THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1046 of 2017 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2, aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.04.2017, in SC/ST S.C.No.44 of 2016, on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent– State. Perused the record.

3. When PW.1, who is a resident of Kondapaka Village, was in his house on 06.02.2015, one of his villagers, namely Lingampally Yadagiri, informed him that one person was lying in his agricultural land and he was alive. On that, he, along with the villagers, went there and found that one unidentified person was lying in his field with injuries around his neck. Then, PW.1 called an ambulance, and the crew of the ambulance noticed that the said person was dead and the dead body was shifted to the hospital. Later, PW.1 went to the police station and lodged a complaint, Ex.P.17. In the complaint, it was mentioned that the dead body was found in the fields and requested to take appropriate action. PW.14, who is the investigating officer, went to the scene of offence and called for the dog squad and also the clues team. The scene was photographed and the scene of offence panchanama was conducted. Since the identity of the dead body was not known, PW.14 sent information to the surrounding districts of Medak. However, nobody came forward to identify the body. Further, the autopsy was concluded. PW.14 gave requisition to the Municipal Authorities to cremate the body. After cremation of the dead body of the deceased, PW.14 sent the material objects to the FSL for the purpose of analysis.

4. The parents of the deceased, who are PWs.5 and 6, approached the police on 03.05.2015 and identified the dead body as that of their son on the basis of the photographs shown to them. PWs.5 and 6 informed that the deceased left the house on 05.02.2015 along with the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 and did not return home. On the basis of the information provided by PWs.5 and 6, PW.14 arrested the appellants. On the basis of the confession of the appellants/accused, police seized M.O.9 – a Tata Sumo and M.O.10, an axe blade near the bushes at Kondapaka Shivar. According to PW.14, accused No.1 went into the bushes and brought M.O.10, axe blade. The seizures were effected in the presence of independent witnesses, and thereafter, they returned to the police station. PW.14 concluded the investigation by collecting other evidence and thereafter laid the charge sheet against both the appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section

3(2)(v) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989.

5. Learned Sessions Judge mainly placed reliance on the evidence of the parents of the deceased, i.e., PWs.5 and 6 about the deceased being last seen in the company of accused Nos.1 and 2 on 05.02.2015, which is a day prior to the dead body being found by PW.1 in the fields. Further, on the basis of the confession of the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2, the material objects which were used for the commission of the offence, i.e., the vehicle and axe blade (M.Os.9 and 10), were seized at the instance of accused No.1. Based on the circumstantial evidence, the learned Sessions Judge deemed it appropriate to convict the appellants.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the case is one of the circumstantial evidence. Unless all the circumstances are proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, the question of conviction does not arise. Lear