THAMMINENI BHASKARversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

                [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1064 : 2025 INSC 1124

                        Thammineni Bhaskar
                                   v.
                     The State of Andhra Pradesh
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 4623 of 2024)
                             17 September 2025
           [Pankaj Mithal* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the
       courts below convicting and sentencing the appellant u/ss.302, 364
       and 201 IPC for kidnapping and murder of the informant’s son.

                                   Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 364 and 201 – Kidnapping and
       murder – FIR by the father that a day before the incident, the
       appellant and his friends forcibly took his son in their auto
       and kidnapped him and the next day, he was found dead with
       multiple injuries – Animosity between the parties on account
       of the previous report lodged by the mother of the deceased
       against the appellant – Conviction of the appellant u/ss.302,
       364 and 201 for kidnapping and murder of the informant’s son
       and was sentenced accordingly – Order upheld by the High
       Court – Correctness:
       Held: Animosity between the parties may be the motive behind
       the crime but 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 – Prosecution
       witness did not utter 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 fateful day – Only that there was some
       ‘galata’ under the banyan tree was proved but were unable to
       identify the persons involved in it – They failed to testify that any
       information was given by them to the father regarding the alleged
       kidnapping of the deceased – In the absence thereof and the fact
       that both prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, it cannot be
       held that the appellant was involved in the incident and that was
       responsible for the killing of the deceased, on the basis of the last
       seen theory – No evidence to either prove the kidnapping of the

* Author
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                            1065

         Thammineni Bhaskar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh


     deceased or that he was last seen in the company of the appellant –
     Keeping in mind the five golden principles, the panchsheel of the
     proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution
     miserably failed to prove the commission of the offence at the hands
     of the appellant – Courts below erred in convicting the appellant
     on complete misreading of the evidence – Thus, the impugned
     judgments and orders set aside. [Paras 11-15]

                                List of Acts
     Penal Code, 1860.

                             List of Keywords
     Kidnapping; Murder; Dead with multiple injuries; Animosity; Motive;
     Circumstantial evidence; Hostile; Last seen theory; Five golden
     principles-panchsheel of the proof of a case; Misreading of the
     evidence.

                            Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     4623 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 19.06.2024 of the High Court
     of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in CRLA No. 457 of 2019

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant:
     K. K. Mani, Ms. T. Archana.
     Advs. for the Respondent:
     Ms. Prerna Singh, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Dhruv Yadav,
     Ms. Vanshika Singh.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 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
1066                                                       [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     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 imprisonment of six months.
2.   The aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and 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 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
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                      1067

         Thammineni Bhaskar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh


     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.
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 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
1068                                                       [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


     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.
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 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.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain