Thammineni Bhaskar v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 1124 - Concurrent Murder Conviction Set Aside

Case Name and Neutral Citation

• Case Name: Thammineni Bhaskar v. State of Andhra Pradesh
• Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1124

Coram (Judges)

• Justice Pankaj Mithal
• Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Judgment Date

• Date: September 17, 2025

Caselaws and Citations

• The judgment does not explicitly mention or discuss any other caselaws or citations by name or citation number within the provided text.

Statutes/Laws Referred

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
• • Section 302 (Murder)
  • Section 364 (Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder)
  • Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence)
  • Section 143 (Unlawful assembly)
  • Section 290 (Public nuisance)
  • Section 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty)
  • Section 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt)
  • Section 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation)
  • Section 341 (Punishment for wrongful restraint)
  • Section 379 (Punishment for theft)
  • Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention)
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.):
• • Section 161 (Examination of witnesses by police)
  • Section 164 (Recording of confessions and statements)

Question 1: Who was the appellant in this case?

Answer:The appellant was Thammineni Bhaskar, Accused No. 1 (A-1).

Question 2: What were the charges against the appellant?

Answer:He was convicted under Sections 302 (murder), 364 (kidnapping/abduction), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code.

Question 3: What sentence was originally imposed on the appellant?

Answer:He was sentenced to life imprisonment and fined Rs. 5,000 under Section 302, seven years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 5,000 under Section 201, with sentences to run concurrently. Default in payment of fine would result in six months’ further imprisonment.

Question 4: What was the prosecution’s case?

Answer:The prosecution alleged that the appellant and his friends kidnapped and killed Bhoominadhan, an auto driver, after forcibly taking him away in their auto.

Question 5: Who were the key witnesses for the prosecution?

Answer:PW-5 and PW-6 were key witnesses who were said to have seen the deceased being dragged into an auto.

Question 6: Did PW-5 and PW-6 support the prosecution’s case in court?

Answer:No, both witnesses turned hostile and did not identify the accused or confirm the kidnapping in their testimony before the Trial Court.

Question 7: What was the main argument of the appellant’s counsel?

Answer:The counsel argued that there was no direct evidence or eye-witness to the murder, and the conviction was based only on circumstantial evidence, which was insufficient.

Question 8: What did the Supreme Court decide regarding the evidence?

Answer:The Court found that there was no evidence proving the kidnapping or that the deceased was last seen with the appellant. The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Question 9: What was the final outcome of the appeal?

Answer:The Supreme Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellant, ordering his immediate release if not involved in any other case.

Question 10: What legal principle did the Court refer to in its decision?

Answer:The Court referred to the “five golden principles” (panchsheel) for proof in cases based on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the need for strong and direct links in the chain of evidence.