Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 1124
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4623 OF 2024
THAMMINENI BHASKAR APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
1. The appellant who is Accused No.1(‘A-1’) was convicted
under Sections 302 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (‘IPC’) and was sentenced to life imprisonment and
to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and seven years of rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 201
of the IPC with the direction that both the sentences
shall run concurrently. In the event of default in
payment of the fine, he was directed to undergo further
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
geeta ahuja
Date: 2025.09.17
16:51:49 IST
Reason:
imprisonment of six months.
2. The aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and
1
sentence have been confirmed by the High Court by the
impugned Judgment and order dated 19.06.2024.
3. The prosecution case is that the deceased
Bhoominadhan was an auto driver. The family of the
deceased consisting of his father Rajagopal Vellimalai @
Peddodu-PW-1 and his mother-PW-2 along with elder
brother-PW-3 were living in Chandrababu Nagar,
Nellore. The appellant-A-1 was known to them as he
was also involved in auto business, but was living in
Sramika Nagar, Nellore.
4. It appears that on 22.03.2016, the mother of the
deceased-PW-2 reported to the Nellore Rural Police, that
A-1 along with his friends while sitting near Vinayaka
Temple in Chandrababu Nagar Area was passing
obscene remarks against the females and were
threatening them. On this report, Crime No.108/2016
under Sections 143, 290, 354, 323 and 506 read with
Section 34 of the IPC was registered. In this connection
A-1 also lodged a cross First Information Report (‘FIR’)
which was registered as Crime No.109/2016 under
Sections 341, 323, 379 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
5. A few days thereafter, the father of the deceased/PW-1
lodged an FIR No.118 of 2016 on 27.03.2016 alleging
2
that on 26.03.2016 at about 06:30 p.m. when his son
reached near banyan tree in Talpagiri Colony, Nellore
City, the accused A-1 and his friends forcibly took him
away into their auto and thus, kidnapped him. On the
next day, the dead body of the deceased Bhoominadhan
was found with multiple injuries near Sarvepalli
Reservior of Anikepalli Village in Nellore District. On
receiving the information, PW-1 went there and
identified the dead body of his son. Accordingly, the
alteration memo was filed adding Section 302 of the IPC
in the FIR.
6. The case of the prosecution in short is that when the
deceased Bhoominadhan was proceeding in his auto at
about 06.00 p.m. in the evening of 26.03.2016 and had
reached the banyan tree in the Talpagiri Colony,
Nellore, the accused forcibly dragged the deceased from
his auto into their own auto and kidnapped him, which
in fact was witnessed by PW-5, who further informed
about the incident to PW-1. The father of the deceased
Bhoominadhan, PW-1 searched for his son and
submitted an FIR to the police at about midnight
alleging that his son was abducted by A-1 and his
friends.
3
7. Both PW-5 and PW-6 gave statements to the Police
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that they have seen the
accused persons dragging the deceased Bhoominadhan
into an auto on the evening of 26.03.2016. The
statements of these two witnesses were also recorded
before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,
wherein they stated that when they reached the banyan
tree at Talpagiri colony, they heard cries and when they
turned back, they saw the accused and three other
persons beating the deceased Bhoominadhan
whereupon information of it was given to the PW-1.
8. The testimony of the aforesaid two witnesses PW-5 and
PW-6 was recorded before the Trial Court where they
clearly stated that they only observed some ‘galata’
under the banyan tree in Talpagiri Colony but they
could not identify the persons involved in the ‘galata’.
They nowhere stated that they witnessed the deceased
Bhoominadhan being dragged and put into an auto.
9. The submission of Mr. K.K. Mani, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, is that there is no eye-
witness in the case who might have seen A-1
committing the offence of killing the deceased. The
conviction is entirely based on circumstantial evidence
4
and more particularly on the testimony of PW-5 and
PW-6. The aforesaid two witnesses PW-5 and PW-6 have
turned hostile and they have not proved the kidnapping
of the deceased Bhoominadhan. There is no evidence
that the deceased was last seen with A-1 and therefore,
he is not the person answerable and responsible for
Bhoominadhan’s death.
10. In defence, Ms. Prerna Singh, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-State, submitted that
there was a clear motive on the part of the accused to
commit the offence and that even if PW-5 and PW-6
have turned hostile, it has been proved by
circumstantial evidence that A-1 and his friends are
guilty of committing the offence as they failed to give
any explanation as to what happened to the deceased
after he was taken away by them in the evening of
26.03.2016.
11. Undoubtedly, the defence counsel from the deposition
of PW-7 (IO) has been able to prove the animosity
between the parties on account of the previous report
lodged by the PW-2, mother of the deceased against A-
1. The aforesaid animosity between them may be the
motive behind the crime but it is not sufficient to prove
5
the commission of the crime unless the evidence proves
kidnapping/abduction and killing of the deceased,
either by direct or circumstantial evidence.
12. We have gone through the statements of PW-5 and PW-
6 and are of the clear view that they have not uttered a
single word so as to prove the kidnapping as alleged or
even that the deceased was with them at any point of
time in the evening of 26.03.2016. The only thing
proved from the statements of the aforesaid witnesses is
that there was some ‘galata’ under the banyan tree in
Talpagiri Colony but they were unable to identify the
persons involved in it. They even failed to testify that
any information was given by them to PW-1 regarding
the alleged kidnapping of the deceased Bhoominadhan.
13. In the absence of such evidence and the fact that both
PW-5 and PW-6 have turned hostile, it cannot be held
that A-1 was involved in the incident and that he was
responsible for the killing of the deceased, on the basis
of the last seen theory. There is no evidence to either
prove the kidnapping of the deceased Bhoominadhan or
that he was last seen in the company of A-1.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and
keeping in mind the five golden principles which
6
constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based
on circumstantial evidence, we are of the opinion that
the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the
commission of the offence at the hands of A-1.
15. Accordingly, both the Trial Court and the High Court
erred in convicting the appellant-A-1 on complete
misreading of the evidence. Thus, the impugned
judgments and orders of the High Court and the Trial
Court are hereby set aside and the accused A-1, the
appellant herein, is acquitted of all the charges and is
directed to be released forthwith, if not involved in any
other case.
16. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………………………...J.
[PANKAJ MITHAL]
………………………………………...J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 17, 2025
7