1. Originally Accused Nos. 1 and A2 in Sessions Case No. 306 of 2010, on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 379, 203, 102B read with 34 of Indian Penal Code [“I.P.C.”]. By its Judgment, dated 27.10.2015, the learned Sessions Judge, acquitted A2 of all the charges, but, however, convicted A1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. Further, he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one [01] year for the offence punishable under Section 203 I.P.C. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The substance of the charges against the accused is that, on 01.10.2009, both the accused conspired together and committed murder of one Ulisi Veera Sandhya Rani - wife of A1 [‘Deceased’] by squeezing her neck with a towel and, thereafter, both of them committed theft of her jewellery.

3. The facts, as culled out, from the evidence of prosecution witnesses are as under:

i) PW1 is the mother of the deceased, while PW2 is the son of PW1. PW3, a resident of the same village, knows the accused and the prosecution witnesses; while PW5 is the husband of PW1 and father of PW2 and the deceased.

ii) The marriage between the deceased and the A1 was performed in the month of May 2009. At the time of marriage, PWs.1 & 5 agreed to give one acre of land and a sum of Rs.90,000/- to the accused as dowry. After marriage, the deceased stayed with her parents as they would send their daughter to the house of her in-laws on the occasion of Karthika Pournami. While the daughter of PW1 was at their house, A1 used to visit during night and leave the house in the early hours. They advised A1 to stay in their house during day time also, but, having regard to his avocation, he stated that he cannot stay in the house during day time.

iii) While things stood thus, on 30.09.2009 at about 10.00 p.m., during night, A1 came to their house and stayed that night. On next day morning while taking breakfast, he informed that he has some work at Kakinada and intends to take his wife [deceased] to Kakinada for movie. Initially, the wife of A1 refused to go to Kakinada due to Atla Tadiya function within next five days. But, however, A1 informed that he will come home for lunch and take his wife to Kakinada. Accordingly, A1 returned home at 2.00 p.m., stayed till 3.00 p.m. and then took his wife [deceased] to Kakinada on a motorcycle. At that time, the deceased was wearing three sovereigns of gold black beed chain; two sovereigns of gold chain; one tula two gold rings; a pair of ear hangings, and a pair of silver anklets.

iv) The accused and deceased did not return to their house till 12.00 midnight. PW1 and PW5 made phone calls to A1, but, it was switched off. Telephone calls were made to the house of A1, but, none lifted the same. At about 3.00 a.m., PW1 and PW5 sent their son [PW2] to go to the house of their viyanka at Gonada Village. But, however, at 4.30 a.m., PW2 returned home along with A1. They noticed blood oozing on his face and he was leaning on the shoulder of PW2. When enquired, PW2 informed that when he reached the centre of the village, A1 met him while coming on a motorcycle and he informed that while he and his wife were coming on a motorcycle from Kakinada, at about 10.30 p.m., in between Bhupalapatnam and Veeravaram, some thieves beat him with stick, on that they fell down and seeing the same the deceased ran away. On hearing the same, the family members of PW1 ran towards Veravaram Bhupalapatnam road to search for the deceased. They noticed the dead body of the deceased in the fields of one Veeram Reddy Kasi. On that, all of them went and saw the deceased with injuries on the head and neck. All the gold ornaments except two gold rings found missing. Suspecting some foul play, in the hands of A1, a report came to be presented before PW10 – Sub-Inspector of Police, basing on which, a case in Crime No. 113 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 I.P.C. came to be registered. Ex.P8 is the First Information Report.

v) On 02.10.2009 at about 10.00 a.m., while PW13 – Inspector of Police, was in Circle Office at Jaggampeta, he received a phone call from Sub-Inspector of Police, Kirlampudi Police Station [PW10] informing about a female dead body lying near the road side leading from Bhupalapatnam to Veeravaram. Immediately, he proceeded to the scene of offence and reached the same by 11.30 a.m. He took up investigation and in the presence of mediators, prepared panchanama of scene and also got prepared rough sketch of the scene, apart from taking photographs of the scene. Ex.P3 is the mediators report prepared in the presence of PW7. M.O.6 to M.O.10 were seized from the scene of offence, while Ex.P16 is the rough sketch of the scene. Thereafter, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the mediators.Ex.P4 is the inquest report. During inquest, he examined PW1 to PW5 and recorded their statements. After conducting the inquest, he sent the dead body for postmortem examination to Government Hospital, Prathipadu.

vi) PW9 – Civil Assistant Surgeon, Prathipadu, conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued Ex.P7 – the postmortem certificate. According to him, the cause of death was asphyxia due to alleviation of Larynx and tongue closing the airway and pheryngeel level. He also noticed a scratch on the body of the deceased.

