Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
S.D.Lakshma Naik Anda, Anantapur Dt., 3 ... vs The State Of Ap.,Rep. By Pp., Hyd., on 6 June, 2019
Author: C. Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1281 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:{Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice C. Praveen Kumar}
1. Accused Nos.1 to 4 in Sessions Case No.334 of 2012 filed this appeal aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur.
2. The accused were tried in the above Sessions Case for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC for causing death of one Boya Gudisi Ramanna alias Ramu on 17.10.2011 at about 10.30 p.m., while he was sleeping on an iron cot. Vide judgment dated 21.11.2012, the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur convicted and sentenced accused Nos.1 to 4 to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
3. The facts as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are as under:
(i) P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased while P.W.2 is the husband of P.W.1. P.W.3 is the son of P.Ws.1 and 2 and brother of the deceased. P.W.4 is the brother of P.W.2 while P.W.5 is distantly related to P.Ws.1 to 4. P.W.6 is the daughter-in-law of P.Ws.1 and 2 and wife of the deceased. All of them and other related witnesses are the residents of Rayalappadoddi, Bramhasamudram Mandal. The accused are also residents of the same village and are known to the family of the deceased.
2 HACJ & MSM,J Crl.A.No.1281 of 2012
(ii) It is stated that on 17.10.2011 at about 7.30 p.m., when P.W.1 and her daughter-in-law were in the house, A1 came there at about 7 or 7.30 p.m., and enquired about the deceased. P.W.1 informed him that the deceased had gone to the village. At about 8 p.m., while the deceased was having meals, A1 again came to their house and enquired about the deceased. P.W.1 informed that he was taking meals. A1 waited for the deceased, and after completion of the meals, A1 asked the deceased to follow him to go to the fields and from there for hunting. Then, the deceased started his motor bike to go to the fields. A1 informed him that there was no need to take motor bike and that they will go by foot. The deceased went along with A1 towards the fields by walk. He did not return home. As such P.W.1 started making enquiries. On the next day, in the early hours, P.W.8-Mallikarjun informed P.W.4 about seeing the accused and the deceased in the fields at about 10 p.m. on 17.10.2011 and the same was informed to P.W.1. Thereafter, P.W.1 and P.W.4 went to the fields and found the dead body of the deceased on a country cot in the fields and found the head of the deceased cut off from the body.
(iii) It is stated that at the time of incident, chilli and tomato crop was being grown in the fields and every day, the deceased used to attend the agricultural operations in the fields. At times, he used to go in the night also for watering the crop. It is further stated that after seeing the dead body of the deceased, P.W.1 went to the police station and lodged a report with P.W.18-Sub Inspector of Police, Bramhasamudram police station, which was registered as a case in Crime No.55 of 2011 under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC. Ex.P.10 is the FIR. Further investigation in the matter was taken 3 HACJ & MSM,J Crl.A.No.1281 of 2012 up by P.W.19-Inspector of Police, who instructed the Sub Inspector of police to proceed to the scene of offence along with the copy of FIR. At about 9 p.m., P.W.19 proceeded to the scene of offence and noticed the dead body of the deceased lying on an iron cot with the head completely cut off, but it was hanging with the support of skin. On seeing the dead body, he requested the Superintendent of Police to send clues team and dog squad. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 10 a.m., to 12.30 p.m. in the presence of P.W.16 Thippeswamy and other elders. Ex.P.9 is the inquest report. During the inquest, P.W.19 examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and recorded their statements and also noted the injuries found on the dead body. He also seized blood stained woolen bed sheet, pair of chappals, one stick and one plastic bag. M.O.9 is the stick and M.O.10 is the plastic bag. He also collected blood stained earth and controlled earth at the scene of offence, which are marked as M.Os.11 and 12. He also prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. After completing the inquest, he sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. P.W.15 conducted post mortem examination and issued Ex.P.8 post mortem certificate. He found five external injuries and opined that the death is caused due to acute severe hemorrhage due to major vessels injury, which was caused by a hard sharp object. At about 12.30 hours, dog squad arrived at the scene of offence and they were pressed into service. The dog after roaming at the scene of offence went to the house of A1 and also went to the bathroom of A1 and sat there. But A1 was not there on that day. P.W.19 examined P.Ws.9 to 13 and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which are marked as Exs.P.2 to P4. On 28.10.2011 at about 2 p.m., he 4 HACJ & MSM,J Crl.A.No.1281 of 2012 received telephonic information about the movements of the accused and then, he along with Sub-Inspector of Police proceeded to Thimmappakonda and arrested A1 to A4. It is alleged that basing on the confession made by the accused, M.O.8-sickle and M.O.13-blood stained shirt were recovered. Later, the accused were produced before the Court for judicial remand. After collecting all the material papers, a charge sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.41 of 2012 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg.
