 28 W 9994 and caused damage, due to which both the auto drivers quarrelled, in the meantime, the driver of auto bearing No.AP 28 V 7709 came there and both the drivers of the autos bearing No.AP28 V 7709 and AP 28 W 282 attacked the other auto driver and forcibly took him away in the auto AP 28 V 7709 towards Fathenagar side leaving the damaged auto at the accident site. On coming to know the auto numbers, the owner of the auto bearing No.AP 28 W 9994, by name, K. Shiva, cited as LW.10, identified the names of the auto drivers as Michael, Jeevan and Satish and stated that he gave auto No.AP28 W 9994 on hire to the deceased Satish. The witnesses - LWs.8 to 10, i.e. Suresh, Mohd. Jahangir and K. Shiva suspected the involvement of A1 and A2 that they might have killed the deceased Satish. The Inspector of Police secured the presence of another witness cited as LW.5 Mohd. Ahmed Khan Masoom @ Masoom and recorded his statement, who stated that on the night of 25.08.2006 he followed the accused person in auto AP 28 V 7709 to Dhaniyalagutta along with the deceased and the accused informed their intention to kill the deceased and when he tried to prevent, the accused asked him to go away from there as such he left the place, later he came to know
The judgment emphasizes the need for a complete chain of evidence and the inadmissibility of unreliable witness testimony and confession in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on circums....
The court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing the lack of reliable evidence linking the accused to the crime, affirming that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt to justify a conviction.
The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, leading to their acquittal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
