Point of Law : Assumptions, presumptions and fanciful thinking cannot be made basis to arrive at conclusions in a criminal case.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant aggrieved by the conviction under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years vide judgment in S.C.No.347 of 2007 dated 29.10.2008 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District (for short ‘the learned Sessions Judge’), the present appeal is filed. Altogether three accused were tried for the offence under Section 302 IPC, however, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted A2 and A3 of the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution according to final report is that the appellant herein and his deceased wife loved each other and got married at Yadagirigutta temple, without the knowledge of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased. Both A1 and the deceased shifted to quarters in Crystal poultry at Ghatkesar. On 16.10.2006, the deceased asked A1 to take her to hospital as she was not well. However, this appellant and A2 and A3 refused to take her to the hospital. For the said reason, the deceased got frustrated and closed doors of her quarter from inside. At that time, one Nandesh(PW4) and Prashanth(PW5) knocked the doors of the quarter of the deceased and she did not open, as such, both of them opened the doors forcibly and found the deceased lying in sitting position by the side of almirah with a saree tied around her neck. Accordingly, it was informed to others in the quarters and they brought her out and laid her in the verandah. Since the investigation revealed that there is no harassment by the accused, the charge sheet was laid for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.

3. The Court, however, after going through the charge sheet and other material filed under Section 178 of Cr.P.C., came to the conclusion that the case is one of murder punishable under Section 302 of IPC on the basis of injuries found on the deceased and accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge as follows :

“That you Narender (A1) along with A2 Chakri and A3 Sarasthi, on 6.10.2006 in the morning hours intentionally killed your wife Manjula, at your quarter in a poultry farm at Ghatkesar by beating and strangulation with saree and thereby you have committed the offence ‘murder’ punishable under Section 302 IPC, within my cognizance.”

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge is based on assumptions and not supported by any evidence brought on record. The learned Judge assumed that A1 did not state any reason for his absence in the poultry when informed to P.W.3, the owner of poultry. Further, when there was blood stained stone found at the scene of offence, the conclusion that A1 beat the deceased in between 7.00 am to 8.30 a.m. and by the reason of the said injuries, the deceased gradually lost her conscious and died has no basis. At the same breath, learned Sessions Judge found that there is no evidence on record to prove that the accused harassed the deceased and there was ill motive or intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment in the case of Anwar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 166, wherein their Lordships found that in all the cases of circumstantial evidence, when the prosecution fails to prove the complete chain of events, the accused would be entitled to acquittal. He also relied on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Shyam Sunder @ Pappu v. State [Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2005], dated 30.09.2013, and Dehal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh [Criminal Appeal No.1215 of 2005], dated 31.08.2010, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement of the accused is recorded without administering any oath as such it cannot be treated as evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of Evidence Act.

6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be interfered with for