Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K.SURENDER, E.V.VENUGOPAL
Thallapalli Rakesh Goud , Laxman , Laxminarayana – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(K. Surender, J.)
1. Crl.A.No.244 of 2021 is preferred by the appellant/A-1 and Crl.A.No.489 of 2021 is preferred by the appellant/A-2, questioning their conviction for the offences under Sections 302 and 379 of IPC, pending on the file of II Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Adilabad at Mancherial.
2. Since both the Appeals arise out of the judgment in S.C.No.113 of 2019, both are heard together and disposed of by way of this common judgment.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants/A-1 and A-2 and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
4. The case of the prosecution is that A-1 and A-2 are friends. The deceased, who is the son of P.W.1, owned an auto. He gave the said auto to P.W.4 on rent.
5. On 17.06.2018, at about 10 a.m., A-1, A-2, and the deceased went to the wine shop of P.W.6. There, they sat in the permit room and left the room. Thereafter, all three of them went to the house of P.W.5. According to P.W.5, both the appellants and the deceased stayed in his room and consumed liquor. There, they entered into a quarrel around 12:30 p.m. on the said day. P.W.5 admonished them, as such, all three of them left
The prosecution must prove each circumstance beyond reasonable doubt in circumstantial evidence cases; the last seen theory has limited application when there is a significant time gap between the la....
Circumstantial evidence and last seen alive theory are crucial in establishing guilt for murder when supported by credible witness testimony, despite minor inconsistencies.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion or conjecture is insufficient for conviction.
There are no witnesses who have seen deceased and appellant prior together prior to his death, it cannot be inferred that appellant in any manner is responsible for death of deceased only on basis of....
Murder – Theory of last seen together is very weak in absence of motive.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction cannot rely on mere last seen theory without corroborating evidence.
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 case based on circumstantial evidence, mere last seen testimony is insufficient; a clear chain of circumstances must be established to support 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
