Baddula Matrali 2 Others vs The State Of A.P.,
2023 Latest Caselaw 931 Tel

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
                          AND
       THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1328 OF 2014


JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Juvvadi Sridevi)


      This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C'), is filed by the

appellants/A1    to   A3,   aggrieved    by   the      judgment,   dated

02.12.2014, passed in S.C.No.78 of 2013 by the IX Additional

Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, whereby, the Court below convicted

the appellant/A1 of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of

IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life

and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple

imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 of

IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five

years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under

Section 201 of IPC; and convicted the appellants/A2 and A3 of the

offence under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of

Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for

six months. The sentences imposed against the appellant/A1 were

directed to run concurrently.
                                     2                     AAR, J & JS, J
                                                       Crl.A.No.1328 of 2014




2.    We have heard the submissions of Sri B.Narasimha Sharma,

learned counsel for the appellants/A1 to A3, Sri C.Pratap Reddy,

learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State and

perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

On 18.03.2011, PW.1-Deshi Nagamani went to Lingala Police

Station and lodged Ex.P1 complaint stating that on 12.03.2011

night at about 09:00 PM, when she telephoned her husband Deshi

Ramulu (the deceased), he told that he was at village panchayati,

Ambatipalli. He did not return to home till 18.03.2011 and his

whereabouts were not known. On 12.03.2011, her husband,

Baddula Manthrali, S/o.Chandraiah and Kurva Mallaiah,

S/o.Lingaiah have consumed toddy at the house of Eediga

Venkatamma. Her husband had illicit relation with one Saidamma,

W/o.Kurva Mallaiah and hence, she is suspecting that Kurva

Mallaiah might have harmed her husband with the help of Baddula

Manthrali, boring grudge against her husband for having illicit

relation with Saidamma and requested to take action against the

culprits.

                                   3                        AAR, J & JS, J
                                                        Crl.A.No.1328 of 2014

4. Basing on the report lodged by PW.1, PW.14-SI of Police,

Lingal Police Station registered a man missing case in Crime No.14

of 2011 and later, basing upon the statement of LW.3-Lachamma

to the effect that the dead body of the deceased was buried in the

fields of one Sripuram Pentaiah and she identified the same basing

on the left hand silver kadium of the deceased and a part of the

dead body was eaten away by animals like dogs, altered the

section of law to Section 302 of IPC and handed over the CD file to

PW.16-CI of police. PW.16 took up further investigation,

proceeded to the scene of offence, exhumed the dead body in the

presence of PW.12, examined PW.1, LW.2-Bhagyamma and LW.3-

Lachamma and recorded their statement, conducted inquest over

the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P3 in the presence of

PWs.7 and 10, took photographs of the dead body, handed over

the dead body to the relatives of the deceased after conducting

Post Mortem Examination by PW.13, recorded the statement of

PW.5, recorded the confession of the appellant/A1 under Ex.P8,

seized MO.5 under the cover of Ex.P5 in the presence of PWs.8

and 10, recorded the confession of the appellant/A3 under Ex.P9,

affected the arrest of the appellants/A1 and A3 and sent them to

Court for judicial remand, apprehended the appellant/A2 and

recorded his confessional statement under the cover of Ex.P7, 4 AAR, J & JS, J Crl.A.No.1328 of 2014

recovered MO.6, affected the arrest of the appellant/A2 and sent

him to Court for judicial remand, sent MO.4 and other parts of

dead body to FSL, collected MOs.2 and 3, drew rough sketch of the

scene of offence and on his transfer, handed over the CD file to his

successor, i.e., PW.15. PW.15 verified the investigation made by

PW.16, found it on proper lines and after receiving PME Report and

FSL Report and on completion of investigation, laid charge-sheet

before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Achampet,

against the appellants/A1 to A3 of the offences under Sections 302

and 201 of IPC.

5. Learned Magistrate had taken cognizance against the

appellants/A1 to A3 of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of

IPC, registered the same as P.R.C.No.44 of 2012 and committed

the same to the Court of Session, Mahabubnagar, under Section

209 of Cr.P.C., since the offence under Section 302 of IPC is

exclusively triable by the Court of Session. On committal, the

Court of Session, Mahabubnagar, numbered the case as S.C.No.78

of 2013 and made it over to the Court below for disposal, in

accordance with law.

