Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 4722
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.189 OF 2018
A conviction for murder is unsustainable when the prosecution fails to provide critical medical evidence to verify the cause of death and where there is an unexplained, significant delay in the filing and judicial submission of the First Information Report, creating reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 of IPC - Conviction based on eyewitness testimony - Importance of medical evidence - Necessity of establishing cause of death through expert opinion - Absence of post-mortem report and medical testimony compromises the prosecution's case - Burden of proof remains on the prosecution to prove homicidal death. (Paras 8, 10)
(B) Criminal Procedure - First Information Report - Requirement of prompt registration and dispatch - Section 157 of CrPC - Significant delay of several hours in lodging the complaint and its subsequent transmission to the judicial authority casts doubt on the integrity of the prosecution case - Undue delay allows for potential fabrication or improvement of the narrative. (Paras 8, 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for the offence of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment based on the evidence of an eyewitness. The prosecution alleged that the bodies were discovered after the incident, yet there was a substantial delay in the registration of the First Information Report. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to produce any medical evidence, including the post-mortem report, to establish the exact cause of death or confirm that the injuries sustained were homicidal in nature.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the unexplained delay in filing the compliant and its late arrival before the Magistrate, coupled with the complete absence of expert medical evidence regarding the cause of death, rendered the prosecution's case unreliable. The court held that such lapses in the investigation and the failure to substantiate the nature of death prevent the sustenance of a conviction for murder.
Issues: Whether a conviction for murder can be upheld when there is a significant, unexplained delay in the registration of the First Information Report and a complete absence of medical evidence confirming the cause of death.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the prosecution fails to provide timely First Information and neglects to produce essential medical evidence, such as a post-mortem report, to corroborate the occurrence of a homicidal death, the evidence presented is insufficient to hold the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution must explain procedural delays and provide expert evidence to substantiate the prosecution story.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. The Appeal is filed by the appellants/A-1 & A-2 aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.07.2017, in S.C.No.91 of 2016, on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial. The appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
3. The appellants herein, were prosecuted for committing the murder of Kanakaiah (D.1) and Mondavva (D.2) on 30.06.2015. A complaint was filed by P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased (D.1), with Sub-Inspector of Police/P.W.11. In the complaint, P.W.1 narrated that both D.1 and D.2 were working as coolies at the same place and used to consume toddy regularly. Three days prior to the incident, both the appellants went to the house of D.2 and accused her of committing theft of a cell phone, worth Rs.19,000/- and a purse containing cash of Rs.10,000/-, and forced her to return the same. The appellants also threatened to kill her, if the cell phone and money were not returned. On 30.06.2015, both the deceased went to work, however, they did not return. The next morning, i.e., on 01.07.2015, around 9 a.m., P.W.1 came to know that dead bodies of her husband and Mondavva were found lying in front of toddy compound, and they were beaten up with stones resulting in their death. Further, P.W.1 stated that the said incident was witnessed by Mallesham (not examined) and Maremma/P.W.5.
4. P.W.11, having received the complaint, handed over the investigation to P.W.12. P.W.12 went to scene of offence and prepared scene of offence panchnama, inquest proceedings were concluded, and the bodies were sent for post mortem examination.
5. The appellants were arrested on 04.07.2015. Both of them confessed to committing murders. Accordingly, the appellants were produced before the concerned Magistrate. Having concluded the investigation, charge sheet was filed.
6. The crucial witness to the case is the eye witness/P.W.5. According to P.W.5, the incident happened around 10 p.m., in front of Ramakrishna toddy shop, while she was returning home. She found appellants pushing both the deceased into drainage and placing a stone on each of them. Both the appellants were quarrelling with the deceased regarding the purse. P.W.5 stated that D.1 had intervened and tried to rescue D.2 from the appellants. The appellants then placed a big stone on the male person. P.W.5 then informed about the incident to Mallesham (not examined) and also to the wife of deceased (D.1).
7. In the chief examination itself, P.W.5 stated that she knew Bharathi (D.2) and does not know the male person. However, at the end of her chief examination, she stated that she informed about the incident to the wife of D.1. The wife of the deceased (D.1) is P.W.1.
8. In the complaint, though it is stated by P.W.5 that on the very night, the incident was informed to the wife of D.1, no complaint was lodged with the Police, nor information was given to the Police. According to P.W.11, only after receiving the complaint at 10 a.m., he came to know about the incident, and thereafter, he registered the complaint, and sent the copies to the concerned superiors and Court. P.Ws.11 and 12 appear to be suppressing the information received by them. As seen from the inquest report, it is apparent that the inquest was conducted at 9 a.m., on 01.04.2015. P.W.5 stated that she did not know D.1, however, she stated that she informed about the incident to P.W.1, who is the wife of D.1. In the background of delay in the complaint being lodged, even though according to P.W.5, information was given to P.W.1, in the night itself, there arises a doubt regarding correctness of the information given by P.W.5. The prosecution did not examine the Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination. Post mortem report was also not filed. Nowhere, did the prosecution g
