IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Wednesday, the Twentieth day of July, Two Thousand and Eleven PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1660 OF 2007 Between: Y.Satya Rao … Petitioner And The State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, MA. & U.D.Department and others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1660 OF 2007 ORDER: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.GOPAL REDDY) The appellant/sole accused, who was put on trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC in Sessions Case No.132 of 2006 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram was found guilty and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 201 IPC by judgment, dated 05.11.2007, preferred this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence recorded against him. 2. The prosecution story as unfolded during the course of trial is briefly stated as under:- P.Ws.1 and 2 are the brothers-in-law of Sorra Gangamma (hereinafter referred to as, “the deceased”). The accused is the resident of Dorlapalem village and the deceased, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the residents of Peddapadu village. The accused and the deceased were very affectionate towards each other. It is said that before the Tatipudi festival accused went to the deceased at Peddapadu and brought her to his house for cleaning for the ensuing festival. P.W.3 is one of the neighbours in the street of the accused. One day when she returned from S.Kota about 5 P.M. P.W.3 found the deceased sitting in front of her house. The deceased asked P.W.3 to give some food as she was hungry. After having the food, accused came there and took her along with him. Thereafter the deceased was not found for about one and a half month. On 14.04.2006 at about 08:00 PM P.W.1 lodged report under Ex.P1 with P.W.13, the Sub-Inspector of Police and the same was registered as F.I.R. under Ex.P15 under the caption ‘woman missing’ in Crime No.25 of 2006 of Gantyada Police Station. On the next day i.e., 15.04.2006 P.W.1 went to P.W.8 village secretary and informed him that a dead boy of a woman is found lying on a Hillock and further requested him to accompany him. Then P.W.8 accompanied him to the Hillock and there he identified the dead body by the clothes as that of his sister- in-law. Then P.W.8 asked P.W.1 to stay there and at about 10:00 AM, visited the police station and gave a report to P.W.13 and a crime was registered as suspicious death basing on the report of P.W.8 as crime No.28 of 2006. After registering the crime P.W.13 visited the scene of offence; prepared rough sketch; observation report; conducted inquest over the dead body. P.W.8 and another acted as mediators for the observation report. P.W.11, the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body, found the dead body to be putrefied and skeletonized. There was no fracture on any bone of the dead body. The cervical bone was dislocated. The doctor opined that the approximate time of death to be 20 days prior to the post mortem examination. But the cause of death could not be ascertained due to putrefaction and skeletonization of the dead body. On 24.04.2006 at about 04:30 PM, P.W.8 visited Gantyada Police station and gave a report in Ex.P5 stating that the accused approached him and confessed the crime. He reduced the said confession into writing and the accused put his thumb impression on it. Then he was bringing the accused to the police station in an auto. At Korlam village the accused got down and ran away. P.W.13 after receiving Exs.P4 and P5, he altered the F.I.R. P.W.12, S.I. of police received the transferred F.I.R. from Gantyada Police Station and registered the same as crime No.45 of S.Kota Police station under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. On 24.04.2006, P.W.14 Inspector of Police arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.9 and another and recorded his confessional statement and seized M.Os.10 and 11. 3. On committal, the learned Sessions Judge, framed charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and when the same were read over to the accused in Telugu, he denied the same and claimed to be tried. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked Ex.P1 to P19 and M.Os.1 to 15. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating evidence produced against him. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. The learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence found the accused guilty of the charges framed against him and sentenced him to imprisonment as aforementioned. 6. Smt.Naseeb Afsana, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the accused, who is the nephew of the deceased, was falsely implicated in the crime. P.W.1-brother-in-law of the deceased gave a report on 14.04.2006 stating that the deceased was not found from 11.03.2006 in the village; that the accused took the deceased to clean his house on 09.03.2006; that he took the key of the house of the deceased on 09.03.2006 and returned back and from that day onwards, the deceased was not found; that she was having with her cash of Rs.40,000/-. Except the confessional statement said to have been made by the accused to the village secretary P.W.8, while they were chit chatting with each other on 24.04.2006, there is no other evidence on which basis crime was registered for the offence under woman missing. On receipt of the report from P.W.8, the section of law was altered. Except the above evidence, there is no other evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the offence and hence, he is entitled for acquittal. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor sustained the conviction and sentence recorded by the Court below. 