Telangana High Court
Dakkata Balaramreddy vs State Of A.P. on 3 October, 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
*****
Crl.A.No.915 of 2016
Between:
Dakkata Balaramreddy & another.
.....Appellants
And
The State of A.P. through Public Prosecutor & another.
......Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 03.10.2018
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgment ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals ?
3. Whether Their Ladyship/ Lordship wish to : Yes/No
see the fair copy of the judgment ?
________________________
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J
________________________
T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
SKK, J & TA, J
2 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
Crl.A.No.915 of 2016
DATE: 03.10.2018
Between :
Dakkata Balaramreddy & another.
.....Appellants
And
The State of A.P. through Public Prosecutor & another.
......Respondents
For Appellants : Sri A.T.M.Ranga Ramanujam, Senior
Counsel, appeared for Sri M.Karuna
Sagar, Advocate.
For Respondents : Public Prosecutor (A.P.)
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? CITATIONS:
1. (2012) 2 SCC 584
2. (2016) 10 SCC 220
3. (2003) 12 SCC 485
4. AIR 1961 Allahabad 612
5. AIR 1955 Rajasthan 82
6. AIR 1954 Vindhya Pradesh 42
7. (2015) 17 SCC 694
8. (2012) 10 SCC 451
9. (2014) 5 SCC 509
10. AIR 1952 SC 343
11. 2006 (3) Crimes (HC) 565
C/15
SKK, J & TA, J
3 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.915 of 2016
JUDGMENT :(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait) The present appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 30th August 2016, in Sessions Case No.81 of 2012, passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sompeta, whereby, the appellants/A-1 and A-2 are found guilty for the offences under Sections 302, 450 and 397 of IPC. Consequently, for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months. They were also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 450 of IPC. They were further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for Seven years for the offence under Section 397 of IPC. All the sentences were to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21st August 2008 at about 9.00 p.m., the appellants/A-1 and A-2 trespassed into the house of PW-1 in order to commit an offence by hiding iron rods back below their shirts. A-2 brutally killed deceased No.1, whereas, A-1 killed deceased No.2 by beating on head with iron rods and SKK, J & TA, J 4 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 robbed the gold ornaments weighing about 3.543 Kgs. and cash of Rs.18,340/-, total worth Rs.28,18,340/- from the house of PW-1.
3. On 21st August 2008 at about 23.00 hours, PW-1 lodged a written report at Ichapuram Town Police Station. PW-23 registered the same as a case in Crime No.61 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 302 and 379 of IPC and informed the facts of the offence to PW-26, who was in-charge of Ichapuram Circle, since it is a grave offence. Accordingly, PW-26/Inspector of Police immediately took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, observed the scene of offence in the presence of mediators/PW-15 and LW-23/Pilaka Polarao and held inquest over the dead bodies of deceased persons in the presence of panchayatdars. He arrested A-2 on 22nd August 2008 at 1.15 hours at Radhamveedhi, Jagannadhaswamy temple, Ichapuram in the presence of mediators and recovered part of stolen property i.e. 1748 grams and 750 milligrams of gold ornaments and cash of Rs.18,340/- from his possession. He arrested A-1 on 22nd August 2008 at Gollaveedhi, Ichapuram at 4.00 hours and recovered 1794 grams and 370 milligrams of ornaments from his possession in the presence of mediators. Thus, PW-26 recovered total gold of 3.543 Kgs. from both A-1 and A-2 and sent them for judicial custody. Thereafter, PW-26 examined PWs.1 to 4, 6 to 9, LW-4/Kotha Bhagyalaxmi and LW-5/Vetcha Satyam and recorded their detailed SKK, J & TA, J 5 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 statements in Part-II Case Diary and forwarded the material objects to RFSL, Visakhapatnam for analysis.
4. PW-27/Inspector of Police, Ichapuram Circle, took up further investigation. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, examined PWs.9 and 10 and LW-12/Simhadri Ramesh and recorded their statements. He filed a Memo in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ichapuram for adding Sections 450, 394 r/w.397 of IPC. He also filed a Memo in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sompeta, to record the statements of PWs.4 and 6 under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
5. The further case of the prosecution is that PW-19/Medical Officer, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Ichapuram conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased No.1 and issued postmortem certificate opining that the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to head injury. PW-20/Medical Officer, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Ichapuram conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased No.2 and issued postmortem report opining that the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to head injury. PW-24/Inspector of Police, FPB, SDEP Unit CID, Srikakulam, who compared the photocopies of chance prints with FP slips of A-1 and A-2, issued his opinion vide C.No.69/V-SOC/ SD-SDF/SKL/08, dated 22nd SKK, J & TA, J 6 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 August 2008. PW-18/Photographer, Clues Team, Srikakulam, took photos of the scene of offence and dead bodies on the instructions of PW-26.
6. It is the further case of the prosecution that on the requisition of PW-6, LW-36/Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sompeta recorded the statements of PWs.4 and 6 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. LW-31/Dr.A.Adinarayana, Assistant Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Visakhapatnam, who analyzed the preserved material objects, issued opinion in File No.VSP/SER/181/ 2008, dated 28.11.2008, that Item Nos.1 to 15 were examined and human blood was detected on Item Nos.2 to 5, 7, 10 and 12 to 15. Blood group of the bloodstains on item Nos.2 and 3 was "O" group. Blood group of bloodstains on Item Nos.4, 5, 7, 10 and 12 to 15 could not be established. Blood was detected on Item Nos.8 and 9, but their origin could not be determined. Blood was not detected on Item Nos.1, 6 and 11, of which, Item Nos.6 and 11 were received as controls for Item Nos.5 and 10 respectively. PW-27 completed the investigation and filed charge sheet.
7. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sompeta, took cognizance of case for the offences under Sections 302, 379, 450, 394, 411 r/w.397 of IPC. After following the procedure contemplated under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., committed the case to SKK, J & TA, J 7 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 the Court of Sessions. The District and Sessions Division made over the case to the trial Court for disposal according to law.
