HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.199 OF 2007 Dated: 06.07.2010 Between: M.Subbaiah @ Naidu … Appellant And State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. … Respondent This Court made the following: - THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.199 of 2007 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu) This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, "Cr.P.C.") is filed by the appellant/accused against the Judgment, dated 15.11.2006, in Sessions Case No.437 of 2003 on the file of the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, whereunder and whereby, the appellant/accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.300/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC"); and further convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 404 IPC. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the prosecution case may be stated as follows: M.Kalavathi, (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) is the daughter of P.W.8 and the wife of the accused. The marriage of the deceased with the accused was performed about 10 years prior to the incident. Both the accused and the deceased have no issues. They live by coolie work in Eravarampalli village. About one month prior to the death of the deceased, they were shifted to Tirupati. Thereafter the accused joined as a watchman in the construction company by name Asian Constructions. The deceased joined the accused 10 days after he joined as a watchman. Prior to her death, the accused used to complain to the concerned person of Construction Company that the deceased was not treating him well. The deceased used to attend cleaning work of the guest house of the company and the accused was not liking her working in the said guest house and he had some suspicion on the deceased. The deceased used to complain the Manager of the construction company about the behavior of the accused. Then the Manager enquired with the accused, then a quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased, then the manager asked both of them not to quarrel and to go away. On 17.06.2003 at about 7 p.m. accused came out with a bag and informed the manager that he would leave the deceased at her parents’ house. On the same day at about 8 p.m. P.W.3, who is no other than the sister’s son of the deceased, saw the accused and the deceased near Kapilatheertham bye pass road. At that time, the deceased was not in a good mood. When he enquired the accused, the accused informed him that they were going out of station. P.W.2 who is residing near Ramachandranagar, which is near to the scene of occurrence, noticed the dead body at about 5 a.m. on the next day and she informed the same to P.W.1. Then P.W.1 lodged a report to P.W.12-the Sub- Inspector of Police. On receipt of the report of P.W.1, P.W.12 registered a case in crime No.106 of 2003 and P.W.13 took up investigation. During the course of investigation, P.W.13 visited the scene of occurrence at about 10 a.m. which is by the side of a compound wall, near the vacant site in Ramachandra Nagar, near Kapilatheertham, Tirupati town, and noticed the dead body of a female with multiple injuries; observed the scene of occurrence and found a pair of chappals, a bundle of beedies, a match box, broken bangle pieces and a knife in the nearby vicinity of the dead body; that as the identity of the deceased was not established, he secured the services of clues team and the dogs squad through very high frequencies set. On coming to know about the finding of dead body by police, P.W.3 went there and identified the dead body as that of the deceased. Then P.W.13 secured the presence of P.Ws.9 and 6 and conducted inquest in the presence of mediators; seized the material objects; prepared a rough sketch of the scene of occurrence under Ex.P19; examined the witnesses; after inquest, he sent the dead body to post mortem examination. P.W.17 the Doctor conducted post mortem examination and he opined that the deceased died due to cut throat injuries. On 19.06.2003 at about 6.30 p.m., P.W.7 and the accused approached the investigating officer and the accused produced his shirt and lungi and certain golden ornaments, which contain blood stains. P.W.13 arrested the accused and seized the material objects produced by the accused in the presence of mediators. Later he sent the material objects to the Forensic Science Laboratory. After receipt of the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet. 3. The charges levelled against the accused are as under: “Firstly, you on the night of 17.06.2003 at about 7.30 p.m. by the side of Compound wall constructed around vacant site in Ramachandra Nagar near Kapilatheertham, Tirupati Town, killed one M.Kalavathy who is your wife by cut her throat with a knife and thus you committed an offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC and within the cognizance of this Court. Secondly, you on the date, time and placed mentioned in charge No.1 above, dishonestly misappropriated by taking away the gold jewellery present on the person of deceased knowing that the said property belongs to deceased and was in her possession at the time of her death, and thus you committed an offence punishable under Section 404 IPC and within the cognizance of this Court. When the charges were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.23, besides the case properties-M.Os.1 to 21. 5. After the prosecution evidence is closed, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for which he denied the incriminating evidence put to him. No evidence, either oral or documentary, has been adduced on behalf of accused. 6. The Trial Court placing reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, found the accused guilty for the offences with which he was charged and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the accused. 7. Now, the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution proved its case for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 404 IPC against the appellant/accused, beyond all reasonable doubt?” 8 . Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that except the interested testimony of P.Ws.3 and 4, there is no other evidence to show that the crime was committed by the appellant and none else; that even their evidence is to be accepted as true, at best it would go to show that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused and that circumstance by itself cannot be a ground to infer that the appellant is the assailant of the deceased; that the arrest of the appellant by P.W.13 and recovery of the blood stained clothes and gold jewellery of the deceased, would not come within the ambit of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, “the Act”) and, therefore, he prays to set aside the convictions and sentences recorded against the appellant/accused. 9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused as was noticed by P.Ws.3 and 4 and thereafter the deceased was found missing and, therefore, there was an obligation cast upon the appellant to give an explanation as to where the deceased left his company that prior to the incident, there was a clear motive for the appellant to commit the murder, as the appellant was suspecting the fidelity of his wife; that the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 13 would go to show that it is the appellant who produced his blood stained clothes, namely shirt, lungi and blood stained jewellery and when they were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, it was opined that they contain human ‘B’ group blood, which is the same group of blood of the deceased and that these circumstances would clearly indicate that it is the appellant and none else had an opportunity to kill the deceased; that the trial court after an elaborate consideration of the evidence on record rightly found him guilty and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. The entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. 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.” 11. Bearing the above principles in mind, it has to be seen whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused. 12. P.W.13, the Circle Inspector of Police held inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.Ws.9 and other and they found certain injuries on the dead body. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of cut throat wounds. The opinion of the inquest mediators is incorporated in Ex.P20 inquest report. P.W.13 also seized chappals, a bundle of beedies, a match box, broken bangle pieces, a knife, blood stained stones, blood stained earth and controlled earth near the scene of offence, which is by the side of a compound wall, near the vacant site in Ramachandra Nagar, near Kapilatheertham, Tirupati town. P.W.13 also observed the scene of occurrence in the presence of P.Ws.5 and others under Ex.P21. P.W.6 is the photographer who has taken photographs near the scene of occurrence. Even the accused has not denied or disputed about the scene of occurrence as spoken to by the witnesses. 13. P.W.11 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 19.06.2003 from 11.45 a.m. to 1.15 p.m. and found the following injuries: - “ Ante mortem external injuries:- 1. Abrasion of 2 x 1 cms Horizontal over left temple. 2. Abrasion of 1 x 1 cms over outer half of the left eye brow. 3. Abrasion of 2 x 2 cms, 0.5 cms below outer angle of left eye. 4. Cut laceration of 9 x 3 cms, muscle deep, horizontal extending from left angle of mouth to left cheek. 5. Cut laceration of 3 x 3 cms, muscle deep 1 cm in front tragus of right ear. 6. Contusion of 6 x 3 cms horizontal over right cheek. 7. Contusion of 3 x 3 cms over right side of chin. 8. Cut laceration of 4 x 1 cms, muscle deep, horizontal over right side of chin 1 cm below lower lip. 9. Cut laceration of 15 x 8 cms, horizontal over front of neck, extending fro 5 cm below right angle of mandible to 4 cm below left angle of mandible. This wound is due to merging of multiple cuts. 10. Cut laceration of 4 x 2 cms, muscle deep, horizontal over right side of occipital protuburence of head. 11. Cut laceration of 4 x 2 cms, muscle deep, horizontal over lower 1/3 of back of neck. 12. Cut laceration of 2 x 2 cms, skin deep, horizontal 2 cm below wound No.11. 13. Abrasion of 8 x 0.5 cms, horizontal over upper ½ of right scapula. 14. Abrasion of 1 x 0;.5 cms, horizontal 2 cms above wound No.13. 15. Cut laceration of 3 x 1 cms, muscle deep, vertical over outer aspect of middle 1/3 of right arm. 16. Incised wound of 1 x 1 cms, skin deep over front of middle 1/3 of right arm. 17. Abrasion of 8 x 2 cms, vertical extending from lower 1/3 of right arm to right elbow in the outer aspect. 18. Incised wound of 2 x 0.5 cms skin deep, horizontal over outer spect of middle 1/3rd of right forearm. 19. Abrasion of 1 x 1 cms, over back of ight writst. 20. Cut laceration of 2 x 1 cms, bone deep, vertical over dorsal aspect of proximal inter phallangeal joint right index finger. 21. Two cut laceration of 2 x 1 cms, bone deep each over palmar aspet of distal inter phallangeal joints of right 4th and 5th finvers. 22. Incised wound 1 x 0.5 cms, skin deep, horizonta over dorsal aspect of proximal half of left thumb. 23. Two cut lacerations of 2 x 1 cms, skin deep, horizontal each over palmar aspect of 2nd and 3rd fingers of left hand. 24. Abrasion of 1 x 1 cms, over back of left elbow. Ante mortem internal injuries:- 25. Scalp contusion of 5 x 2 cms, over left frontal region of head. 26. Thin film of subarachanaid haemorrhage over brain. 27. External wound No.9 served vessels on right side of neck and made a rough and through cut of trachea and esophagus below the level of hyoid bone with retraction of cut ends and made multiple cuts of 1 x 0.5 x 0.5 to 3 x 1 x 1 cms over bodies 1st, 2nd and 3rd cervical vertebrae on the right side. All the injuries are anti mortem in nature. The approximate time of death is 24 to 48 hours prior to postmortem examination. He opined that the deceased died due to cut throat wounds. He issued Ex.P17 postmortem certificate. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.11 and the recitals in Ex.P17, the homicidal nature of the death of the deceased is established. 