{"id":62149,"date":"2005-12-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-12-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaprasanna-vs-inspector-of-police-on-23-december-2005"},"modified":"2018-06-09T00:00:31","modified_gmt":"2018-06-08T18:30:31","slug":"balaprasanna-vs-inspector-of-police-on-23-december-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaprasanna-vs-inspector-of-police-on-23-december-2005","title":{"rendered":"Balaprasanna vs Inspector Of Police on 23 December, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Balaprasanna vs Inspector Of Police on 23 December, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 23\/12\/2005\n\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AR. RAMALINGAM\n\n\nCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.202 OF 2005\n\n\nBalaprasanna\nSo. Sivakumar\t\t...\t\tAppellant\n\n\nVs.\n\n\nInspector of Police,\nAnna Nagar Police Station (B-16)\nMadurai District.\nCrime No.211 of 2003\t...\t\tRespondent\n\n\n\n\tAppeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated\n7.4.2005 in S.C.No.147 of 2004, on the file of Principal District Judge,\nMadurai.\n\n\n!For Appellant \t\t...\tMr.A. Padmanabhan\n\n\n^For Respondent\t\t...\tMr.K. Chellapandian\n\t\t\t\tAddl. Public Prosecutor\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\t\tThe appellant has been convicted under Section  302 IPC and
\nsentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000\/- in
\ndefault to undergo R.I. for one year.  He was also convicted under Section 392
\nr\/w.397 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of
\nRs.10,000\/- in default to undergo R.I. for  one year.  Both the sentences have
\nbeen ordered to run consecutively.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2. The prosecution case is as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\tThe deceased is one Mayurani, a Srilankan student, who was residing in the
\nfirst floor of the house belonging to one Solaimalai (P.W.1).  The accused is
\nalso a Srilankan student studying in a different college, but staying in the
\nsecond floor of the same premises.  The occurrence allegedly took place in the
\nafternoon of 22.4.2003.  The First Information Report was lodged by P.W.1 on
\n24.4.2003 at about 9.30 AM.  It was indicated in the First Information Report
\nthat on 24.4.2003 at 9.00 A.M., while the informant had gone to perform pooja in
\nthe first floor of the house, he smelt foul odour in the last room of the first
\nfloor and found blood seeping through the front door.  On opening the window he
\nnoticed that Mayurani was lying in a pool of blood with her face covered with a
\nbag.  On the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R., investigation was taken up initially
\nby P.W.40. Subsequently on the basis of the order of the High Court, such
\ninvestigation was completed by P.W.42.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2.1 The accused is stated to have been arrested on suspicion on
\n26.4.2003.  On the basis of the statement of the accused, prosecution discovered
\nmany materials including a knife and a log allegedly used for killing.
\nInitially P.W.40 suspected the role of P.W.1, his wife P.W.2, P.W.3, from whose
\nhouse certain incriminating materials were recovered allegedly on the basis of
\nstatement of the accused as well as P.W.4, who was working as a cleaner in the
\nvehicle of P.W.1.  Subsequently, however, P.W.42, who took over investigation
\nfrom P.W.40 filed charge-sheet only against the present appellant on the footing
\nthat P.Ws.1 to 4 had no role to play in the crime.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3. The prosecution relied upon only circumstantial evidence, namely,
\nconfessional statements of the accused leading to recovery of various
\nincriminating materials.  Ex.P-6 is the statement leading to recovery of Travel
\nbags (M.Os.2 & 3), knife (M.O.5), wooden log (M.O.28), rubber gloves (M.O.29
\nseries) cotton rope with human hair (M.O.30 series), two sponges soaked with
\nblood (M.O.31 series), bloodstained blue colour jean pant (M.O.32), bloodstained
\nwhite banian (M.O.33), colour banian  (M.O.34), bloodstained grey colour pant
\n(M.O.35),<\/p>\n
bloodstained pillow (M.O.36), plastic bucket, (M.O.37) from the house of P.W.3.