4. On appearance of the accused, copies of material documents came to be furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Since the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Anantapur. The learned Sessions Judge made over the case to the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur for trial, who framed a charge for an offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC, against the accused, read over and explained to them for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 19 and got Exs.P1 to P12 and M.Os.1 to 13 marked on its behalf. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which they denied. The accused did not adduce any oral evidence on their behalf but got Exs.D1 to D6 marked on their behalf.
5 HACJ & MSM,J Crl.A.No.1281 of 2012
6. Basing on the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution viz., (i) motive for commission of the offence (ii) the deceased being last seen in the company of the accused; (iii) dog squad leading the police to the house of the accused and (iv) recovery of sickle and blood stained shirt; the trial Court convicted the accused as stated supra. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the circumstantial evidence. According to him, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved and even if they are proved, they are not sufficient to base a conviction. Further, the circumstances relied by the prosecution do not form a complete chain of events connecting the accused with the crime. He would mainly contend that the last seen theory put forth by the prosecution is not trustworthy as there are number of contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.8, 11 and 12. He would further contend that the prosecution witnesses themselves stated that the accused and the deceased are friends and in the absence of any enmity between the accused and the deceased, no adverse inference can be drawn against the accused. He would also contend that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective. Hence pleads that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on the accused, are liable to be set aside.
8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the fact that the accused and deceased were last seen by P.Ws.8, 11 and 12 is sufficient to base 6 HACJ & MSM,J Crl.A.No.1281 of 2012 a conviction. He would further contend that though the case is based on circumstantial evidence, but the circumstances i.e., last seen theory and recovery of M.O.8 sickle and blood stained shirt of A1, taken cumulatively, do form a chain of events to conclude that the crime was committed by the accused and none else. Hence, pleads that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court do not warrant any interference.
9. Now, the point that arises for consideration is whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution do form a chain of events connecting the accused with the crime.
10. It is not in dispute that there are no eye witnesses to the incident. In the present case the prosecution relied on certain circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused. When the case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances should be conclusively proved. The circumstances so proved should not be compatible with any hypothesis except with the guilt of the accused. Law is well settled with regard to circumstantial evidence. In Padala Veera Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others1, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"...this Court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all 1 AIR 1990 SC 79 7 HACJ & MSM,J Crl.A.No.1281 of 2012 human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
In case Dr. Sunil Clifford Daniel Vs. State of Punjab2, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held :
"In a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish each instance of incriminating circumstance, by way of reliable and clinching evidence, and the circumstances so proved must form a complete chain of events, on the basis of which, no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused can be reached. Undoubtedly, suspicion, however grave it may be, can never be treated as a substitute for proof. While dealing with a case of circumstantial evidence, the court must take utmost precaution whilst finding an accused guilty, solely on the basis of the circumstances proved before it."
11. Undoubtedly, in a case of circumstantial evidence the prosecution has to show that all the links in the chain of circumstances must be complete and should be proved through cogent evidence. In the instant case, as stated above, the main circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are (i) motive for commission of the offence (ii) the deceased being last seen in the company of the accused; (iii) dog squad leading the police to the house of the accused and (iv) recovery of sickle and blood stained shirt of A1. Now, let us examine whether all the links in the chain of circumstance are complete in the present case.
12. Insofar as the first circumstance i.e., motive for committing the offence viz., illicit intimacy of the deceased with the wife of A2 2 (2012) 11 SCC 205 8 HACJ & MSM,J Crl.A.No.1281 of 2012 is concerned, it is necessary to examine the evidence of kith and kin of the deceased.
