HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.85 OF 2008 Date:15-11-2011 Between: Rayala Ramu …Appellant And The State of A.P. represented by the Public Prosecutor, …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.85 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon-ble Sri Justice R.Kantha Rao) This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment dated 03.09.2007 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-II), at Khammam in S.C.No.312 of 2007 convicting the sole- appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. Challenging the said order of conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred the present appeal. 3. The brief facts essential for considering the appeal may be stated as follows: The deceased-Boddu Balamma is the mother of PW-1. There was some enmity between the appellant and the deceased and there used to be some quarrels between them. On one occasion, it is said that as the appellant assaulted the deceased, she gave a report to the police and on her report, the police registered a case against the appellant. The appellant was arrested and was in judicial remand for 70 days in connection with the said crime. Over the said issue, the appellant bore-grudge against the deceased and he was openly proclaiming that he would kill the deceased. While so, on 17.02.2007 PW-1 who went to Badrachalam, returned home at 10 p.m. on the same day and found the dead body of the deceased in side the house with injuries. Thereafter, he went to Police Station, Khammam I-Town at 0130 hours on 18.02.2007 and presented a report and basing on his report, a case in Crime No. 23 of 2007 was registered for the offence under Section 302 of IPC by PW-12, the Sub-Inspector of Police. PW- 13, the Inspector of Police investigated into the crime and after completing the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the appellant. 4. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the appellant, examined PWs.1 to 13, marked Exs.P-1 to P-17 and M.Os.1 to 6. The learned trial Court on appraisal of the entire evidence on record, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to punishment as mentioned above. 5. We have heard Smt.Shanti Neelam, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 6. The prosecution case, there being no direct witnesses to the occurrence, entirely rested on circumstantial evidence. One of the circumstances, the prosecution wanted to establish is that there was enmity between the appellant and the deceased, that apart the appellant was suspecting that the deceased was practicing sorcery and used the said black-art against the mother of the appellant. The prosecution also sought to prove that on a report lodged by the deceased alleging that she was assaulted by the appellant, the police registered a case and the appellant was arrested in that case and was in judicial remand for 70 days. The prosecution, however, could be able to establish these facts through PWs.1 to 7. PWs.1 to 3 are the children of the deceased. They have stated in their depositions about the appellant quarrelling with the deceased, the deceased lodging a report against the appellant and sending the appellant to judicial remand in connection with the said case. PWs.4 to 7 independent witnesses have also spoken about the above said facts which were stated by PWs.1 to 3. They further stated in their depositions before the trial Court that the appellant picked up a quarrel with the deceased in a drunken state and threatened her to kill. Therefore, the prosecution could be able to establish that the appellant had some motive to kill the deceased. 7. Another circumstance the prosecution sought to prove against the appellant is that after his arrest the appellant led PW-13, investigating officer and the mediators to his house in pursuance of his disclosure statement and produced M.O.4 knife which was recovered under a cover of mediators report. This aspect was testified by PW-10, the mediator and PW-13, the investigating officer. 8. Other than the above said evidence, there is no material brought on record by the prosecution against the appellant in proof of his guilt. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances proved by the prosecution must be conclusive and they must lead to the only conclusion that the appellant alone is the perpetrator of the crime. If there is any scope for presumption of innocence of the accused, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. The above said two circumstances which were established by the prosecution, in our view are not enough to record a conviction against the appellant since they are not conclusive and complete to hold the appellant guilty for committing the murder of the deceased. PWs.1 to 7 stated in their depositions that they suspect that the appellant might be responsible for the murder of the deceased and there were no enemies to the deceased. This general statement of the witnesses cannot be taken into consideration since the same is based on their imagination and suspicion which cannot be considered as legal evidence. The learned trial Court seems to have convicted the appellant for the charge of murder basing on the surmises and conjectures and not basing on any legal proof required to establish the guilt of the accused by the circumstantial evidence. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court against the appellant and acquit him of the charge under Section 302 of IPC. The appellant, who is now undergoing jail sentence in connection with this case, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. The appeal is allowed accordingly. ______ ____________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J ________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Date:15-11-2011 CCM HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.85 OF 2008 (Judgment of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Kantha Rao) Date:15-11-2011