Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SURENDER, ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, JJ.
Ulcha Gajjaram, Adilabad Dt. – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Telangana, rep. by P.P., Hyd – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.28 Of 2015
Decided On : 26-09-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Conviction for murder – The appellant was convicted for the murder of Chandrakala based on circumstantial evidence, primarily the 'last seen theory' and failure to explain his whereabouts during the time of death – The prosecution established a motive linked to financial disputes and jealousy over the deceased's relationship with another individual – The appellant's absconding post-offence and the recovery of incriminating evidence further supported the conviction. (Paras 1-20)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence – The principles governing circumstantial evidence were discussed, emphasizing that the prosecution must prove all circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused must provide an explanation for their actions when last seen with the victim. (Paras 11-12)
(C) Last Seen Theory – The court reiterated that while the last seen theory is a weak form of evidence on its own, it can support a conviction when corroborated by other evidence and circumstances. (Paras 16-17)
(D) Appeal – The appeal was dismissed as the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the learned Sessions Judge's findings were upheld. (Paras 20-21)
JUDGMENT :
(K. Surender, J.)
The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was involved in several theft cases pertaining to Police Station I Town, Nizamabad. He was acquainted with the deceased namely Chandrakala, mother of PW.5. Both started living together. Chandrakala was involved in prostitution and the appellant used to allegedly take money from the deceased. The deceased and her sisters were arrested by Police at Railway Station, Nizamabad and were sent to jail. The appellant was not having money, as such, he went to Basara and committed theft of an Auto. He was arrested and after release on bail he came back and found that the deceased was physically involved with a person named Sai. The appellant warned the deceased not to move around with Sai.
3. On 26.01.2012 around 5:00 p.m., the appellant along with the deceased and her son PW.5 went to Nizamabad and watched a movie. While watching the movie, according to PW.5, a quarrel took place between the deceased and the appellant and he left the theatre and went to the railway station. Thirty minutes later, the deceased and PW.5 met the appellant near the bus-stand where they slept. The next day on 27.01.2012 at 9:00 a.m., the deceased and her son went to Government Hospital, Nizamabad and the appellant followed them. The deceased asked the appellant to accompany her to Kamareddy to get money for PW.5. Around 11:00 a.m., while going towards bus-stand, deceased and appellant met PWs.4 and 6. PWs.4, 6, appellant, and the deceased all of them went to Toddy shop consumed Toddy. About 1:00 p.m., PWs.4 and 6 left. Thereafter on 28.01.2012, the dead body of the deceased was found on the outskirts of Manikbhandar village beside RTC colony.
4. PW.1 who is the Revenue Inspector of Makloor Mandal lodged complaint with the Police that some one must have killed the deceased after having sexual intercourse with her. Case was registered by PW.10 and PW.11-Inspector of Police took up investigation. In the presence of PW.7 and another he conducted scene of offence-panchanama. M.O.1-chappal, M.O.6-condom, M.O.7-unused condoms were seized at the scene along with M.Os.8 to 11. The body was sent for post-mortem examination. PW.9 who conducted post-mortem examination held that the deceased died due to strangulation and the deceased was subjected to intercourse.
5. The appellant was arrested on 05.02.2012. Pursuant to his confession in the presence of PW.8, M.O.5-towel allegedly used to strangulate the deceased was seized which was concealed in the bushes.
6. On the basis of the evidence during the course of investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. The learned Sessions Judge examined PWs.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P1 to P12. M.Os.1 to 14 were also brought on record.
8. PWs.4, 5 and 6 witnesses speak about seeing the deceased and appellant together prior to finding the body of the deceased. The entire case rests on the evidence of “last seen theory”. The alleged motive is that the deceased was having intimacy with one person named Sai and also that the appellant was demanding money from the deceased. Only PW.4 speaks about the relation between the said ‘Sai’ and the deceased.
9. The learned Sessions Judge found that PW.5 deposed regarding the events that transpired on 26.01.2012 and PWs.4 and 6 were the persons who consumed Alcohol with the deceased around 1:00 p.m. on 27.01.2012. Thereafter, the deceased was found dead. According to the learned Sessions Judge, under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the appellant was having exclusive knowledge of what transpired in between the appellant and the deceased. Further there was no defence that was let in by the appellant to prove his whereabouts on the night of 27.01.2012 which according to the prosecution was the time of death of the deceased. On the basis of said
The conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld based on circumstantial evidence, particularly the last seen theory, and the appellant's failure to explain his actions during the time of the murder.
Murder and disappearance of evidence – Whenever any doubt emanates in mind of Court, benefit shall accrue to accused and not prosecution – Conviction only on the basis of last seen together cannot be....
(1) Circumstantial evidence – ‘Last seen’ theory can be invoked only when same stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.(2) When two views are possible, one favouring accused is to be leaned on.
Conviction for murder barred by insufficient evidence; last seen theory alone lacks definitive proof, reinforcing the standard that circumstantial proof must connect the accused to the crime.
In a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence, multiple corroborative factors, including the last seen theory and absence of alternative explanations, can establish guilt beyond reasonable ....
Circumstantial evidence must conclusively link the accused to the crime; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion or conjecture is insufficient for conviction.
The judgment establishes the principles of circumstantial evidence, the last seen theory, and the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act in establishing guilt in criminal cases.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory in establishing the guilt of the accused.
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
