J U D G M E N T

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.V.L.N.Chakravarthi)

Heard Smt.A.Gayathri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/accused and Sri S.Dhushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

2. The present Criminal Appeal is filed by the sole accused in Sessions Case No.17 of 2015 on the file of the Court of X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati. He was tried and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’).

3. The learned Sessions Judge vide Judgment, dated 02.05.2015 sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for ‘Life’ and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month.

4. The sum and substance of the charge levelled against the accused is that on 04.06.2014 at about 6.30 AM in the fields of one Annagi Krishnaiah of Oluru Village, the accused committed murder by intentionally causing death of V.Jayamma, who is none other than his wife (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) by beating her on the head and chest with a stone.

5. The accused was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC alleging that the accused being addicted to alcohol, used to quarrel with the deceased and beat her by suspecting her fidelity; On 04.06.2014 the accused and deceased left the home in the early hours; on the same day at about 5.00 PM, PW.1 received information that there was a dead body lying in the field; PW.1 along with other villagers went to the field and noticed the dead body of the deceased with injuries on the face.

6. During trial, eleven (11) witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution as PWs.1 to 11 and ten (10) documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P10 apart from MOs.1 to 8. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC explaining the incriminating material found against the accused in the prosecution evidence. The accused denied the same, but no evidence was let in.

7. The learned X Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, after hearing the prosecution and defence, found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Challenging the judgment, the appellant/accused preferred present Criminal Appeal.

8. Smt.A.Gayathri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 4, 5, 9 and 10 and Ex.P1 FIR would show that the police, after discussions, prepared the entire record, and later registered Ex.P1 FIR implicating the accused, for the reasons best known to them.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of her arguments, from the evidence of above witnesses, pointed out several circumstances relating to examination of the witnesses before registration of FIR. They will be discussed in detail later in the judgment. She further contends that as per RFSL report, the stone used for committing the offence is a small stone, but the evidence of Doctor who conducted autopsy disclose that the injuries found on the body of the deceased are bigger in size, and they could be not caused with MO1. It would disclose that MO.1 was planted in the case to implicate the accused to support theory of discovery of fact, as enunciated under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. She would further submit that the prosecution failed to connect the accused with the offence and the evidence on record is not sufficient to establish the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following decisions:-

In Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others Vs. State of Gujarat1, the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that the circumstantial evidence should be complete and cogent and the guilt of accused should be unerringly establish, and any other inference, except the guilt of accused cannot be drawn from the circumstances. If the last seen theory is established, then the duration of the accused