6. On appearance of the appellants/A1 to A3, the Court below

framed charge against them of the offences under Sections 302 5 AAR, J & JS, J Crl.A.No.1328 of 2014

and 201 of IPC, read over and explained to them, for which, the

appellants/A1 to A3 pleaded not guilty.

7. To prove the guilt of the appellants/A1 to A3, the

prosecution examined PWs.1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P1 to P17,

besides case properties, MOs.1 to 6.

8. PW.1-Deshi Nagamani is the complainant and wife of the

deceased. PW.2-Deshi Kurmaiah is the younger brother of the

deceased. PW.3-Edula Venkataiah, PW.4-L.Lingoji, PW.5-

M.Anjaneyulu and PW.6-G.Balamani are circumstantial witnesses.

PW.7-J.Hanmanth Reddy is a panch witness for inquest and scene

of offence panchanama. PW.8-V.Venkatesh is a panch witness for

confession of the appellants/A1 and A3 and Seizure Panchanama.

PWs.9 and 11/A.Narayan Rao and M.Ravinder are panch witnesses

for confession and recovery panchanama of the appellant/A2.

PW.10-J.Narsing Rao is a panch witness for inquest panchanama,

scene of offence panchanama, confession of the appellants/A1 and

A3 and seizure panchanama. PW.12-R.Narsimha Reddy is the

Tahsildar who conducted inquest over the dead body of the

deceased. PW.13-Dr.M.B.Padmaja is the doctor who conducted

autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. PW.14-M.Appaiah is

SI of police who registered the subject crime. PW.15-D.Prathap is 6 AAR, J & JS, J Crl.A.No.1328 of 2014

Inspector of Police who laid charge-sheet before the Court

concerned. PW.16-B.Kishan is Inspector of Police who conducted

major part of investigation. Ex.P1 is the complaint. Ex.P2 is the

statement of PW.5 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P3 is

the Inquest panchanama. Ex.P4 is the Crime Details Form. Ex.P5

is the portion of Seizure Panchanama. Exs.P6 and P7 are

confession and Recovery panchanama of the appellant/A2. Ex.P8

is the confession of the appellant/A1. Ex.P9 is the confession of

the appellant/A3. Ex.P10 is the scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P11 is the confession and seizure panchanama. Ex.P12 is the

PME Report. Ex.P13 is the FIR. Ex.P14 is the Section Alteration

Memo. Ex.P15 is the FSL Report. Ex.P16 is the Report/opinion

from FSL. Ex.P17 is six photos. MO.1 is white colour full shirt.

MO.2 is white colour pancha. MO.3 is brown colour towel. MO.4 is

skull of the deceased. MO.5 is an axe. MO.6 is bullock cart.

9. When the appellants/A1 to A3 were confronted with the

incriminating material appearing against them and were examined

under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., they denied the allegations and

claimed to be tried. On behalf of the appellants/A1 to A3, no oral

evidence has been adduced and Ex.D1-portion of statement of

PW.3 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was marked.

                                          7                             AAR, J & JS, J
                                                                    Crl.A.No.1328 of 2014

10. The trial Court, having considered the submissions made and

the evidence available on record, vide the impugned judgment,

dated 02.12.2014, convicted the appellant/A1 of the offences

under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and convicted the

appellants/A2 and A3 of the offence under Section 201 of IPC and

sentenced them as stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the

appellants/A1 to A3 preferred this appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants/A1 to A3 would submit

that the whole prosecution case is based on circumstantial

evidence. There are no direct witnesses to connect the

appellants/A1 to A3 with the subject death of the deceased. The

Court below erroneously convicted the appellant/A1 for the

offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and the appellants/A2

and A3 for the offence under Section 201 of IPC, without there

being any substantial evidence on record to prove their guilt for

the said offences beyond all reasonable doubt. PW.5, the person

before whom the appellant/A1 allegedly made extra judicial

confession, turned hostile and did not support the case of

prosecution. Further, the confession of the appellants/A1 to A3

leading to recovery of material objects was not proved in

accordance with law. The prosecution failed to examine Kurva

Mallaiah whom the complainant suspected and whose evidence 8 AAR, J & JS, J Crl.A.No.1328 of 2014

