KAMALA MUNIRATNAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 16-7-2001, in Sessions Case No. 98/2000 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, whereby the accused therein were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302, rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 120-B and rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, with a direction to run the sentences concurrently.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are as follows. The deceased Mangamma is the wife of A1. Two or three days prior to 12-6-1999 the deceased informed P.Ws. 1 and 2 that A1 threated to kill her. They promised the deceased that they would enquire with A1. Thereafter, for three days the deceased was not seen. Then P.W. 1 sent P.W. 2 to enquire with the parents of A1. The parents of A1 informed P.W. 2 that the deceased went to her parents' house. P.Ws. 1 and 2 caused enquiry with the parents of the deceased, but it was informed to them that the deceased had not come there. P.W. 1 then lodged a report with Alipiri Police Station on 14-6-1999 at 6 p.m. on the basis of which a case was registered under the head 'woman missing'. As the matter stood thus, on 16-6-1999 at about 9 a.m., A1 went to P.W. 6-Village Administrative Officer of Settipalle village and made a detailed extra-judicial confession with him stating that he and A2 committed the murder of the deceased. P.W. 6 reduced the extra-judicial confession into writing. It was marked as Ex. P7. He handed over A1 and Ex. P7 to Alipiri Police. On the basis of Ex. P7 the section of law was altered. A1 made a confession again before the police also and showed the actual place where he buried the dead body of the deceased. Police got the dead body exhumed. The clothes of the deceased which were buried in a pit were seized at the instance of A1. Some gold ornaments belonging to the deceased were recovered from the mother of A1. After the inquest was over, P.W. 9 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He opined that the deceased died of asphyxia as a result of pressure over the neck and chest. After completion of investigation, P.W. 12 filed the charge-sheet. Charges under Sections 120-B, 302 and 201, IPC were framed against the accused. They denied their guilt. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 12 and marked Exs. P1 to P19, besides M.Os. 1 to 5. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution successfully established the charges. Accordingly the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid by its judgment, dated 16-7-2001, questioning the legality and correctness whereof, the accused filed the present appeal.

(3.) There is no direct evidence. The entire case rests upon circumstantial evidence. The law about circumstantial evidence is well settled. The circumstantial evidence should be such as to point only to the guilt of the accused and the confession should exclude all other hypothesis except that of the guilt of the accused. The Supreme Court in a series of decisions, right from the decision of Hanumanth Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343, till the recent decision in Anthony D'Souza v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 1 SCC 259, has held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following four tests, viz., (1) the circumstantial evidence 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 jurisdiction towards the 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 possibility, the crime was committed by the accused and none else, (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 also be inconsistent with his innocence.