8. After appearance of A-1 and A-2, charges were framed under Sections 302, 379, 450, 411, 394 r/w.397 of IPC against them. The charge contents were read over and explained to them in Telugu, who abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.
9. To prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 27 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-21 documents and M.Os.1 to 99 objects. After closure of prosecution evidence, A-1 and A-2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The plea of the accused was of complete denial. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of accused.
10. After considering the evidence on record and statements of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the learned trial Court found them guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. Hence, the present appeal.
11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submitted that the present case rests on circumstantial evidence and there are no direct witnesses to prove the prosecution case. He submitted that PW-1 made complaint/Ex.P-1, stating that on 21st August 2008, he went to Sompeta in a Car on personal work.
SKK, J & TA, J 8 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 At around 10 p.m., PW-7 made a phone call and informed him that Dakkata Balaram Reddy and Chinapana Gopi i.e. A-1 and A-2 entered into his house and after some time, he heard some shoutings. Then, they ran away with small baggages in their hands. Learned counsel submitted that no witness was examined by the prosecution to prove that PW-1 went to Sompeta on 21st August 2008. He further submitted that PW-2 deposed in the cross-examination that PW-1 did not state to him as to how he came to know about the death of his wife and son. PW-1 did not state that he saw A-1 and A-2 killing his wife and son. Thus, the statement of PW-1 cannot be relied upon that he was informed by PW-7 regarding the incident. PW-3 also deposed on the same lines. It is pertinent to mention here that to this effect, there is no question put to PW-1 in cross- examination.
12. Learned counsel further submitted that PW-4 deposed that on 21st August 2008 at about 9.00 p.m., he heard loud noises at PW-1's house and he also shouted as to what happened inside the house, accordingly number of people gathered at that house. After few minutes, A-1 and A-2 came out from the house of PW-1 and ran away. After that, Police came to the house of PW-1. Along with Police, they all went inside the house of PW-1 and found that PW- 1's wife and son were dead in pool of blood. Body of PW-1's son was in the shop room and the body of PW-1's wife was near the SKK, J & TA, J 9 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 bath room, which is after the shop room. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sompeta recorded his statement on 11th December 2008 and after the contents were readover, he signed on it, which is marked as Ex.P-2. After 15 days, Police came to his shop and asked for some gold ornaments for the sake of identification. Later, after identification, Police returned the said ornaments to him. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the cross-examination, first this witness deposed that his house and PW-1's house were at a distance and no voices can be heard from the house of PW-1. However, he did not state before the Police that when he was at his house, he was also doing gold business. He admitted that he did not remember as to at what time PW-1 came to his house. He denied the suggestion that he had to go to his sister's house from the house of PW-1. He stated that he can say weight of ornaments but cannot say the total ornaments taken by the Police.
13. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the deposition of this witness is not as deposed by PW-1, and moreover, the ornaments recovered were not seized and sealed properly. Thus, the trial Court has wrongly relied upon the deposition of this witness.
14. PW-6 deposed that on 21st of August 2008 at about 9.00 p.m., he was going to his house and PW-4 was going to his sister's house via Chinnamedara Veedhi. When they reached PW-1's house, they SKK, J & TA, J 10 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 heard cries from the said house. They also shouted as to what happened. In the meanwhile, 10 to 15 people gathered. A-1 came outside from the house of PW-1 and ran away on bike with a bag on his shoulder. After 5 or 10 minutes, A-2 jumped from the upstairs of PW-1's house to neighbouring house, and from there, jumped down. At that time, A-2 was holding a bag.
15. Learned counsel argued that in the rough sketch/Ex.P-19, nowhere it is stated that there was light in the house or in the street. Therefore, in the absence of any source of light, it was difficult for any of the witnesses to identify A-1 and A-2 while coming out from the house of PW-1.
16. PW-7 deposed that on 21st of August 2008 at 9.00 p.m., he closed his shop and was returning home. By the time he reached PW-1's house, he heard loud sounds from the said house and some people gathered there. He telephoned to PW-1 and informed him that loud sounds were coming from his house, on which, PW-1 stated that he was returning home. At about 10.30 p.m., PW-1 returned to the house and Police report was given.
17. Learned counsel submitted that there is no investigation on the phone call made by PW-7 to PW-1 informing about the incident, but the learned trial Court has erroneously relied upon the deposition of this witness.
SKK, J & TA, J 11 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016
18. PW-8 deposed that about 7 years prior to the incident, Inspector of Police, Ichapuram called him to the Police Station and asked to weigh gold relating to this crime. Accordingly, he weighed the gold ornaments, which were about 3½ kgs. After 15 days of the incident, Police had taken some gold ornaments from his shop for identification. About 400 grams of gold ornaments were given for identification to the Police in the morning and the Police returned the same in the evening.
19. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the cross-examination, PW-8 deposed that he always maintains day-to-day stock and sale register. However, he did not show the deduction of ornaments given to the Police on that day in his stock register. He also did not issue any receipt to the Police, with an endorsement that he had received back the gold ornaments. He also did not remember as to who had taken the ornaments from him. Thus, it is submitted that this witness is a planted witness, however, the trial Court has wrongly relied upon his evidence.
20. PW-10 deposed that at about 9.30 p.m., while he was taking dinner at his house, he heard sounds from outside. Immediately, he came out and found that around ten people were gathered in the street. Meanwhile, A-1 ran away from PW-1's house and then A-2 also ran away from the said house. A-1 and A-2 were holding bags.
SKK, J & TA, J 12 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 Later, he came to know that A-1 and A-2 murdered PW-1's wife and son and ran away with gold. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that this witness failed to disclose the attire of A-1 and A-2 and also the colours of bags. Thus, this witness cannot be believed.
