IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K. SURENDER, E.V. VENUGOPAL, JJ.
Chintakindi Anil, Secunderabad - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Telangana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.976 of 2017
Decided On : 22-04-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and convictions (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. circumstantial evidence leads to conviction (Para 7) |
| 3. contentions regarding identification and evidence (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. standards for circumstantial evidence (Para 14 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. appeal allowed and conviction set aside (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT :
(K. Surender, J.)
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant – accused to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 376(2)(i)(m)(n), 376 “A”, and 302 read with Section 75 of IPC, and Sections 6 read with 5 (h) (i) (l) (m) of POCSO Act, 2012, & Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment Act No.1 of 2016), vide judgment, dated 26.07.2017 in S.C.PCs.No.20 of 2017, passed by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Hyderabad. The accused was sentenced for the aforesaid offences as follows:-
| Sl.No. | Offence | Sentence |
| 1. | Section 6 of the POCSO Act | Undergo rigorous imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, to suffer simple in default, imprisonment for two months |
| 2. | 366-A of IPC | Undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months |
| 3. | 376 (2) (i)(m)(n) of IPC | Undergo rigorous imprisonment for Life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder natural life of the accused and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. |
| 4. | 376-A of IPC | Undergo rigorous imprisonment for Life. |
| 5. | 302 read with 75 of IPC | Undergo rigorous imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. |
| 6. | U/s. 3 (2) (v) of the SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 | Undergo rigorous imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. |
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that, on 02.07.2016, PW.2, who is the father of the deceased, lodged a complaint (Ex.P2) stating that on 02.07.2016 at 09:30 P.M., he, along with his wife-Babitha, who was examined as PW.3, and daughter-Saritha (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), went to Toddy compound. While PWs.2 and 3 were consuming toddy, the deceased was playing outside, and around 3:30 PM, she was no longer seen thereafter. They searched all possible places in the surrounding area, but they could not find her. The said complaint was registered by the Alwal police as a ‘missing girl’ case and the investigating officer started the investigation.
3. On 03.07.2016 at 2:00 AM, PW.1, who is the S.I of police, lodged a complaint with the Bollaram Police. In his complaint, he stated that while he, along with his staff, was performing patrolling duty at Ammuguda area, they received a call stating that there were suspicious sounds near the railway track. Accordingly, PW.1, along with PWs.9 and 10, went towards the IEME centre Headquarters in the patrolling car. A person was seen running from the location wearing a purple- coloured shirt and blue-coloured jeans pant. The age of the person appeared to be around 30 years. Although PWs.1, 5, and 10 made attempts to catch hold of the person, they could not succeed.
4. Further searching in the bushes, they found the dead body of the deceased without any clothes on her. Her hands were tied behind her back and her legs were tied to the neck with pieces of cloth. The body had bleeding injuries and blood was oozing from her head and ears. At that same place, they found a charge sheet in Cr.No121 of 2015, registered under Sections 393 and 307 IPC of Narsapur Police Station. They observed that the girl was kidnapped and killed after being raped.
5. On the basis of the complaint filed with Bollaram police, investigation was taken up. PW.20-inves
The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, leading to the overturning of the conviction.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence leading to the only conclusion of guilt for a conviction to be sustainable.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In circumstantial evidence cases, all links in the chain must be proven conclusively to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and coherent chain of events that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.