RAMREDDY RAJESHKHANNA REDDY AND ANR. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 348 · Decided: 24-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAMREDDY RAJESHKHANNA REDDY AND ANR. 
v. 
ST ATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
MARCH 24, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Criminal Trial: 
Circumstantial evidence-Conviction based upon-Held, the prosecution 
C must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and 
clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain 
of events as wpuld permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the 
accused. 
D 
Appellant No. I along with one Shaik Abdul Rahman, accused No. 
3 was prosecuted for committing murder of one Mohammad Rafiq Khan 
and, on trial, was convicted for commission of an offence under Section 
302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Appellant 
No. 2 was convicted under Section 302 IPC. The trial court, relying on 
the evidence of eye witness and whose statement before the police was 
E recorded three days after the incident, in its judgment held him to be a 
reliable witness and passed a judgment of conviction. The High Court did 
not agree with the said views of the Sessions Judge, however, it upheld 
the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge 
holding that the Appellants quarrelled with the deceased and thus, motive 
F is proved. 
It was contended by the appellant that having regard to the 
discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, it cannot be said that guilt 
of the accused has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. It was also 
contended that recovery of the knife purported to be on the basis of the 
G confession made by the Appellant No. 2 could not have led to conviction 
of the other Appellants; and a part of the motive, i.e. dispute as regard a 
woman having been disbelieved even by the trial court, as she, despite 
having been cited as a witness in the charge sheet, was not examined, the 
link in the chain to point to the guilt of the Appellants cannot be said to have 
been established. 
H 
348 
-
RAMREDDY RAJESHKHANNA REDDYv. STA TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
349 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
A 
HELD: I.I. The time of actual offence having regard to the different 
statements made by different witnesses may assume some importance as one 
of the grounds whereupon the High Court has based its judgment of conviction 
is the time of death of the deceased on the, basis of the opinion rendered by 
the Doctor (P. W. 13). For the purpose of time of actual offence, taking into B 
consideration the duration of rigor mortis, it was, therefore, extremely difficult 
to purport the exact time of death of the deceased, more so when no sufficient 
reason was assigned in the port-mortem report. (357-D; 358-D) 
Pattipati Venkaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [19851 4 SCC 80 and C 
Ram Udgar Singh v. State of Bihar, [2004] 10 SCC 443, relied upon. 
State of Punjab v. Daljit Singh and Anr., (2004110 SCC 141, referred 
to. 
Modi's Medical Jurisprudence 22nd Edn. referred to. 
. 2.1. To base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution 
must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and 
clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain 
of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. 
D 
The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well-settled E 
that suspicion, however, grave may be, cannot be a substitute for proof and 
the couryXts shall take utmost caution in finding an accused guilty only on the 
basis of the circumstantial evidence. [358-G; 359-A) 
A nil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, [2003) 9 SCC 67 and Reddy Sampath 
Kumar v. State of A.P., [20051 7 sec 603, referred to. 
F 
3.1. The last-seen theory comes into play where the time gap between 
the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and 
the deceased is found is so small that possibility of any person other than the 
accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. Even in such a G 
case courts should look for some corroboration. [359-D, Cl 
State of U.P. v. Satish, [2005) 3 SCC 114, relied upon. 
Bodh Raj @Bodha and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR (2002) 
SC 3164, referred to. 
H 
350 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
4. I. Motive by itself is not sufficient to prove the guilt. [359-G I 
State of MP. through CBI and Ors. v. Pa/tan Mal/ah and Ors., [2005] 3 
sec 169, referred to. 
4.2. The solitary witness, to prove the alleged motive, was examined by 
B the police after two days. No reliance,

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