The High Court of Judicature in Hyderabad has admitted an appeal by the police against the acquittal handed down by a lower court in the case of alleged rape and murder of a bank officer’s wife in Vijayawada.
M. Himabindu (41) was brutally killed in her house in Patamata on March 15, in 2014. The Mahila Sessions Court acquitted six accused men citing lack of evidence. The police argued that the court did not take into account the circumstantial evidence furnished in the case by the prosecution.
The accused – taxi driver Shaik Subhani, his friends V. Durga Prasad, Somera Gopi Krishna, L. Ramana, J. Krishna and Mohammad Ghouse – allegedly sexually assaulted the woman and killed her at her residence at MTS Towers, under the Patamata police station limits.
“Subhani and his accomplices tried to mislead the police stating that the woman had developed a relationship with a person. They made some wrong phone calls to her family members and made gross allegations against the victim,” said a police officer.
Police swung into action after women’s organisations raised a hue and cry. Governor E.S.L. Narasimhan directed the police to speed up investigation and book the culprits immediately.
Cases had been registered against the accused under Sections 376 (d), 302, 120 (b), 147, 396 and 201 r/w. 149 of IPC and rounded up the accused one after the other. Based on their confession, police recovered the body from Bandar canal three days after the incident.
“The main accused, Subhani spent some time in the victim’s flat after committing the offence and used her SIM card by inserting it in his mobile phone. The culprits explained how they shifted the body and had led the police to the place where they had hidden and later dumped it in the canal,” a senior police officer who investigated the case said.
Deputy Director (prosecutions) Byra Ramakoteswara Rao, who argued the case, said that the prosecution produced the evidences pertaining to phone call data, semen analysis of two of the accused and the gold jewellery recovered from them, purportedly stolen from the victim’s house.
“The prosecution cited several judgements of Supreme Court and High Court of similar cases to the Mahila Sessions Court. But, unfortunately the court disregarded the circumstantial evidence, insisted for direct evidence and struck off the case,” Mr. Ramakoteswara Rao, who is also the Grade-I Additional Public Prosecutor said.
The High Court admitted the case and served notices on the accused. The hearing will begin shortly, said Mr. Rao adding that the Prosecutions Departments will produce all the evidence before the court and see that the guilty are punished.
Interestingly, Andhra Pradesh Law Secretary C. Durga Prasad, who participated in a meeting with prosecution officers (PPs) and investigation officers (police) recently, said that circumstantial evidence is enough to award punishments.
“The Supreme Court commented that if direct evidence is not produced, circumstantial evidence is enough to give conviction in some cases. Blood stained clothes seized from the scene of offence or from the accused or the weapons with blood marks or finger prints can be considered for awarding punishment to the accused,” the Law Secretary said and appealed to the police and PPs to be vigilant in gathering such evidences.