8. The point that arises for consideration is: - “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?” P O I N T : - 9. P.W.1 one of the brothers-in-law of the deceased, who lodged the report under Ex.P1 on which basis the crime was registered under man missing, stated that his sister-in-law was not found in the village from 11.03.2006; that the accused took the deceased to clean his house on 09.03.2006; he alone took the key of her house and came to Pedapadu village on 09.03.2006 and opened the key and returned back; that she was having cash of Rs.40,000/-; that the whereabouts of her are not known. In his evidence he deposed that on the way to the village, he came to know that a dead body was lying on a hillock; then he went to the house of P.W.8 village secretary and took him to the hillock; and that after observing the clothes he identified the dead body as that of his sister-in-law. P.W.2, another brother-in-law of the deceased, stated that they searched for the deceased for one month fifteen days and she was not found. After conducting panchayat in the village, P.W.1 gave a complaint in the police station and he informed him that he saw the dead body of the deceased on a hill. 10. P.W.3, who is one of the villagers, deposed that after the deceased had food in her house, the accused came and took the deceased to his house and from the next day morning the deceased was not found at her house. After 1½ month they came to know through police that the deceased died. P.W.4, who is running a kirana shop, stated that while the accused was proceeding in front of his shop she questioned the accused from where he was coming. Then the accused replied that he pledged the chain of the deceased Gangamma with one Pallayya-P.W.7 and coming back. The deceased came to her shop about 15 days thereafter. Then she informed her about the pledge of her chain by the accused, whereas P.W.7 stated that the deceased pledged a chain for Rs.1,600/- informing him that it was made with gold, which was brought by the accused in a small plastic box M.O.7. Three months thereafter he showed M.O.1 to a goldsmith in S.Kota, who informed him that it is not a gold chain. 11. The important witness for the prosecution is P.W.8 before whom the accused gave extra judicial confession deposed that on the information from P.W.1 he accompanied him to the spot and identified the dead body and presented a report Ex.P2. He further deposed that on 24.04.2006 at about 04:30 PM, when he was talking with village sarpanch L.W.7 at Tatipoodi dam, the accused came and confessed before them that the deceased came to his house and that there was a quarrel between the deceased and himself with regard to the chain and therefore, he murdered her by hacking with an axe and brought the dead body to the hillock and left there. He further deposed that he recorded the confessional statement of the deceased under Ex.P4. P.W.9 deposed about the seizure of material objects. He further deposed that the accused took them to the hillock and shown the place of the dead body on 29.04.2006 near a big stone. 12. P.W.11, the doctor who conducted post mortem examination issued Ex.P13 post mortem certificate stating that the cause of death to the best of his knowledge is not possible as the body was putrified and skeletonised. P.W.13, the Sub-Inspector of Police, deposed about registering the F.I.R.; examination of witnesses; seizure of material objects, visiting the scene of offence; preparation of rough sketch; conducting of inquest over the dead body; sending the dead body for post mortem examination; alteration of F.I.R. P.W.14, the Inspector of Police, who took up investigation from P.W.13, deposed about arrest of the accused; seizure of material objects on the confession of the accused; preparation of observation report. 13. The entire conviction is based on the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused before P.W.8 and recoveries of weapon and blood stained clothes and ornaments of the accused. According to P.W.4, the accused pledged the chain of the deceased long back and after the said pledging, the deceased went to his shop 15 days after such information given by the accused. Therefore, the recovery of the ornaments M.Os.1 and 2 from P.W.7 is of no use to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. The Doctor’s evidence also does not corroborate the evidence of P.W.8 with regard to the so called extra judicial confession about hacking of the deceased with axe and taking dead body to the hillock and leaving there. Ex.P19-F.S.L.Report also discloses that no human blood could be detected on item Nos.3, 4 and 5. The recovery of M.Os.2, 10 and 11 also do not indicate about the presence of the blood of the deceased to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. 14. From the above, it is clear that the entire case rests upon circumstantial evidence. When a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the links in the chain of circumstances, so that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision reported in Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P.[1] wherein at para 10 it was held as follows:- “(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.” 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the prosecution miserably failed to establish all the links in the chain of circumstances and thereby failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal. 16. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge at Vizianagaram, in S.C.No.132 of 2006, by judgment, dated 05.,11.2007 are hereby set aside and consequently the appellant is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. The appellant/accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused shall be refunded to him. _____________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ___________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 20-07-2011 lmv HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1660 OF 2007 20.07. 2011 lmv [1] AIR 1990 SUPREME COURT 79