\nEx.P-8 is the statement leading to recovery of computer and its accessories
\n(M.Os.6 to 17) from the house of P.W.15, a classmate of the accused.  Ex.P-10 is
\nthe statement relating to jewelleries, ultimately leading to recovery of gold
\ningots (M.O.18 series) from the house of P.W.19 on the basis of other connecting
\nstatements of P.W.17 and P.W.18.  These three statements, Exs.P.6, P-8 and P-10
\ndated 26.4.2003, were made before P.W.40 in the presence of P.W.22 and C.W.1.
\nThe other confessional statement Ex.P-12 dated 22.9.20003 made before P.W.42 and
\nSubbiah and P.W.24, led to recovery of “M” dollar (M.O.38) and key with key
\nchain (M.O.39) from the toilet in the room of the accused.  The prosecution has
\nalso relied upon the alleged motive to the effect that the accused urgently
\nwanted money with a view to increase his marks in mathematics and, therefore,
\nthe accused had stolen articles belonging to the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t4. The trial court has relied upon the following circumstances to
\nhold that the appellant is guilty of the offences under Sections.302, 392
\nr\/w.397 IPC. :\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) The death is homicidal.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) The accused was in need of money to chase mathematics paper and for
\nthe aforesaid purpose he has killed the deceased to take away the valuable
\narticles like computer and gold ornaments to sell such articles in the market.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) At the time of occurrence, only the accused, deceased and P.W.9 were
\navailable in the premises and there was no other person.\n<\/p>\n
\t(d) Statement of the accused leading to recovery of incriminating
\nmaterials such as knife, rope, clothes, wooden log and other valuable articles
\nsuch as computer, gold ornaments, “M” Dollar and the key chain with key
\nbelonging to the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t5. So far as homicidal nature of death is concerned, the evidence of
\nthe Doctor P.W.41 along with the post mortem report makes it clear that the
\ndeath was homicidal and not suicidal or accidental.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t6. Coming to the question of motive, the prosecution has relied upon
\nthe evidence of P.W.15, P.W.16 and P.W.17 to the effect that the accused wanted
\nto join engineering or medical course and since he had not fared well in
\nMathematics paper of +2, he wanted to boost the mathematics marks through
\nbribery and for the aforesaid purpose he was in need of money.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t6.1. Law is well settled that when there is direct evidence relating
\nto culpability of an accused in a murder case, the motive is immaterial.  But,
\nin a case depending upon the circumstantial evidence, proof of strong motive is
\nconsidered as an additional link. In 1994 Supp.(2) SCC 372 (Arjun Mark and
\nothers vs. State of Bihar), while considering the question of motive, it was
\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n
\t“10….. In this connection it may first be pointed out that mere absence
\nof proof of motive for commission of crime cannot be a ground to presume the
\ninnocence of an accused if the involvement of the accused is otherwise
\nestablished.  But it has to be remembered that in incidents in which the only
\nevidence available is circumstantial evidence then in that event the motive does
\nassume importance  if it is established from the evidence on record that the
\naccused had a strong motive and also an opportunity to commit the crime and the
\nestablished circumstances along with the explanation of the accused, if any,
\nexclude the reasonable possibility of anyone else being the perpetrator of the
\ncrime then the chain of evidence may be considered to show that within all human
\nprobability the must have been committed by the accused.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t7. In the present case, the prosecution witnesses have stated that
\nthe accused wanted to pursue medical or engineering course.  If the accused
\nactually wanted to pursue medical examination and he had fared poorly in
\nmathematics, there won’t be any necessity to the accused for thinking of chasing
\nmarks in mathematics.  However, high marks in mathematics would be helpful in
\npursuing engineering course.  Even though the prosecution states that the
\naccused had not fared well in mathematics, no efforts were made by the
\nprosecution to find out the actual marks secured by the accused.  Even the
\nevidence relating to lack of financial background of the accused does not appear
\nto be strong enough.  Even the prosecution witnesses have admitted that the
\naccused was spending money liberally on many occasions and it cannot be said
\nthat the accused was in a very dire strait financially.  The so called motive
\nsought to be established by the prosecution does not appear to have been proved
\nthrough cogent evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t8. Another circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is to the
\neffect that at the time when the occurrence had taken place, except the accused,
\nthe deceased and P.W.9, there was none-else in the house.  For the aforesaid
\npurpose, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of the Doctor and the post
\nmortem report to the effect that there was partly digested food articles in the
\nstomach.  The prosecution has also relied upon the statement of P.W.32 to the
\neffect that the deceased had taken meal in the college mess at about  1.30 P.M.