was necessary to unfold the narrative, which is a fatal blow to the

case of prosecution. The medical evidence is also inconsistent with

the story of prosecution. The identification of the dead body as

that of the deceased Ramulu is unbelievable. The investigation

carried out in this case is perfunctory. There are several omissions

and contradictions in the evidence of the investigating officer who

conducted investigation in this case. The owner of the land from

where the dead body of the deceased was exhumed was also not

examined. There is no cogent and convincing evidence to prove

that the appellant/A1 caused the subject death of the deceased

and the appellants/A2 and A3 have caused disappearance of the

evidence with an intention to screen the appellant/A1. The motive

on the part of the appellant/A1 for the commission of the subject

offence could not be proved by the prosecution. The evidence of

the prosecution witnesses is not reliable and trustworthy and do

not inspire confidence to act upon. The Court below was swayed

away with the non-corroborative evidence of prosecution witnesses

and erroneously convicted and sentenced the appellants/A1 to A3

basing on their testimony. The circumstances from which an

inference of guilt is sought to be drawn against the appellants/A1

to A3 are not cogently and firmly established by the prosecution.

The chain of events is not so complete to rule out the reasonable 9 AAR, J & JS, J Crl.A.No.1328 of 2014

likelihood of innocence of the appellants/A1 to A3 and ultimately,

prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and

sentence recorded against the appellants/A1 to A3 by the trial

Court.

12. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that

there is evidence of PWs.1 to 6 and other witnesses to connect the

appellants/A1 to A3 with the death of the deceased. The motive

on the part of the appellant/A1 to cause the subject death was

successfully proved by the prosecution, so also the last seen

theory. MO.5-axe was recovered pursuant to the confession made

by the appellant/A1. Merely because the panch witnesses to

recovery of material objects and confession of the accused did not

support the case of prosecution, the whole prosecution case

cannot be thrown out. The oral evidence of the prosecution

witnesses coupled with the medical evidence clinchingly prove that

the appellant/A1 axed the deceased to death and the

appellants/A2 and A3 have caused disappearance of the evidence

with an intention to screen the appellant/A1 from legal

punishment. The evidence placed on record proves the guilt of the

appellants/A1 to A3 beyond all reasonable doubt of the offences

for which they were found guilty. The Court below is justified in

convicting and sentencing the appellants/A1 to A3 of the said 10 AAR, J & JS, J Crl.A.No.1328 of 2014

offences and ultimately prayed to dismiss the appeal by confirming

the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants/A1 to

A3 vide the impugned judgment.

13. In view of the above submissions made by both sides, the

points that arise for determination in this appeal are as follows:

1) Whether the appellant/A1 had caused the subject death of the deceased and the appellants/A2 and A3 have caused disappearance of the evidence with an intention to screen the appellant/A1 from legal punishment?

2) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the appellants/A1 to A3 beyond all reasonable doubt?

3) Whether the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/A1 of the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and against the appellants/A2 and A3 of the offence under Section 201 of IPC are liable to be set aside?

   4)     To what result?

POINTS:-

14. There is no dispute that the whole prosecution case is based

on circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial

evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the

conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved, and such

circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the

circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left

in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must 11 AAR, J & JS, J Crl.A.No.1328 of 2014

be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused

and totally inconsistent with his innocence. The question whether

chain of circumstances unerringly established the guilt of the

accused needs careful consideration. The proof of a case based on

circumstantial evidence, which is usually called 'five golden

principles', have been stated by the Apex Court in Sharad Birdhi

Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra1, which reads as

follows:-

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established, as distinguished from 'may be' established.

(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.