13. P.W.1, who is the mother of the deceased, in her evidence stated that on 17.10.2011 at about 7.00 or 7.30 p.m., A1 came to their house and enquired about the deceased and then, P.W.1 informed him that the deceased had gone to the village. At about 8 p.m., while the deceased was having meals, A1 again came to their house and enquired about the deceased. He was asked to wait as the deceased was having meals. After completion of the meals, the deceased went along with A1 to the fields and thereafter, he did not return home. On the next day, in the early hours, P.W.8- Mallikarjun informed P.W.4 about seeing the accused and the deceased in the fields at about 10 p.m., which was informed to P.W.1. Thereafter, P.W.1 and P.W.4 went to the fields and found the dead body of the deceased on a country cot in the fields and his head was hanging by skin to the body. For that reason, P.W.1 entertained a doubt that the accused might have killed the deceased. The evidence of P.W.1 as referred to above speaks about the accused being last seen at about 8 p.m., in the company of A1. She never spoke of any motive for committing the offence. P.W.1 was subjected to lengthy cross-examination. During the course of the same, it has been elicited that 20 houses are situated in between her house and the houses of the accused, and they did not have any enmity with the accused and their families. P.W.1 categorically stated that her son was never having any illicit contacts with anybody in the village, but her son may take alcohol occasionally. It was further elicited that on one occasion, she asked the deceased about the rumors in the village as to his 9 HACJ & MSM,J Crl.A.No.1281 of 2012 intimacy with the wife of A2, but he denied the same. A2 never complained nor raised any disputes with the family members of the deceased or before the village elders about the illicit intimacy of the deceased with the wife of A2.
14. P.W.2, who is the husband of P.W.1, in his evidence deposed about the deceased going to the fields to water the crop depending on the availability of the electricity during night time. He also deposed about the deceased leaving the house at 8 p.m., along with A1 on the date of incident and also about both of them planning to go for hunting. His evidence is to the effect that on the next day morning A1 to A4 came to their house and informed about killing of the deceased by somebody in the fields. He spoke about the rumors in the village about the deceased having illicit intimacy with another woman. In the cross-examination, he gave a go-bye to the statement about the information furnished that some villagers came to his house and informed him that his son was found killed in the fields. He stated that the deceased and the accused are having friendly relations and they used to attend cultivation in the fields. Insofar as witnessing A1, coming to their house and calling the deceased, though in his chief-examination he stated about the same, but in the cross examination he admitted as if he was informed by his wife about A1 coming to their house. He further stated that he does not know at what time his son went to the fields. He further admits that they came to know about the death of the deceased at 5.30 A.M.
15. P.W.3, who is the brother of the deceased, in his evidence stated about A1 coming to their house at 7 p.m., on the date of 10 HACJ & MSM,J Crl.A.No.1281 of 2012 incident and informing A1 that the deceased went to the village. He also stated about A1 and the deceased together going to the fields. His evidence in the chief examination is on the same lines as that of P.Ws.1 and 2. In the cross-examination, it was elicited that when he along with others went to the fields to see the dead body of the deceased, the accused were found there.
16. P.W.4, who is the brother of P.W.2, deposed that he knew all the accused present in the court as they belonged to their village. He deposed about the deceased attending cultivation in the land. He deposed that the accused quarrelling with the deceased on one occasion with regard to the illicit contacts maintained by the deceased with womenfolk of the accused and the villagers spreading rumors about the deceased having illicit contacts with the womenfolk belonging to the family of the accused. He deposed that his son Mallikarjuna informed that on the previous night he had seen the deceased and all the accused in the fields, and the same was informed to P.W.1 and thereafter, all of them went to the fields.
17. P.W.5, who is the relative of P.Ws.1 to 4 and resident of Rayalappadoddi village, deposed that about two months prior to the death of the deceased, he heard some rumors in the village about the illicit intimacy of the deceased with the womenfolk belonging to the family of the accused. He deposed that he never warned the deceased, and P.W.1 told him that the deceased is a nice man and he does not have any such illicit contacts with anybody.
11 HACJ & MSM,J Crl.A.No.1281 of 2012
18. From the evidence of all these witnesses, the prosecution was able to establish the fact of A1 and the deceased leaving the house after having the meals. Though the evidence of all these witnesses show existence of rumors in the village about the illicit intimacy of the deceased with the womenfolk of the accused family, but the accused and the deceased were said to have close friendship and they used to go together for cultivation. If really, the motive for the offence as alleged by the prosecution is correct, definitely A2, being husband of the woman, with whom the deceased was alleged to have illicit intimacy, would have raised a dispute before the elders of the village. As a matter of fact, the evidence of all these witnesses is not specific and consistent as to whether there were any previous disputes in connection with the deceased having illicit intimacy with the wife of A2 or womenfolk of the accused.
19. P.Ws.1 and 2 admitted in their evidence that the accused was not having illicit intimacy and that the accused was friendly with the deceased. If really, there was any enmity, as alleged by the prosecution, the deceased would not have accompanied the accused for hunting in the night. Apart from that, A1 would not have gone to the house of P.W.1 and invited the deceased for the purpose of hunting. Coming to Ex.P1-report, though P.W.1 expressed her suspicion on the death of the deceased but she has given a go-bye during the course of her evidence before the Court.