\nand the evidence of P.W.9, the maidservant of P.W.1 to the effect that the
\ndeceased had returned to her room at 2.00 P.M.  It is the further evidence of
\nP.W.9 that at 3.00 P.M. she had heard a sound in the upstairs and at about 3.30
\nP.M. the accused came down with some articles in a gunny bag and the computer
\nand the accessories. Even though P.W.9 states about the presence of the deceased
\nand also the accused, her evidence does not exclude the possibility of any other
\nperson entering inside the house.  Even the alleged time of assault or death is
\nonly based on opinion of the doctor P.W.41.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t9. The main circumstance relied upon by the prosecution relates to
\nthe statements of the accused leading to discovery of material facts, admissible
\nunder Section 27 of the Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t10. Law is well settled that the prosecution while relying upon the
\nconfessional statement leading to discovery of articles under Section 27 of the
\nEvidence Act, has to prove through cogent evidence that the statement has been
\nmade voluntarily and leads to discovery of the relevant facts.  The scope and
\nambit of Section 27 in the Evidence Act had been stated and restated in several
\ndecisions of the Supreme Court.  However in  almost all such decisions reference
\nis made to the observation of the Privy Council in AIR 1947 PC 67 (Pulukuri
\nKotayya v. Emperor).  It worthwhile to extract such quoted observation.\n<\/p>\n
\t“It is fallacious to treat the ‘fact discovered’ within the section as
\nequivalent to the object produced : the fact discovered embraces the place from
\nwhich the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this and the
\ninformation given must relate distinctly to this fact.  Information as to past
\nuser or the past history, of the object produced is not related to his discovery
\nin the setting in which it is discovered.  Information supplied by a person in
\ncustody that ‘I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house’ does not
\nlead to the discovery of the knife : knives were discovered many years ago.  It
\nleads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the
\ninformant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been  used in the
\ncommission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant.  But if to the
\nstatement the words be added ‘with which stabbed A.’, these words are
\ninadmissible since they do not related to the discovery of the knife in the
\nhouse of the informant. (p.77)”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t11.After approving the aforesaid observation and referring to
\nseveral other Supreme Court decisions, the various requirements of Section 27
\nhave been summed up in AIR 2004 SC 2865 (Anter Singh  v. State of Rajasthan)<\/a> in
\nthe following manner.\n<\/p>\n
\t“16…..(1)The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be
\nrelevant to the issue.  It must be borne in mind that the provision has nothing
\nto do with question of relevancy.  The relevancy of the fact discovered must be
\nestablished according to the prescriptions relating to relevancy of other
\nevidence connecting it with the crime in order to make the fact discovered
\nadmissible.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(2)The fact must have been discovered.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(3) The discovery must have been in consequence of some information
\nreceived from the accused and not by accused’s own act.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(4) The persons giving the information must be accused of any
\noffence.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(5) He must be in the custody of a police officer.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(6) The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received
\nfrom an accused in custody must be deposed to.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(7) Thereupon only that portion of the information which relates
\ndistinctly or strictly to the fact discovered can be proved.  The rest is
\nadmissible.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.As observed in Pulukuri Kottaya’s case (supra) it can seldom happen
\nthat information leading to the discovery of a fact forms the foundation of the
\nprosecution case.  It is one link in the chain of proof and the other links must