21. PW-11 deposed that after 10 or 12 days of the incident i.e. on 03.09.2008 at about 8.30 or 9.00 a.m., the Inspector of Police went to his shop and asked to give some ornaments weighing around 500 grams consisting of Necklaces, chains, nosestuds, rings etc., for conducting identification of property and Police returned the said ornaments at around 1.00 or 2.00 p.m.
22. Learned counsel submitted that in the cross-examination, this witness did not disclose as to how many ornaments were hand-made and how many were machine-made, from out of the ornaments given to the Police. However, he stated that he noted on a paper, the ornaments given to the Police and later tore-away the paper after the ornaments were returned.
23. PW-13 deposed that he was 1st signatory to the inquest report/ Ex.P-5. He stated that the dead body of the wife of PW-1 was found in the pool of blood with head injury near bathroom and all the things in the room were shattered. There was iron rod near the dead body and that the body was lying on its back. However, in the SKK, J & TA, J 13 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 cross-examination, he deposed that in his presence, one iron rod was seized by the Police. Except that, nothing was seized from the scene of offence. Thus, this witness nullifies the inquest report/Ex.P-5.
24. While concluding his arguments, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the accused were arrested on 26.11.2011, but the Test Identification Parade was conducted on 28.12.2011 i.e. after almost 30 days from the date of arrest. Moreover, PW-1 admitted that A-1 and A-2 were shown to the witnesses prior to the identification parade. Thus, the Test Identification Parade was conducted just to complete the formality and to establish that A-1 and A-2 were identified by the witnesses. The prosecution has to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, but in the present case, there are discrepancies and the witnesses are planted ones, therefore, cannot be relied upon.
25. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel for appellants has relied upon the judgments in Mohd.Hussain @ Zulfikar Ali v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)1, in Mahavir Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh2, in State of M.P. v. Ghudan3, in Malkoo v. State4, in The State v. Motia & others5 and in the 1 (2012) 2 SCC 584 2 (2016) 10 SCC 220 3 (2003) 12 SCC 485 4 AIR 1961 Allahabad 612 5 AIR 1955 Rajasthan 82 SKK, J & TA, J 14 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 case of State of Vindhya Pradesh v. Sarua Munni Dhimar & others6.
26. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State submitted that though all the witnesses turned hostile except the official witnesses, however, PW-1 admitted his signature on Ex.P-1 and claimed the ornaments and cash recovered from A-1 and A-2. Moreover, in the test identification parade, PW-1 has identified A-1 and A-2. There was delay in conducting the Test Identification Parade, as PW-1 took treatment for one month after the incident. It is submitted that the learned trial Court, by relying upon the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 7 and after going through Exs.P- 1 to P-21, has rightly convicted the appellants for the offences mentioned above. Thus, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgments in the case of Mukesh Kumar v. State of Delhi7, in Alagupandi @ Alagupandian v. State of Tamilnadu8 and in the case of Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh9.
27. The case of the prosecution is that on 21st August 2008 night at about 9.00 p.m., the appellants/A-1 and A-2 trespassed into the house of PW-1 in order to commit an offence by hiding iron rods in 6 AIR 1954 Vindhya Pradesh 42 7 (2015) 17 SCC 694 8 (2012) 10 SCC 451 9 (2014) 5 SCC 509 SKK, J & TA, J 15 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 the back below their shirts. A-2 brutally killed deceased No.1 and A-1 killed deceased No.2 by beating on their heads with iron rods and robbed the gold ornaments weighing about 3.543 kgs. and cash of Rs.18,340/-, total worth Rs.28,18,340/- from the house of PW-1 and escaped with booty.
28. PW-1 deposed that on 20th August 2008 at about 5.00 p.m., he went to Sompeta for business purpose. Thereafter, he received a phone call from PW-7 at about 9.30 p.m. stating that A-1 and A-2 went to his house at 9.00 p.m. and they heard loud cries from his house. After some time, A-1 ran away with small bundles of gold and PWs.4, 6 and 7 watched the same. Thereafter, A-2 ran away from the upstairs of backside. On receiving the information, he returned from Sompeta and reached his house at about 10.00 or 10.30 p.m. By the time he reached his house, people gathered outside his house and all the doors of his house were kept open and the shop room was also opened. His elder son was in a pool of blood near sofa at the shop room and there was an iron rod on the floor. On the Southern side room, his wife Venkata Gopala Lakshmi was in a pool of blood and he found an iron rod near her. All the gold ornaments were missing from the shop almyrah and show case. He took the help of one V.K.Prasad and lodged report under Ex.P-1.
SKK, J & TA, J 16 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016
29. PWs.2 and 3 are brothers of deceased Vetcha Venkata Gopala Lakshmi. They deposed that they came to know through phone call from PW-1 that their sister and nephew were killed by A-1 and A-2. Immediately, they, along with LW-4/Kotha Bhagyalaxmi, reached Ichapuram at about 1.00 p.m.
30. PW-4 deposed that while himself and PW-6 were going to his sister's house at Dabbeeru street via Medara Veedhi, they heard loud noises at PW-1's house. They shouted as to what happened inside the house. Number of people were gathered at that house. After few minutes, A-1 came out from the house of PW-1 and ran away. After that, Police came to the house of PW-1. Along with Police, they all went inside the house of PW-1 and found that PW-1's wife and son were lying dead in a pool of blood. The body of PW-1's son was in the shop room and the body of PW-1's wife was near the bath room, which is after the shop room.
31. PW-5 deposed that he came to know about the murder of PW-1's elder son and wife on 22nd August 2008. PW-7 deposed that on 21st August 2008 at 9.00 p.m., he closed his shop and while returning his home, he heard loud sounds from PW-1's house and some people gathered there. He telephoned to PW-1 and informed him that loud sounds were coming from his house, upon which, PW-1 stated that he was returning to home. On reaching the house SKK, J & TA, J 17 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 of PW-1, they found on left side of sofa in the shop room, Kiran Kumar was found in a pool of blood and before the bathroom, the wife of PW-1 was in a pool of blood. One iron rod each were there at the dead bodies of deceased. M.Os.1 and 2 were the said iron rods.
