No Direct Evidence Of Murder Needed When Kidnapping, Last Seen & Swift Recovery Of Body Form Complete Chain: AP High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that where the time between the kidnapping of a minor girl and recovery of her dead body was short, the prosecution could not be expected to produce direct evidence of the actual commission of murder. The Court accordingly upheld the conviction and life sentences of two accused, finding that the 'last seen' theory and other circumstances, including...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that where the time between the kidnapping of a minor girl and recovery of her dead body was short, the prosecution could not be expected to produce direct evidence of the actual commission of murder.
The Court accordingly upheld the conviction and life sentences of two accused, finding that the 'last seen' theory and other circumstances, including those attracting Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, established their guilt.
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that when a fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact lies upon that person.
A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice Challa Gunarajan dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the accused and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court.
The Court noted that the accused had offered no explanation for what happened to the deceased after she was last seen in their company. Referring to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the High Court observed:
“Once the prosecution established that the deceased was last seen alive in the exclusive company of both the accused, the burden shifted on them, in terms of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, to explain the circumstances in which they parted company with the deceased or as to what subsequently happened to the kidnapped minor girl.
Thus, the prosecution has established that both the accused kidnapped the deceased, that the deceased was last seen alive in their exclusive company, that both the accused were apprehended by P.W.18 near the scene of offence on 22.12.2014, that the dead body of the deceased and the incriminating material objects were recovered pursuant to their disclosure statements, and that neither of the accused offered any explanation regarding the fate of the deceased, though the relevant facts were especially within their knowledge.”
The case concerned the kidnapping and subsequent death of a minor girl. According to the prosecution, Accused No.1 kidnapped the deceased on a Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle belonging to Accused No.2 and being driven by him. Accused No.1 travelled as the pillion rider, while the deceased was made to sit between the two accused. Despite the deceased's mother raising an alarm, both accused left the spot with the deceased.
The prosecution alleged that the deceased was subsequently taken to a tank, where Accused No.1 caused her death by drowning, after which the dead body and other articles belonging to the deceased were concealed to screen the evidence.
The prosecution attributed a monetary dispute as the motive for the crime, alleging that Accused No.1 owed Rs. 3 lakh to the deceased's father. According to the prosecution witnesses, a demand for repayment had earlier led to an altercation between them, during which Accused No.1 allegedly threatened the deceased's parents with dire consequences.
Following the trial, both accused were charged under Section 364 IPC for kidnapping. Accused No.1 was additionally charged under Section 302 IPC for murder and Section 201 IPC for causing disappearance of evidence, while Accused No.2 faced the same charges with the aid of Section 34 IPC for acts done in furtherance of their common intention.
Before the High Court, Accused No.1 contended that the prosecution had not produced any documentary evidence to establish the alleged debt and that there was no evidence to prove the murder.
Accused No.2, on the other hand, argued that there was no motive for him to kidnap the deceased and that the prosecution had failed to establish his participation in the murder or any common intention with Accused No.1.
The High Court found that the proved circumstances, when considered conjointly, form a complete and unbroken chain leading to the only irresistible conclusion that it was both the accused who committed the offences with which they were charged. The chain of circumstances is wholly consistent with the guilt of the accused and wholly inconsistent with any hypothesis of their innocence.
The prosecution's “last seen theory” was supported by independent witnesses, who had seen the girl travelling between both accused on a motorcycle shortly after the kidnapping.
The Court further found that the dead body was traced pursuant to the disclosure statements made by both accused and that the deceased's belongings and other material objects were recovered at their instance. The Test Identification Parade also established the identity of both accused.
The Bench also held that, in view of the short time between the kidnapping and recovery of the dead body, the prosecution could not be expected to produce direct evidence of the actual murder.
Accordingly, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had proved the guilt of both accused beyond reasonable doubt and found no perversity, illegality or infirmity in the trial Court's judgment.
The Criminal Appeal was therefore dismissed, and the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial Court were confirmed.
Case Title: Tirumanuyam Srinivasulu Reddy @ Srunivasulu & Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 474 of 2018
Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Posani Venkatewarlu & Sri B. Kodandarami Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent: Learned Public Prosecutor.