Madakam Chandraiah 2 Others vs State Of Ap.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4691 Tel

      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY
                           AND
     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

               CRIMINAL APPEAL No.556 of 2014

JUDGMENT : (Per GAC, J)

        This appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 09.01.2014

in S.C.No.501 of 2012, on the file of Special Sessions Judge for

trial of cases under SCs. & STs. (POA) Act-cum-Additional

Sessions Judge at Khammam.


2.      The appellants herein are accused Nos.1 to 3. A charge

sheet is filed against all the accused for the offence punishable

under Section 302 r/w.34 of IPC. The trial Court, after considering

the evidence on record, convicted the appellants under Section

235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 302

r/w.34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life

and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each and in default of payment of

fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.


3.      The brief case of the prosecution is that on 31.01.2012, at

about 6.30 p.m., PWs.1 and 3 went to their chilli fields, at
                                  2
                                                        AVR, J & GAC, J
                                                    Crl.A.No.556 of 2014



Chandravanka vagu and at that time, both the deceased namely

Karnam Seethaiah and Karnam Chukkamma were alone in their

house. At about 8 p.m., while PW-1 was returning back from the

fields to her house, she saw A-1 to A-3 running away armed with

an axe, knife and stick respectively. She then rushed into the house

and found both the deceased with grievous cut injuries in a pool of

blood. In the meanwhile, PW-3 also reached the scene of offence

but on the next day morning, PW-1 lodged a report to the Station

House Officer, Chinthur, which is Ex.P-1.


4.    After receiving Ex.P-1/report at 2.30 p.m., LW-14/M. Raju,

Sub-Inspector of Police, Chinthur registered the case in Crime

No.8 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w.34

of IPC and issued FIR i.e. Ex.P-11. Later, the Inspector of Police,

Chinthur took over the investigation and during the course of

investigation, visited the scene of offence, prepared scene

observation report, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased

in the presence of blood relatives of the deceased and

panchayatdars, recorded the statements of witnesses and later
                                 3
                                                      AVR, J & GAC, J
                                                  Crl.A.No.556 of 2014



forwarded the dead bodies of the deceased for postmortem

examination.


5.    Basing on the requisition of Police, PW-7/Doctor conducted

autopsy over the dead bodies of the deceased at Government Tribal

Hospital, Chinthur and opined that the cause of death of both the

deceased was due to hypo volumic shock caused by loss of blood

and issued Exs.P-9 and P-10/postmortem reports of deceased Nos.1

and 2 respectively.


6.    Basing on the reliable information, the investigating

officer/PW-9, on 03.02.2012, apprehended all the accused and

seized an axe and knife basing on the confession statements of A-1

and A-2, in the presence of PWs.6 and       8 i.e. the mediators,

effected arrest of the accused and produced them before the Court

for judicial remand. During the course of investigation, PW-9

forwarded the material objects to Regional Forensic Laboratory,

for chemical analysis and after receiving the reports from the

Doctor and of the Regional Forensic Lab, concluded the
                                  4
                                                        AVR, J & GAC, J
                                                    Crl.A.No.556 of 2014



investigation and laid charge sheet against all the accused for the

offence punishable under Section 302 r/w.34 of IPC.


7.    A charge was framed against all the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 302 r/w.34 of IPC, read over and

explained the same to them, for which, they pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried.


8.    On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 9 were examined and

Exs.P-1 to P-13 were marked. All the accused were examined

under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied the incriminating

evidence of the prosecution and pleaded not guilty for the offences

charged.


9.    The point for determination is;

      Whether the trial Court is proper in convicting all the
      accused/appellants for the offence punishable under
      Section 302 r/w.34 of IPC and whether the
      prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellants
      beyond reasonable doubt for the said offences ?

