The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for cogent and unerring circumstantial evidence to establish guilt in cases based on such evidence, and the burden on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all human probability.

JUDGMENT :

CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J.

1. Questioning the validity and the legality of the judgment that is rendered by the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nagarkunrool, dated 16.12.2016 in Sessions Case No. 611 of 2013 which stood pending on the file of the said Court, the appellant, who is the accused in the said Sessions Case, approached this Court by way of appeal.

2. Basing on the charge that the appellant (hereinafter be referred as “the accused” for convenience) committed the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. the trial Court convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the said verdict, the accused approached this Court questioning its validity and legality.

3. The grievance of the accused is that the trial Court totally ignored the fact that there were no eye-witnesses to the alleged incident and the trial Court wrongly based its judgment on circumstantial and hearsay evidence. He further pointed out that the trial Court relied upon the fact that the deceased was last seen in his company, but it failed to observe that there was no evidence that himself and the deceased left the arrack shop together after consuming liquor. The accused further pointed out that the trial Court got confused and wrongly expected him to disprove the contents of Ex.P-9-F.I.R. and further, it erred in believing the evidence of PW-9, Ex.P-3 the alleged confessional statement and the recovery of MO-1 and thus, the judgment of the trial Court is unsustainable.

4. Heard the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

5. Having regard to the pleas taken and the grounds projected, as narrated above, the points that fall for consideration are:

(1) Whether the prosecution emerged successful in establishing beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder which is punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.

(2) Whether there exists any infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court either in appreciating the facts of the case or in applying the established principles of law to the said facts, as contended by the appellant/accused, which in turn requires the interference of this Court exercising the appellate jurisdiction.

6. Point Nos. 1 and 2:

The version of the prosecution, as could be culled out from the charge sheet, is that one G. Venkataiah (hereinafter be referred as “the deceased” for brevity) is the brother of the de facto complainant by name G. Balaswamy and their sister is Niranjanamma. She was given in marriage to the accused. Thus, the accused is the brother-in-law of the de facto complainant and the deceased. On the invitation of the de facto complainant, his sister Niranjanamma and her husband, who is the accused, went to the house of the de facto complainant on 31.12.2010 to attend the cradle ceremony of the grandson of the de facto complainant. On the next day, i.e. on 01.01.2011 at about 7 a.m. the accused and the brother of the de facto complainant, who is the deceased, went to Malkapur Village for consuming arrack. At about 2 p.m. PW-3 made a phone call to the de facto complainant and informed him that the deceased was found dead in the agricultural fields of one Bainu Manyam. On that, the de facto complainant and others went to the spot and found the dead body of the deceased. The accused who accompanied the deceased was not found and therefore, they suspected that the accused might have killed the deceased keeping previous grudges in mind. Basing on the complaint given, a case was registered and investigated into. Inquest was held and the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. On 03.01.2011, the accused was apprehended at Kranthi Hotel, Telkapally and he was inter