HYDERABAD: Expressing doubts about the police investigation in a murder case, a division bench of the Hyderabad High Court has held that howsoever strong a suspicion might be, it cannot take the place of proof. The prosecution has left too many loose ends to connect the accused-appellant to the crime, disabling the court to hold him guilty of committing murder, it has observed.
The bench of justices CV Nagarjuna Reddy and Justice MSK Jaiswal was dealing with an appeal filed by the accused (A1) challenging the order of the III additional metropolitan sessions judge at Hyderabad, under which he was convicted of an offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.
According to the prosecution, the accused number one (A1) and two (A2) are residents of Ramakrishnapur village in Adilabad district. A3 is the second wife of the deceased and she developed intimacy with A1. The deceased was running a granite business and the accused were working under him. On the day of the murder, the son of the deceased went to his father’s house and stayed there after finishing the dinner. Late in the night he woke up on hearing a loud voice and went inside the room where the deceased and his second wife (A3) were sleeping. At that time, the woman was shouting and her hands were tied to her back. The son untied her hands and found his father on the floor with bleeding injuries and called the police. Later, the police recorded the statement of the woman and registered the case. She was sent to hospital as she received injuries.
The body of the dead man was sent for post-mortem examination and the police found some articles at the scene of offence and sent them for chemical examination. Police suspected A1 for the murder and arrested him at his sister’s house four days later, basing on the call data of the phones of A1 and A3. A2 and A3 were also arrested and were sent for medical examination. The police examined the accused and also collected their hair strands and the same was forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL for DNA) Test. After completion of the investigation the police filed the charge sheet. As one of the panchadars turned hostile, no evidentiary value could be attached to the seizure panchanama.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the lower court acquitted A2 and A3 of all the charges. However, A1 (appellant) was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Aggrieved, A1 moved the High Court for relief.
After hearing the case and perusing the material on record and case laws, the bench said that the lower court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the illicit intimacy between A1 (appellant) and A3 and also the criminal conspiracy arising out of such intimacy.
The prosecution had failed to examine any person connected with the service provider to prove the authenticity of the call details emanating from the cell phones of A1 and A3. On this premise, the lower court acquitted A2 and A3. As for the appellant, the lower court had mainly relied upon the two FSL reports and found that they proved that the hair strands which were recovered from the two palms of the deceased matched with the blood of the appellant. Accordingly, the lower court held that he was involved in the killing of the deceased, the bench noted.
The bench found that the report of the investigation officer did not throw any light on the involvement of the appellant in the offence.
“In our considered opinion, in the absence of the specific evidence to show that the DNA test was conducted with reference to the hair strands recovered from the palms of the deceased against the blood samples or hair strands of the appellant, it cannot be held that the prosecution was able to prove the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the offence. Further, it is alleged that the appellant was treated by a doctor, but they failed to examine the doctor before the court”, the bench observed.
Allowing the appeal, the bench said, “In our opinion, it is the faulty investigation of the police all through which creates reasonable doubts in the mind of the court about the involvement of the appellant, and based on such investigation and the sketchy evidence, which does not inspire confidence, it is not safe to convict the appellant on strong suspicion. The bench has set aside the order of the lower court and directed that the appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith if he was not required in any other case or crime.