32. PW-9 deposed that while he was washing his face, neighbours in their street informed that loud sounds were coming from his opposite house. After one hour, Police and PW-1/Kesava Rao came there. The people who saw the dead bodies of deceased, stated that PW-1's son was found dead in the shop room and PW-1's wife was found dead at the back side of the shop room. Later, he came to know that PW-1's son and wife were killed and their ornaments were stolen. On the next day, inquest was conducted over the dead body of PW-1's wife. He drafted the inquest report upon the directions of Police.
33. PW-10 deposed in his evidence that at about 9.30 p.m., while he was taking dinner at his house, he heard sounds from outside. Immediately, he came out and found that around ten people were gathered in the street. Meanwhile, A-1 ran away from PW-1's house and then A-2 also ran away from the said house. A-1 and A-2 were holding bags. Later, he came to know that A-1 and A-2 murdered PW-1's wife and son and ran away with gold.
SKK, J & TA, J 18 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016
34. PW-11 deposed that inquest was conducted by the Inspector of Police on the dead body of deceased/Vetcha Kiran Kumar. The said inquest report was drafted by LW-13/Kalla Devaraju. Himself, along with other inquestdars, signed the said report.
35. PW-12 deposed that inquest was conducted on the dead body of deceased/Vetcha Kiran Kumar by the Inspector of Police and the said inquest was drafted by LW-13/Kalla Devaraju. Himself, along with other inquestdars, signed the said report.
36. PW-13 deposed that the inquest over the dead body of deceased/wife of PW-1 was conducted in his presence along with LW-19/Sasanapuri Nageswara Rao, LW-20/Potta Raveendra, LW-21/Talli Kumari and PW-9. The inquest report/Ex.P-5 was scribed by PW-9.
37. PW-14 deposed that inquest over the dead body of deceased/ wife of PW-1 was conducted in his presence along with PW-13, LW-20/Potta Raveendra, LW-21/Talli Kumari and PW-9. Inquest report/Ex.P-5 was scribed by PW-9. He is the 2nd signatory to the said inquest report. It is further deposed that after 10 days, at around 9 or 9.30 a.m., Police came to his shop and took ½ kg gold consisting of different ornaments viz., necklaces, bracelets, earstuds, rings etc., for identification purpose and they returned the said ornaments at about 1.00 p.m. SKK, J & TA, J 19 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016
38. PW-15 deposed that Inspector of Police observed the scene of offence and took photographs of the scene and also prepared scene observation report. He signed the said report. He has seen M.Os.1 and 2 near the dead bodies of deceased.
39. PW-18 is a photographer, who photographed the dead bodies of deceased Kiran Kumar and Venkata Gopala Lakshmi and also the scene of offence. Later, he handed over the photos along with negatives and CD to the Inspector of Police, Ichapuram.
40. PW-26 deposed that on 21st of August 2008 at 23.15 hours, while he was holding additional charge of Ichapuram Circle, received information about the incident from S.I. of Police, Ichapuram Rural P.S./PW-23, who was holding the charge of Ichapuram Town P.S. Then, he secured the presence of complainant/PW-1, examined him and recorded his detailed statement in the case diary. Then, he appraised the facts of the case to the superior officers and received instructions. He arrested the accused at 4-00 a.m. after informing the grounds of arrest to Dakkata Appanna, related to A-1 and A-2. He also interrogated both the accused and asked them for clothes which were worn by them at the time of offence, for which, they disclosed that they were wearing the same clothes at the time of offence. Then, he verified the clothes and found some bloodstains. Later, he got secured other SKK, J & TA, J 20 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 clothes and handed over to them and seized the bloodstained clothes i.e. one bloodstained half-hand double XL size T-Shirt of yellow colour with black stripes and one bloodstained cement colour pant of A-1, and one bloodstained cement colour pant of A-2 in the presence of mediators under the cover of mediators' report/Ex.P-10. Later, he took finger prints and photographs of the accused. During the course of investigation, he examined PWs.2 to 7 and recorded their detailed statements.
41. PW-27 deposed that on 31st of August 2008, he took up further investigation in this case. During his absence, the Inspector of Police, Sompeta conducted investigation, who handed over to him, the CD file along with stolen property. He reached Ichapuram Town P.S. on 11.09.2008. He filed a memo before JMFC, Ichapuram for recording statements of PWs.4 and 6 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On 15.09.2008, he went to the scene of offence and examined PWs.9, 10 and LW-12/Simhadri Ramesh and recorded their statements.
42. From the depositions of prosecution witnesses mentioned above, it is clear that murder of deceased Nos.1 and 2 had taken place in the house of PW-1. On hearing loud sounds from outside, the prosecution witnesses came out. Some of the witnesses deposed SKK, J & TA, J 21 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 that A-1 and A-2 ran away from the house of PW-1, holding bags. Later, they came to know that deceased Nos.1 and 2 were murdered.
43. PW-6 deposed that on 21st August 2008 at about 9.00 p.m., himself and PW-4 were going to his house. By the time they reached the house of PW-1, they heard cries from the said house. They also shouted as to what happened. In the meanwhile, 10 to 15 people gathered there. A-1 came out from PW-1's house and ran away on the bike with a bag on his shoulder. After 5 or 10 minutes, A-2 jumped down. By that time, A-2 was holding a bag. After one hour, PW-1 returned to his house and Police also came there. They found the dead bodies of PW-1's wife and son in a pool of blood. He came to know that cash and gold ornaments were stolen. Except marking of contradictions that he was doing gold business and that PW-1 is his colleague gold merchant, which was denied by PW-6, nothing much is elicited from him in favour of accused.
44. It is important to note that PW-6 is the direct witness, who heard loud sounds and who saw A-1 and A-2 running away with bags from the house of PW-1. Apart from direct evidence, this case depends on circumstantial evidence. The cumulative effect of circumstances negated the innocence and proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.