10.   It is relevant to give the relationships between the witnesses

and the deceased for better appreciation of the facts. Deceased

Nos.1 and 2 are the wife and husband. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are
                                   5
                                                         AVR, J & GAC, J
                                                     Crl.A.No.556 of 2014



the daughter, son and son-in-law of the deceased Nos.1 and 2

respectively. PW-4 is the distant relative of the deceased, PW-5

belongs to the same village, who acted as panch witness to the

inquest of both the dead bodies and as well as to the crime detailed

report. PWs.6 and 8 are the panch witnesses to the confession

statements of accused Nos.1 and 2 and also for recovery of crime

weapons i.e. an axe and the knife.        PW-7 is the Doctor who

conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of deceased Nos.1 and 2

and opined that both the deceased died due to hypo volumic shock

due to loss of blood.      PW-9 is the investigating officer who

investigated the case and laid charge sheet against all the accused.


11.   Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned

Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.


12.   It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that there

is no direct eye witness to the incident and the trial Court convicted

the appellants only basing on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 though

they did not witness the incident. It is further contended by the

learned counsel for the appellants that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3
                                     6
                                                          AVR, J & GAC, J
                                                      Crl.A.No.556 of 2014



cannot be relied upon, as they are interested witnesses and even

PW-1 did not state as to who is holding which material object at

the time of running away from the scene of offence. It is further

contended by the counsel for the appellants that except the

evidence of PW-1, there is no other ocular or oral evidence on

record either to prove the motive for the offence or for the attempt

made by all the accused, and therefore, prayed to set aside the

judgment of the Sessions Court, as the prosecution miserably failed

to prove the guilt of all the accused beyond reasonable doubt and

further contended that benefit of doubt has to be extended to the

appellants.


13.       In order to support her contentions, the learned Counsel for

the appellants (Legal Aid Counsel) Ms.Vasundhara Reddy relied

on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parvat Singh &

others v. State of Madhya Pradesh1, wherein, it is held in para 12

as under:

          "It cannot be disputed that there can be a conviction
          relying upon the evidence/deposition of the sole
          witness.     However, at the same time, the
          evidence/deposition of the sole witness can be relied
1
    (2020) 4 SCC 33
                                     7
                                                           AVR, J & GAC, J
                                                       Crl.A.No.556 of 2014



          upon, provided it is found to be trustworthy and
          reliable and there are no material contradictions
          and/or omissions and/or improvements in the case of
          the prosecution."

14.       In the judgment of this Court in Shai Pashamiya v. State of

Andhra Pradesh2, relied upon by the learned counsel for the

appellants, it is held that mere motive cannot be the sole

circumstance to convict the accused in a case based on

circumstantial evidence.


15.       In another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, relied upon

by the learned counsel for appellants in the case of Mallappa v.

State of Karnataka3, it is held in para 14 as under:

          "Even if the prosecution version that PW.3, PW.5 and
          PW.6 could and did see the appellant running in front
          of Devendrappa's house from the respective positions
          they were in at the time of occurrence of the incident
          was accepted, the evidence we would have been left
          with would have been two accused persons being seen
          running away. That would have been too thin piece of
          evidence to convict someone under Section 302 of the
          Code, applying the principle of res gestae."

16.       In another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, relied upon

by the learned counsel for appellants in the case of Sudhakar @


2
    2019 (1) ALD (Crl.) 665
3
    (2021) 5 SCC 572
                                           8
                                                           AVR, J & GAC, J
                                                       Crl.A.No.556 of 2014



Sudershan v. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Srirangam

Police Station, Tiruchi4, it is held in para 17 as under:

          "Then, next comes to the question what is the difference
          between a related witness and an interested witness ? The
          plea of "interested witness", "related witness" has been
          sufficiently explained by this Court that "related" is not
          equivalent to "interested". The witness may be called
          "interested" only when he or she derives some benefit from
          the result of litigation in the decree in a civil case, or in
          seeing an accused person punished. In this case at hand,
          PWs.1 and 5 were not only "related witnesses" but also
          "interested witnesses" as they had pecuniary interest in
          getting the accused punished. (refer State of U.P. v. Kishan
          Pal5). As the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of
          "interested witnesses", it would be prudent in the facts and
          circumstances of this case to be cautious while analyzing
          such evidence. It may be noted that other than these
          witnesses, there are no independent witnesses available to
          support the case of the prosecution."


17.       On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended

that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellants beyond

reasonable doubt and prayed to confirm the judgment of the trial

Court.



