Case: Bandaru Ramesh Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

3. Prosecution story succinctly is that appellant Bandaru Ramesh is cousin of Rajnikanth (deceased). On 01.09.2001 at about 6.00 p.m. the appellant went to the house of the deceased and they slept in a hall. On the next day at about 9.00 a.m. B. Laxmi Bai, mother of Rajnikanth went to market to purchase vegetables and returned at about 10.00 a.m. At that point of time she noticed that her son Rajnikanth was not there. She enquired about her son from the appellant, on which he informed that he has sent him (deceased) to bring `Paan (betel). When Rajnikanth did not return till noon, B. Laxmi Bai along with the appellant, started search of her son. She came back at about noon. Thereafter, she made search alone and left keys of house with the appellant. When till 6.30 she could not trace her son, she came back to her house but found that the appellant had gone with keys, and the house was locked. Thereafter she went to Police Station, Mangalhat, and gave complaint (Exh.On the basis of said complaint Crime No. 245 of 2001 was registered. At about 7.30 p.m. police came to her house and broke open the door of the house, keys of which were with the appellant. During search police noticed a blanket under the cot and when the same was removed, it was found that Rajnikanth was lying dead. At that point of timeB. Laxmi Bai attempted to talk to her brother, but failed as the chord of the telephone connection was found cut. The police took the dead body of Rajnikanth in its possession and after preparing the inquest report, sent the same to Osmania Hospital Mortuary. On instructions of policeB. Laxmi Bai opened the almirah and it revealed that the cash of Rs.pair of gold `Kankanas, one gold chain and one gold ring were missing.4. On 03.09.2001 autopsy was conducted on the dead body of the deceased byDr. P. Vidya Sagar, who prepared the post mortem examination report (Exh.On 07.09.2001, the appellant was arrested and at his instance cash of Rs. 70,600/and gold ornaments were recovered. The keys of the house were also recovered from him. On completion of the investigation,appears to have been filed against the appellant for his trial in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 IPC. The case appears to have been committed to the Court of Sessions after copies were provided to the appellant. The trial court framed charge in respect of offences mentioned above to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.5. To prove the charge, the prosecution got examinedB. Laxmi Bai (informant),T. Devender (brother of the informant),Chatru Singh (neighbour),Syed Asadullah Hussaini,M. Malleswar Rao,Dr. P. Vidya Sagar (who conducted the post mortem examination),T. Suresh (Scientific Officer, RFSL, Guntur),Pujari Sri Lingamaiah,K. Mallesh Kumar (photographer),r S.R. Damodar Reddy (who registered the crime),S.I. M. Gurappa andInspector P.V. Radha Krishna (who investigated the crime).6. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the documents proved were put to the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), to which he replied that the same are false. The trial court, after hearing the parties, found the accused Bandaru Ramesh guilty of charge of offences punishable under Sections 302, 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.

Reasoning: 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.