SKK, J & TA, J 22 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016
45. The settled law is that the act must have been proved by accusations, so that the chain of evidence must not leave any reasonable doubt for a conclusion, as held in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P.10
46. Turning to the circumstances relating to the facts of a case tending to show the innocence or guilt, must be rational and a prudent man may base his opinion upon probabilities of the case. One of the important circumstances is that the thumb impressions of A-1 and A-2 were present on the glass show-case at the scene of offence, which is shop room in the house of PW-1. The comparison of thumb impressions has become an exact science and great weight can be attached to the evidence of expert in this regard. The testimony of qualified finger print examiner having necessary qualifications to be a finger print expert, cannot be discarded. The Court has to rely on the expert upon two distinct points, first of all, under question of similarity between the marks, and secondly, on the point which is one for expert opinion whether it is possible to find the finger prints or thumb impressions of two individuals corresponding in as many points of resemblance as shown to exist between the impressions found in the case before the court and those of the accused. Accordingly, the Court cannot delegate its authority to the expert, but has to satisfy itself as to the value of the evidence 10 AIR 1952 SC 343 SKK, J & TA, J 23 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 of expert in the same way as it must satisfy itself as to the value of any other evidence.
47. On the above issue, PW-24 the Inspector of Police, Finger Print Bureau has been examined. He deposed that on receipt of telephonic message from the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ichapuram Town Police Station, he visited the scene of crime along with the clues team on 22nd August 2008 at about 6.00 a.m. There, he examined the scene of crime and articles which were suspected to have been handled by the unknown culprits. He developed chance prints on the glass show-case and one chance print on cream colour plastic bags and labeled them as 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D' and 'E' for the facility of photography. On the same day, he received the chance prints and found that the photographs of chance prints marked as 'B' and 'C' were unfit for comparison for want of ridge characteristics. The same has been compared with the finger print slips of deceased inmates at the scene of crime for the purpose of elimination and found that the photocopy of chance prints marked as 'E' was identical of the right index finger impressions of deceased inmate V.Kiran Kumar son of V.Kesava Rao. The said photocopy of chance prints of 'E' is eliminated for further comparison. The remaining photocopies of chance prints marked as 'A' and 'B' have been compared with the finger print slips of both accused and found that the photocopy of chance print marked as 'A-1' was identical SKK, J & TA, J 24 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 with specimen right thumb finger impressions marked as 'S-1' on the finger print slip marked as 'S' of accused/Dakkata Balarama Reddy S/o.Appanna Reddy. The photocopy of chance print marked as 'D' is identical with the right index finger impressions marked as 'P-1' on the finger print slip marked as 'P' of the accused Chinapana Gopi S/o.Late Peethambara Reddy. Accordingly, comparison charts showing identical characteristics were prepared and submitted. Comparison chart showing of the 10 ridge characteristics were clearly drawn and mentioned that 10 ridge characteristics in the two comparison charts were collectively occurring in their relative possession in both the finger prints marked as 'A', 'B', 'S-1' and 'P-1'.
48. The two identical finger print charts were marked as Exs.P-17 and P-18, subject to objection. PW-24/Finger Print Expert opined that the chance print marked as 'A' is identical with specimen right thumb impression marked as 'S-1' on the finger print slip of accused/Dakkata Balarama Reddy marked as 'S'. The finger print marked as 'D' is identical with specimen right index finger impression marked as 'P-1' on the finger print slip of the accused Chinapana Gopi, marked as 'P', and that they were made by the same fingers of the above said persons respectively.
SKK, J & TA, J 25 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016
49. In the cross-examination, it was elicited that 10 ridge characteristics were compared, which were shown in the two charts Exs.P-17 and P-18. It was also elicited that the finger print expert is qualified in All India Expert Examination with regard to Finger Print Science, which was conducted by the Central Finger Print Bureau of Calcutta. The types of ridges are arches, loops, whorls and composites.
50. It is pertinent to mention here that the counsel for the accused has put a question in the cross-examination of PW-24 that, whether out of 4 types of ridges, did any two types of ridges would match in the present case with the specimen and the chance prints, for which, PW-24 answered that two different patterns of ridges never match. In the present case also, when compared, the specimen (10 each) and the chance print did not tally with two different patterns of ridges. In the cross-examination of this witness, nothing much was elicited in favour of the appellants. Moreover, the evidence of finger print expert can be relied upon, as he is a qualified expert and there is no tampering of the receipt of finger prints. The presence of appellants can be determined as finger prints were available on the show-case in the house of PW-1 and they tallied with the finger impressions of A-1 and A-2.
51. Another important circumstance is that the bloodstained clothes on the bodies of appellants were sent for chemical analysis.
SKK, J & TA, J 26 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 PW-16 deposed that in their presence, Police seized yellow T-shirt (M.O.97) and light cement colour jeans pant (M.O.98) of D.Balaram (A-1) and cement colour bloodstained jeans pant of A-2, marked as M.O.99. PW-17 deposed that Police seized one jeans pant of Gopi (A-2) and one T-shirt and jeans pant of Balaram (A-1) at the Police Station in their presence. Ex.P-10 is the mediators' report, in which, it was mentioned that Inspector of Police questioned A-1 and A-2 as to the clothes wore by them at the time of offence and they stated that at the time of offence, they wore the clothes which they were wearing at that time. A-2 handed over his pant and A-1 handed over his pant and shirt. Ex.P-21 is the report of RFSL, as per which, human blood was detected on item Nos.2 to 5, 7, 10 and 12 to 15 i.e., a cement colour jeans pant with dark brown stains, a torn cement colour jeans pant with mud stains, a metallic rusted iron rod, a piece of gauze cloth with dark brown stains, a torn white colour cotton full-sleeved shirt with green stripes with dark brown stains, a piece of gauze cloth with dark brown stains, a metallic iron rod, a maroon colour polyester saree pieces with multi-colour design with dark brown stains, a torn pink colour cotton jacket with dark brown stains and a torn white colour mill made cut banian with dark brown stains. Blood was detected on item Nos.8 and 9 but their origin could not be determined. Blood group of bloodstains on item Nos.4, 5, 7, 10 and 12 to 15 could not be established. Blood group of SKK, J & TA, J 27 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 bloodstains on item Nos.2 and 3 is "O" group. Blood was not detected on item Nos.1, 6 and 11. Item Nos.6 and 11 were received as controls for item Nos.5 and 10 respectively.
