Parasa Koteswararao v. Eede Sree Hari & Ors.
Background
In a gruesome 2000 murder case where the victim's severed head was found in a canal, the Sessions Court convicted two accused (said to be brothers) of murder based on five circumstances: motive, the "last seen" theory, recovery of the body, their absconding after the incident, and false information given to the victim's father. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, on appeal, found the chain of circumstantial evidence incomplete and acquitted both accused. The complainant (the appellant here) then approached the Supreme Court by special leave against that acquittal.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that, in an appeal against acquittal, it could not say the High Court's view was impossible or perverse. Examining each circumstance, the Court found the alleged motive unproved because the key witness on motive had turned hostile; the "last seen" evidence was mere hearsay since the witness relied upon had not personally seen the accused with the deceased but was only told so by another witness; and the extra-judicial confessions were weak evidence, given at a police station by witnesses the Court viewed as unreliable "stock witnesses." The forensic report also showed no blood on the recovered items, undermining the recovery evidence. Since the circumstances did not form a complete, unbroken chain pointing conclusively to guilt, the Court upheld the acquittal and dismissed the appeal.
Lesson Learnt
In criminal cases based purely on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain of circumstances, motive, last-seen evidence, recovery, and conduct, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and fit together without gaps; courts will not convict, or reverse an acquittal, on suspicion or incomplete hearsay evidence alone.