In the case of Ganta Narender v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.1362 OF 2008) decided through the learned bench led by K.Surender, the Telangana High Court overturned a conviction in which the person was charged under sec 304 of IPC while observing that any assumptions or presumptions or any fanciful thinking cannot be made basis to arrive at conclusions in a criminal case. It was unfair on the part of the court to convict the husband of the deceased of culpable homicide when the eyewitness has last seen the deceased alone at her home right after which she was found to be dead and none of the statements were controverted and therefore it was unwarranted to convict the deceased’s husband of a criminal offense. Hence 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.
Facts of the case: It was stated that the PW4 and PW5 found the body of the deceased in a sitting position by the side of Almira in her house where a saree was tied around her neck, both the witnesses testified that they saw the deceased closing the doors right before her death and claimed that she was alone in the hose at that time. The prosecution case stated that the deceased who is the wife of the appellant asked him to take her to hospital as she was not well but the accused refused to do so, for the said reason that the deceased got frustrated and was then last seen closing the doors of her home from the inside.
Judgment: In the trial court the guilt of the appellant was proven by stating how the appellant had informed the owner of the poultry farm before head that the deceased will not be able to come to work, and the counsel also pointed out how there was a head injury sustained by the deceased, and evidence like a bloodstained stone at the scene was used to prove the further guilt of the appellant.
The high court looking at all the evidence, found that any injuries on the deceased have to be explained by the prosecution and in lack of such explanation the appellant cannot be held liable or asked to explain his background evidence, 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. and that she slowly died at 10.00 a.m. is totally erroneous.
The court rightly stated that “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 clothes 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.” Therefore, keeping all this in consideration the court set aside the conviction.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime Legal falls into the category of Best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY MANAL NASEEM