\nbe forged in manner allowed by law.  To similar effect was the view expressed in
\nK.Chinnaswami Reddy  vs.  State of Andhra Pradesh and another (1962 SC 1788).”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t12.In AIR 1999 SC 3544 (Rammi alias Rameshwar vs. State of Madhya
\nPradesh), while considering the scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it was
\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n
\t“12.True, such information is admissible in evidence under Section 27 of
\nthe Evidence Act, but admissibility alone would not render the evidence,
\npertaining to the above information, reliable.  While testing the reliability of
\nsuch evidence, the Court has to see whether it was voluntarily stated by the
\naccused.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t13. In the background of the above well settled position of law, it
\nis now necessary to analyze and appreciate the materials relating to recovery of
\nvarious incriminating materials. So far as the recovery of knife, bloodstained
\nclothes, rope, etc., and the recovery of the computer and gold ingots are
\nconcerned, the prosecution had relied upon the evidence of P.W.40, who was
\ninvestigating initially, and the evidence of P.W.22.  C.W.1 is also an witness
\nto the statement.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t14. P.W.40, the Investigating Officer, has been substantially
\ndiscarded by the prosecution itself.  It is the admitted case of the prosecution
\nthat subsequently P.W.40 has been suspended and investigation has been handed
\nover to P.W.42, since according to the prosecution P.W.40 has procured false
\nconfessional statements implicating P.Ws. 1 to 4.  As per such statements, P.W.1
\nis supposed to have been given a key of the room of the deceased, which is
\nstated to have been recovered from the dash board of the car of P.W.1.  On the
\nbasis of such statement, P.Ws.1 to 4 have been arrested.  According to the own
\ncase of the prosecution, such efforts have been made by P.W.40 with a view to
\nimplicate falsely P.Ws.1 to 4 and for the aforesaid purpose a departmental
\nproceeding was also initiated.   When the prosecution itself is doubting the
\nbona fides of P.W.40, it would be very hazardous to rely on the very same
\nP.W.40, so far as the present accused is concerned, in the absence of strong
\nindependent evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t15. P.W.22 and C.W.1 are the two witnesses in whose presence the
\nconfessional statements had been allegedly made by the accused.  Even according
\nto the statement of the subsequent Investigating Officer, P.W.42, several blank
\npapers with the signature of P.W.22 and C.W.1 had been taken by P.W.40 and such
\ndocuments had been used by P.W.40 to create false records to implicate P.Ws.1 to\n<\/p>\n
4.  In such a murky background, where the prosecution is doubting its own
\ninvestigating agency, it would be indeed very hazardous to place any implicit
\nreliance upon other portion of the evidence of P.W.40 regarding  the alleged
\nconfessional statement.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t16. That apart, the materials on record such as the statement of
\nP.W.22 recorded under Section 164 and the statement of C.W.1 raise a reasonable
\ndoubt relating to voluntariness of the alleged confession.  P.W.22, who is a
\nclose relation of the deceased (cousin) has stated that two days after the
\noccurrence  after the information that Bala Prasana was roaming near LIG Colony,
\nAnna Nagar police brought him to the police station and Bala Prasanna was
\narrested at 5.00 P.M. and was taken to the police station and a witness was
\npresent there.  It is further stated that at the time of enquiry, the accused
\nwas beaten up by the police and they have seized a gold ring and Rs.5000\/- cash
\nfrom him.  If this is the statement of P.W.22 recorded under Section 164, a
\nwitness in whose presence the confessional statement leading to discovery of
\narticles from the house of Hajeeali, P.W.3 had been made, it raises serious
\ndoubt regarding the voluntariness of the statement.  In this context, it is also
\nnote worthy to indicate that C.W.1 in his evidence has stated that the accused
\nwas in police station on 24.4.2003 itself.  Similar statement is made by P.W.4.
\nThat apart C.W.1 has stated that no statement has been made in his presence.
