HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.707 of 2007 Between: State of A.P. rep. by the Public Prosecutor. …. Appellant and Shivaratri Shivaiah and others …. Respondents This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.707 of 2007 JUDGMENT: - (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) State through Public Prosecutor ﬁled this appeal questioning the Judgment in Sessions Case No.121 of 2005, dated 12.09.2005, on the ﬁle of III Additional Sessions Judge, I Fast Track Court, Nalgonda, whereunder and whereby the appellants/accused were acquitted for the offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC. 2 . The substance of the charge against the accused is that on 25.10.2007 between 06:00 AM to 11:30 AM at Wadaparthy village the accused picked up Shivarathri Sammaiah (hereinafter referred to as, “the deceased”), into a car at Pragnapur and on the way to Bhongir committed his murder by strangulating with a rope due to property disputes between A1 and the deceased and with an intention to screen the said oﬀence, thrown the dead body in the outskirts of Wadaparthy village of Bhongir Mandal, punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution is brieﬂy stated as under:- A3 is the son of A1 and A2 (A2 is the step mother of the deceased). The deceased is the son of A1. A1 has got second marriage with A2. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. There were property disputes between the deceased and his father A1. On 25.10.2004, P.W.25, Sub- Inspector of Police, received telephone information and rushed to the scene of offence situated at the outskirts of Wadaparthy village, where P.W.1 lodged Ex.P1 complaint. P.W.25 endorsed the same and sent to police Station. P.W.24, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, registered the case and issued F.I.R. P.W.25 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and handed over the C.D. ﬁle to P.W.28, Circle Inspector of Police, for further investigation. That on 25.10.2004 while the deceased was going to Bhongir from Nagulabanda to pay the ﬁnance amount in Mangatha ﬁnance company at Bhongir, A1 and A2 with the assistance of A3 to A7 killed the deceased by strangulating with a rope due to property disputes. During the course of investigation, P.W.28 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.Ws.16 and 17 and also conducted scene of oﬀence panchanama and sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination. P.W.23, the Medical Oﬃcer, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 28.10.2004 and issued Ex.P19 post mortem report opining that the cause of death is due to Asphyxia due to pressure over neck structure. A1 surrendered before the court on 27.10.2004. P.W.28 arrested A4 to A7 on 26.11.2004 A2 and A3 were arrested on 29.11.2004. 4. In support of the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 28 were examined and Exs.P1 to P27 and M.Os.1 to 11 were marked. The incriminating circumstance in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was put to the accused when they were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted them of the charges. 6. Heard both sides. 8. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is:- Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? P O I N T :- 9. P.W.1, wife of the deceased, set the criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P1 report, wherein she stated that in the partition between her deceased husband and father-in-law-A1 a compressor vehicle fell to the share of her husband, due to which some disputes arose between her husband and A1. A panchayat was held and in the said panchayat the relatives of her junior mother-in-law Pochamma, threatened that at any time they would kill her husband. She further stated that she suspect that her junior mother-in-law, her relatives and her father-in-law killed her husband when he came to Bhongir keeping the old disputes in mind. In her evidence she stated that on 25.10.2004 while she was at Kondapaka gate at 11:00 AM one Chandramouli informed her that her husband was murdered at Wadaparthi. He told her that while her husband was going to Bhongir to pay the amount in ﬁnance company on the way he was murdered. Then herself and P.Ws.3 and 22 went near the scene of oﬀence at Wadaparthy and saw the dead body of her husband with bleeding injuries. Her husband was murdered by throttling. She further deposed that in the partition between her husband and her father-in-law, a compressor machine fell to the share of her husband, due to which some disputes arose between her husband, father-in-law and his second wife, for which a panchayat was held. In the panchayat A2 and her relatives threatened her husband and accordingly, as per their plan they killed her husband. 10. On lodging the above complaint by P.W.1, P.W.24, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhongir Rural Police Station, registered a case in crime No.142 of 2004 under Section 302 IPC and issued Ex.P20 F.I.R. P.W.25, Sub-Inspector of Police, received the telephonic information that a dead body was found at Wadaparthy outskirts and proceeded there, where P.W.1 lodged a complaint. Then he endorsed the same and sent P.W.24 to the police station for registering the crime. He recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 and handed over the case to P.W.28 for further investigation. P.W.28, the Circle Inspector of Police, during the course of investigation conducted scene of oﬀence panchanama; inquest over the dead body of the deceased; examined the witnesses; recorded the confessional statement of A1 under Ex.P9; recovered the material objects; arrested the accused and filed charge sheet. 11. Except the dispute between the deceased and A1 with regard to the compressor machine, which fell to the share of the deceased in the panchayat held, where A1 and A2 bore grudge against the deceased, no other evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to establish that A1 and A2 decided to eliminate the deceased and executed a plan with the help of other accused A3 to A7 to kill the deceased. 12. P.W.1, who lodged a complaint before the police, only suspected the accused, but she is not an eyewitness to the incident. It is fairly well settled that suspicion however strong cannot take the place of a conclusive proof. 12. The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that where the prosecution case rests squarely on the circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justiﬁed only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. Where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring home the oﬀences beyond any reasonable doubt. 13. In the case on hand, though 28 witnesses were examined, the link in the chain of circumstances leading to the death of the deceased by the accused is not established. Further, the confessional statement said to have been made by the accused under Ex.P9 before P.W.28, has not been supported by the panch witnesses to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. 14. Further, the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.23, who issued post mortem report Ex.P19, is that the death of the deceased is due to asphyxia due to pressure over neck structure and injury No.1 may be caused by rope and other injuries with sharp edged weapon. From the evidence of P.W.23, the prosecution could be able to establish that the death of the deceased was homicidle, but failed to establish that it is the accused, who committed the offence. 15. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the accused and we see no other reason to convict the accused for the oﬀence. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge needs no interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J _____________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J 1st November, 2011. LMV HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.707 of 2007 (Judgment of the Bench delivered by Sri AGR, J) 01-11-2011 LMV