APHC011360902016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3528] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1579/2017 Between: 1. MOYYA MUNNA, S/O. SRIRAMULU, R/O. NAKKA STREET, NARASANNAPET VILLAGE, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, NATIVE OF NEAR SAI BABU TEMPLE, RAJANAGARAM, RAJANAGARAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad, for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to IA NO: 1 OF 2016(CRLAMP 50855 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRLAMP 3108 OF 2017 2 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1579_2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 23days in representing the Crl.Appeal SR No. 54854 of 2016 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2017(CRLAMP 3109 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone delay of 311 days in preferring the Criminal Appeal against the Judgment passed in SC No. 118 of 2015, dt. 10.8.2016 on the file of the court of the Special Judge for trial of cased under sCs & STs (POA) Act cum X Additional District and Sessions Judge,. East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal before this Hon'ble court and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SUREPALLI MADHAVA RAO 2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice V. Sujatha) Sole accused in S.C.No.118 of 2015 on the file of Court of the learned Special Judge for Trial of cases under S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act-cum-X Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Special Judge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1579_2017 2. Gravamen of the charge is that on the intervening night of 12/13.06.2014, the accused caused the death of one Yelisetty Varalaxmi @Bujjamma (hereinafter referred to as „deceased‟) by throttling her neck in the house bearing No.2-16/2 near Saibaba temple, Rajangaram, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302IPC. (a) After completion of trial, the learned Special Judge convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 3. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in brief is as follows: (i) The accused is a native of Visakhapatnam district and is eking out his livelihood by working as a cook in hotels. The deceased is a native of Vaddadi Madugula village, Visakhapatnam district. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized 17 years prior to the date of incident, with one Yelisetty Maharaju, who died, due to which, she started living with her brothers and later left the house without informing anyone. Few years thereafter, she returned to her village and informed that she is residing at Vijayawada by working as a coolie. Two years prior to the date of incident, the accused and the deceased started living in a house bearing door No.2-16/2, 4 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1579_2017 near Saibaba temple, Rajanagaram village by introducing themselves as wife and husband to others. The accused used to commute from Rajanagaram to Rajahmundry for working in hotels and the deceased started working as a sweeper in Lenora dental college, Rajanagaram. As differences arose between the accused and the deceased, they used to get indulged in disputes. The accused is a habitual boozer. (ii) While so, on 12.06.2014, both the accused and the deceased chatted with each other in front of their house until late in the night. On 13.06.2014, as the deceased was not opening the doors, at about 10.00 a.m., P.W.8 – neighbor knocked the doors and when he opened the curtain of the door, he found the latch of the door closed from outside and tied with a white colored plastic rope and after removing the said rope, P.W.8 entered the house and found the deceased lying nude and dead on the floor. He found the accused absconding. Thereafter, P.W.1 – VRO along with P.Ws.2 to 8 became acquainted about the incident. At about 05.00 p.m., P.W.1 submitted a report (Ex.P.1)to P.W.19 – S.I. of Police, Rajanagaram Police station, who registered a case in Crime No.365 of 2014, under Section 302 IPC. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. FIR is marked as Ex.P.13. (iii) P.W.14 – Inspector of Police, Bommuru Police station and incharge Inspector of Police, Rajanagaram took up further investigation in the 5 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1579_2017 case. He visited the scene of offence and found the dead body of the deceased lying in a supine position. He prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence, which is marked as Ex.P.11. He secured the presence of P.W.1 and prepared scene observation report, which is marked as Ex.P.4. At the scene of offence, he seized M.Os.1 and 2 – bagpiper company empty whisky bottles and M.O.3 – white plastic rope. He took photographs of the scene of offence, which are marked as Ex.P.12. After recording the statements of P.Ws.1 to 5, he sent the dead body to Mortuary shed, Government hospital, Rajahmundry. On 14.06.2014, at about 02.00 p.m., in the presence of P.W.1 and others, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P.5. During inquest, he examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.7, 8, 11 and 12. Thereafter, he sent the dead body for postmortem examination. (iv) On 15.06.2014, at about 10.00 a.m., P.W.10 – Civil Assistant Surgeon, District hospital, Rajahmundry conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He opined the cause of death was due to throttling of the throat. He issued postmortem certificate, which is marked as Ex.P.8. (v) On 06.07.2014, P.W.15 – Inspector of Police, took up further investigation. On 27.07.2014, he sent the material objects to Forensic Medicine, RR Medical college, Kakinada. On 19.08.2014, upon receiving credible information, he along with P.W.1 and another proceeded to east 6 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1579_2017 railway station, Rajahmundry and at about 04.00 p.m., apprehended the accused and recorded his confessional statements under Ex.P.6. Thereafter, the accused was remanded to judicial custody.As P.W.15 was transferred, P.W.16 – successor of P.W.15, took up further investigation in the case. On 24.02.2015, he received RFSL report from P.W.18, which is marked as Ex.P.9. After receiving all the documents and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 19, marked exhibits P1 to P13 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 3. On behalf of the accused, Ex.D1 was marked. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him. 5. After analyzing the entire evidence, the learned Special Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 6. Heard Sri. Surepalli Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. 7. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the appellant herein was falsely implicated only basing on the last seen theory. He further argued that there is a long time gap between the last seen i.e. at 09.00 p.m., on 12.06.2014 and the tracing of the dead body of 7 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1579_2017 the deceased on 13.06.2014 at about 10.00 p.m. Further, though the prosecution was not able to put forward the motive on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased, the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant, basing on the last seen theory. He further argued that the entire case against the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence and in such circumstances, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the chain of circumstances, but, in the case on hand, the prosecution has failed in pointing out the guilt towards the accused alone. As such, he requested to set-aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge and to allow the present appeal. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the present appeal by strenuously contending that the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 8 is consistent with regard to the fact that the deceased was last seen with the accused on the previous night i.e. on 12.06.2014. He further contended that though there is time gap between the last seen and tracing of the dead body of the deceased, no one would have entered the house of the accused except the accused. The prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and as the appellant has failed to give any explanation for the death of the deceased who was last seen in the company of the deceased on 12.06.2014, it can be safely concluded that the appellant is solely responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased. He further contended 8 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1579_2017 that the prosecution has established the chain of circumstances and that there are no reasonable grounds for the conclusion of the innocence of the appellant. As such, he requested this Court to confirm the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge. 9. We have perused the entire record and as well as the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 10. P.Ws.2 to 9, in their evidence have categorically stated that the deceased, as on the date of incident, used to work in dental hospital as sweeper and that the accused used to work in a hotel at Rajahmundry. It is their further evidence that the accused used to leave his house early in the morning, even before anyone wakes up and used to return to the house in the night at about 09.00 p.m., or 10.00 p.m. On 13.06.2014, at about 10.00 a.m., P.W.2 found the doors of the house of the accused closed and when she knocked the door, nobody responded; as such, P.W.2 forcibly opened the door. When she entered the house of the accused, she smelled alcoholic drinks and she, along with others (P.Ws.3 to 8) found the dead body of the deceased naked, lying on the floor with froth stemming out of the mouth. The circumstances under which the dead body of the deceased was found gives raise to various doubts as to what might have happened to her. It is the specific evidence of P.W.2 that on the previous day i.e. 12.06.2014, at about 9 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1579_2017 09.00 p.m., as electricity was down, P.W.2 and others, including the accused and deceased sat infront of their houses and chit chatted. After some time, the accused and the deceased went inside the house and closed the doors. It is also evident from the evidence of brothers of the deceased (P.Ws.11 and 12) and P.W.13 (relative of the deceased) that after the death of the husband of the deceased, she moved to Visakhapatnam and to other places, which indicates that she is a vagabond. It is their further evidence that they are not aware of the whereabouts of the deceased prior to her death. 11. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments including the decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. V. State of Maharashtra1, has laid down five (5) golden principles, which govern a case based only on circumstantial evidence: 1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully 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 followed, AND 5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence 1 (1981) 4 SCC 116 10 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1579_2017 of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 12. Admittedly, there are no eyewitnesses to the present incident. The entire evidence against the accused consists of circumstantial evidence. This casts an enhanced burden on the prosecution to demonstrate an unbroken chain of events that establish the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P., 2, while referring to various earlier judgments, summarized key principles which act as a guide for the courts to come to a conclusion with regard to the guilt of an accused in cases which are solely dependent on the circumstantial evidence. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder: “26. It is now well settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well settled that suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. 27. The last seen theory, furthermore, comes into play where the time- gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility 2 (2006) 10 SCC 172 11 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1579_2017 of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. Even in such a case the courts should look for some corroboration.” 13. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the deceased was last seen with the accused on the previous night. Merely because the deceased was last seen with the accused, adverse inference cannot be drawn against the accused that he had committed the murder of the deceased. The deceased and accused were seen together on 12.06.2014 at about 09.00 p.m., while the dead body of the deceased was found on 13.06.2014, at about 10.00 a.m. It is apparent from the evidence of prosecution witnesses (P.Ws.2 to 9) that the accused leaves his house early in the morning and returns late in the night. When there is a long gap between these two incidents, there is every possibility of involvement of others as well. In such a case it cannot be concluded that the accused was the last person who saw the deceased before her death. In the absence of any other positive evidence, it would be unjust to connect the accused to the said offence. 14. Further, in the case on hand, the prosecution could not establish any motive on the part of the accused to kill the deceased. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance. It is not as if motive alone becomes the crucial link in the case to be established by the prosecution and in its absence, the case of prosecution must be discarded. 12 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1579_2017 But, at the same time, complete absence of motive assumes a different complexion and such absence definitely weighs in favour of the accused. It is also a settled law that when the evidence of eye-witnesses is available, motive need not be proved by the prosecution. Even if the motive is established by the prosecution, conviction cannot be based on the motive alone in the absence of direct eye-witness. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of the eyewitnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction. In the case on hand, none have witnessed the accused killing the deceased, but, just because the deceased and accused were seen last together on the previous night, the accused cannot be implicated. 15. The Apex Court, in Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer v. State of Kerala3, under similar circumstances, held as under: “16. Thus, these basic established principles can be summarized in the following terms that the chain of events needs to be so established that the court has no option but to come to one and only one conclusion i.e. the guilt of the accused person. If an iota of doubt creeps in at any stage in the sequence of events, the benefit thereof should flow to the accused. Mere suspicion alone, irrespective of the fact that it is very strong, cannot be a substitute for a proof. The chain of circumstances must be so complete that they lead to only one conclusion, that is, the guilt of the accused. 3 (2024) 10 SCC 813 13 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1579_2017 17. Even in the case of a convicting where in an appeal the chain of evidence is found to be not complete or the courts could reach to any another hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused, the accused person must be given the benefit of doubt which obviously would lead to his acquittal. Meaning thereby, when there is a missing link, a finding of guilt cannot be recorded.” 16. From the above, it can be understood that the sequence of events must be so clear to conclude that the accused is guilty and if any amount of doubt arises, no matter how small, the same shall benefit the accused. Mere suspicion is not enough, a missing link leads to acquittal of the accused. The onus lies on the prosecution to produce such evidence which conclusively establishes the truth with regard to guilt of the accused for the charges framed against him and the said evidence should establish a chain of events so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of accused. In the case on hand, we find that the prosecution has failed to produce relevant evidence which establishes the truth with regard to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As per the Hon‟ble Apex Court, the chain of circumstances must be so complete that they lead to only one conclusion, that is, the guilt of the accused, but, in the case on hand, we are of the considered opinion that the chain of circumstances is not complete and as such, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused, which would obviously lead to the acquittal of the accused. 14 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1579_2017 17. Having analyzed the evidence adduced by the prosecution carefully, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution is not able to prove the chain of circumstances pointing guilt towards the appellant/accused. 18. In view of the same, this criminal appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge for Trial of cases under S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act-cum-X Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry in S.C.No.118 of 2015 dated 10.08.2016 is hereby set-aside. Further, the appellant/accused is acquitted of all the charges and he shall be set free forthwith, after completion of formalities. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J _______________ V.SUJATHA, J Date:19.09.2025. Gss