18.       The criminal law was set into motion basing on the

information given by PW-1, who is the daughter of both the

4
    (2018) 5 SCC 435
5
    (2008) 16 SCC 73 = (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 182
                                   9
                                                         AVR, J & GAC, J
                                                     Crl.A.No.556 of 2014



deceased. The report given by her is Ex.P-1. It is important to

mention that the entire case of prosecution rests on circumstantial

evidence as none has witnessed the alleged murders said to have

been committed by the appellants/A-1 to A-3. Further, there is

delay in lodging the complaint.


19.   The cardinal principles of criminal law are that the

prosecution shall prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable

doubt and the accused shall be presumed to be innocent till the

offence is proved and benefit of doubt has to be extended in case

the prosecution fails to prove the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt.


20.   In order to prove an offence punishable under Section 302 of

IPC, it is for the prosecution to prove that the death of the deceased

is caused with a specific motive and the bodily injury caused by the

offender is with the knowledge that such an injury might cause the

death of the deceased and further, the injury inflicted is sufficient

to cause the death of the deceased.
                                  10
                                                        AVR, J & GAC, J
                                                    Crl.A.No.556 of 2014



21.   The evidence of PW-7 i.e. the Doctor disclose that he

conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of deceased Nos.1 and 2

on 02.02.2012 from 1.30 p.m. onwards and noted all the injuries in

the postmortem reports.

The postmortem report of Karnam Seetharamaiah (deceased No.1)

disclose that he sustained four external injuries corresponding with

the internal injuries which are as follows:

      "External injuries:

      1.

15 X 10 X 10 cm chop injury present over the anterior part of the neck on left side.

2. 8 X 2 X 4 cm lacerated wound present over the left tempora mandibular regions.

3. 4 X 4 cm contusion wound present over the right supra scapular region on right side.

4. 3 X 2 X 2 cm lacerated wound present over left temporal region.

Internal injuries:

4 X 2 X 1 cm fracture of scull at left tempora mandibular region corresponding to injury No.2 of external injuries. Left side intra cranial bleed is present."

All the injuries are ante-mortem in nature.

The postmortem report of Karnam Chukkamma (deceased No.2)

disclose that she sustained seven external injuries corresponding

with the internal injuries which are as follows:

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.556 of 2014

"External injuries:

1. 5 X 3 X 3 cm chop injury present over left cheek corresponding with tooth extraction.

2. 3 X 2 X 2 cm lacerated wound present over the left side of the skull.

3. 3 X 3 X 2 cm lacerated wound present over the left tempora occipital region of skull.

4. 4 X 3 X 2 cm lacerated wound over occipital region.

5. 3 X 1 X 1 cm lacerated wound over chin region.

6. 3 X 3 X 2 cm lacerated wound present over right mastoid region.

7. 3 X 4 cm contusion wound present over right knee joint region.

Internal injuries:

Right side intracranial bleeding present corresponding with head injury. Internal organs are pale.

All the injuries are ante-mortem in nature.

22. It is opined by PW-7 that the cause of death of deceased

Nos.1 and 2 was due to hypo volumic shock due to loss of blood

and Exs.P-9 and P-10 are the postmortem reports of deceased

Nos.1 and 2 respectively. The death of deceased Nos.1 and 2

would have occurred 38 to 44 hours prior to the postmortem

examination.

23. It is specifically deposed by PW-7 that the injuries would

have been caused by sharp-cutting edged heavy weapon like axe or

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.556 of 2014

heavy knife. As per the evidence of PW-7 and Exs.P-9 and P-10, it

can be construed that the death of the deceased is not a natural one

and it is a homicidal death and the burden rests on the prosecution

to prove that A-1 to A-3 have murdered the deceased.

24. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has

mainly relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 who are the interested

witnesses i.e. the blood relatives of the deceased. Therefore, it is

necessary to scrutinize the evidence of PWs.1 to 3.

25. The evidence of PW-1 disclose that there were land disputes

between the accused and his father and on the date of incident i.e.