20. Under those circumstances, we hold that this circumstance coupled with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the mother of deceased, raises a doubt as to the 12 HACJ & MSM,J Crl.A.No.1281 of 2012 motive alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of these five witnesses which was relied upon by the prosecution failed to establish motive beyond all reasonable doubt.
21. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the deceased being last seen in the company of the accused. The settled law with respect to 'last seen theory' has been reiterated in various cases and has been succinctly elucidated in State of Karnataka Vs. Chand Basha3, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"This Court has time and again laid down the ingredients to be made out by the prosecution to prove the 'last seen together' theory. The Court for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether the said offence has been committed or not, may take into consideration the circumstantial evidence. However, while doing so, it must be borne in mind that close proximity between the last seen evidence and death should be clearly established."
In Mahavir Singh Vs. State of Haryana4, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:
"Undoubtedly, it is a settled legal proposition that last seen theory comes into play only in a case where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen alive and when the deceased was found dead. Since the gap is very small there may not be any possibility that any person other than the accused may be the author of the crime."
In State of UP Vs Satish5 the Apex Court has observed on last seen theory as under:
"The last seen theory comes into play where the time- gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that 3 2015 (9) SCALE 809 4 2015 (4) SCJ 161 5 (2005) 3 SCC 114 13 HACJ & MSM,J Crl.A.No.1281 of 2012 possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases...."
22. In the instant case, in order to appreciate as to whether the circumstance of last seen is established beyond all reasonable doubt, it would be necessary to go through the testimony of the prosecution witnesses viz., P.Ws.7, 8, 11 and 12.
23. P.W.7 in his evidence deposed that on the date of incident at about 8.15 p.m., he had seen A1 to A4 going towards the fields along with the deceased while P.W.8 deposed that on the date of incident at about 7 or 7.30 p.m., he along with Ravi went to their fields for watching the fields as there was ground nut crop and while they were returning to their village, saw A1 and the deceased sitting on a country cot on a bund in the lands of the deceased, while A2, A4 and A3 were sitting on a big stone at a distance of 15 metres.
24. Two aspects crop up for consideration. Firstly, if really there was any illicit intimacy between the deceased and the wife of A2 and if there was any enmity between the deceased and the accused in that regard, definitely all the accused would not have sat along with the deceased on the country cot chitchatting. Further, the aspect that the accused and the deceased were seen together at 9.30 pm., was not spoken to by P.W.8 in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. This omission came to be elicited in the 14 HACJ & MSM,J Crl.A.No.1281 of 2012 evidence of P.W.19, the Investigating Officer. P.W.19 in his cross- examination admits that P.W.8 did not state before him that he went to the fields and while returning home, found A2 to A4 sitting on a big stone at that time. That being the evidence on record, a doubt has arisen as to whether really P.W.8 went there and found all the accused and the deceased together.
25. Similarly, P.Ws.7, 11 and 12 claimed to have seen the accused and the deceased in the fields at about 9.30 p.m. According to them, on that day, P.Ws.8, 11 and 12 left the village at about 8 p.m., to go to the fields for watching. At about 9.30 p.m., while returning, they saw A1 and the deceased sitting on a cot and the other accused sitting on a stone at some distance. The version of P.Ws.11 and 12 is also on the similar lines. But both of them did not speak to these facts in their earlier statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is relevant to extract the evidence of P.W.19 on this aspect, which is as under:
"It is true that P.W.7 Pradeep did not state before me that he went to the fields and returning home on his motor bike at 8.15 p.m., and he saw A1 to A4 along with Ramu going to the fields. It is true that P.w.7 did not state anything about A2 and A3. P.W.8- Mallikarjuna did not state before me that he along with Ravi (P.W.12) and Umesh (P.W.11) went to the fields for watching. P.w.8 Mallikarjuna did not state before me that he found A2 to A4 sitting on a big stone at that time. He did not state before me that he saw A1 sitting on the cot of the deceased. P.W.11 Umesh did not state before me that he along with P.Ws.8 and 12 went to the fields of P.W.12 Ravi first and later, they went to the fields of Mallikarjuna and thereafter, while going to his fields he had seen A1 on the cot of the deceased and A2 and A4 on a big stone at a some distance. P.Ws.8, 11 and 12 did not state before me that they went to the fields for watching."
15 HACJ & MSM,J Crl.A.No.1281 of 2012
26. In view of the above, the circumstance of accused and the deceased being last seen at 9.30 p.m., in the fields of the deceased in our view is not established. What has been stated by the witnesses in the court is a complete improvement to the version before the Investigating Officer. Therefore, much credence cannot be attached to their evidence.
