IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for reliable and corroborated evidence in criminal cases, and the admissibility of confession and recovery of material objects.

JUDGMENT

G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY,J. - This appeal is arising out of the judgment dtd. 17/2/2014 in S.C.No.532 of 2011, on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereunder, the appellant was convicted under Sec. 235 (2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00, and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

2. The appellant is the sole accused. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on the intervening night of 1st/2/11/2010, the accused murdered the deceased Katimani Pratap @ Sunder Raj by assaulting with a cement tile boulder, causing injuries on the head in front of the shop bearing No. 18/2/342/C, near Seven Temple, Jangammet, Hyderabad.

3. Basing on the report of PW-1, a crime was registered against the accused vide Crime No.377 of 2010, of Chatrinaka Police Station for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses, recorded their statements under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, forwarded dead body for postmortem examination, observed the scene of offence, prepared crime report, apprehended the accused on 11/11/2010, recorded his confession in the presence of panch witnesses, seized the material objects and after receiving the medical reports, laid the charge sheet against the accused for the above said offence.

4. After committal proceedings, the Sessions Court framed charge against the accused for the offence under Sec. 302 of IPC, for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 10, Exs.P-1 to P-9 and material objects MOs.1 to 8 are marked. Further, the accused was examined under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating evidence of the prosecution witnesses which was denied by the accused and he also reported no evidence on his behalf.

6. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the accused has committed the murder of the deceased, and accordingly, convicted him as aforesaid.

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident but the prosecution has planted PWs.3 and 4 as eye witnesses. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the scene of offence is not properly established by the prosecution as the witnesses deposed that the offence took place in front of the shop of PW-1 though it took place in front of the temple and as such the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and prayed to set aside the judgment of the trial Court by acquitting the appellant.

9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the material objects are recovered pursuant to the confession of the accused, which is admissible under Sec. 27 of Indian Evidence Act and further, the FSL report also disclose that human blood was traced on the clothes of the accused. It is further contended that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and convicted the appellant and there is no error or irregularity in the judgment of the Sessions Court, warranting interference of this Court, and therefore, prayed to confirm the judgment of the trial Court by dismissing the appeal.

10. The points for determination in this case are;

1. Whether the presence of PWs.3 and 4 at the time of incident, near the scene of offence is proved by the prosecution ?

2. Whether the human hair found on the material object/M.O.2 establishes a