31.01.2012 at 6.30 p.m., she along with her husband went to chilli

fields at Chandravanka vagu and her parents were alone at the

house. At about 8 p.m., while returning home, she saw A-1 to A-3

running away from her house with crime weapons (axe, knife and

stick) in their hands. On entering into the house, she found the

dead bodies of her father and mother with cut injuries in a pool of

blood. Her evidence further disclose that in the meantime, PW-3

came to the scene of offence and on the next day, her brothers

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.556 of 2014

arrived and after consulting them, she drafted the complaint, and

hence, there is delay in lodging the complaint. It is specifically

stated by PW-1 that A-1 to A-3 murdered both the deceased in

view of land disputes.

In the cross-examination, it is admitted by PW-1 that there

are ten houses around her house and one can see/view things

happened and no panchayat took place in the village in order to

settle the land disputes between her father and A-1. It is also

admitted by her that she saw the accused at a distance of 10 feet

and within 20 minutes, her husband came to the house and that she

alone saw the accused running away from the house. Further,

PW-1 deposed that she drafted the complaint after the arrival of

Police to the scene of offence at about 11 a.m.

26. The evidence of PW-2, who is the son of deceased 1 and 2,

disclose that on 31.01.2012 at 5 p.m., he went to Alligudem and at

about 10 p.m., PW-3 sent message asking him to come down in

view of urgency and on that, he came to the house at 4 a.m., and

saw his parents in a pool of blood with injuries and that the accused

murdered his parents.

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.556 of 2014

In the cross-examination, it is deposed by PW-2 that he had

a cell phone but signals were not available and his brother-in-law

sent message through someone informing him to come down

urgently. His evidence also disclose that he did not accompany

PW-1 to Police Station and Police came to their village at around

11 or 12 noon on the next day of the offence.

27. The evidence of PW-3 disclose that on the date of offence,

PW-1 returned home from fields in order to send deceased No.1 to

the fields and after twenty minutes, he heard the cries of PW-1 and

rushed to the scene of offence and saw the dead bodies of his in-

laws in a pool of blood. His evidence further disclose that PW-1

informed him that she saw the accused running away from her

house with arms and that the accused are having disputes with the

deceased with respect to lands.

In the cross-examination, it is specifically stated by PW-3

that it was dark, when he heard the cries of his wife and did not

notice the time.

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.556 of 2014

28. As per the Apex Court judgment in Thulia Kali v. State of

Tamilnadu6, the information as to the cognizable offence must be

prompt. Delay quite often results in embellishments or

after-thoughts. Delay deprives the first information statement of

advantage of spontaneity and involves danger of a coloured version

or an exaggerated concocted story as a result of deliberation and

consultation. Delay must be satisfactorily explained.

29. As per another judgment of Apex Court in Tulsi Das

Kanolkar v. State of Goa7, delay in First Information Statement

only puts the Court on guard to search for and consider if any

explanation has been offered for such delay. If an explanation has

been offered, the Court has to consider if it is satisfactory. If not

offered, it implies that there was a possibility of embellishment or

exaggeration which is the relevant factor to be considered. If the

explanation is satisfactory that is weighty enough to reject the plea

of false implication.

AIR 1973 SC 501

AIR 2004 SC 978

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.556 of 2014

30. On scrutiny of the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, it is evident that

none of them have witnessed all the accused murdering the

deceased. There is no direct evidence. Moreover, the evidence of

PWs.2 and 3 has to be considered as a hearsay evidence only with

respect to receiving the information from PW-1 as to all the

accused moving far away from the house of the deceased. The

evidence of PW-1 only discloses that she saw accused Nos.1 to 3

running away from her house with arms. Further, the evidence of

PWs.1 and 3 clearly disclose that the offence took place after

sun set and it was dark. The evidence of PW-1 does not disclose as

to how she recognized A-1 to A-3 with weapons in the darkness.

Furthermore, her evidence does not disclose as to which of the

accused was holding which weapon.

31. It is relevant to mention that even as per the evidence of

PW-1, the offence took place at 8 p.m. on the night of 31.01.2012

and the report was given by her to the Police at about 2.30 p.m. on

01.02.2012. On perusal of Ex.P-1/report, it is evident that PW-1

did not state in the report as to which of the accused was holding

which of the weapon and further stated in the report that there is no

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.556 of 2014

transportation facility, and as such, she did not inform the Police

immediately after the offence.