52. It is settled law that, even if chemical examiner is not examined, his report is admissible in evidence and no formal proof is required under Section 293(4)(a) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is not at all necessary to examine the chemical examiner unless the Court thinks fit to summon and examine him. Moreover, it is not the case of defence that there are two reports and there is difference of opinion. The report of Chemical Examiner i.e. Assistant Director of RFSL, Visakhapatnam is marked as Ex.P-21. The conclusions in the report and reasons for arriving at such conclusions, disclose that experiments were performed by the Chemical Examiner to form his opinion so as to enable the Court to arrive at an independent conclusion. The blood detected on Item Nos.2 and 3 was of "O" group. Thus, the articles sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis contained bloodstains of "O" group. It is not the case of the appellants that Police later-on put human blood on the articles sent for analysis, in order to implicate them in the case. The report of the Chemical Examiner was received in original, and hence, it is admissible in evidence without formal proof. Therefore, the analysis report/Ex.P-21 has established that the weapons M.Os.1 and 2 (iron rods) seized from the scene of offence and blood stained SKK, J & TA, J 28 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 clothes of accused are examined for sufficient proof about the extent of bloodstains detected on those articles. Accordingly, the learned trial Court arrived at the conclusion that presence of accused is established with Ex.P-8 (Scene of offence observation report), seizure of weapons, coupled with report of expert.
53. PW-19 conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of deceased No.1 and opined that cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to head injury. PW-20, the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of deceased No.2, stated that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to head injury. The injuries found on the deceased persons indicate the act of violence and the weapons used for causing said injuries.
54. The above facts and the nature of injuries have proved the material point that the accused have made dangerous assault on the deceased in order to take away the property. The evidence of prosecution witnesses also establishes the seizure of gold ornaments from A-2, at the instance of A-1.
55. PW-26 deposed that on receiving information about the movements of culprits, he along with his staff, visited Radham Veedhi, Jagannadhaswamy temple at about 1-15 hours and noticed that one person, carrying one hand bag, was trying to escape on SKK, J & TA, J 29 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 seeing the Police. Then, he apprehended him on suspicion and asked him about his identity and about the contents of the bag. The said person confessed that he is resident of Ichapuram Municipality and was living by doing finance business after his superannuation from Military service. The said person further confessed that after his retirement, he addicted to bad vices and spent all the money for such vices as mentioned in the mediators' report. Then, PW-26 verified the bag which was carried by the said person and found the following ornaments within a box which was kept in olive colour bag:
1. Readmade Necklaces - 40.
2. Bangles studded with stones - 2.
3. One gold Pustelatadu with black beeds - 1.
4. One gold chain with Rudraksha Poosa - 1.
5. Small chains.
6. Six rings.
7. Ear-studs.
8. Nose-studs.
9. Kasulu.
10. Black beed chain.
11. Lockets.
12. Gold Pustelatadu.
13. Bangles and cash of Rs.18,340/-
After recovering the same, he got drafted the confessional statement of accused/Chinapana Gopi (A-2), duly attested by the mediators at 2.30 a.m. Thereafter, he, along with his staff, the accused and mediators, rushed to the house of Dakkata Balaram (A-1), situated in Gollaveedhi of Ichapuram Municipality. On seeing the Police, one person tried to escape from the house. Then, he apprehended him with the assistance of his staff and interrogated in the presence SKK, J & TA, J 30 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 of mediators. The said person confessed that he is a resident of Gollaveedhi of Ichapuram Municipality and was living by doing civil contract works. In that process, he received losses. When his brother-in-law came with a proposal to commit offence, he hatched- up a plan to rob the house of PW-1, who is a creditor and sound at wealth in Ichapuram town. Further, he corroborated the version of A-2 on all aspects. When questioned about the stolen property, A-1 fetched a bag from the side room of the house and bloodstained clothes and handed over the same to him. In the presence of mediators, he opened it and found three gold rings, one ear buttalu, two petala golusu, one black beed chain, ear rings, chains, rings, necklaces, ear ornaments, bangles, nose-studs etc. He got drafted the confessional statement of the accused duly attested by the mediators. Ex.P-9 is the admissible portion of confession of the accused.
56. PW-16/mediator deposed that on seeing the Police jeep, one person was running away from the place. Police chased, caught hold of that person and brought before the Inspector of Police. On questioning, he confessed that his name is Dakkata Balaram (A-1) and his brother-in-law's name is Chinapana Gopi (A-2), Ex-Army man and he has a finance business. He confessed that both of them went to PW-1's house and asked to state the rate of old gold of Chinapana Gopi. The deceased/V.Kiran Kumar estimated the rate SKK, J & TA, J 31 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 as Rs.20,000/-. On that, both of them demanded for Rs.25,000/- for the old gold, but the deceased Kiran Kumar refused to give the said amount. On that, Chinapana Gopi beat deceased Kiran Kumar with an iron rod, thereby, he fell down. On listening the cries of Kiran Kumar, his mother came there. On that, he beat on her head with an iron rod. Then, she fell down. Both Kiran Kumar and his mother died. Thereafter, they (A-1 and A-2) took the ornaments as per their wish and one of them left from the main entrance and the other one left from backyard. On being questioned by the Inspector of Police about the stolen ornaments, A-1 brought the ornaments with a bag from his house.