vii) On the next day i.e., 03.10.2009, while PW13 was causing enquiries regarding the suspect, he received credible information about the accused and arrested A1 at 9.30 a.m. and recorded his confessional statement. Pursuant to the statement, which is marked as Ex.P10, A1 lead them to the scene of offence situated in a cattle shed, by the side of road between Bhupalapatnam and Veeravaram. From a place situated opposite to scene of offence he produced casuarinas stick and blood stained towel, which are marked as M.O.12 and M.O.13. The same were seized under Ex.P12. Thereafter, he returned to police station along with seized property and A1. On the same day, at 2.30 p.m., he received information about another accused [A2]. On that day, he left to Kirlampudi Police Station, reached Goneda Village and arrested A2 in the presence of PW12 and others. The confessional statement of A2 was recorded under Ex.P13 – mediator report. Pursuant to the confession made, A2 lead them to canal bund of Chikkireddy situated on the road of Namavaram – Goneda road, from where, he picked up a plastic cover containing gold jewellery, which are placed on record as M.O. 1 to M.O.5. Ex.P14 is the panchanama prepared in the presence of PW12 – mediator. On the same day at 6.30 p.m., A1 is said to have made another confessional statement, which lead to seizure of motorcycle alleged to have been used in the commission of offence. After completing the investigation and collecting all the documents, a charge-sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 54 of 2009 on the file Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prathipadu.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., came to be furnished. Since the case is triable by Court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Basing on the material available on record, charges, as referred to earlier came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW13 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P20, beside marking M.O.1 to M.O.15. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which they denied. But, however, did not adduce any evidence.

6. Though, there are no direct witnesses to the incident, but, taking into consideration the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, which were held to be proved, the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting A2 convicted A1, as stated supra. Assailing the same, the present appeal came to be filed by A1.

7. Dr. Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that, there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved and even if proved, do not form a chain of events connecting the accused with the crime. He further submits that, when the trial court disbelieved the recovery of gold ornaments made pursuant to the confession of A2, nothing remains on record to establish the guilt of A1, more so, when his conduct is normal. The learned Counsel further submits that, the three circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, namely, (1) “motive”, (2) “last seen” together, and (3) conduct of the accused in making himself scare, does not in any way establish the guilt of the accused.

8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the same contending that the explanation given by the accused as to how the deceased died cannot be accepted, for the reason that when the incident occured at 10.30 p.m., and when it is not the case of the accused that he was unconscious after the incident of the alleged attack, nothing prevented him from lodging the report or informing the family members of the deceased immediately about the incident. He kept quiet without informing anybody till 4.30 a.m. in the morning. Even at 4.30 a.m, he informed PW2 when he met him near the village centre. This, according to him, could not be normal conduct of a person who left the house along with his wife/deceased. He further submits that as the recovery of gold ornaments were not proved in the manner required under law, the learned Sessions Judge extended benefit to A2, but, that does not mean that there was no recovery of gold articles at all. Even otherwise, he would submit that, the conduct of the accused and the explanation offered by the accused being unacceptable, the Trial Court convicted the A1, which warrants no interference.

9. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt

10. It is no doubt true that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the case rests on circumstantial evidence. In a case arising out of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove each of the circumstance relied upon by them and the circumstances so proved should form a chain of events, which should lead to an irresistible conclusion establishing the guilt of the accused.

11. In R.Damodaran v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police AIR (2021) SC 1173 , the Apex Court after referring to the judgment of a three Judge Bench in Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706, held that, in a case which rests on 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 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. (See Gambhir v. State of Maharastra (1982) 2 SCC 351)

12. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred to above, it is now to be seen whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are proved and if proved, whether they form a chain of events connecting the accused with the crime leading to an inescapable conclusion of the guilt of the accused.

13. As stated earlier, the prosecution mainly relied upon four circumstances to connect A.1 with the crime. 1) Motive; 2) Last seen; 3) Conduct of A.1 after the incident and 4) Recovery of articles belonging to deceased from A.1.

14. Insofar as extra judicial confession is concerned, rejection of the same is discussed in paragraph No.27 of the trial Court judgment. Insofar as the articles belonging to deceased are concerned, the same were from A.2. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the same on the ground that test identification parade of the property was in terms of Rule 35 of Criminal Rules of Practice. If these two circumstances are excluded, the other three circumstances, which are relied upon by the prosecution, proved are motive, A.1 being last seen in the company of the deceased and conduct of A.1 after the incident.

15. Before dealing with the same, it is to be noted that as per the report of the post-mortem doctor, which is placed on record as Ex.P.7, the death was due to asphyxia due to elevation of larynx and zonguo closing the airway at pharyngeal level due to pressure over the front of the neck. Hence, the evidence of PW.9 coupled with the evidence of PW.13 establish beyond reasonable doubt that due to pressure over the front of the neck, the death has occurred.

