Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 579 (AP)

Gammela Yerakanna (Accd. ) v. State Of A. P.

2002-04-19

BILAL NAZKI, GODA RAGHURAM

body2002
BILAL NAZKI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public prosecutor. This is an appeal filed against the conviction and sentence passed in sessions Case No. 103 of 2000 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. The appellant-accused has been convicted of the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -. in default he has to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. He has also been convicted of the offence under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default he has to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. ( 2 ) THE allegations against the appellant were madeby framing the following charges,"firstly.- that you on the 1st day of March, 1999 at 8. 00 p. m. at Chinthalapalem village did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Gudepuverukuluby beating him with wooden pestle (Rokali) on his neck and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance; secondly:- that you on or about the same date, time and place knowing that certain offence i. e. , under Section 302 of IPC punishable with death or imprisonment for life has been committed, did cause certain evidence of the said offence to disappear to wit, lit fire to the deadbody of Gudepu yerukulu by pouring kerosene and shifted the partially burnt dead body to gummarevulunear Kanchurai forest and covered the same with leaves, with an intention of screening the same from legal punishment and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code. " ( 3 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty and was tried. 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and 16 documents were exhibited. The case of the prosecution was that the accused was having 55 tamarind trees around his house at Chintalapalem village. Gudapu Butchulu, brother of the deceased, gave only Rs. 500/-tog. Gangulu, father of the accused, and took all the tamarind tope on mortgage and was enjoying the crop. After hisdeath,hisdeceasedbrother was enjoying the crop. 15 days prior to the offence the deceased went to Chintalapalem village and took away 7 bags of tamarind from the tope in the absence of the accused. 500/-tog. Gangulu, father of the accused, and took all the tamarind tope on mortgage and was enjoying the crop. After hisdeath,hisdeceasedbrother was enjoying the crop. 15 days prior to the offence the deceased went to Chintalapalem village and took away 7 bags of tamarind from the tope in the absence of the accused. The accused came to know of it, b ore grudge and decided to end the life of the deceased. On 1-3-1999 in the morning hours i. e. , on monday the deceased along with his wife went to Chintalapalem village with vegetables and kerosene to make an exchange for tamarind in barter. They halted for the night at the house of Madala Baddanna at chintalapalem village. He alone went to the house of the accused situated at a distance of 1 k. m. at about 8. 00 p. m. for Jeelugu toddy. On seeing the deceased, the accused became angry and questioned him as to why he had taken tamarind from his tope without his knowledge. An altercation took place in between them. The accused went into his house, brought one wooden pestle and beat on the neck of the deceased twice and caused grievous injury which led to his instantaneous death. It was also alleged that the accused tried to burn the dead body in order to cause disappearance of evidence of murder. On the basis of this story, the prosecution filed the charge-sheet, ( 4 ) THERE is no direct evidence except the testimony of P. W. 3. P. W. 1 is the wife of the deceased who accompanied him to chintalapam village to collect tamarind. According to P. W. 1, they reached the village, collected tamarind and kept at the threshold of the accused. Then her husband left her and started to go to Jeeluga tree in order to take some toddy. He told her that he would take some toddy and come back. He also asked her to go to the house and cook food. The accused along with his brother-in-law chinta Bheemanna, Madela Buddanna, chinta Yerrayya and others went towards jeeluga tree to take toddy. She went to the house situated on the other side of rivulet. She waited for her husband, but he did not return. She took food and slept there, as it was late in the night. The accused along with his brother-in-law chinta Bheemanna, Madela Buddanna, chinta Yerrayya and others went towards jeeluga tree to take toddy. She went to the house situated on the other side of rivulet. She waited for her husband, but he did not return. She took food and slept there, as it was late in the night. As her husband did not return, she went to the house of the accused on the next day morning. On seeing her, the accused did not talk to her and left the place. She could not find tamarind at the house. She went round the house thrice, but she could not find her husband. She returned back to her house in order to report to her children. Then eventually her son reported the matter to police on 5-3-1999. ( 5 ) P. W. 3 who was projected as an eyewitness contradicted the statement of P. W, 1 on vital issues. She stated that the deceased and the accused came in a drunken condition and there was an exchange of words in respect of tamarind between them at the house of the accused and P. W. 1 was also present there, which is disputed by P. W. \. She did not even say that the deceased had again gone to the house of the accused. She was categorical in saying that the deceased went for having toddy and the accused was also going for having toddy at that Jeeluga tree. Therefore, it is unbelievable that the deceased was present at the house of the accused when the alleged attack was made on him by the accused. According to P. W. 3, she belongs to other village and comes to the village in which the occurrence took place for purchasing tamarind in exchange with eatables for children. On the night of the occurrence she stayed with the accused in his house. She did not report the matter to anybody for 9 days. Police recorded her statement after 9 days. According to her, she has not disclosed the incident as she has been threatened by the accused. Therefore, we fail to understand how the police could pick her up as an eye-witness. Who gave the information to the police that this lady was an eye-witness to the occurrence is also not disclosed to the court. There is no other evidence except the evidence we have discussed hereinabove. Therefore, we fail to understand how the police could pick her up as an eye-witness. Who gave the information to the police that this lady was an eye-witness to the occurrence is also not disclosed to the court. There is no other evidence except the evidence we have discussed hereinabove. It may also be noted that the dead body was recovered in a highly decomposed condition and was not identifiable. It could not be identified by any of the witnesses. There was another circumstance put in service by the prosecution of the accused having made an extra-judicial confession. For valid and good reasons that has not been believed by the trial court as well, because it is in the evidence that the accused was tied with ropes and taken to a panchayat where he allegedly made extra-judicial confession. For these reasons, we believe that the conviction is misplaced. ( 6 ) APPEAL allowed, conviction and sentence is set aside and the appellant is acquitted. He shall be released forthwith from custody, if not needed in any other cases.