\nThe prosecution version to the effect that even some signatures on blank papers
\nhad been taken from P.W.22 and C.W.1 thus assumes great importance.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t17. The alleged statement made by the accused led to discovery of
\nknife, bloodstained clothes, rope, etc.  Unfortunately for the prosecution there
\nis no evidence to show that in fact the wearing apparels containing bloodstains
\nbelonged to the accused, save and except the alleged confessional statement.  No
\nwitness has spoken that those clothes were worn by the accused at any time far
\nless at or about the time of occurrence.  It is also to be kept in view that
\nthose articles were recovered from the house of P.W.3 and at the initial stage
\nof investigation, P.W.3 himself was one of the suspected person and he was
\narrested.  Therefore, the statement of P.W.3 and his mother that those articles
\nwere brought by the accused and left in the upstairs room is to be considered
\nwith a pinch of salt.  Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that in fact the
\nbloodstained clothes and rope had tallied with the blood grouping of the
\ndeceased.  The knife did not contain any bloodstain.   Therefore, these aspect
\nrelating to recovery of articles from the house of P.W.3 and his mother cannot
\nbe considered as a link to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t18. The next recovery relates to recovery of computer and
\naccessories.  Apart from the fact that there is niggling doubt about the so
\ncalled confession, in view of 164 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.22 and the statement
\nof C.W.1, a further doubt is raised regarding such aspect in view of evidence of
\nC.W.1 to the effect that he had seen such computer in the room of the deceased
\nwhen they had gone to the room after the offence was reported.  The fact that
\nC.W.1 is a close relation of the deceased adds weight to his evidence rather
\nthan taking it away.  Even accepting that the computer had been given to  P.W.15
\nby the accused, such circumstance by itself does not unerringly points towards
\nthe guilt of the accused either in respect of offence of murder or even robbery.
\nIt is quite possible that such articles might have been borrowed by the accused
\nfrom the deceased and not necessarily stolen by the accused from the deceased
\nafter killing her.  The fact that P.W.9 had not initially stated anything before
\nP.sW.40 about the accused coming down with computer at 3.30 P.M.  and stated so
\nfor the first time when she was re-examined after 5 months cannot be lost sight
\nof.  As a matter of fact, P.W.9 who was examined on the very date when police
\nstarted investigation did not inform the police that she had seen the accused
\ncoming down from upstairs or that the accused had threatened her.  Her statement
\nto the following :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“I did not tell anyone that Balaprasanna took away the computer and
\nthreatened me.  I did not tell this even to the Inspector of Police after going
\nto the police station.  I do not tell this even to P.W.1. …”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t19.The next recovery relates to the ingots.  For the aforesaid
\naspect, the evidence of P.Ws.17, 18 and 19 is relevant.  Since the golden
\njewellery had been molten and were recovered in the shape of ingots, it would be
\nvery hazardous to come to the conclusion that in fact the golden jewellery
\nbelonged to the deceased.  If the accused had killed the deceased and stolen
\nthose golden jewellery, there is no reason as to why he had also not taken ear
\nrings from the deceased.  The fact that ear rings were on the dead body is
\nadmitted by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t20. The prosecution has strongly relied upon the fact that “M”
\nDollar belonging to the deceased and a chain with key of the room of the
\ndeceased were discovered from inside the toilet in the room which was previously
\noccupied by the accused.  For the aforesaid purpose, they have relied upon the
\nevidence of P.W.42 and the seizure witness P.W.24.  The accused had allegedly
\nmade earlier confessional statement before P.W.40 on 26.4.2003 leading to
\ndiscovery of several articles.  The subsequent statement spoken to by P.W.42,
\nthe subsequent investigating officer, is alleged to have been made only in
\nSeptember, 2003, after about five months.  So far as the first confession
\nstatement made before P.W.40 is concerned, admittedly the accused was under
\nphysical custody, at that time, whereas at the time  of last confession stated
\nto have been made before P.W.42, the accused was on bail and he had been
\nsummoned by P.W.42 for further examination and, therefore, technically in
\ncustody.  If the accused had not made such a statement at such first instance,
\nwhen he had confessed about other articles, it is not understood as to how after
\n5 months when he was on bail he would make such a statement.  Such alleged
\nconfession made belatedly thus creates doubt regarding its authenticity or
\nvoluntariness.  In this context, it is to be noted that C.W.1 states that “M”
\nDollar was taken from him by P.W.42 for the purpose of facilitating
