Back
No of Murder Needed: Upholds Life Sentence
The has upheld the life sentences of two men convicted for the kidnapping and murder of a six-year-old girl, ruling that the prosecution's —including and —was sufficient to prove guilt without of the killing. A division bench of Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice Challa Gunarajan dismissed the criminal appeal, confirming the trial court's verdict.
The Abduction and the Broken Debt
The case originated from a petty financial dispute. Accused No.1, Tirumanuyam Srinivasulu Reddy, owed ₹3 lakh to the father of the victim, P.W.6, from their time working together in Dubai. On , at a birthday party hosted by Accused No.1, the girl's parents demanded repayment, leading to a heated exchange during which Accused No.1 allegedly threatened them with dire consequences.
Eight months later, on , after the girl returned from school in a van, Accused No.1 forcibly took her onto a motorcycle driven by Accused No.2, Kurrakaluva Leela Prakash. Despite the mother's cries, the two accused sped away. The girl's body was found the next morning in a pit near Vikruthamala Tank, having been drowned. The prosecution charged both with kidnapping, murder, and destruction of evidence. Accused No.1 was charged directly under , while Accused No.2 faced the same charge read with for . The trial court convicted both and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
Arguments Before the High Court
Counsel for the appellants argued that the prosecution lacked documentary proof of the motive (the debt) and that there was no eyewitness to the murder. For Accused No.2, it was contended that he merely drove the motorcycle and had no to kill the child. Reliance was placed on recent judgments— , , and —to argue that mere presence at the scene of kidnapping does not automatically prove a shared intention to commit murder.
The Additional Public Prosecutor countered that the prosecution had established a : the two accused were last seen with the child, the body was recovered at their instance within hours, and they offered no explanation—facts especially within their knowledge. She cited and , arguing that requiring of murder would create a "" for criminals who kill away from public view.
A
The High Court meticulously examined each circumstantial link. It found the motive against Accused No.1 was proven through consistent oral testimony, even without documentary evidence. The kidnapping was witnessed by the mother (P.W.1), another parent (P.W.4), and a school teacher (P.W.5), all of whom identified the accused. Independent witnesses (P.Ws.8, 10, and 11) confirmed seeing the two men with the girl on the motorcycle around 5.30 p.m. on the same day.
The court noted that the accused were arrested that night, and the dead body, along with the girl's belongings—school bag, uniform, and a spade used to dig the grave—were recovered pursuant to their disclosure statements. The proximity of time (body found within 15 hours) and the lack of any explanation from the accused were crucial.
The Pivotal Role of Section 106
Addressing the key legal issue, the bench applied , which places the burden of proving facts especially within one's knowledge. The judgment observed:
"Once the prosecution established that the deceased was last seen alive in the exclusive company of both the accused, the burden shifted on them, in terms of , to explain the circumstances in which they parted company with the deceased or as to what subsequently happened to the kidnapped minor girl."
Since neither accused offered any explanation, the court drew the inference that the death was caused by the abductors themselves. Relying on Sucha Singh , the bench held that
"India cannot now afford to lay down any such legal principle insulating the marauders of their activities of killing kidnapped innocents outside the ken of others."
The court distinguished the precedents cited by the defence, noting that those cases concerned different factual scenarios where the was not proven. Here, the coordinated actions—kidnapping together, taking the child to a remote tank, burying the body, and concealing evidence—indicated a shared purpose.
Conviction Confirmed
The High Court concluded that the chain of circumstances was "complete and unbroken," pointing unequivocally to the guilt of both accused. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the life sentences and the fine imposed by the trial court. The judgment serves as a strong reaffirmation that in cases of abduction followed by death, the prosecution need not produce a direct witness to the murder—the combined weight of , swift recovery of the body, and the accused's silence under Section 106 is sufficient to sustain a conviction.
