Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P.SAM KOSHY, N.TUKARAMJI, JJ.
Uradi Sailu, Medak Dist. – Appellant
Versus
P.P., HYD – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.478 and 347 of 2016
Decided on : 29-08-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 307, 379, and 201 – Conviction and sentencing of accused for murder, robbery, and destruction of evidence – Trial Court found accused guilty based on circumstantial evidence, including recovery of gold ornaments and confessions – Appeals filed against conviction. (Paras 4, 10, 19)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence – The prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – The absence of cogent evidence and failure to establish ownership of recovered items led to the acquittal of the accused. (Paras 10, 19)
Facts of the case: The case involved the recovery of a decomposed female body, identified as the wife of the complainant, and the subsequent investigation leading to the arrest of the accused based on circumstantial evidence and confessions. (Paras 5, 6)
Findings of Court: The prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of strong evidence linking the accused to the crime. (Paras 19)
Issues: The main issues included the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the establishment of ownership of the recovered gold ornaments. (Paras 10, 19)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution must provide cogent evidence to establish guilt, and in the absence of such evidence, the benefit of doubt must favor the accused. (Paras 19)
Result: Appeals allowed; accused acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P. SAM KOSHY)
Since both the appeals are filed assailing the same judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Heard Mr. P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.478 of 2016; Ms. G.Jaya Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant No.2 in Criminal Appeal No.347 of 2016 and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State in both the appeals.
3. These appeals have been filed by the appellants – accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C assailing the judgment of conviction dated 07.04.2016 passed by the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Medak in S.C.No.185 of 2014.
4. Vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302, 307, 379 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/- each with default stipulation for the offence under Section 302. Similarly, they have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.200/- each with default stipulation for the offence under Section 379 of IPC; and they were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.200/- each with default stipulation for the offence under Section 201 of IPC.
5. The entire case of the prosecution revolves around:-
b) The dead body was found in the Reserve Forest Area near Lothuvagu in a highly decomposed state and the face also had got defaced and could not be identified.
6. PW.1 (B.Balaiah) reported the matter to Kulcharam Police Station in respect of him being informed about an unknown dead body of a female found in the forest area. He went there and found the body of a female aged around 30-35 years in a decomposed state. Based upon the said complaint, the Kulcharam Police Station registered a case vide Cr.No.42 of 2013 and the body was subsequently subjected to post-mortem examination at the scene of offence itself after taking photographs of the dead body and the scene of offence etc., as the body was already decomposed and was not in a position to be shifted to the hospital. The photographs and other particulars were sent to all the SHOs in the State Government with a lookout notice. Meanwhile, PW.4 (A.Anjaiah) filed a missing complaint at Kulcharam Police Station in respect of his wife being missing from his house from 15.06.2013. According to PW.4, his wife Arutla Chandrakala (hereinafter, the deceased) left the house on the morning of 15.06.2013 for attending to her job, but she never returned back. Subsequently, it was PW.5 (A.Bapu Reddy) who informed PW.4 about the news item that came in the newspaper dated 19.06.2013 regarding tracing of an un-identified female dead body in the limits of Kulcharam Police Station and upon such information PW.4 reached the police station and on seeing the clothes and chappals of the deceased, he identified the body to be that of his wife. He further contended that the deceased was wearing certain gold ornaments also which was not found on the body when the police recovered the same.
7. Subsequently, on the basis of the statement recorded of PW.8 (A.Sravanthi) the daughter of the deceased, the police said to have started investigation. On the alleged suspicion made on accused No.1 who used to call frequently to the deceased and on an enquiry made by PW.8 she was informed by the deceased that she had taken some loan from accused No.1 and he used to call her in respect of the repayment of the same. It was also informed that sometimes upon receiving the call; she used to go out of the home and after sometime used to come back. The missing complaint lodged at Kulcharam Police Station stood transferred to Chilakalaguda Police Station vide Cr.No.360 of 2013 due to jurisdictional
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt through cogent evidence; failure to do so results in acquittal.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence leading to the only conclusion of guilt for a conviction to be sustainable.
The judgment underscores the principle that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to guilt, with no reasonable doubt of innocence.
Point of law : whenever the charge is framed for higher offence, the Court retains the power to convict an accused for a lesser offence even in the absence of a charge being framed for lesser offence....
Conviction set aside - Prosecution failed to prove the circumstances relied upon by them to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as per established legal principles.
The court ruled that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the need for corroboration and the benefit of doubt for the accused.
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances and a motive for the crime to secure a conviction.
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
