THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.604 OF 2005 DATED 6th DECEMBER, 2010. BETWEEN : S.Seetharama Murthy .. Petitioner-De facto complainant and The State of A.P. & two others ..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.604 OF 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed by the petitioner-de facto complainant challenging the judgment, dated 16.12.2002, delivered by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, in Sessions Case No.98 of 2000, wherein the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 392 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner- complainant was residing in a house situated near bus stand, Peapully, along with his wife i.e. deceased and son Kamalakar and he was running a kirana shop in front room of the house. The deceased used to lookafter kirana shop in the absence of the petitioner. While so, on 07.12.1998 at 2.00 p.m. petitioner went to Ananthapur in connection with his business. LWs 2 and 3 returned to the house and pressed the calling bell. When there was no response, LWs 2 and 3 peeped through the gaps of the wooden doors and noticed two strangers in black dress and suspected them to be thieves. Then, both of them raised hues and cries. On hearing the same, the intruders escaped by opening the iron shutter situated in the backside of the house. In the meanwhile, LW.2 brought LWs 5 and 6, parental uncle and aunt of LW.2, and all of them entered into the house from back side and found the dead body of the deceased in a pool of blood in the kitchen room strangulated with a white cotton rope around the neck causing bleeding injury. They also found missing of two part pairs of gold ear studs, a gold chain with a dollar wg. About 6 grams and cash about Rs.1,000/-. Hence, the complaint. Prosecution got examined PWs 1 to 17 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.22 and also got marked MOs 1 to 18 in order to prove its case. Though the accused did not adduce any oral evidence, got marked Ex.D.1 in their support. After evaluating the entire evidence available on record, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused vide impugned judgment and the same is under challenge in this revision. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the finger prints lifted in the place of occurrence are tallying with the finger prints of A.1 and A.2 and the same was not considered by the learned Sessions Judge while adjudicating the case. He further submitted that even though the witnesses to the recovery turned hostile, the evidence of investigating officer should have been considered and the learned Sessions Judge should have convicted the accused. This Court perused the entire material on record and also the judgment of the lower Court. As far as the fingerprints are concerned, relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge are hereby extracted for best adjudication of the matter: 23. The evidence of PW8 and PW9 no doubt goes to show that the chance finger prints collected at the scene of offence are tallied with the specimen finger prints of A1 and A2. But the fact remains that A1 and A2 are also residents of the same locality and that they have gone to the house of the deceased to see the dead body of the deceased. PW2 in his cross-examination quite categorically admitted that the accused are also residents of their locality. PW2 also deposed in his evidence that by the time his father came to his house, neighbours and residents of their locality went to his house and witnessed the dead body of his mother. Thus the evidence of PW2 exactly tallies with the statement of the accused (Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination) that they too went to see the dead body of Nagarathnamma on knowing that Nagarathnamma was murdered. Since the accused have visited the house of the deceased Nagarathnamma there is a possibility of availment of chance finger prints on the articles found in the house of the deceased Nagarathnamma. It is not the case of prosecution that the chance finger prints were procured from the weapon or weapons of offence used by the culprits. Admittedly even as per the evidence of PW8 the chance finger prints were procured from a steel almirah, steel vessel, steel box and aluminium bowl. It is not a case that immediate after the murder of Nagarathnamma no others entered the house of PW1 and that there was no chance for the availment of finger prints of the accused in the house of the deceased. Admittedly the neighbours/residents of locality visited the scene of offence. Therefore, simply because that chance prints procured at the scene of offence tallied with the specimen finger prints of the accused does not mean that the accused are the persons murdered the deceased. 24. Even otherwise, the investigating officer has not properly followed the procedure in taking the specimen signatures of the accused. As per the decisions reported in 1997 (1) A.L.T. (Criminal) 719 (A.P) and 1998 (1) A.L.T. (Crl) 38 (S.C) the investigating officer has to collect the specimen finger prints or foot prints in the presence of magistrate before forwarding the specimen signatures to the hand writing expert. In the present case also the investigating officer himself collected the specimen finger prints of the accused and directly forwarding the same to PW8 for purpose of his opinion. In the above extracted paragraphs of the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has categorically discussed the position of law and also the possibility of availability of fingerprints of the accused at the place of occurrence since they belong to same locality. He further relied on the answers given by the accused when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Further the learned Sessions Judge discussed regarding lifting of fingerprints and the manner in which it has to be forwarded to the fingerprints expert and concluded that the investigating officer has not properly followed the prescribed manner of forwarding the fingerprints to the expert. In addition to all these, the witnesses to the recovery also turned hostile. The entire prosecution case is based on the circumstantial evidence. It is now well settled that when a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the links in the chain of circumstances, so that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision reported in Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P.[1], wherein at para 10 it was held as follows:- “(1) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) The circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.” Hence, in the present case, as rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge, the Prosecution miserably failed to connect the accused with the crime. Further, this Court is of the view that by invoking the revisional jurisdiction there is no need to appraise the evidence. Further, there is no infirmity or perversity apparent on the judgment of the lower Court. Hence, the revision has to fail. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 06.12.2010 sur [1] AIR 1990 SUPREME COURT 79