The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.

JUDGMENT : 

(K.Surender, J.)

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the judgment and sentence dated 07.06.2019 in S.C.No.6 of 2017, on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC .

2. Heard Smt. C.Vasundara, learned counsel for the appellant/accused, Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2.

3. The case of the prosecution is that Chandupatla Padma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) is the senior paternal aunt of the appellant. The appellant used to suspect that the deceased was practicing sorcery/witchcraft, for which reason he and his family members developed grudge against the deceased. Few months prior to the incident, the cotton crop of the deceased was damaged. It is alleged that the appellant was responsible for the damage of the said crop and the deceased and PW.1 complained to the elders in that regard. PW.3 then called the appellant and admonished him. The appellant again questioned the deceased about practicing sorcery. Because of the suspicion of the appellant that the deceased was practicing sorcery, which resulted in the ill health of their family members, the appellant wanted to kill her. On 25.12.2015, the deceased went to her fields but did not return. After a thorough search, PW.2/son of the deceased lodged a complaint with the police stating that the deceased was missing. The said complaint was filed on 27.12.2015.

4. PWs.7 and 8 are the elders in the village. PW.7 stated that on 01.01.2016, he identified MOs.1 and 2, which are a pant and a shirt belonging to the appellant. PW.8 stated that there were disputes between the deceased and the appellant, and he also stated that the cotton crop of the deceased was spoiled by wild pigs. However, the complaint was filed against the appellant. 15 to 20 days after the incident, the deceased was not found in the village. The police, while enquiring into the matter, found the clothes, which are MOs.1 and 2, near the well belonging to one Narayana Reddy. The police brought the said clothes to the village, and PW.8 identified the clothes as those of the appellant. The appellant was caught by the Bhupalpalli Police, who took him to the Tank at Nandigama. According to the case of the prosecution, the appellant confessed that he had killed the deceased in the fields of the deceased, and her body was taken in a gunny bag to the nearby tank, which is at a distance of 1½ kilometers. He threw the dead body into the tank by tying a boulder along with the dead body, keeping it in the gunny bag.

5. On the basis of the dead body being found and identified as that of the deceased, the police conducted further investigation and filed a charge sheet against the appellant for committing the murder of the deceased.

6. The learned Sessions Judge found favor with the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution, and accordingly convicted the appellant.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that none of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the main contention of the prosecution, that the dead body of the deceased was found at the instance of the appellant, is not established by the evidence of their own witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove how the dead body was carried from the fields of the deceased to the tank, which is 1½ kilometers away. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution do not form a complete chain, and there are missing links that remain unexplained.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh , (2024) 3 SCC 481 , Vijender v. State of Delhi ,, [(1997) 6 SCC 171] and Karakkattu Muhamme