Identity, Homicidal Death Established After Body Exhumed From Tomb, But Circumstantial Chain Incomplete: AP High Court Acquits Four

The Andhra Pradesh High Court while ordering acquittal in a murder case observed that although the identity of the deceased and the homicidal nature of her death stood established after her body was exhumed from a tomb, the prosecution failed to prove the circumstances connecting the accused with the murder beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court accordingly acquitted four accused who had been convicted of kidnapping and murdering a 62-year-old woman.

A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial Court.  It observed:

“P.W.1, the daughter of the deceased deposed that she identified all the belongings of her mother at the time of exhumation viz. Saree, blouse, petticoat, slippers, gold colour dollar having face of Lord Venkateswara, a cut piece of gold colour chain and a pair of sky blue colour chappals in the presence of the Mandal Revenue Officer and the other witnesses etc. Therefore, the identity of the deceased and nature of death of the deceased being homicidal are clear. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge to that extent are fit for concurrence.” 

However, the Bench held that the prosecution failed to establish the remaining links in the chain of circumstances. It held:

“The important links in the chain of circumstances: (1) Access of the accused to the deceased. (2) Accused at least one or some was last seen with the deceased. (3) The confession of the accused leading to the discovery of the corpus of the deceased or the gold jewellery of the deceased. (4) The role or possibility of the accused in the homicidal death of the deceased. (5) The motive for the accused to eliminate the deceased. None of these important links in the chain of circumstances are proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.” 

The case concerned the death of a 62-year-old woman, whose body was subsequently exhumed from a tomb.

The prosecution alleged that the deceased went missing from her house, following which her daughter, P.W.1, lodged a complaint. It was alleged that A4, owing to the deceased's opposition to her relationship with A1, prompted A1 to eliminate her, with A2 and A3 assisting him.

The prosecution alleged that A1 to A3 assaulted the deceased to death, removed her gold ornaments and buried her body. Its case rested mainly on their alleged extra-judicial confession before a witness, pursuant to which the body was exhumed from a tomb and the ornaments recovered.

Aggrieved by their conviction, all four accused approached the High Court.

The High Court first examined the corpus delicti, identity of the deceased and cause of death. It found that the exhumed body was that of the victim and that her death was homicidal. The deceased's daughter had identified the saree, blouse, petticoat, slippers, gold-coloured dollar, cut piece of chain and other articles found with the body. The post-mortem evidence also showed that the cause of death was severe head injury. 

Corpus delicti in a murder case would mean the proof establishing that someone died due to a criminal act. 

However, the Court held that establishing the death and identity of the deceased was not enough to prove the accused's involvement in the murder. 

The Court found the alleged extra-judicial confession made by A1 to A3 before P.W.5 unreliable. It held that the confession could not be relied upon to prove their guilt or connect them with the recovery of the deceased's body and jewellery.

As regards A4, the Court held that her alleged confession, made in the presence of police, could not be relied upon.

"From the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is clear that the confession of the accused being the only source for the recovery of corpus and material objects M.O.Nos.1 to 5 of the deceased and the same is suffering from so many doubts.The specific statements of the accused that they will show the place where they buried the dead body is not forming part of Ex.P6-confession statements. The confession recorded by the investigating officer separately by the accused whether preceded by any summoning of other witness for the said recording of such statement is not stated. The said statement is not proved..."
It is clear from the evidence on record in this case that prosecution is simply relied on the statement recorded by the Investigation Officer without there being any clear material indicating such recording of statement in the presence of such independent witnesses etc"

There was also no evidence that A1 to A3 had handed over the deceased's jewellery to her, and hence its recovery from A4 did not support the prosecution.

On the alleged recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Court reiterated that only that portion of the information given by an accused in police custody which distinctly relates to the fact discovered can be proved. The Court noted that the exact information leading to the discovery must be proved, since the provision is based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. 

The Court also noted that there was substantial delay in lodging the complaint after the deceased went missing. It further found that the prosecution had not established that Accused Nos.1 and 4 were living in the sheds of the deceased or otherwise had access to her at the relevant time. 

Accordingly, the High Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt entitling them to benefit of doubt. 

The appeal was allowed. 

Case Title: Boya Hothuru Alliswamy & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2593 of 2018

Counsel for the Appellants: C. Vasundhara Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor (AP)

Click Here To Read/Download Order