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.

JUDGMENT :

K.Surender, J.

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused No.1, aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.05.2019 in Sessions Case No.385 of 2015, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, at Khammam, whereby the appellant/accused No.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 397 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Mr.C.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr.Ruthwik Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the record.

3. Accused No.2 was also tried along with the appellant. However, accused No.2 was acquitted for the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C.

5. PW1 is the VRO of the Kamepally Village. He went to the police station and lodged a complaint on 01.01.2014 stating that he received a phone call regarding the dead body of a woman with a cut injury on the throat and found her lying dead. PW1 then went to the scene and found that the dead body was on the land of one Podentla Narayana. The complaint was given to PW16/Investigating Officer. PW16 then went to the field, where the dead body was lying and conducted the scene of offence panchanama. The scene was photographed, and thereafter, the inquest proceedings were concluded. The body was sent for post-mortem examination. The post mortem Doctor/PW15 conducted the post-mortem of the body and found the following injuries:-

“1. Cut wound on front of the neck about 3x1x1 inches (To the external vision hyoid bone was normal. Wound extended from left side of neck to front of the neck then to the lateral side of the neck)

2. Abrasion 1x1/2 over the right forearm”.

6. PW16 then gave a publication in the newspaper. PWs.5, 6, 7, and 8 went to the police station and identified the dead body with the photograph published in the daily newspaper. On 06.01.2014, the appellant/A1 was apprehended. During the interrogation, he confessed the crime. Money was seized from him, and the appellant led the police and the independent witnesses to his house and produced MOs.4,5, and 6, which is the jewellery of the deceased. During further investigation, the cell phone numbers of the deceased and the appellant were collected, and the gold ornaments were also obtained from the service providers. A1-appellant led to A2, who was the owner of the jewellery shop. MO3/pusthalatadu was seized from A2. Thereafter, they have concluded the investigation, and A1 was charged for the offences under Sections 302 and 379 of I.P.C., and A2 was charged for the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C. for being in possession of the stolen property.

7. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, at Khammam convicted the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The following circumstances, according to the learned Sessions Judge, formed the basis to convict the appellant:-

(i) The appellant and the deceased were both handicapped and had a friendship that lead to a sexual relationship between them.

(ii) The deceased was having property worth three crores and also gold jewellery.

(iii) On 31.12.2013 at about 10:00 A.M., A1 went to the house of the deceased, met her father, and at the instance of PW5, he took the deceased to the Agri Gold Office.

(iv) PW7 is the Agri Gold Agent, and he saw the deceased in the Agri Gold Office. After dropping the deceased in the Agri Gold Office, the appellant went to PW10 to sharpen his knife/MO8.

(v) The deceased was taken on his bike as he was seen by PW9, who is the owner of the Tea stall situated near Electricity Office.

(vi) After one hour, PW9 did not find the deceased along with A1, and