Case: Bandaru Ramesh Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

380 and 411 IPC, and on hearing on sentence, sentenced him to imprisonment for life and directed to pay fine of Rs. 200/- in default one months simple imprisonment (under Section 302 IPC), rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default one months simple imprisonment (under Section 380 IPC), and fine of Rs. 100/- in default fifteen days simple imprisonment (under Section 411 IPC).7. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19.04.2005, passed by the First Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Sessions Case No. 104 of 2004 against the convict as above, he preferred appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed by the impugned order by said Court. Hence this appeal through special leave. 8. As is evident from the above facts, it is a case based on circumstantial evidence. There is no eye witness of commission of murder. Before further discussion, we think it relevant to mention here the ante mortem injuries found on the dead body of the deceased recorded by PW-7 Dr. P. Vidya Sagar at the time of autopsy. The same are being reproduced below: - "(1) A horizontally placed ante mortem ligature mark of 32 cms length and 2 to ½ cm variable width present all around the lower part of the neck below the thyroid cartilage.(2) The mark is 6 cm below the right mastoid 8 cm below the right ear, 8 cm below the right angle of the jaw. 8 cm below the chin on extension of the neck, 9 cm above the supra sterna notch. 6 cm below the left angle of the jaw. 6 cm below the left ear and 7 cm below the left nastero.(3) multiple abrasions of 0.25 x 0.25 cm present 2 cm below the ligature mark on the front side.(4) A ligature mark of 7 cm length and 2 cm width extending from the midline of front of the neck and 1 cm below the above ligature mark.(5) The ligature mark is reddish brown and parchmentised.(6) Both the borders of the mark abraded.(7) The underlying subcutaneous tissues contused.(8) The inner side of both the lips contused." 9. In the opinion of the Medical Officer (PW-7), the deceased died due to asphyxia secondary to ligature strangulation. From the above medical evidence on record it is established that the deceased died homicidal death. 10. Now, we have to examine whether the prosecution has successfully proved the charge as held by the courts below that the appellant committed murder of the deceased and also committed theft of cash and jewellery, and also as to whether the same were retained and recovered from him. Following are the seven circumstances against the appellant which are found proved from the evidence on record: - (i) The appellant came to the house of the deceased on 01.09.2001 and stayed there in the intervening night of 01.09.2001 and 02.09.2001.(ii) The deceased was last seen in the house in the company of the appellant in the fateful night.(iii) On the next morning, when PW-1 B. Laxmi Bai enquired about the deceased, the appellant misled her by telling that he had gone to Paan shop.(iv) In the afternoon keys of the house were left with the appellant, by B. Laxmi Bai (PW-1).(v) When PW-1 returned at 6.30 p.m., she found that the appellant had left the house with keys.(vi) After the matter was reported to police, at 7.30 p.m. police came and broke open the door of the house and the dead body of Rajnikanth (deceased) was found under the cot covered with a blanket, and cash and ornaments were also missing from the house.(vii) After the appellant was arrested, recovery of major part of cash and ornaments was made at his instance. 11. Taking the above established circumstances together, we agree with the courts below that the chain of circumstances as against the appellant, is complete to prove the charge of offences punishable under Sections 302, 380 and 411 IPC. 12. Shri S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that had the appellant committed the murder or theft he would have run away from the house, but he remained in the house till 10.00 a.m. when PW-1 B. Laxmi Bai came back after purchasing the vegetables, and made search with her till noon. It is further argued that it has come on the record as stated by PW-1 B. Laxmi Bai that the deceased did not enjoy cordial relations with his real brother who used to live separately, as such, commission of murder by a third person cannot be ruled out. We have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, had the appellant not misled PW-1 B. Laxmi Bai that Rajnikanth (deceased) had gone to Paan shop, the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant could have been accepted to create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution story. But misleading PW-1 and pretending to search the deceased with her, thereafter in the afternoon leaving the house with the keys, and recoveries made at his instance, makes easier for us to read the circumstances enumerated above against the appellant. As such, we do not find any break in chain of circumstances and there is no reason to disagree with the view taken by the courts below. 13. Shri Bhat also drew our attention to the case of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343 , and it is submitted that in the case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is drawn should not only be established but should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. We have carefully gone through the evidence on record, and we have no hesitation in holding that all the circumstances are consistently pointing out at the appellant, and none else, as such, the case of Hanumant Govind (supra) is of little help to the appellant in the present case.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]8. As is evident from the above facts, it is a case based on circumstantial evidence. There is no eye witness of commission of murder. Before further discussion, we think it relevant to mention here the ante mortem injuries found on the dead body of the deceased recorded byDr. P. Vidya Sagar at the time of autopsy.In the opinion of the Medical Officerthe deceased died due to asphyxia secondary to ligature strangulation. From the above medical evidence on record it is established that the deceased died homicidal death.Taking the above established circumstances together, we agree with the courts below that the chain of circumstances as against the appellant, is complete to prove the charge of offences punishable under Sections 302, 380 and 411our opinion, had the appellant not misledB. Laxmi Bai that Rajnikanth (deceased) had gone to Paan shop, the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant could have been accepted to create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution story. But misleadingand pretending to search the deceased with her, thereafter in the afternoon leaving the house with the keys, and recoveries made at his instance, makes easier for us to read the circumstances enumerated above against the appellant. As such, we do not find any break in chain of circumstances and there is no reason to disagree with the view taken by the courtshave carefully gone through the evidence on record, and we have no hesitation in holding that all the circumstances are consistently pointing out at the appellant, and none else, as such, the case of Hanumant Govind (supra) is of little help to the appellant in the present case.