THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO DATED: 07-07-2011 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 850 OF 2011 Between: The State of A.P., rep., by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad ..... APPELLANT AND Kethavath Vittal and two others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 850 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This criminal appeal by the State is against the order of acquittal dated 28-11-2006 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Medak in S.C No. 433 of 2005. The respondents – accused were tried for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 379, 457 and 380 IPC and at the conclusion of trial were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge of the alleged offence. The State preferred this appeal with a delay of 531 days and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents – accused, the delay was condoned. It is the case of the prosecution that on 11-03-2005 at about 11.00 PM, the respondents – accused Nos.1 to 3 at the bricks furnace of Masaipet attacked the deceased Kethavath Laxmi and murdered her and committed theft of two gold ear tops, pusthela thadu, plane ring, silver anklets from the body of the deceased and buried her dead body at Neelaparagu Orre to hush-up the evidence and thereby accused No.1 has committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 379, 457 and 380 IPC, accused No.2 has committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 379 IPC and accused No.3 has committed the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. Basing on the report submitted by PW 1 under Ex.P-1 a case is Crime No. 37 of 2005 on the file of Police Station Chugunta was registered. The Circle Inspector of Police, Prathiadu – PW 18 conducted investigation and on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the said offences. The learned Sessions Judge on a consideration of the entire material available on record held that the evidence on record failed to prove any circumstances or there is incriminating evidence against the respondents – accused to connect their involvement and that the prosecution has also failed to prove the guilt of the respondents – accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It was further held that the prosecution also failed to complete crucial links of chain of circumstances and, therefore, benefit of doubt is to be given to all the accused and accordingly acquitted them. Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed by the State. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant – State. The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the circumstantial evidence as there are no direct eyewitnesses to the incident. PW 1 who set the criminal law into motion deposed that on the information from Kethavath Bheema, the brother of the deceased that two legs were found near Pulliguta thanda and that the dead body might be of his sister, he rushed to the scene of offence and found a dead body buried under sand covered with thorny bushes and stones were kept over the bushes but legs were projected out side. He lodged a report under Ex.P-1. He admitted in the cross examination that he never stated before the police about thorny bushes or that stones were kept over the bushes and only feet of the deceased were seen by him. PW 2 who is the brother of the deceased is not an eyewitness to the incident. He stated that the neighbours of the deceased informed him that accused No.1 took the deceased by informing her that he met with an accident. PW 13 who is the neighbour of the deceased and PW 8 stated that at the time of dinner the deceased informed that she was going with accused No.1 to see her brother who met with an accident and she observed accused No.1 and the deceased going together. In her evidence she stated that accused No.1 had small pox marks over face but during the cross examination and on careful observation of accused No.1 at the instance of the defence, she categorically stated that accused No.1’s face does not show any small pox marks and the same creates ample doubt whether the witness is speaking truth or not and whether the person she had seen was accused No.1 or someone else. Therefore, there is a missing link to connect the accused to the crime that the deceased was last seen in the company of accused No.-1 which has not been established by the prosecution. PW 7 is examined by the prosecution to establish accused No.2 contacting him for his assistance in the commission of offence by stating that the deceased owed Rs.50,000/- to him and accused No.-2 running away from the shop as he threatened that he would report to police. But, strangely PW 7 never reported the same to the police except stating in the Court. PW 8 who is the second husband of the deceased has not substantiated that stolen articles belong to the deceased. In the case on hand, the prosecution has also failed to establish that the dead body found is of the deceased. That apart, PW 5 who is the son of PW 2 and brother of PW 4 by relation admitted that if the deceased dies, PWs 2, 3 and LW 2 alone are beneficiaries and they can withdraw the benefits received by the deceased which were kept in fixed deposits. From the above, it is clear that the prosecution has miserably failed to connect the accused with the commission of the offence and also failed to establish recovery of Mos 1 to 7 from the possession of the accused. The circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is not conclusive and the complicity of the accused in committing the offence is not established beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled that mere suspension however strong cannot be substitute to legal proof and the same cannot be a ground for conviction of the accused (see Shaik Khader Basha v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1]). The trial Court after taking into consideration the entire evidence in its proper perspective rightly acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against them appeal. The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. A. GOPAL REDDY, J RAJA ELANGO, J 07-07-2011 ks [1] 2009 (2) ALT (Crl) 155