PARASA KOTESWARARAO versus EEDE SREE HARI & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 89 · Decided: 28-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 2 S.C.R. 89 
PARASA KOTESWARARAO 
v. 
EEDE SREE HARI & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 337 of2006) 
FEBRUARY 28, 2017 
[R. F. NARIMAN AND 
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDA~, JJ.] 
Pena/Code, 1860: 
s. 302 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction by 
trial court on the motive, last seen theory, recovery, absconding of 
accused and false information given by accused No. 2 about the 
whereabouts of the deceased - Acquittal by High Court - On 
appeal - Acquittal order upheld on the ground that chain of 
circumstances not complete. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The High Court judgment cannot be characterized 
as perverse. Being an appeal against acquittal, it is difficult to 
say that the view of the High Court is not a possible view. In the 
present case, the motive for the crime has not been sufficiently 
made out. Indeed, the Sessions Court itself disbelieved a number 
of witnesses. PW-1, who alone is relied upon by the Sessions 
Court for last seen theory only states that he has heard PW-3 
telling him about the accused being last seen with the deceased. 
This also would be in the realm of hearsay, and "last seen" also 
cannot be said to be made out. Though recovery may have taken 
place, the extra judicial confessions to PWs 6 and 7, in any case 
being weak evidence, cannot be relied upon in the facts and 
circumstances of the case. It seems that PW-6 was a stock witness 
and the fact that the confession was made at the Police Station 
renders it inadmissible in evidence. PW-7 also cannot be 
believed. The cycle which was stated to have been ridden by the 
accused, by which they carried the dead body, has not been 
recovered. All these factors clearly go to show that ultimately, 
despite recovery, it is very difficult to pin-point recovery to the 
accused having committed the crime. Also the FSL Report has 
89 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
\ 
G 
H 
90 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
\ 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017]2 S.C.R. 
disclosed that no blood was found on any of the recovered 
materials, whereas blood was slated to have been both on the 
knife as well as on mud, grass etc. The mere fact that the two 
accused may have absconded immediately and the fact that false 
information may have been given about the whereabouts of the 
deceased are not enough to complete the chain of circumstances, 
in a case like the present one. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) (92· 
D-H; 93-A-E) 
P Eknath vs. Amaranatha Reddy@ Babu & Anr. 2017 
AIR 1160; Ashok v. State of Maharashtra [2015) 6 SCR 
375 : (2015) 4 SCC 393; Mohibur Rahman and Anr. v. 
State of Assam (2002) 6 SCC 715 - distinguished. 
Case Law Reference 
2017 AIR 1160 
distinguished 
Para6 
(2015) 6 SCR 375 
distinguished 
Para 17 
(2002) 6 sec 715 
distinguished 
Para 18 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Cri.minal Appeal 
No. 337 of2006 
From the Judgment arid Order dated 08.11.2005 of the High Court 
of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in"Criminal Appeal No. 
890of2003. 
· 
D. Bharat Kumar, T. Baskar Gowtham, R. P. Bansal, Abhijit 
Sengupta, Ad vs. for the Appellant. 
' 
Guntur Prabhakar, Ms. Prerna Singh, Tushar G. Rao, Ms. Promila, 
F · Azhagesan, Advs. for the Respondents. 
G 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. F. NARIMAN, J. I. The present case involves a gruesome 
murder. The head was actually decapitated from the body, was put into 
a gunny sack, and thrown into a canal roughly 10 kms. away from the 
place of the murder. All this is supposed to have taken place on 
15.12.2000, and suffice it to say that the Court of S_essions outlined a 
large number of points, all of which can be placed under five heads, 
)lamely, i) the motive for killing the deceased; ii) last seen theory; iii) 
recovery of the dead body in a gunny sack together with clothes and a 
knife; iv) the fact that the two accused persons, who were stated to be 
PARASA KOTESWARARAO v. EEDE SREE HARi & ORS. 
91 
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.] 
brothers, were absconding after the incident and v) the fact that Accused 
A 
No.2 gave false information to PW-I, who is the father of the deceased, 
as to the whereabouts of the deceased. 
2. The Sessions Court, on a combination of the aforesaid five 
factors, ultimately held the two accused guilty of murder and sentenced · 
. them to imprisonment for life. 
B 
3. In appeal to the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at 
Hyderabad, the Division Bench of the High Court found that the case 
being one of circumstantial evidence, the chain is not complete; all that 
rema

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.