The Supreme Court of India has acquitted Thammineni Bhaskar, the accused in a 2016 kidnapping and murder case, setting aside his conviction and life sentence. A Division Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held that the prosecution “miserably failed” to prove the commission of the offence, as the conviction was based entirely on circumstantial evidence that did not meet the required legal standards.
The appellant, Thammineni Bhaskar (Accused No. 1), had challenged the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated June 19, 2024, which had confirmed the trial court’s decision to convict him under Sections 302 (Murder), 364 (Kidnapping), and 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case originated from an incident on March 26, 2016. The deceased, Bhoominadhan, an auto driver, was allegedly kidnapped by the appellant and his friends near a banyan tree in Talpagiri Colony, Nellore. The following day, his dead body, bearing multiple injuries, was discovered near the Sarvepalli Reservoir.
The First Information Report (FIR No. 118 of 2016) was lodged by the deceased’s father, Rajagopal Vellimalai (PW-1), on March 27, 2016. Initially registered for kidnapping, Section 302 of the IPC was added after the discovery of the body.
The judgment noted a history of animosity between the parties. On March 22, 2016, just days before the incident, the deceased’s mother (PW-2) had filed a police report (Crime No. 108/2016) against the appellant and his friends for passing obscene remarks against women. A cross-FIR (Crime No. 109/2016) was also lodged by the appellant in connection with the same event. The prosecution presented this animosity as the motive for the crime.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the appellant, Advocate Mr. K.K. Mani argued that there were no eyewitnesses to the murder and the conviction was founded solely on circumstantial evidence. The core of his argument was that the two key witnesses, PW-5 and PW-6, who allegedly saw the kidnapping, had turned hostile during the trial. He contended that with their testimony discredited, there was no evidence to support the “last seen theory,” which is crucial in cases without direct evidence.
Representing the State of Andhra Pradesh, Advocate Ms. Prerna Singh countered that a clear motive for the crime had been established. She argued that even though PW-5 and PW-6 had turned hostile, the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove guilt, as the accused had failed to provide any explanation for what happened to the deceased after he was allegedly taken away by them.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court conducted a thorough review of the evidence on record, focusing on the testimonies of PW-5 and PW-6. The Court observed that these witnesses had given statements to the police under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and before a Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., stating they had seen the accused dragging the deceased into an auto.
However, during their testimony before the trial court, both witnesses resiled from their earlier statements. The Supreme Court noted, “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.”
The Bench concluded that the motive, while proven, was insufficient on its own. The judgment stated, “The aforesaid animosity between them may be the motive behind the crime but it is not sufficient to prove the commission of the crime unless the evidence proves kidnapping/abduction and killing of the deceased, either by direct or circumstantial evidence.”
Finding a complete lack of evidence to connect the appellant to the crime, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the chain of circumstances. The judgment emphatically stated: “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.”
Referencing the “five golden principles” that constitute the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence, the Court found that the prosecution’s case fell short.
Decision
Concluding that the lower courts had erred in convicting the appellant based on a “complete misreading of the evidence,” the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
The judgment ordered: “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.”