(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;

(4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and

(5) There must be a chain of evidence complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

15. Keeping the above principles in mind, we would now venture

to analyze the evidence on record. Admittedly, there are no direct

witnesses to the subject incident and the entire prosecution case is

based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has shown

AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1622 12 AAR, J & JS, J Crl.A.No.1328 of 2014

PW.5 as the person before whom the appellant/A1 had made extra

judicial confession that he caused the subject death of the

deceased. However, he was declared hostile as he resiled from his

previous statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. In his

cross-examination, PW.5 stated that he did not state to the police

that the appellant/A1 stated to him that he axed the deceased at

his house at 11:00 PM and thereafter, shifted the dead body on

MO.6-bullock cart with the help of the appellants/A2 and A3.

Hence, the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the

appellant/A1 remained unproved. PW.8 is a panch witness for

confession of the appellants/A1 and A3 and for recovery of MO.5-

axe which was allegedly used in the commission of the offence.

He also turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

Thus, recovery of MO.5-axe pursuant to the confession of the

appellant/A1 could not be proved successfully by the prosecution.

Since it was not legally proved that recovery of MO.5-axe was

made pursuant to the confession of the appellant/A1 and since it

has also come up in the cross-examination of PW.5 that axes like

MO.5 will be with every shepherd in the village, the determination

of blood group of the blood found on MO.5-axe assumes

significance. MO.5-axe was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory

for examination. As per Ex.P15-FSL Report, though human blood 13 AAR, J & JS, J Crl.A.No.1328 of 2014

was detected on MO.5-axe, the blood group could not be

determined. PW.13-doctor categorically stated in her cross-

examination that she did not try to find out the blood group of the

deceased and there was no requisition for it. Hence, the blood

found on MO.5-axe cannot be linked with the blood of the

deceased. In Sattatiya Vs. State of Maharashtra2, one of the

crucial factors that led the Hon'ble Apex Court to reverse the

conviction of the accused therein was that the bloodstains on the

items seized in the recovery could not be linked with the blood of

the deceased. This factor was treated as a serious lacuna in the

case of the prosecution.

16. Further, PW.8, in his cross-examination, stated that the

appellant/A1 was in the police station by the time he reached there

and he does not know for how long the appellant/A1 was in the

police station before he reached there. He further stated that the

appellant/A1 was questioned by him and other panch witness

(PW.10) within the compound of the police station. PW.10 was

also shown as a witness for confession of the appellant/A1. In his

cross-examination, he categorically stated that when he was asked

to enquire with the appellant/A1, himself and PW.8 took the

appellant/A1 to a distance of 10 feet from the place where the

(2008) 3 SCC 210 14 AAR, J & JS, J Crl.A.No.1328 of 2014

inspector sat and that whatever the appellant/A1 stated to them

was audible by the Inspector of police. Here, it is apt to state that

admissions made by a person or his representative in interest,

though in the ordinary sense of the term in the nature of hearsay

evidence, would be admissible admission to the extent provided in

Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, 'the Act').

Every confession is an admission, but every admission is not a

confession. In other words, admission is a genus and confession is

a species. It is settled law that a confessional statement, if not

made by accused under inducement, threat or promise, is

admissible in evidence. However, an extra judicial confession,

though admissible, is considered a weak piece of evidence and

ordinarily, the Courts would look for corroboration to such

evidence, for recording conviction on the strength of such extra

judicial confession. Under the Act, to guard against coerced or

coaxed confessional statement, in addition to the safeguards

provided in Section 24 of the Act, any confession made to a police

officer under any circumstances is also considered inadmissible in

evidence, as per Section 25 of the Act. Section 26 of the Act goes

a step further and provides that no confession made by any person

whilst in custody of a police officer, unless such confession is made

in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, can be proved against 15 AAR, J & JS, J Crl.A.No.1328 of 2014