32. Even taking into consideration that it was dark and she could

not go to the Police Station in the night, what made PW-1 not to

prefer report in the morning and as to why the delay was caused till

2.30 p.m. on 01.02.2012, was neither explained by PW-1 nor by

the investigating officer in their evidence. It is important to note

that LW-14/M.Raju, Sub-Inspector of Police, Chinthur, was not

examined before the Court for the reasons best known to the

prosecution. Admittedly, the criminal law was set into motion

basing on the FIR i.e. Ex.P-11. On perusal of Ex.P-11, at column

No.8, the reasons for delay in reporting the complaint has to be

mentioned, but surprisingly, it is mentioned as "no delay" though

the record as well as the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 disclose that report

was given to the Police at 2.30 p.m. on the next day of the incident.

Furthermore, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 clearly disclose that the

Police have come to the scene of offence at 11.00 a.m. on

01.02.2012, which means that prior to registering the case in a

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.556 of 2014

cognizable offence, the Police have commenced the investigation,

which is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

33. The above judgments of the Apex Court are squarely

applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Even

as per the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, PW-3 came to the scene of

offence in the early hours i.e. at 4.00 a.m. on 01.02.2012 and PW-3

reached the scene of offence at around 8.20 p.m. and PW-1

witnessed the dead bodies at around 8.00 p.m. on 31.01.2012 and

the complaint was made at 2.30 p.m. on 01.02.2012. Therefore, it

can be construed that there is much delay in lodging the complaint

and Ex.P-1 was made by PW-1 against all the accused after due

deliberations/afterthoughts, as a result of embellishments. It can

also be construed that PWs.1 to 3 are interested witnesses in this

case as they had pecuniary interest in getting all the accused

punished as per the proposition of the Apex Court in the judgments

referred above.

34. The learned Counsel for the appellants also relied on the

decision of the Apex Court in Mahender Singh & others v. State

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.556 of 2014

of M.P.8, wherein, their Lordships have relied on the judgment

reported in Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras9 and held as

under :

"Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well established rule of law that the Court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely,

(1) Wholly reliable.

(2) Wholly unreliable.

(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.

In the first category of proof, the Court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way - it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the Court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category cases that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial."

As per the above ratio, the witnesses are of three types, (1) wholly

reliable (2) wholly unreliable and (3) neither wholly reliable nor

wholly unreliable.

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 543

1957 SCR 981

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.556 of 2014

35. In the present case, PWs.1 and 2 come under the third

category i.e. 'neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable and the

trial Court ought to have looked for corroboration in material

particulars either direct or circumstantial. There is no

corroboration of material particulars as to the direct or

circumstantial evidence of PWs.1 and 2. Hence, it can be

construed that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 would fall in the

category of 'neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable'.

Therefore, it can be presumed that there is no direct eye witness to

the offence and the case of the prosecution rests upon the

circumstantial evidence.

36. The other witnesses in this case are PWs.4 to 6 and 8 in

order to prove the motive, confession of the accused and also about

the inquest and crime details collected by the Police during the

course of investigation.

37. The evidence of PWs.4 and 5 disclose that they are distant

relatives of deceased Nos.1 and 2 and they went to the scene of

offence after coming to know about the incident. It is relevant to

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.556 of 2014

mention that PWs.4 and 5 acted as panch witnesses to the inquest

panchanamas of deceased No.2 and deceased No.1, which are

Exs.P-2 and P-3 respectively. It is specifically stated by PWs.4

and 5 in their cross-examination that Police obtained their thumb

impressions over the inquest panchanamas. Furthermore, PW-5

also acted as panch witness to the crime detail form which is

Ex.P-4 and the Police have seized one stick i.e. M.O.1 from the

scene of offence.

38. As discussed supra, the evidence of PW-1 disclose that all

the accused were running far away from the house of the deceased

with weapons and if that is the case, as to how M.O.1 was seized

from the scene of offence, is not at all explained by the

Prosecution.

39. PWs.6 and 8 are the panch witnesses for the confession

statements of accused Nos.1 and 2. Their evidence disclose that

they were called to the Police Station, where, accused Nos.1 and 2

were present and that the accused voluntarily confessed about the

offence and pursuant to their confession, the accused have led them

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.556 of 2014

to Gaganmettu and produced an axe and the knife and Police have

seized the weapons, for which, they attested the confession and

seizure panchanamas i.e. Exs.P-5 to P-7. M.Os.2 and 3 are the axe

and knife respectively.

