The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtrat, laid down the principles regarding the acceptance and basi

The State of Telangana, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh. ... Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, Legal Aid Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL lto.1a55 OF 2018 JUDGMENT: (per lton'ble Sri Justice KSurender) 1. The Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.O9.2O17, in S.C.No.373 of 2014, on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, at Suryapet, Nalgonda District. The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3O2 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, and also under Section 379 of IPC and sentenced to I year of imprisonment. The appellant was convicted on two counts for causing the deaths of two persons, D.l and D.2.

2. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent State.

3. P.W. I, who is the VRO, went to the Police on

14.08.2014 and lodged Ex.P. 1/complaint. He narrated that on previous day, i.e., on 13.08.2014 at7:3O p.m., he came to know through the villagers that one Renuka (D.1) and her son Ranjith (D.2) were found dead in their house. The 2 deceased were the wife and son of the appellant' ' Since the deaths were suspicious, the VRO sgught the intervention of the Police to investigate.

4. The Investigating Oflicer/P.W. 18 took up investigation, went to the scene of offence, and conducted the scene of offence panchnama. The bodies were sent to FSL for the purpose of postmortem examination. P.W' l6/ Postmortem Doctor conducted the postmortem of both the bodies and opined that the cause of death of both D'1 and D'2 was due to hypoxia on account of throttling. tnjuries were also found on the neck and hands of D.1. He further opined that the deaths occurred 18 to 36 hours prior to the autopsy'

5. The Police, during the investigation, apprehended the appellant on 20.08.2014, along with M.O.3/Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle. During the investigation, the Investigating Ofhcer found that the appellant had committed the murder of both the deceased and had taken the gold ornaments of D' 1' The appellant pledged the gold ornaments with P.W. 1O, who is the Manger of Muthoot Finance, on 13.08 2014, and took an amount of Rs.58,000 /-. P.W.1O also provided Ex.P.4, the Ioan application, and Ex.P.S/the documents reflecting the // / J ptedge of M.O. 1. by the appellant. The Police also examined P.W.1 1, who is the vendor of M.O.3/Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle. According to P.W. 1, the appellant approached him on

14.O8.2014 around 5 to 6 p.m. for purchase of M.O.3.

6. The Investigating Officer, having collected the evidence about the appellant pledging the gold and also purchasing a motorcycle, found that the appellant had committed the murders of D.1 and D.2 and the theft of M.Os.l and 2. Accordingly, the charge sheet was filed.

7. Learned Sessions Judge examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 18 and marked Exs.Pl to P.22, and as well as M.Os.1 to 3.

8. Learned Sessions Judge recorded the conviction of the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

9. Learnecl counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that there is no evidence to show that the appellant was found in the house on the date of the incident. Although two witnesses, who are the neighbours, were examined, they have not supported the case of the prosecution. In the absence of any evidence to show that the appellant was in the house when the deaths took place, the conviction cannot be solely based on the recovery of M.Os. 1 4 artd 2, which are the jewelry of the deceased, since Rule 35 of Criminal Rules of Practice was not followed for the identification of the gold jewelry.'

10. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings of the learned Sessions Judge.

11. The conviction was recorded on the basis of the following circumstances:

1. The dead bodies of D.1 and D.2 were found ig the house of the aPpeUant on 13.08.2014. The appellant was absconding on the said day.

2. The postmortem was conducted 14.O8.2OI4, and according to P.W. 16/Doctor' deat hs were homicidal. The absconding appellant was arrested by the

3. Police on 20.OA.2Ol4.

4. At the instance of the appellant, M.Os.l and 2/gold jewelry of the deceased were seized from the office of Muthoot Finance of Surypet branch.

5. According to P.W.IO, M.O.l was pledged by executing Exs.P.4 and P.S/loan documents. P.W.1O was identified on the basis of information given by the appellant. '-'?\ --- =-- 5 P.W. 1l is the person who had sold M.O.3, 6. which is a Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle, to the appellant. According to P.W. 11, the appellant gave an amount of Rs.25,OO0/- to him for the purchase of M.O.3. P.W. 11 was also identified based on the information provided by the appellant during the investigation.

12. The defence of the appellant is that both D.l and D.2 committed suicide, as evident from the suggestions made to the witnesses. It is further the defence of the appellant that both D.l and the appellant went to the office of Muthoot Finance of P.W. 1O and pledged the gold ornaments. The suggestions were put to witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the parents of the deceased.

13. It is also the appellant's case that both D.l and D.2 consumed pesticide on account of financial stringency. It is evident from the case of the prosecution and the narration of the witnesses that the appellant absconded for 6 days from the date of the incident. On L4.O8.2O2O, he went to P.W. 10, the Manager of Muthoot Finance, and pledged M.O.1, taking Rs.58,OOOO/-. From there, in the evening, around 5 to 6 p.m., he went to P.W.t4 and purchased a motorcycle. @- *;r4i 6 14 . According to the counsel, the ornaments were not identihed in accordance with Rule 35 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. The said argument 'cannot be accepted. Both M.Os.1 and 3 were seized at the instance of the appellant' As seen from the suggestion made to P.W.2/mother of D'1, the appellant accepted pledging M.O.l with Muthoot Finance' According to the appellant, he had taken the deceased to the oflice. However, P.W.1O stated that it was the appellant who had come to their office and took the amount of Rs.S8,OOO/- by pledging M.O.1.

15. The abscondance of an accused cannot form the sole basis to infer that he had committed an offence. Though in the present cases, both the wife and son of the appellant died, there is no explanation by the appellant as to why he absconded for 6 days before being apprehended. Apart from the circumstance of abscondarrce, the deaths being homicidal, and the appellant taking the jewelry of the deceased and pledging it with Muthoot Finance are all circumstances that unerringly point towards the guilt of the appellant. 1

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtrat, laid down the principles regarding the acceptance and basis for recording a conviction in cases involving circumstantial evidence, which read as under:- '1. the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fulty established.Thecircumstances concerned'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' 2. the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of accused, that is to say, they should not be explained on any other hypothesis except the accused is guilty; established;

3. the circumstances should be of a nature and tendency; conclusive

4. they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, ancl

5. there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave an1, reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused."

17. All the circumstances, which are extracted at paragragh 11, were proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. These circumstances form a complete chain, rvhich clearly indicates that it was the appellant who had committed the ' (1984) 4 scc 116 8 murders of both D.l and D.2. There are no.grounds to interfere with the conviction.

18. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUW REGISTRAR ,' SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet. (with records, if any) 2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet. 3. The Superintendent, District Jail, Nalgonda. 4. The Station House Officer, Athmakur Police Station, Nalgonda District. 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Cou( for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. One CC to Sri P Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate-cum-Legal Aid [OUfl 7. Two CD Copies Kam/gh YY \ (.o '[,.r l_I- 1HE , Lj u 0252 .).:/ c \\ l \1, I 2 J. HIGH COURT DATED:2210412025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.'1455 of 2018 DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL APPEAL \C ..,n(.4 Hr 15