such person. Thus, Sections 24 to 26 of the Act forms a trio

containing safeguards against an accused person, being coerced or

induced to confess guilt. One important question, in regard to

which the Court has to be satisfied with, is whether, when the

accused made the confession, he was a free man or his

movements were controlled by the police, either by themselves or

through some other agency employed by them, for the purpose of

securing such a confession. Police custody, in real perspective,

commences from the time when the movements of the accused

are restricted or controlled and he is kept in direct or indirect

police surveillance. It is not necessary that there should have

been a formal arrest. It is not the presence of one particular

person or officer or of any one of these circumstances that would

by itself decide the question as to whether the accused was in

police custody; it is, on the other hand, the concomitance of the

various facts and circumstances, which are relevant and material,

immediately preceding the making of the statement by the

accused that has to be taken into account in making a proper

assessment as to whether the statement alleged to have been

made by the accused is not hit by Section 26 of the Act. The

paramount consideration of the Court should be to see that the

statement is not hit by any of the provisions contained in Sections 16 AAR, J & JS, J Crl.A.No.1328 of 2014

24 to 26 of the Act and it was made voluntarily and was a true

statement, which could be acted upon, even when found

admissible in evidence. Tested in the light of the above broad

principles, in the instant case, we find it difficult to hold that the

statement made by the appellant/A1 to PWs.8 and 10 is

voluntarily, as a free agent and that it is not hit by the provisions

of Section 26 of Evidence Act, for the application of which, it

makes little difference, whether the statement was made directly

to the police officer or to any agency employed by the police for

securing the confession.

17. Further, in the instant case, the appellants/A1 and A3 are

husband and wife. It is the case of prosecution that the deceased

had illicit relation with one Saidamma, W/o. Mallaiah.

Subsequently, the appellant/A1 also developed illegal contact with

said Saidamma. Later, the deceased developed illegal contact with

the appellant/A3 and on coming to know about the same, a quarrel

took place between the appellant/A1 and the deceased. Further,

in the complaint lodged by PW.1, there is a specific mention that

she was suspecting that Kurva Mallaiah, husband of Saidamma,

might have caused harm to the deceased. There is also a specific

mention in Ex.P1 complaint that the deceased, Kurva Mallaiah and

the appellant/A1 have consumed toddy at their house on 17 AAR, J & JS, J Crl.A.No.1328 of 2014

12.03.2011. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion

that it was essential for the prosecution to have examined Kurva

Mallaiah and Saidamma whose evidence would have unfolded the

narrative and would have clinched the issue. Witness essential to

the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution is based,

must, of course, be called by the prosecution, whether in the result

the effect of their testimony is for or against the case for the

prosecution and failure to do so, leads to an adverse inference. It

is not the case of the prosecution that Kurva Mallaiah and

Saidamma were not available for examination and bringing them

to the Court. PW.12 categorically stated in his cross-examination

that column No.15 of Ex.P3-Inquest Panchanama, the name of

Mallaiah is mentioned as the person responsible for the death of

the deceased. PW.16-investigation officer admitted in his cross-

examination that Saidamma and Mallaiah were neither examined

as a witness nor were shown as accused in the subject crime,

though they were available in the village. Thus, for non-

examination of those crucial persons, despite their availability for

examination, adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the

Evidence Act is drawn against the prosecution on this count; best

evidence has been deliberately withheld.

                                       18                  AAR, J & JS, J
                                                       Crl.A.No.1328 of 2014




18.   Yet   there   are   other    circumstances   which   render      the

prosecution story doubtful.       The dead body of the deceased was

identified with the help of silver kadium to the hand and clothes of

the deceased. PW.12-Tahsildar who conducted inquest over the

dead body of the deceased stated in his cross examination that

there were no identification marks on the dead body to identify it

as that of Ramulu since it was in decomposing state as the entire

skin on the skull was peeled out and fleshy part was not there.

PW.7, a panch witness for inquest, stated in his cross-examination

that normally shepherd people will bear the kadiums and cloths of

similar nature. Under these circumstances, the medical evidence

assumes importance. PW.13 doctor deposed that the dead body

was in decomposing state and that some parts of the body was

without flesh and only skull bones were there. She opined that the

cause of death was due to multiple stab injuries (head injury,

multiple fractures of bones, absent of scrotum and penis). In her

cross-examination, PW.13-doctor stated that the stab injuries on

the neck of the deceased can be ante mortem and post mortem

and that since the body was completely collapsed and putrification

process started, post mortem stab injuries cannot be ruled out in

this case. She further categorically stated that the weapon used

must be having round in shape. All these circumstances create a 19 AAR, J & JS, J Crl.A.No.1328 of 2014