In their cross-examination, both the witnesses denied the

suggestion that the accused did not make any confession and

nothing was seized at the instance of the accused.

40. The rest over evidence is that of the investigating officer i.e.

PW-9. His evidence disclose that he received express copy of FIR

i.e. Ex.P-11 from LW-14/M.Raju, Sub-Inspector of Police, and

rushed to the scene of offence, recorded the statement of PW-1 and

further recorded the statements of the other witnesses, got the scene

of offence photographed through LW-6/T.Sandeep. Ex.A-12 are

the photographs, four in number, along with the CD. He further

deposed that he secured the presence of PWs.4 and 5, prepared the

crime detail report, collected the blood-stained earth, control earth/

M.O.1 from the scene of offence, conducted inquest over the dead

bodies of deceased 1 and 2, in the presence of PWs.4 and 5 and

later forwarded the dead bodies for postmortem examination to the

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.556 of 2014

Government Tribal hospital, Chinthur. On 03.02.2012, basing on

reliable information, he apprehended A-1 to A-3, interrogated and

recorded the confession statements of A-1 to A-3 separately in the

presence of PWs.6 and 8 and also seized axe and one knife at the

instance of A-1 and A-2, effected arrest and produced them before

the Court for judicial remand. His testified that on 05.03.2012, he

forwarded the material objects to Regional Forensic Laboratory,

Warangal for chemical analysis and after receiving the RFSL

report and Postmortem reports of both the deceased, he laid the

charge sheet against all the accused.

In the cross-examination, it is specifically admitted by PW-9

that he did not mention the date and time of receipt of FIR in the

charge sheet and PW-1 has come to the Police Station at 2.30 p.m.

on 01.02.2012. He also admitted that the scene of offence is easily

accessible to the public, and there are houses in and around the

scene of offence and the fields of deceased are at a distance of one

furlong from their house and if PW-1 or any of the deceased has

raised cries, it could be heard by the neighbours. PW-9 further

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.556 of 2014

deposed that there are no Police cases or civil cases pending

between the accused and the deceased.

41. On perusal of the entire evidence, it can be construed that

except the evidence of PW-1, there is no other evidence on record

to prove that the accused were running away from the house of the

deceased. As stated supra, PWs.1 to 3 are interested witnesses.

The evidence of the other witnesses i.e. PWs.4 to 6 and 8 are in no

way helpful to the case of the prosecution to prove the motive for

committing murder by all the accused, as none of them spoke about

the civil disputes between the accused and the deceased.

42. The evidence of the Doctor/PW-7 will only establish that the

deaths of the deceased are of homicidal and are not of natural ones.

In a criminal case, it is for the prosecution to connect the accused

with the crime. Ex.P-13/RFSL report disclose that the material

objects are received by the laboratory i.e. an axe, a sickle, a stick,

blood-stained earth and control earth (Items 1 to 5 respectively)

were chemically analyzed and human blood was detected on Item

Nos.1 to 4 and the blood group, of blood stains on item Nos.1 to 4

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.556 of 2014

could not be determined. Therefore, the RFSL report i.e. Ex.A-13

is also in no way helpful to the prosecution to prove that the

material objects alleged to have been seized by the Police at the

instance of accused pursuant to their confession, contain the blood

stains of the deceased.

43. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act envisages that no

confession made to a Police officer shall be proved against the

person accused of any offence. Hence, the confession made by all

the accused to the investigating officer/PW-9 is hit by Section 25

of Indian Evidence Act.

44. Further, as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, when

any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information

received from the accused person of any offence, in the custody of

the Police Officer, so much of such information, whether it

amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact

thereby discovered, may be proved. Thus, as per the said

provision, it is only the information which has to be taken into

consideration as to the discovery of the fact. In the present case, it

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.556 of 2014

is the case of the Prosecution that pursuant to the confession of

accused, M.Os.2 and 3 were discovered. But, as per the evidence

of PWs.6 and 8, an axe and knife were discovered, but contrary to

it, the description of the weapon mentioned in RFSL report

disclose that a sickle was sent for chemical analysis instead of a

knife. For the reasons best known to the prosecution, the Letter of

Advice addressed by PW-9 to RFSL, Warangal was also not

marked before the Court in order to verify whether knife or the

sickle was sent for chemical analysis. Therefore, it can be safely

construed that the prosecution has failed to connect the accused

with the crime.

