HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.588 OF 2007 Dated:20-10-2010 BETWEEN: State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Appellant AND E.Shankar Naidu …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.588 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Raja Elango) State, represented by Public Prosecutor, preferred this appeal questioning the acquittal order, dated 28.10.2005 passed in S.C.No.419 of 2002 on the file of VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupati acquitting the respondent-sole accused of the charges punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 404 I.P.C. 2. The story of the prosecution as narrated during the course of trial is as under: One Smt.Lakshmi (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was living with her parents and other family members in Tirupati Town and was eaking out her livelihood by working as Lady Controller for SLM Bus. At the same time, the accused was working as conductor for SLM Town Bus at Tirupati. In the process, the deceased and the accused fell in love with each other and in that connection, the accused was visiting frequently to the house of the deceased and promised to marry her. While so, two days earlier to the Sankranthi Festival in the year 1999, the deceased left her house informing her family members that she was going to attend her regular employment and thereafter she did not return home. Then her parents and other family members searched for her for about four months and when they did not trace out her, her mother Smt.Susheela approached the Police of M.R.Palli Police Station and lodged a report, basing on which, the police registered a case in Crime No.61 of 1999 at the first instance under the head of ‘woman missing’. During the course of investigation, the accused was arrested on 19.5.1999 and in pursuance of the confession made by him, it was revealed that when the deceased pressurized the accused to marry her, he hatched a plan and in pursuance of his plan, he took the deceased to a lonely place on Alipiri-Cherlopalle by-pass road on 12.9.1999 and after making her to eat the food which was mixed with sleeping pills and when she was in drowsiness, the accused had intercourse with her and simultaneously cut her throat with a knife carried by him and after her death he committed theft of gold dollar chain and ear-studs from her person and buried her body and disappeared after pledging the said gold articles with a pawn broker at Tirupati. Section of law was altered from the head under ‘woman missing’ to Sections 302, 379 IPC. During the course of further investigation, basing on the confession made by the accused, the bones of the deceased, some of her belongings such as clothes and cheppals were seized from the scene of offence. The pledged gold items of the deceased were also seized from the pawn broker and similarly, some more items of the deceased i.e. wrist-watch, ladies hand-bag and steel box were recovered at the instance of the accused from his house. After completion of investigation and on receipt of relevant reports, charge sheet was laid against the accused. 3. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.20 were marked besides material objects 1 to 9. On behalf of defence, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.D.1, the receipt issued by P.W.5, dated 24.2.1999 was marked. 4. P.Ws.1 and 2, who are related to the deceased deposed that the deceased and accused fell in love with each other. Apart from that, they also identified the jewels owned by the deceased, which were pledged by the accused in the shop of P.W.5-pawn broker. P.Ws.3 and 4 are co-workers of the accused. P.W.7 is the Village Administrative Officer, who is witness to the identification proceedings. P.W.8 is the doctor who conducted D.N.A. test over the bones. P.Ws.9 and 10 are investigating officers. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is to be seen that P.W.1 lodged complaint-Ex.P.1 on 15.5.1999. In the complaint, it is stated that the deceased left the house of P.W.1 two days prior to Sankranthi festival informing that she is leaving the home to attend the work and subsequently she did not return home. P.W.1 lodged Ex.P.1-complaint after lapse of four months i.e. on 15.5.1999 and the same was registered by the investigating officer under the caption ‘woman missing’. During the course of investigation, the accused was arrested on 19.5.1999. It is seen from the record, the accused confessed on 12.1.2000 stating that he administered the sleeping pills to the deceased, had sexual intercourse with her and later murdered her by cutting her throat with a knife and buried the body removing the gold dollar chain, ear-studs from her body. 5. Admittedly, there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence. The entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. When a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the following circumstances have to be proved by the prosecution in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in a decision reported in Padala veera Reddy v. State of A.P. (AIR 1990 SC 79): “(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.” 6. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution relied on the following circumstances: (1) The confession of accused led to recovery of Gold chain-M.O.2 and pair of ear-stude-M.o.3 pledged with P.W.5-pawn broker; (2) Recovery of body of the deceased buried in a place identified by the accused; and (3) Long absconding of the accused after commission of the crime. 7. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the case of the prosecution on the following grounds: (1) The prosecution has not come forward with true case and there is no explanation as to why there was delay of four months in lodging the complaint; (2) The prosecution miserably failed to prove that the accused was absconding after the commission of the crime; (3) The prosecution failed to examine any of the office staff nor produced any records to show that the accused was absconding. 8. As far as the recovery of jewels from the shop of P.W.5 is concerned, it is admitted case of the prosecution that the accused was in the habit of pledging jewels in the said shop. The said jewellery articles were also not identified properly by mixing the same along with other jewels to identify the jewels owned by the deceased. Further the medical shop owner, who was examined as a witness by the prosecution to establish the fact that the accused purchased the sleeping pills to administer the same to the deceased turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution. Further, the evidence adduced by the scientific expert to prove that the deceased is the person mentioned in the complaint, miserably failed to establish by way of examination of D.N.A. test by comparing the same with the relatives of the deceased. The only evidence adduced by the prosecution is that the deceased is aged about 18 to 25 years who is a female. Nothing is there to establish that the deceased is the same person that is mentioned in Ex.P.10. In a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to establish all the circumstances cogently and formally and all the circumstances should consistent and unerringly point out the guilt towards the accused, and that there should not be any missing in the link towards establishing the guilt of the accused. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge considering the above said proposition rightly decided the issue in favour of the accused holding that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, we are of the opinion that there is no need to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court as the same does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity. 9. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY. J _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J OCTOBER 20, 2010 Tsr.