doubt that the dead body which was exhumed from the fields of

one Sripuram Pentaiah is that of deceased Ramulu. Further, the

person from whose fields the dead body of the deceased was

exhumed was not examined in this case. Had he been examined,

it would have certainly lent some credence to the recovery of dead

body of the deceased. Further, PW.9, a panch witness for seizure

of MO.6-bullock cart, turned hostile and did not support the case of

prosecution. PW.11, another panch witness for seizure of MO.6-

bullock cart also turned hostile. He stated in his evidence that

himself and PW.9 were called to the police station and PW.9 had a

talk with Inspector of Police and he remained in warandah of police

station and that a bullock cart was seen in the police station

premises and that PW.9 brought a written paper to him with his

signature and asked him to put his signature and after going

through the said paper, he signed on the same. This circumstance

also creates a doubt with regard to the story of prosecution that

the dead body of the deceased was carried on MO.6-bullock cart to

the fields of Sripuram Pentaiah and buried there. Further, the

contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the appellant/A1,

with a pre-meditated mind to eliminate the deceased, axed him to

death is not appealing to our mind. The prosecution case is that

on seeing the deceased and the wife of the appellant/A1 (A3) in a 20 AAR, J & JS, J Crl.A.No.1328 of 2014

compromising position, the appellant/A1 axed the deceased to

death. The evidence on record reveals that both the appellant/A1

and the deceased were in drunken condition when the subject

incident took place. No evidence was forthcoming from the side of

prosecution as to what actually transpired between the

appellant/A1 and the deceased at that particular point of time.

Under these circumstances, we hold that there is no sufficient

material to conclude that the appellant/A1 had pre-meditated mind

to cause the subject death of the deceased.

19. A strong suspicion may exist against the appellants/A1 to

A3, but such suspicion cannot form the basis for convicting them,

going by the standard of proof required in a criminal case and the

distance between the terms 'may be true' and 'must be true' shall

be fully covered by reliable evidence adduced by the prosecution.

Merely because the appellant/A1 and the deceased were seen

together on the preceding day of the incident is not a ground to

convict the appellant/A1 in the absence of cogent and convincing

evidence to establish that it is the appellant/A1 who caused the

subject death of the deceased. The essential requirements to

prove the motive on the part of appellant/A1 for the commission of

subject death of the deceased is not proved by the prosecution

beyond all reasonable doubt, so also the essential requirements of 21 AAR, J & JS, J Crl.A.No.1328 of 2014

Section 201 of IPC against the appellants/A2 and A3. The

circumstances sought to be pointed out by the prosecution against

the appellants/A1 to A3 are not conclusive in nature and are

inconsistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants/A1 to

A3. The chain of evidence against the appellants/A1 to A3 is not

complete to arrive at a conclusion that in all human probability,

the appellant/A1 has caused the subject death and the

appellants/A2 and A3 caused disappearance of evidence to screen

the appellant/A1 from legal punishment. The Court below had not

analyzed the evidence on record in correct perspective. The

conclusions reached by the Court below in finding the appellant/A1

guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of IPC

and the appellants/A2 and A3 of the offence under Section 201 of

IPC are not in tune with the evidence on record. The submissions

advanced on behalf of the appellants/A1 to A3 merit consideration

and the appeal deserves to be allowed.

20. In the result, the conviction and sentence recorded against

the appellant/A1 of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of

IPC and against the appellants/A2 and A3 of the offence under

Section 201 of IPC vide judgment, dated 02.12.2014, passed in

S.C.No.78 of 2013 by the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge,

Wanaparthy, is set aside. Consequently, the appellants/A1 to A3 22 AAR, J & JS, J Crl.A.No.1328 of 2014

are acquitted of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.

The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants/A1 to A3 shall be

refunded to them. The appellants/A1 to A3 shall be released

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

21. The appeal is allowed, accordingly.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall

stand closed.

___________________ A. ABHISHEK REDDY, J

_________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J

24th February, 2023 BVV