JUDGEMENT SUMMARY:
Janapally Anjilaiah vs The State Of Ap.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
8th February 2022
JUDGES:
S.C. Sharma, J.
A. K. Shavili, J.
PARTIES:
Janapally Anjilaiah (Appellant)
The State of Andhra Pradesh (Respondent)
SUBJECT
In judicial proceedings, proof is made by means of production of oral or documentary evidence. As regards to the nature of evidence, the evidence can be either direct or circumstantial. The High Court of Telangana has reiterated the well-settled law that the Judge, while deciding matters resting on circumstantial evidence, should always tread cautiously so as to not allow conjectures or suspicion to take the place of proof.
AN OVERVIEW
- FIR was lodged regarding the disappearance of the deceased and subsequently the dead body of the deceased was retrieved which was identified by her son. He had suspected the Appellant behind the murder of his mother and a criminal case was lodged accordingly and a charge sheet was filed.
- A total of 11 witnesses were examined by the Prosecution along with the marking of 12 documents. The conviction had relied only on the testimony of 4 witnesses, among whom none were interested witness except the son of the deceased. For the defence of the Appellant three documents were produced.
- On the basis of the circumstantial evidence provided by the witnesses, the Trial Court had concluded that the appellant had committed the offence. Taking into account the extra-judicial confession of the appellant, the Trial Court had stated that the absence of any explanation from the Appellant regarding the disappearance of the deceased after parting with his company had strengthened the impugned judgement.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Indian Evidence Act 1872:
- Section 103- Outlines burden of proof as to particular fact
- Section 106- Outlines burden of proving fact especially within knowledge
Indian Penal Code 1860:
- Section 201- Penalty for causing of disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender is provided
- Section 302- Offence of murder is punished with death sentence or life imprisonment along with fine.
ISSUES
The following issue arose before High Court of Telangana:
- Whether the accused could be convicted based on circumstantial evidence?
- Whether the accused could be convicted based on the extra- judicial confession?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
1. In Pattu Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, the SC had held that the Judge while deciding matters resting on circumstantial evidence had to tread cautiously so as to not allow conjectures or suspicion take the place of proof regardless of how strong they might be. It was noted that errors might occur in expressing the picturisation of the actual incident by human agency, however, the circumstances would not fail and therefore, should never be ignored. The Court was not required to examine further to affirm the guilt of the accused when the alleged circumstances had already been conclusively proved by leading cogent and reliable evidence.
2. In the Pattu Rajan case, it was recollected that the proof beyond reasonable doubt was required to be adduced in criminal cases. However, such proof was not required to be perfect. A guilty person would not be able to get away perfectly because of the infirmity developed in the truth while the process of being projected by human agency.
3. From the circumstantial evidence, it was deduced that the deceased went out to work as a labourer with the appellant and attended a dinner with him. However, it was not be established that they had left together after dinner. Therefore, the theory of last seen together would not be applicable in the case.
4. Further, there was a substantial gap between the point of time when they were last seen together and when the deceased was found dead. Based upon the findings of Sawal Das v. State of Bihar, it was the duty of the Prosecution to prove beyond doubt the last seen theory to convict the accused.
5. In Chandmal v. State of Rajasthan, 1976 it was underscored that for case to be based upon circumstantial evidence in entirety, the evidences had to satisfy following three tests:
a. The circumstances which were relied on for inferenceof accused’s guilt must be cogently and firmly established.
b. They should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused and be of definite tendency.
c. When taken cumulatively, the complete chain of circumstances would be formed where there would not be any explanation of any reasonable hypothesis saving the accused from guilt.
6. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the SC had laid these golden principles for the standard of proof required in cases which relied on circumstantial evidence:
a. The conclusion of guilt should be fully established from the circumstances.
b. The facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and not any other explainable possibility.
c. It should be conclusive in nature.
d. Any other possible hypothesis except the accused’s guilt must be excluded.
e. The chain of evidence must be complete without leaving any reasonable ground for the conclusion which might be consistent with the innocence of the accused and must concretely suggest the guilt of the accused.
7. The chain of evidence in the present case was not complete. The stick which was recovered at the behest of the accused was not evidently verified to be the one which was used for causing injuries over the body of the deceased resulting in her death.
8. In Periaswami Moopan, 1930 it was held that extra-judicial confession should not be the sole basis of conviction and it would not be relied upon when surrounding circumstances of the case were improbable and created suspicion. Additionally, the Court had referred to extra-judicial confession as weak piece of evidence.
CONCLUSION
The appellant was convicted in the Trial Court based upon the circumstantial evidence and the chain of events which were certainly incomplete and inconclusive. The Court, therefore, opined that the evidence had failed to establish the factum of offence allegedly committed by the accused. The Trial Court’s judgement was set aside and the criminal appeal was allowed. Hence, the appellant was acquitted of the offences for which he was charged.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