57. It is important to mention here that the 1st condition necessary for bringing Section 27 of the Evidence Act into operation is discovery of a fact, albeit a relevant fact, in consequence of information received from a person accused of an offence. The 2nd is that discovery of such fact must be deposed to. The 3rd is that at the time of receipt of information, accused must be in Police custody. The last but the most important condition is that, only that much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, is admissible. Ex.P-9 is the admissible portion stating "okka sanchi ni teesukochi" (by bringing one bag). Thus, the above conditions are fulfilled and the ornaments were recovered in the presence of mediators.
SKK, J & TA, J 32 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016
58. PW-17/mediator deposed that himself, LW-27/Karri Dharmaraju, along with Police staff, went to Radham street near Jagannadhaswamy temple. By that time, one person was running away from that place. Police chased and caught hold of the said person. He was holding one bag (Sanchi) in his hand. Ex.P-12 is the admissible portion of the confession. The said person stated that his name is Chinapana Gopi (A-2). On 28.01.2008 at about 9.00 p.m., he went to PW-1's house by taking the old gold and has given that old gold to the deceased Kiran Kumar, who stated that he will give Rs.20,000/- to that gold. Then, A-2 asked for Rs.25,000/-, to which, said Kiran Kumar refused. A-2 asked Kiran Kumar to give back his old gold. The deceased Kiran Kumar brought the old gold from his house. Then the said Gopi (A-2) beat the deceased Kiran Kumar with an iron rod, thereby, Kiran Kumar shouted loudly and fell down. On hearing the cries of Kiran Kumar, his mother came out from inside. Then, Gopi's brother-in-law Balaram (A-1) beat on her head with an iron rod, thereby, she also fell down. A-1 and A-2 thrown both the rods there itself and the gold was tied in bundles. The said Balaram went from entrance, whereas, Gopi went away from the backyard by jumping the wall. Thus, Gopi sustained injury on his left leg. The Inspector of Police seized the said bag consisting of readymade gold necklace, gold chains, gold rings and some other gold ornaments, apart from cash of Rs.18,340/-.
SKK, J & TA, J 33 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016
59. It cannot be disputed that a statement, which merely explains the production of material and which does not lead to its discovery, is not admissible under the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Court must distinguish between the cases where discovery is made in consequence of information given and a disclosure by an accused accompanying a statement. The information permitted to be admitted in evidence is confined to that portion of information which distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered. The recovery of ornaments from A-2 does not come under Section 27 of Evidence Act, as initially, the Police chased and caught hold of A-2, who was holding one bag in his hand. After confession made by A-2, the Inspector of Police seized the said bag and observed the said bag in the presence of mediators. Therefore, recovery from A-2 is admissible under Section 27 of Evidence Act.
60. PW-1 has identified the gold ornaments M.Os.3 to 92 in the test identification parade held at Satyanarayana Swamy Temple in the presence of PWs.16 and 17. Ex.P-6 is the report of test identification parade, which was conducted by PWs.16 and 17 on 03.09.2008 at 11.00 a.m. PW-16 deposed that S.I. of Police, Ichapuram called him and PW-17 to the Police Station and handed over 18 models of gold ornaments weighing 3½ kgs. and also gold from 4 different shops. Then, they went to Satyanarayana Swamy temple and PW-1/Kesava Rao came there. Thereafter, the stolen SKK, J & TA, J 34 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 ornaments were mixed with other ornaments brought from the gold shops. PW-1 identified his ornaments and the details of identification of ornaments were drafted by PW-17. Though PW-16 was cross-examined, nothing much was elicited in favour of appellants. PW-17 further deposed that the Inspector of Police has given 18 types of stolen gold ornaments weighing 3½ kgs. After taking the said gold ornaments, himself, PW-1 and PW-16 went to Satyanarayana Swamy temple and conducted identification of ornaments. He also scribed Ex.P-11/report of test identification of ornaments.
61. PW-8 deposed that about 7 years back, Inspector of Police, Ichapuram called him to the Police Station and asked him to weigh the gold relating to this crime. He weighed the ornaments twice, which were about 3½ kgs. After 15 days of the incident, Police took some gold ornaments from his shop for identification. About 400 grams of gold ornaments were given for identification to the Police in the morning and the same were returned by the Police in the evening.
62. PW-11 deposed that after 10 or 12 days of the incident i.e. on 03.09.2008 at about 8.30 or 9.00 a.m., Inspector of Police came to his shop and asked to give some ornaments weighing around 500 grams, consisting of Necklaces, chains, nose studs, rings etc., for SKK, J & TA, J 35 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 conducting identification parade of property. Police returned the same at about 1.00 or 2.00 p.m.
63. PW-27 deposed that by the time PW-1 came, two mediators i.e. PWs.16 and 17 and gold merchants Pydisetti Ravikumar, Boyina Venkataramana, Sunkara Sivaprasad, B.Sivaji and PW-14/ S.Nageswara Rao were present. They brought some gold ornaments from their shops. He gave instructions to PWs.16 and 17 to conduct identification of property through PW-1 at the verandah of Satyanarayana Swamy Temple, Ichapuram town. By 11.00 a.m., the mediators went to the Temple and conducted identification of property till 12.00 p.m. After 12.00 p.m., PWs.16 and 17 handed over Ex.P-11 and the stolen property which is identified by PW-1. The property brought from the gold shops was handed over to them.
64. Identification of stolen ornaments by owners of such ornaments cannot be discarded on the mere ground that there were no special identification marks on the said ornaments. The said identification is done by the mediators, as such, it cannot be discarded. In the identification of property, even though 2 or 3 similar articles are mixed, still, the identification of property cannot be discarded when the witnesses are trustworthy and they have been subjected to fair test. The non-mentioning of the number of articles SKK, J & TA, J 36 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 with which the stolen articles were mixed up and identified, does not make the test identification unreliable in any way. Merely because the gold articles were given by PWs.8 and 11, and PW-1, who is the owner of a gold shop, has identified the articles by frequently seeing, handling and using them, is not sufficient to reject the testimony of PW-1 on the ground that identification parade was not properly held. It is not the case of appellants that only 2 or 3 ornaments were mixed with the stolen property. PWs.8 and 11 deposed that number of gold ornaments were given for the purpose of mixing for identification of property.