\ninvestigation.  Keeping in view the fact that C.W.1 is a close relation of the
\ndeceased and obviously interested in punishing the real culprit, such a
\nstatement coming from C.W.1 cannot be slightly brushed aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t21. The fact that there had been a statement allegedly made by P.W.1
\nleading to recovery of a parallel key from the dash board of the car of P.W.1,
\ncannot be lost sight of.  It is of course true that the prosecution has tried to
\nexonerate P.W.1 by adducing evidence through P.Ws.36 and 39 to the effect that
\nimmediately after recovery of the dead body, P.W.40 had taken two such keys,
\nthus contradicting the alleged confession of P.W.1. However, the very suspicious
\nrole of P.W.40, who apparently was in possession of at least two keys of the
\nsame lock creates suspicion regarding recovery of another key after 5 months.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t23. Law is well settled that when the prosecution relies upon
\ncircumstantial evidence, all the links in the chain of circumstances must be
\ncomplete and should be proved through cogent evidence. In Dhananjoy Chatterjee
\nv. State of W.B.<\/a> (1994)2 SCC 220, while considering the nature of proof required
\nin a case based on circumstantial evidence, it was observed:
\n\t“….the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
\nhave not only to be fully established but also that all the circumstances so
\nestablished should be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with the
\nhypothesis of the guilt of the accused.  Those circumstances should not be
\ncapable of being explained by any other hypothesis except the guilt of the
\naccused and the chain of the evidence must be so complete as not to leave any
\nreasonable ground for the belief consistent with the innocence of the accused.
\nIt needs no reminder that legally established circumstances and not merely
\nindignation of the court can form the basis of conviction and the more serious
\nthe crime, the greater should be the care taken to scrutinise the evidence lest
\nsuspicion takes the place of proof.”\n<\/p>\n
This observation was followed by the Supreme Court in the decision in (2002) 1
\nSCC 702 (Subhash Chand  v. State of Rajasthan).  In<\/a> this decision, while
\nconcluding, the Court observed :\n<\/p>\n
\t“24.Thus, none of the pieces of evidence relied on as incriminating, by
\nthe trial court and the High Court, can be treated as incriminating pieces of
\ncircumstantial evidence against the accused.  Though the offence is gruesome and
\nrevolts the human conscience but an accused can be convicted only on legal
\nevidence and if only a chain of circumstantial evidence has been so forged as to
\nrule out the possibility of any other reasonable hypothesis excepting the guilt
\nof the accused.  In Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit case (191) 2 SCC 35) this Court
\ncautioned–“human nature is too willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to spin
\nstories out of strong suspicions” (SCC p.44, para 33).  This Court has held time
\nand again that between may be true and must be true there is a long distance to
\ntravel which must be covered by clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence by the
\nprosecution before an accused is condemned a convict.”\n<\/p>\n
In AIR 2003 SC 2846 (Golagonda Venkateswara Rao v. State of A.P.) it was
\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n
\t“6.By now it is well settled principle of law that incases where the
\nevidence is purely circumstantial in nature, the facts the circumstances from
\nwhich the conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn must be fully established
\nbeyond any reasonable doubt and such circumstances must be consistent and
\nunerringly point to the guilt of the accused and the chain of circumstances must
\nbe established by the prosecution.”\n<\/p>\n
In AIR 1987 SC 1507 (Kansa Behers  vs. State of Orissa)<\/a> it was observed;\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“12…. It is a settled rule of circumstantial evidence that each of
\nthe circumstances have to be established beyond doubt and all the circumstances
\nmust lead to the only one inference and that is of the guilt of the accused.
\n…”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t23.In the present case, some of the links are either non-existent or
\nvery weak or even consistent with the innocence of the accused.  The fact that a
\nheinous and a high profile offence has been committed does not mean that an
\norder of conviction has to be passed irrespective of the innate strength in the
\nprosecution case.  On the other hand, the fact that such a sensational murder
\nhas been committed would require the court to be more careful to weigh the
\nvarious circumstances and obviously the benefit of any reasonable doubt would go
\nto the accused rather than the benefit of every suspicion going in the
\nprosecution way.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t24. In course of hearing, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has
\nsubmitted that several witnesses like P.Ws.15, 16, 17, etc. had no axe to grind
\nagainst the accused and therefore their statement was entitled to great weight.
