Thammineni Bhaskar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4623 OF 2024

THAMMINENI BHASKAR APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

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

Signature Not Verified payment of the fine, he was directed to undergo further 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