27. In this regard, the circumstance relating to time plays a very important role in evaluation of the weightage to be given to the circumstance of proximity of time while applying the last-seen theory. According to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the deceased went along with the accused at about 7.30 p.m., or 8.00 p.m., and the dead body was found at 5.30 a.m., on the next day. It is alleged in the charge sheet that the accused killed the deceased at about 10.30 p.m., while the deceased was sleeping. After going through the post mortem report, we are not in agreement with the case of the prosecution. The post mortem report, which is placed on record as Ex.P8, shows that on 18.11.2011 at about 4.30 p.m., post mortem examination was conducted. According to the doctor- P.W.15, the death might have occurred 17 to 20 hours prior to post-mortem examination. If the evidence of the doctor is accepted, the death of the deceased might have occurred at about 8 p.m., on 17.10.2011, which is not the case of the prosecution. As per the charge sheet and the evidence, the accused and the deceased were last seen together alive at 9.30 p.m. If really, the accused are culprits, who committed the crime, it will be very difficult to believe their presence near the dead body on the next day morning at about 5.30 a.m., when P.Ws.1 and 2 and others went there. Further, there is a time- gap between the time when 16 HACJ & MSM,J Crl.A.No.1281 of 2012 the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased was found dead. Therefore, possibility of other circumstances coming into existence cannot be ruled out. In that view of the matter and in view of the contradictory versions of P.Ws.7, 8, 11 and 12 and the discrepancies as to the time of death of the deceased, the circumstance of last-seen as projected by the prosecution cannot be accepted.
28. Yet another circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the dog squad leading the police to the house of A1. The evidence of dog tracking even if admissible is not ordinarily given much weight. In Babu Maqbul Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra6 it was held that tracker dog's evidence must pass the test of scrutiny and reliability as in the case of any other evidence. The following guidelines were laid down :
"(a) There must be a reliable and complete record of the exact manner in which the tracking was done and a panchnama in respect of the dog tracking evidence will have to be clear and complete. It will have to be properly proved and will have to be supported by the evidence of the handler.
(b) There must be no discrepancies between the version as recorded in the panchnama and the evidence of the handler as deposed before the Court.
(c)The evidence of the handler will have to pass the test of cross- examination independently.
(d)Some material will have to be placed before the court by the handler, such as the type of training imparted to the dog, its past performance, achievements, reliability, etc. supported, if possible, by documents."
In the instant case, the prosecution failed to bring the master of the dog into the witness box, depriving the right of the accused to 6 1993 Cr. L.J. 2808(Bombay) 17 HACJ & MSM,J Crl.A.No.1281 of 2012 cross-examine him, though the investigating Officer in his evidence stated about the dog squad leading them to the house of A1. Further, there is no incriminating material on record to show that there was any positive smelling/identification of the criminal by the dog. Apart from that, the evidence of the Investigating Officer would show that no articles or finger prints belonging to the accused were found at the scene of offence. There was also no iota of evidence as to the objects, which were smelled by the dog near the dead body of the deceased so as to find out the culprits and to lead the police to the house of A1. Therefore, it will be most unsafe to attach any weight to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, as regards the dog quad tracking the accused.
29. The other circumstance that remains for consideration is recovery of sickle and the blood stained shirt of the accused. These two articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. Item Nos.9 and 10 referred to in letter of advice-Ex.P11 belonged to A1. As per the FSL report-Ex.P12, blood was detected on items No.9 and 10 and origin of blood stains was found as human, but the blood group on blood stains thereon could not be determined. Therefore, mere recovery of articles would not itself indicate that it was the accused, who are the perpetrators of the crime.
30. Having regard to the above, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution in this case has entirely failed to prove any of the circumstances set up against the accused, much less, it has not established the chain of circumstances, so as to bring out a nexus between the crime and the accused, beyond all reasonable 18 HACJ & MSM,J Crl.A.No.1281 of 2012 doubt. Therefore, the appellants are acquitted for the offences under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC.
31. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur, against the appellants-accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC in Sessions Case No.334 of 2012 vide judgment dated 21.11.2012. Consequently, the appellants-accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The fine amount, if any paid under the above count, shall be refunded to the appellants-accused Nos.1 to 4.
___________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ACJ ________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J Dated: 06.06.2019 Nn 19 HACJ & MSM,J Crl.A.No.1281 of 2012 THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1281 OF 2012 (Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice C. Praveen Kumar} 6.6.2019.
Nn