65. After going through the depositions of the prosecution witnesses as discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the cases cited by the learned Senior Counsel for appellants are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Under the law, presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act is that if stolen property is found in the possession of a person soon after the theft, it can be presumed that either that person himself is a thief or he received such property knowing it to be stolen, unless he can account for possession. When prosecution establishes that accused was in possession of gold ornaments which were identified as that of deceased, it was for the accused to explain as to how he got possession of such ornaments of the deceased.
SKK, J & TA, J 37 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016
66. In the case of Shri Zulfikar Ali & others v. State of Goa11, it was held as under :
"Evidence of PW-15/Police Inspector that he chased van in which accused persons were traveling, arrested them and seized property of which they were found in possession. No explanation was given by accused persons as to how they come in possession of gold ornaments in two bags. Possession of fruits of crime recently after it has been committed affords a strong and reasonable ground for presumption that party in whose possession they are found was the real offender, unless he can account for such possession in some way consistent with his innocence. Accused persons arrested and property seized five days later. Proximity of time of alleged incident of dacoity, arrest of four accused persons with loot of dacoity which was identified by PWs.1 to 4 as gold articles with specific marks and designs as belonging to them, sufficient to draw a presumption that accused had committed offences, alleged against them, conviction of appellants not liable to be interfered with."
67. From the above judgment, presumption can be drawn that appellants/A-1 and A-2 are the persons who committed theft or received the goods knowing them to be stolen. The ornaments/ M.Os.3 to 92 and cash of Rs.18,340/- were recovered from the appellants immediately on the next day of commission of offence. The appellants failed to explain as to how the said ornaments came into their possession. The present case is not that there were only 2 11 2006 (3) Crimes (HC) 565 SKK, J & TA, J 38 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 or 3 ornaments, but there are number of ornaments weighing 3.543 Kgs. This much of ornaments cannot be planted and given to PW-1.
68. In cases where the direct evidence is scarce, the burden of proving the case of prosecution is bestowed upon motive and circumstantial evidence. It is the chain of events that acquire prime importance in such cases. To put it differently, circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts, which are so closely associated with the fact in issue, if that taken together, they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed. In the present case, the evidence adduced by the prosecution, as discussed above, clearly proves the chain of events connecting the appellants to the guilt of commission of offence. The entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution, is not only convincing, but is also trustworthy.
69. It is relevant to note that the appellant/A-2 had some injuries, found at the time of his arrest. Though the said injuries were of minor nature, even then, the appellant/A-2 could not give any satisfactory explanation with regard thereto. The recovery of various articles at the instance of the appellants, that too, immediately after the incident, goes a long way in proving the guilt of the appellants. The possession of the fruits of the crime SKK, J & TA, J 39 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 immediately after commission of such crime, gives rise to a strong and reasonable presumption that the party in whose possession they were found, was the real offender, unless he accounts for such possession in some way consistent with his innocence. The force of the rule of presumption depends upon the recency of the possession as related to the crime. If there is considerable interval of time, the presumption will be weakened. However, if the goods are of such kind as in the ordinary course such things frequently change hands, it is not possible to fix any precise period.
70. In the case in hand, the appellants could not give any explanation as to how they came in possession of various gold ornaments and other articles belonging to the family members of PW-1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act is fully applicable. If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon and causes grievous hurt to any person or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished, shall not be less than seven years. It is necessary to prove that, at the time of committing robbery, the offender was armed with deadly weapons.
71. The present case is one of robbery and double murder, wherein, the acts of the accused persons were heinous as they SKK, J & TA, J 40 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 brutally killed two persons, without any regard for human life. While committing the offence, the accused caused grievous injuries to deceased 1 and 2 with iron rods/ M.Os.1 and 2 in order that the injuries facilitate robbery within the meaning of Section 390 IPC. Thus, the offence under Section 392 r/w.397 of IPC is attractive, but not Section 394 of IPC. In the case in hand, A-1 and A-2, after committing robbery, left with booty. While running away from the house of PW-1, the direct witness/PW-6 saw both of them running with the bags. The other circumstantial evidence that the finger prints on the show-case of PW-1's residence in which gold ornaments are placed, were secured and the expert also confirmed that the said finger prints belongs to A-1 and A-2. The clothes of accused were sent to RFSL and it was found that there were human bloodstains on those clothes. The accused have not explained as to how bloodstains were available on the clothes wore by them. The weapons used for commission of offence were seized from the scene of offence immediately after the offence. The gold ornaments were recovered from A-2, basing on the confession of A-1. PW-6, who is a direct witness, had seen A-1 and A-2 running away from the house of PW-1 by holding bags. All these circumstances establish the presence of accused at the scene of offence.
72. The chain of circumstances when grouped together, establishes that it is the appellants, who have committed the offence.
SKK, J & TA, J 41 Crl.A.No.915 of 2016 The circumstantial evidence in corroboration with the medical evidence, the weapons used and the manner in which the attack was made, clearly establish that the appellants intended to cause death of the inmates of the house of PW-1, which fulfills the essential ingredient of the offence under Section 300 IPC, punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Accordingly, the prosecution has established the cause of death of the deceased persons and it linked the same with the accused through circumstantial evidence, in corroboration with medical evidence, leaving no doubt to conclude that A-1 and A-2 have committed the offence. Accordingly, the learned trial Court, after considering the prosecution evidence and the material before it including the scientific evidence, has rightly convicted the appellants for the offences mentioned above.
73. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J _______________________ T.AMARNATH GOUD, J 3rd October, 2018 N.B: L.R.Copy be marked.
(b/o) ajr