16. Insofar as the motive is concerned, PW.1, who is the mother of the deceased, in her evidence categorically deposed about deceased informing her that her husband is not liking her as she is black in complexion and also suspecting her character. The said fact was informed to PW.1 by the deceased on two or three times. It would be appropriate to extract the same, which is as under:

“While my daughter was with us informed that her husband stating that he has no liking towards her as she is black in complexion and also suspecting her character. She informed me the same in two or three times.”

17. PW.1 was cross-examined at length but no incriminating material has been elicited to discard the same.

18. Coming to the second aspect of the matter being the accused last seen in the company of the deceased, it is in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that A.1 work during day time and used to come home during night time and leave the house in the early hours. Though they advised A.1 to stay in their house during day time also, he informed them that as he is doing finance business, he has no time to stay in their house during day time. On the fateful day i.e., 30.09.2009, A.1 came to home at 10:00 P.M and stayed during that night. On the next day morning, while having breakfast he informed that he has some work at Kakinada and intend to take the deceased to Kakinada for a movie. But, however, the deceased refused to go to Kakinada due to Atla Tadiya function in next five days. However, A.1 informed that he will return for lunch and take the deceased to Kakinada at 3:00 P.M. and accordingly, he came at 2:00 P.M, stayed till 3:00 P.M. and then took the deceased to Kakinada on his motorcycle. At that time, the deceased was wearing with 3 sovereigns of gold black beed chain, gold chain weigh about 2 sovereigns of gold, another chain of one tula gold, two gold rings, pair of gold ear hanging and one pair of silver anklets.

19. PW.2 corroborates the evidence of PW.1 in all respects with regard to A.1 coming to their house during night time and then taking the deceased to Kakinada on 01.10.2009 at about 3:30 P.M. on his motorcycle. Similar such version is also found in the evidence of PW.5.

20. Though A.1 and deceased left the house at about 3:00 P.M., they did not return immediately. They did not return till late in the night as such PW.2 was sent to enquire about the deceased. Accordingly, at about 3:00 A.M, in the early hours of the following day, when he enquired the mother of A.1 about A.1 and deceased, she stated that they might have gone to relatives’ house at Kakinada. On that PW.2 returned to village and stopped at their village centre. By then it was 4:00 A.M. At that point of time, A.1 came towards PW.2 on motorcycle with an injury on his forehead. Then PW.2 asked him regarding the deceased to which he informed that on the way back from Kakinada, some unknown persons beat him on that he fell unconscious and then the deceased ran away. Believing the version of A.1, PW.2 sent his brother-in-law to a hospital where they got him treated. But, however, PW.1 and other family members had a suspicion against A.1 because of information furnished by the deceased to them about his attitude towards the deceased and accordingly set the law into motion by lodging the report.

21. This circumstance is relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor to show that since the conduct of A.1 is abnormal, a conviction can be based on this circumstance coupled with A.1 being last seen with the company of the deceased.

22. The evidence on record establish that on 30.09.2009 at 3:30 P.M, A.1 and deceased left the house and on next day at about 4:00 or 4:30 A.M. A.1 alone returned on his motorcycle and met PW.2 at the village centre. An explanation was given by A.1 saying that while he was returning from Kakinada, some unknown persons beat him as a result of which he became unconscious and thereafter, his wife ran away. It is no doubt true that there was a bleeding injury on his forehead. But there is no evidence on record to show that the said injury would make him unconscious. On the other hand, the evidence of the doctor, who examined A.1, would show that it was a lacerated injury on forehead measuring 5 x 2 cm. and simple in nature. It was not even suggested to the doctor that because of said injury A.1 would become unconscious. Being a simple injury, we feel that A.1 would not have become unconscious as projected by him in the explanation given later. Apart from that, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and even the statement made by A.1 before the witnesses on that night show that incident took place at about 10:00 P.M. If that is so, it is strange to notice that A.1 neither lodged any report before the police nor did he inform the family members of the deceased or A.1 after the incident. It is not the case of A.1 that he was unconscious all through, even accepting that he became unconscious for some time, the normal human conduct would be to inform his in-laws or family members of deceased about the incident in question. On the other hand, he kept quite without informing anybody and when he was met PW.2 on the early hours of the following day, at the village centre, he came up with an explanation. The theory of the deceased running away after he fell down unconscious also appears to be doubtful as he could not have seen what happened to the deceased, as to whether she ran away or whether she was on the spot after he fell down unconscious. The conduct of accused clinches the issue of his involvement in the commission of the offence.

23. Though at first blush, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that these two circumstances, namely, last seen and the conduct of A.1 after the incident are insufficient to base a conviction appeared to be impressive but a perusal of the evidence on record, more particularly, medical certificate and the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 5, who is the husband of PW.1 and the circumstances, which are relied upon by the prosecution proved it to be otherwise. Hence, the circumstances established by prosecution namely motive, last seen together, conduct of the accused after the alleged incident coupled with the explanation given by A.1, which is false, we feel that the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court requires no interference.

24. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

25. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.