Case: Dasari Siva Prasad Reddy Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of A.P

view of the clarification given by PW9 himself. Therefore, we shall assume that the murder had taken place on the night of 19th April or in the early hours of 20th April. 21. In drawing an inference that the accused must have been in the house on the crucial night, the High Court mainly relied on the evidence of PW4 and also relied on the fact that the accused set up a false plea of alibi. As already noticed, the evidence of PW4 was to the effect that he saw the accused entering his house at about 8.30 p.m. on 19th April, 1996. He also spoke to the fact that he observed some quarrel going on between the husband and the wife beyond 10 p.m. The High Court repelled the contention that the police examined PW4 three months after the incident on a wrong assumption that PW8 - the Head Constable, initially examined PW4 after the case was registered. But, it is clear from the evidence of PW8 that he did not examine PW4, PW10 also clarified that he examined PW4 once only i.e. on 15.7.1996.There is absolutely no reason why PW4 who was admittedly related to the deceased and who was in the house of the accused soon after the incident, did not come forward to give the statement about the facts observed by him. There is no reason to think that the police would not have examined him immediately if he was the person who had seen the deceased last in the company of the accused on the night of 19th April, 1996. Moreover, PW4 came forward with an improbable version that he observed the quarrel from his house which is separated by four or five houses from the house of the accused. PW10 - the I.O. categorically stated that PW4 did not tell him that at 10 p.m. he observed the quarrel at the house of the accused. That means, PW4 did not hesitate to go to any extent to help the prosecution to substantiate the last seen version. The High Court dismissed the criticism against PW4s evidence by merely observing that there was no reason for him to falsely implicate the accused. We are of the view that the High Court should not have upset the finding of the trial Court in regard to the credibility of evidence of PW4 and buttress its conclusion on the last seen factor by relying on PW4s evidence. As far as PW5 is concerned, the High Court concurred with the trial Courts view that his evidence cannot be believed. 22. The High Court then observed that since the plea of alibi is found to be false, it can be inferred that the accused was present in the house in the night of 19.4.1996. The High Court after adverting to the observations in Prabhakar vs. State of Maharashtra (1982) 1 SCC 426 ) drew the further inference that only the accused and the deceased were in the house at the relevant time and there was no possibility for others to enter into the house. These observations were primarily based on the unreliable evidence of PW4. The High Courts approach in seeking support from the decision in Prabhakars case is clearly unsustainable. The facts and circumstances in that case unerringly pointed to the presence of the accused at the crucial time and there was no possibility of third person being there. The inferences drawn in that case cannot therefore be pressed into service here. If we exclude PW4s evidence, there is no evidence whatsoever to establish the presence of the accused in the house on the crucial night. The fact that the appellant could not establish by cogent evidence that on the night of 19th April, 1996 he remained at the house of his parents in another village does not lead to the necessary inference that the appellant must have remained at his house on the night of 19th April, 1996. 23. However, there is one circumstance which is suggestive of the strong possibility of the presence of the accused at his house. As per PW3s evidence which was believed by the trial Court, the appellant contacted him in the morning at 6 a.m. and brought PW3 to his house giving a hint that something untoward happened to his sister (i.e. the deceased). Added to this, the accused, in the normal course, is expected to be at his house in the night. However, these factors need not give rise to an irresistible inference that the accused remained in the house in the previous night and the accused alone must have been responsible for the murder. At best, it can be said that the view taken by the trial Court is not the only possible view. But, that is not enough to reverse the acquittal. 24. A strong suspicion, no doubt, exists against the appellant but such suspicion cannot be the basis of conviction, going by the standard of proof required in a criminal case. The distance between may be true and must be true shall be fully covered by reliable evidence adduced by the prosecution. But, that has not been done in the instant case. If, coupled with the circumstance unfolded by the evidence of PW3, the evidence of PW4 had been believed, it would have gone a long way in substantiating the prosecution case. But, in the instant case, apart from the fact that the appellant was at his house on the morning of 20th April, 1996, there is no other circumstance whatsoever which connects the accused to the crime, though serious suspicion looms large about his involvement. The view taken by the trial Court that the prosecution could not establish the complete chain of circumstances incriminating the accused is a reasonably possible view and the High Court should not have disturbed the same. Having regard to the state of available evidence, the benefit of doubt given to the accused by the trial Court warranted no interference by the High Court.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]There is no reason to think that the police would not have examined him immediately if he was the person who had seen the deceased last in the company of the accused on the night of 19th April, 1996. Moreover, PW4 came forward with an improbable version that he observed the quarrel from his house which is separated by four or five houses from the house of the accused. PW10 - the I.O. categorically stated that PW4 did not tell him that at 10 p.m. he observed the quarrel at the house of the accused. That means, PW4 did not hesitate to go to any extent to help the prosecution to substantiate the last seen version. The High Court dismissed the criticism against PW4s evidence by merely observing that there was no reason for him to falsely implicate the accused. We are of the view that the High Court should not have upset the finding of the trial Court in regard to the credibility of evidence of PW4 and buttress its conclusion on the last seen factor by relying on PW4s evidence. As far as PW5 is concerned, the High Court concurred with the trial Courts view that his evidence cannot be believed.A strong suspicion, no doubt, exists against the appellant but such suspicion cannot be the basis of conviction, going by the standard of proof required in a criminal case. The distance between may be true and must be true shall be fully covered by reliable evidence adduced by the prosecution. But, that has not been done in the instant case. If, coupled with the circumstance unfolded by the evidence of PW3, the evidence of PW4 had been believed, it would have gone a long way in substantiating the prosecution case. But, in the instant case, apart from the fact that the appellant was at his house on the morning of 20th April, 1996, there is no other circumstance whatsoever which connects the accused to the crime, though serious suspicion looms large about his involvement. The view taken by the trial Court that the prosecution could not establish the complete chain of circumstances incriminating the accused is a reasonably possible view and the High Court should not have disturbed the same. Having regard to the state of available evidence, the benefit of doubt given to the accused by the trial Court warranted no interference by the Highobservations were primarily based on the unreliable evidence of PW4. The High Courts approach in seeking support from the decision in Prabhakars case is clearly unsustainable. The facts and circumstances in that case unerringly pointed to the presence of the accused at the crucial time and there was no possibility of third person being there. The inferences drawn in that case cannot therefore be pressed into service here. If we exclude PW4s evidence, there is no evidence whatsoever to establish the presence of the accused in the house on the crucial night. The fact that the appellant could not establish by cogent evidence that on the night of 19th April, 1996 he remained at the house of his parents in another village does not lead to the necessary inference that the appellant must have remained at his house on the night of 19th April,to this, the accused, in the normal course, is expected to be at his house in the night. However, these factors need not give rise to an irresistible inference that the accused remained in the house in the previous night and the accused alone must have been responsible for the murder. At best, it can be said that the view taken by the trial Court is not the only possible view. But, that is not enough to reverse the acquittal.