\nIn this context, we are only reminded by the observation made by the Supreme
\nCourt in 1981 SCC (Crl) 315 (SHANKARLAL GYARASILAL DIXIT v. STATE OF
\nMAHARASHTRA)<\/a> as to why so many would conspire to involve him falsely.  In the
\nwords of the Supreme Court,<\/p>\n
\t “The answer to such question is not always easy to give in criminal
\ncases.  Different motives operate in the minds of different persons in the
\nmaking of unfounded accusation.  Besides, human nature is too willing when faced
\nwith brutal crimes to spin stories out of strong suspicions.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t25. One can only add to such sentiment by observing that in the
\npresent case the prosecution itself has made, according to the subsequent
\ninvestigating officer, efforts to implicate many innocent persons like  P.Ws.1
\nto 4.  What guarantee can be there for the very same investigating officer not
\nhaving falsely implicated the accused in the present case.  The court is always
\nhelpless to solve such a conundrum presented before it.  Since serious and
\nreasonable doubts have been raised about the matter in which investigation has
\nbeen proceeded at different stages, it would be indeed very difficult, nay,
\nhazardous to upheld the conviction notwithstanding the seriousness of the crime.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t26. The appeal is accordingly allowed  and the conviction and
\nsentence imposed on the appellant\/accused by the trial Court in Sessions Case
\nNo.147\/2004, dated 07.04.2005, is set aside and the accused is acquitted of all
\nthe charges levelled  against him.    The appellant is directed to be released
\nforthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. The
\ndirection of the trial court regarding disposal of various Material Objects, as
\ncontained in the first page of the judgment is confirmed.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Balaprasanna vs Inspector Of Police on 23 December, 2005 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23\/12\/2005 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AR. RAMALINGAM CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.202 OF 2005 Balaprasanna So. Sivakumar … Appellant Vs. Inspector of Police, Anna Nagar Police Station […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-62149","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBalaprasanna vs Inspector Of Police on 23 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaprasanna-vs-inspector-of-police-on-23-december-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Balaprasanna vs Inspector Of Police on 23 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaprasanna-vs-inspector-of-police-on-23-december-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-08T18:30:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaprasanna-vs-inspector-of-police-on-23-december-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaprasanna-vs-inspector-of-police-on-23-december-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Balaprasanna vs Inspector Of Police on 23 December, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-08T18:30:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaprasanna-vs-inspector-of-police-on-23-december-2005\"},\"wordCount\":4628,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaprasanna-vs-inspector-of-police-on-23-december-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaprasanna-vs-inspector-of-police-on-23-december-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaprasanna-vs-inspector-of-police-on-23-december-2005\",\"name\":\"Balaprasanna vs Inspector Of Police on 23 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-08T18:30:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaprasanna-vs-inspector-of-police-on-23-december-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaprasanna-vs-inspector-of-police-on-23-december-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaprasanna-vs-inspector-of-police-on-23-december-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Balaprasanna vs Inspector Of Police on 23 December, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Balaprasanna vs Inspector Of Police on 23 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaprasanna-vs-inspector-of-police-on-23-december-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Balaprasanna vs Inspector Of Police on 23 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaprasanna-vs-inspector-of-police-on-23-december-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-08T18:30:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaprasanna-vs-inspector-of-police-on-23-december-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaprasanna-vs-inspector-of-police-on-23-december-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Balaprasanna vs Inspector Of Police on 23 December, 2005","datePublished":"2005-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-08T18:30:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaprasanna-vs-inspector-of-police-on-23-december-2005"},"wordCount":4628,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaprasanna-vs-inspector-of-police-on-23-december-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaprasanna-vs-inspector-of-police-on-23-december-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaprasanna-vs-inspector-of-police-on-23-december-2005","name":"Balaprasanna vs Inspector Of Police on 23 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-08T18:30:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaprasanna-vs-inspector-of-police-on-23-december-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaprasanna-vs-inspector-of-police-on-23-december-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaprasanna-vs-inspector-of-police-on-23-december-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Balaprasanna vs Inspector Of Police on 23 December, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62149","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=62149"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62149\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62149"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62149"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62149"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}