14. Now it has to be seen whether the appellant/accused is the assailant of the deceased or not? 15. The entire case rests upon the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4. P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 7, who were examined by the police to speak about certain incriminating circumstances against the accused, did not support the case of the prosecution. As a matter of fact, the trial court relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4. The deceased is no other than the sister’s daughter of P.W.3. His evidence would go to show that the deceased and the accused came to Tirupati, two months prior to the date of incident. He is working as a room boy in Swathi Lodge at Tirupati. His evidence would go to show that at about 8.00 p.m., he noticed the deceased and her husband near Kapilatheertham bye pass road. At that time, the deceased was not in good mood. When he enquired them, the accused informed him that they were going out of station. Except that, he did not state as to why he went near Kapilatheertham bye pass road. When he is working as a room boy, he has to explain as to why he has gone to Kapilatheertham byepass road at about 8 p.m. Therefore, he appears to be a chance witness, because his presence, unless satisfactorily explained, has to be viewed with suspicion. Even assuming that he saw the accused and the deceased at 8 p.m. on 17.06.2003 and if this circumstance is to be taken as a last scene circumstance to show that the deceased was in the company of the accused, can it be said to be a sole ground to convict the accused. His evidence would also go to show that the accused doubted the character of the deceased and in that connection there were disputes ensued between the accused and the deceased. In view of the fact that the case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the motive for the incident assumes very great importance. No doubt it is not an integral part of the crime, but it is only an aid and assessment of the criminality. The fact that the accused was suspecting the character of his wife has not been stated by this witness, when he was examined by the police. Therefore, his statement with regard to the accused suspecting the character of his wife is clearly an improvement and no reliance can be placed upon that part of the statement of P.W.3. In view of the fact that P.W.3 was a chance witness and his presence near the scene of occurrence has not been explained or shown to be probable, we are unable to place any reliance on the evidence of P.W.3. 16. The other witness who speaks about the presence of the deceased in the company of the accused is P.W.4, who is working as a Manager in Highland Darshan Guest House situated in NGO’s colony, near Kapilatheertham, Tirupati. The accused was appointed as a watchman in Asian Construction company. The accused was staying in one room in the first floor of the guesthouse where the construction work was going on. His evidence further would go to show that on 17.06.2003 the deceased and the accused quarreled with each other. Then the deceased complained to him. When he asked the accused, again a quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased. Then he asked them to go away. On the same day i.e., on 17.06.2003 at 7.00 p.m., the accused came out with a bag and informed him that he would leave the deceased at her parents’ house. Even his evidence is to be accepted as a last seen circumstance, that circumstance cannot by itself be taken to infer that it is the accused and none else who committed the crime. 17. The other evidence remaining on record is the arrest of the accused and seizure of M.Os.1 to 3 and M.Os.10 and 11. Nodoubt as seen from Ex.P23, the F.S.L.Report, the material objects that were seized from the possession of the accused contain human ‘B’ group blood, which is the same group of blood of the deceased. It has to be seen whether the seizure of these material objects come within the meaning of Section 27 of the Act. Under section 27 of the Act, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. The object sought to be proved, must distinctly relate to the seizure. The concealment of the material objects must be within the exclusive knowledge of the accused. There is no disclosure statement as to the accused pointing out the place where the concealment of the material objects and its recovery in pursuance of the statement made by the accused. As seen from Ex.P15, the material objects were given to the police from the custody of the accused. Therefore, under no stretch of imagination, it can be said that handing over of material objects to the police while he was in the custody, cannot be said to be a recovery of certain objects within the meaning of Section 27 of the Act. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.13 coupled with the evidence of P.W.10 and Ex.P14, it cannot be said that the seizure of certain material objects as given by the accused is recovery within the meaning of Section 27 of the Act. If the seizure of material objects is eschewed from consideration, there is no other evidence to show that the accused is the assailant of the deceased. Even if the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 is to be accepted, at best it can be said that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused. In our opinion that circumstance alone is not sufficient to infer that in all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. These aspects have been completely overlooked by the trial court and came to a wrong conclusion. 18. In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges leveled against him. Accordingly the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. 19. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the convictions and sentences recorded by III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati in Sessions Case No.437 of 2003, dated 15.11.2006 for the charges under Sections 302 and 404 IPC. The appellant/accused is found not guilty of the charges under Sections 302 and 404 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted of the same. The appellant/accused shall be released forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused shall be returned to him. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ___________ K.C.BHANU, J 6th July, 2010 lmv [1] AIR 1990 SUPREME COURT 79