THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.276 of 2007 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 2. Appellant is sole accused in Sessions Case No.348 of 2006. 3. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 01.02.2007, passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, in S.C.No.348 of 2006, convicting the accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity “I.P.C.,”) and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused and the deceased were friends and belong to the same village; that before the date of incident, i.e., 06.03.2006, some disputes arose between the accused and the deceased and they were not in good terms; that, on 06.03.2006, at about 3 pm., the accused went to the house of the deceased and took him to the forest on the pretext of hunting, which was witnessed by P.Ws.2 to 4, who are no other than the wife, son and elder brother of the deceased, respectively; that, subsequently, at about 6 pm., on the same day, the accused alone came to the house of the deceased and informed P.W.2 that the deceased died due to snake bite; that, immediately, P.W.2 along with P.Ws.3 to 6 and others ran to the place, where the body of the deceased was lying, and found some injuries on the leg and his neck was swollen; that, later, on 07.03.2006, P.W.2 lodged a report with the Police and that after completion of all the necessary formalities, police laid the charge sheet. 5. When the charge framed against the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., was read over and explained to him in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-13, on its behalf. On behalf of defence, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. 7. The Court below, having appreciated the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., and convicted and sentenced him, as stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 8. The only question that arises for consideration, in this Criminal Appeal, is -- as to whether the Court below had properly appreciated the evidence on record in arriving at the conclusion that the accused alone was responsible for the death of the deceased? 9. In this connection, it is to be seen that the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the circumstantial evidence in the shape of “last seen together”. 10. It is to be seen that the specific case of the prosecution is that the deceased had some disputes with the accused and that on the date of incident i.e., 06.03.2006, at about 3 pm., the accused came to the house of the deceased, took him into the forest along with him and the same was witnessed by P.W.2 to 4, who are the wife, son and the elder brother of the deceased, respectively. 11. All the three witnesses i.e., P.Ws.2 to 4 had spoken unanimously that it was the accused alone, who took the deceased along with him into the forest on the date of the incident. When P.W.2 along with P.Ws.3 to 6 and others rushed to the scene of occurrence, they found the deceased dead with neck swollen and also found injury on his right leg. Even in the inquest report, it was mentioned that some injuries were found on the leg of the deceased. 12. In fact, that is what has been complained of by P.W.2 in the complaint, under Ex.P-2. 13. After conducting postmortem examination, on the dead body of the deceased, P.W.1, the Doctor, opined that the death of the deceased was due to throttling and that the hyoid bone also was fractured. So, this establishes the fact that the deceased was killed only by throttling. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt about the view expressed by the Doctor as regards the cause of death of the deceased. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused specifically contends that in spite of specific mention made by P.W.2 in the complaint, under Ex.P-2, about the injuries on the legs of the deceased and also noticing of the same by the inquest mediators, there is no mention of any injuries on the leg of the deceased in the postmortem report, under Ex.P-1, issued by P.W-1, the Doctor, and as such, she contends that this is a material discrepancy in the case of the prosecution and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 15. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State, while contending that the Court below had appreciated the case from all angles in a right perspective, supports the order of conviction and sentence, in all respects. 16. In our considered view, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused cannot be accepted for the simple reason that mere omission of mentioning some minor injuries, which are not the cause of the death of the deceased, may not necessarily vitiate the final opinion expressed by P.W.1, the Doctor, regarding the cause of the death of the deceased. Of course, it might be an omission. That omission by itself, even if true, does not vitiate the final opinion expressed by P.W.1, the Doctor, as regards the cause of the death of the deceased nor is capable of making the opinion of P.W.1, the Doctor, as totally untrustworthy. 17. Further, it is to be seen that even at the earliest point of time i.e., when the dead body of the deceased was found in the forest, it has been noticed by P.Ws.2 to 6 and others, who were present there, that the neck of the deceased was swollen. When the said injury was accepted, as having been noticed, the omission, if at all there was any, made by P.W.1, the Doctor, regarding the minor injuries on the leg of the deceased, which are not actually the cause of the death of the deceased, cannot be taken as a serious lapse and on that score, we are of the considered view that the evidence of P.W-1, the Doctor, and the postmortem report, under Ex.P-1, cannot be discarded. 18. P.Ws.2 to 4 spoke in one voice that on the date of the incident, the deceased accompanied the accused at about 3 pm. The cumulative effect of the events are, therefore, that the accused took the deceased along with him into the forest on the date of incident at about 3 pm., and it is only the accused who came back at 6 pm., and informed P.W-2, the wife of the deceased, that the deceased died due to snake bite. 19. From the above circumstances, we are of the view that there was no possibility for any outsider in the intervention of the death of the deceased. If really, there was any outside intervention, there was no need or scope for the accused to inform P.W.2 that the deceased died because of snake bite. 20. It is further significant to notice that the very fact that the accused himself led all the people to the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying, makes it obvious that he had the definite knowledge as regards the place where the deceased was lying dead. 21. In other words, the place of death of the deceased was in the exclusive knowledge of the accused at the first instance, before the said fact was known to the world and the reason shown by the accused to P.W-2, the wife of the deceased, as regards the cause of the death proved to be false. 22. In the above circumstances, the proximity between the accused and the deceased on one side and the death of the deceased on the other is very close and inseparable. 23. The net result is that the prosecution had successfully established ‘the theory of last seen together” beyond all reasonable doubt. 24. We are of the opinion that this aspect by itself is sufficient to connect the accused with the offence, with which he was charged. No other circumstance need be present nor be explained. 25. We have carefully gone through the impugned judgment, rendered by the Court below, and we are of the considered view that the Court below had appreciated the entire evidence on record in a right perspective and had not committed any irregularity or irrationality in the reasoning assigned by it in convicting the accused and accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 26. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _______________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 17th December 2009 dr