Summary and Analysis of Thammineni Bhaskar vs The State of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 1124
1. Heading of the Judgment
Case Title: Thammineni Bhaskar vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2025 INSC 1124
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: September 17, 2025
Coram: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
2. Related Laws and Legal Provisions
The judgment primarily deals with the following legal statutes and principles:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
Section 302: Punishment for Murder.
Section 364: Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.
Section 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence, or giving false information to screen the offender.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.):
Section 161: Examination of witnesses by the police during investigation.
Section 164: Recording of confessions and statements by a Magistrate.Law on Circumstantial Evidence: The judgment is centered on the foundational legal principle that a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence must satisfy a strict five-point test, often referred to as the "panchsheel" principles. These principles, established in precedents like Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, require that:
The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must be fully established.
The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.
3. Basic Judgment Details
Parties:
Appellant: Thammineni Bhaskar (Accused No. 1 - A-1).
Respondent: The State of Andhra Pradesh.Nature of Case: Criminal Appeal against the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court convicting the appellant.
Original Conviction: The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 (murder) and 364 (kidnapping for murder) of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. He was also convicted under Section 201 (destroying evidence) and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court upheld this conviction and sentence.
Core Issue: Whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, primarily based on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of key witnesses who turned hostile.
4. Explanation of the Judgment
Factual Background
The case involved the kidnapping and murder of an auto-rickshaw driver named Bhoominadhan.
Previous Animosity: A few days before the incident, the mother of the deceased (PW-2) had filed a police report against the appellant (A-1) and his friends for passing obscene remarks and threatening women. This led to the registration of a criminal case (Crime No. 108/2016). A-1 also filed a cross-complaint (Crime No. 109/2016) against the deceased's family, establishing a clear history of animosity between the parties.
The Incident: On March 26, 2016, the deceased's father (PW-1) filed an FIR (Crime No. 118/2016) stating that at around 6:30 PM, his son was forcibly taken away by the appellant and his friends in an auto-rickshaw near a banyan tree in Talpagiri Colony.
Discovery of Body: The next day, the deceased's body with multiple injuries was found near a reservoir. The FIR was subsequently altered to include a charge of murder (Section 302 IPC).
Prosecution's Case: The prosecution's case relied heavily on two eyewitnesses, PW-5 and PW-6. Their initial statements to the police (under Section 161 Cr.P.C.) and later to a Magistrate (under Section 164 Cr.P.C.) claimed they saw the accused dragging the deceased into an auto and beating him, and that they informed PW-1 about this.
Supreme Court's Analysis and Reasoning
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant. Its reasoning was based on a critical analysis of the evidence, which it found wholly insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Complete Turnaround of Key Witnesses: The Court noted that both PW-5 and PW-6, who were the star witnesses for the prosecution, completely turned hostile during the trial. In their court testimony, they did not support the prosecution's case. They stated that they only saw some commotion ("galata") under the banyan tree but could not identify anyone involved. They also denied having given any information to PW-1 about the kidnapping. This completely shattered the core of the prosecution's narrative of kidnapping and last seen.
Failure of the "Last Seen" Theory: The prosecution attempted to build a case on the circumstantial evidence of the deceased being last seen with the accused. The Supreme Court held that there was no evidence to prove this theory. The testimonies of PW-5 and PW-6, which were the only basis for this claim, were rendered useless as they turned hostile. Without any other evidence to place the deceased in the company of the appellant around the time of the incident, this crucial link in the chain of circumstances was missing.
Motive is Not Proof of Crime: The Court acknowledged that the previous criminal cases between the parties established a strong motive for the appellant to commit the crime. However, it emphatically stated that "motive alone is not sufficient to prove the commission of the crime." A motive, however strong, cannot replace positive proof that the accused committed the offence. The prosecution must independently prove the acts of kidnapping and murder.
Breach of the "Panchsheel" of Circumstantial Evidence: The entire case against the appellant was circumstantial. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution "miserably failed" to satisfy the five golden principles required for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances were not fully established, they were not consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt (as the witnesses did not support it), and they certainly did not exclude every other reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
Supreme Court's Final Directions and Order
The Supreme Court concluded that both the Trial Court and the High Court had "erred in convicting the appellant... on complete misreading of the evidence."
Acquittal: The impugned judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court were set aside.
Release: The appellant, Thammineni Bhaskar (A-1), was acquitted of all charges. The Court directed that he be released from prison forthwith, provided he was not required to be detained in any other case.
In essence, the Supreme Court's judgment is a strong reaffirmation of the fundamental principle of criminal law: the burden of proof lies entirely on the prosecution, and a conviction must be based on clear, cogent, and reliable evidence. The presence of motive and the initial statements of witnesses (which they later disowned in court) are not enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when the core evidence crumbles during trial. The prosecution's failure to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence led to the acquittal of the accused.