IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
Circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory can establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when the accused fails to provide a satisfactory explanation.

JUDGMENT :

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P. SAM KOSHY)

The instant is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C filed by the appellant – accused challenging the judgment of conviction dated 16.10.2015 in Sessions Case No.224 of 2014 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Asifabad.

2. Heard Mr. Ram Prasad Pathipaka, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State.

3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court had found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and upon convicting the appellant, sentenced him to under imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (03) three months.

4. The case of the prosecution, as per the charge-sheet, is that on 06.02.2014 at 12:00 hrs, PW.1 (Rasapalli Prakash) who is the brother of Rasapalli Santosh (hereinafter, the ‘deceased’) lodged a complaint at Asifabad Police Station stating that the deceased and the appellant are close friends belonging to same Gundi Village, Asifabad. Both the appellant and the deceased are known for wandering from one village to another without any specific purpose and both of them had previously been involved in multiple criminal cases, leading to their time in judicial custody where they developed strong friendship which continued even after their release. The deceased had a habit of consuming alcohol and frequently insulted the appellant in a filthy language. That on 02.02.2014, both the appellant and the deceased attended a cradle ceremony of Desboina Guruvaiah’s granddaughter in Gundi Village. While returning home on the same day at about 9:00 P.M. both of them had a quarrel in front of the local shop belonging to PW.8 where the deceased verbally abused the appellant, prompting him to kill the deceased. Following this plan, the appellant bought a bottle of liquor from the shop, encouraged the deceased to drink excessively and when the deceased fell asleep on a cot, the appellant attacked him with an axe by striking him on the head. The injuries were severe leading to the immediate death of the deceased at the scene of occurrence itself.

5. Initially the offence remained undiscovered for several days until 06.02.2014 when PWs.4 and 6 noticed a foul odour emanating from the appellant’s house. Subsequently, PW.4, PW.6 and other locals opened the door and found fully decomposed dead body on the cot. Accordingly, the police authorities registered a complaint in Cr.No.18 of 2014 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. During the course of investigation, on 10.02.2014 at about 9:30 hours PWs.10 and 12 to whom the appellant made extra judicial confession, brought the appellant to the police station and surrendered him before the PW.16. During the interrogation the appellant confessed the crime and upon the confessional statement, the police authorities had recovered and seized a blood stained axe hidden in bushes behind his house. Further, the forensic analysis also confirmed the presence of human blood on various items at the crime scene. PW.14 in his report confirmed that the cause of the death was due to cardio pulmonary arrest due to fractured skull and laceration of the brain. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed and the matter was put to trial before the III Additional Sessions Judge, Asifabad, where the case was registered as Sessions Case No.224 of 2014.

6. In all, the prosecution examined sixteen (16) witnesses, marked thirteen (13) Exhibits and also marked twelve (12) Material Objects (MOs). There was neither any evidence on behalf of the defence, nor any document was marked. The Trial Court after recording the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and after hearing the learned counsel appearing on either side, finally passed the impugned judgment of conviction holding the appellant guilty for the o