Prosecution Must Explain Injuries Found On Deceased, Fanciful Thinking Not Basis To Arrive At Conclusions In Criminal Case: Telangana High Court

The observation came from Justice K. Surender who noted that when the eye-witnesses had last seen the deceased alone at her house, whereafter she was found dead, and their statements were not controverted, it was unwarranted to convict the deceased's husband for culpable homicide.

It reiterated that in all the cases of circumstantial evidence, when the prosecution fails to prove the complete chain of events, the accused would be entitled to acquittal.

In the instant case, the deceased was found sitting position by the side of an almirah in her house, with a saree tied around her neck. Witnesses PW4 and PW5 testified that on the fateful day while they were playing outside, the deceased closed the doors and at that time, no other person except deceased was present in the house.

The appellant-husband had preferred the instant appeal aggrieved by order of conviction under Section 304 Part-II of IPC passed by Additional Sessions Judge.

It was prosecution's case that the deceased asked the appellant to take her to hospital as she was not well. However, the appellant and Accused no. 2 and 3 refused to take her to the hospital. For the said reason, the deceased got frustrated and closed doors of her quarter from inside, followed by her demise.

The prosecution had attempted to show guilt of the appellant by arguing that the appellant had informed the poultry farm owner, where the appellant and deceased used to work, that "deceased would not come". It had also pointed out that deceased had head injuries, attributable to a blood stained stone at the scene of offence.

The High Court observed that any injuries found on the deceased have to be explained by the prosecution and in absence of such explanation, the appellant cannot be suspected or asked to explain in the background of the evidence of PW4 and PW5. It further observed that view taken by the Sessions Judge that the accused might have injured the deceased in between 7.00 a.m to 8.30 a.m that she was slowly died at 10.00 a.m is totally erroneous.

It observed,

"Assumptions, presumptions and fanciful thinking cannot be made basis to arrive at conclusions in a criminal case. Prosecution witnesses P.Ws.4 and 5 have stated that when they were playing in front of the house of the deceased, the deceased was washing cloths and subsequently by 10.00 a.m, went inside and closed doors. Further, there was no one in the house except the deceased. It is not in dispute that door was forced open to get the deceased out and she was laid in the verandah."

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction was set aside.

Case Title: Ganta Narender v. The State of Andhra Pradesh