45. As stated supra, though the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3

disclose that there are land disputes between deceased No.1 and the

accused, there is no independent corroborating evidence to support

their contention. In the absence of proper corroborating evidence

as to the motive for the offence, it can be construed that the

prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused.

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.556 of 2014

46. In State of U.P. v. Dr.Ravindra Prakash Mittal10, the

Apex Court held as under :

"The essential ingredients to prove guilt of an accused person by circumstantial evidence are: (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn should be fully proved; (2) the circumstances should be conclusive in nature; (3) all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with innocence; (4) the circumstances should, to a moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused.

.....As pointed out supra, there is no direct evidence to connect the respondent with this offence of murder and the prosecution entirely rests its case only on circumstantial evidence. There is a series of decisions of this Court so eloquently and ardently propounding the cardinal principle to be followed in cases in which the evidence is purely of circumstantial nature. We think, it is not necessary to recapitulate all those decisions except stating that the essential ingredients to prove guilt of an accused person by circumstantial evidence are:

          (1)          The circumstances from which the
                       conclusion is drawn should be fully
                       proved;
          (2)          the circumstances should be conclusive
                       in nature;
          (3)          all the facts so established should be
                       consistent only with the hypothesis of
                       guilt and inconsistent with innocence;
          (4)          the circumstances should, to a moral

certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused."

(1992) 3 SCC 300

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.556 of 2014

47. During the course of investigation, the accused were arrested

and it is the case of the prosecution that all the accused have

voluntarily confessed about murdering both the deceased persons

and basing on such confession of the accused, M.Os.2 and 3 were

recovered. The evidence of the Doctor/PW-7 only disclose that

both the deceased died due to hypo volumic shock, due to loss of

blood and the ante-mortem injuries found over the dead bodies of

the deceased would have been caused by sharp-cutting edged

heavy weapon like an axe or the knife. But, on perusal of the

Postmortem reports, it is evident that chop cut injuries were found

on both the dead bodies of the deceased and there is no evidence on

record as to which type of weapon, was used on each of the

deceased to prove as to who has hacked whom. Moreover, there is

no evidence on record that the injuries are caused with a stick, so

as to attract charge against A-3. Admittedly, the panch witnesses

to the confession statement i.e. PWs.6 and 8 disclose that they saw

the accused in the Police Station and on interrogation, the accused

have confessed the offence.

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.556 of 2014

48. The present case is based only on the circumstantial

evidence and the prosecution has failed to prove the complete

chain of circumstances, connecting the events so as to convict the

appellants, therefore, the conviction is bad in the eye of law. In a

case of homicide, it is for the prosecution to prove that all the

accused hacked deceased Nos.1 and 2 with M.Os.1 to 3, due to

which, injuries are caused to both the deceased, which ultimately

resulted in their deaths.

49. As seen from the testimony of PW.1, it is amply clear that

she could not have witnessed the incident and only saw the

appellants running away from the place of offence with weapons,

which is highly doubtful as her evidence does not disclose as to

how she identified the accused in the darkness. Her evidence

would fall in the category of 'neither wholly reliable nor wholly

unreliable'. As such, no conviction could be based by relying on

her sole testimony. Therefore, it can be safely held that the

prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt. As such, the appellants are entitled to benefit of

doubt.

AVR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.556 of 2014

50. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The appellants

are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302

r/w.34 of IPC, and accordingly, the conviction and sentence

imposed on the appellants vide Judgment dated 09.01.2014 in

S.C.No.501 of 2012 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for trial

of cases under SCs. & STs. (POA) Act-cum-Additional Sessions

Judge, Khammam, is hereby set aside and the appellants are

acquitted of the charged offences. Consequently, the

Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally, is directed to release

the appellants forthwith, if they are not required in any other case.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY, J

________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J

Date: 16.09.2022 N.B:

Issue C.C. today.

(b/o) ajr