THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1646 OF 2017 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

The appeal is preferred by the State, against the acquittal of respondents/accused for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of appellant-State and none appeared for respondents/accused.

3. According to the case of prosecution, PW1 who is mother of the deceased, lodged a complaint on 14.01.2014 stating that her son Kranthi Kumar (deceased) left the house stating that he was going to meet accused No.1, who resided as a tenant in their house and did not return home. PW1 tried to reach out to deceased on phone, however, his phone was once answered by a stranger and immediately switched off. On 14.01.2014, PW1 was informed that her son was murdered and his dead body was found at barren land of Padigan Cheruvu. In the complaint, PW1 expressed suspicion that accused Nos.1 to 3 would have killed the deceased on account of alleged illicit intimacy of the deceased with wife of accused No.1.

4. The Police on the basis of complaint filed by PW1, started investigation. During the course of investigation, after completing the scene of offence panchanama and also inquest proceedings, the body was sent for post mortem examination. The investigating officer arrested the accused Nos.1 to 3 on 21.01.2014. Pursuant to their confession, Exs.P17 to P19 confession proceedings were drafted. MO.7 cell phone was seized from the possession of accused No.2. Further, at the instance of accused No.2, MOs.8 and 9 were seized, which are T-shirt and jean pants. After the seizures were effected at the instance of accused No.1, Police went to house which was leased out to accused No.1. MOs.14 and 15 which are wearing pant and shirt of the accused and motor bikes allegedly used in the commission of offence were also seized.

5. Learned Sessions Judge examined the witnesses PWs.1 to 21, marked Exs.P1 to 34 and MOs.1 to 21.

6. Having gone through the evidence, the case is one of circumstantial evidence. There is only one circumstance which was proved by the prosecution, i.e., the evidence of PW16 Branch Manager about accused No.2 enquiring regarding the amount lying in the account of PW1. The said circumstance though creates a doubt, however, it is not sufficient to say that it is a connecting link to find the accused guilty. Learned Sessions Judge further found that all the witnesses on prosecution side did not support the case of the prosecution during trial. On account of the hostility of the witnesses, the accused were acquitted.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that according to the prosecution the deceased was having an affair with the wife of accused No.1, for which reason accused Nos.1 to 3 conspired and committed murder of the deceased. The intimacy between deceased and wife of accused No.1 is strong circumstance in favour of the prosecution which was overlooked by the learned Sessions Judge.

8. It is evident from the record that the motive as suggested by the prosecution is based on suspicion. Even according to the witnesses, there was never any complaint that was made by accused No.1 or any quarrel that took place in between the accused No.1 and the deceased. Both the accused No.1 and his wife were staying as tenants in the house of PW1 i.e., mother of deceased. At no point of time, PW1 narrated that accused No.1 had either admonished or confronted the deceased regarding the alleged intimacy in between the deceased and wife of accused No.1.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pulicherla Nagaraju Alias Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 11 SCC 444 held as follows:

“15. It is now well settled that the power of the High Court in an appeal from acquittal is no different from its power in an appeal from conviction. It can review and consider the entire evidence and com