Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 87 (AP)

BOYA PULLANNAGARI PAPANNA v. State Of A. P.

2002-01-25

GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

body2002
GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants herein are A1 and A2 in sessions Case No. 334 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, kurnol. ( 2 ) BOTH the accused were tried by the learned Sessions Judge for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Al was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. So far as A2 is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge found him guilty for the offence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. ( 3 ) THE gravamen of the charge against the accused is that on 22-2-1997 at about 11-00 p. m. , the accused caused the death of the deceased K. Bhaskar by strangulating him with a rope in their house and placed the dead body in a gunny bag and buried the same in a manure heap to screen away the evidence. ( 4 ) THE case of the prosecution is that the deceased, the accused and the prosecution witnesses are all residents of Kundanagurthy village. PW1 is the father and PW2 is the cousin brother of the deceased. PW3 is the wife of PW1 and PW4 is the brother of pw3. PW2 and the deceased, who was studying B. Sc. II year at Guntakal, used to go to the college together and return back in the evening. On 22-2-1997, during night time, PW2 and the deceased were studying on the terrace and at about 8. 00 p. m. , the deceased went to the house of the accused to meet their daughter (Suhasini) as she was alone in the house. After one hour, he returned back. Again at about 11-00 p. m. , he went to the house of the accused and next day morning, when PW2 woke up, he did not find the deceased. Then he went to the house of PW1 and informed PW1 s wife (i. e. , PW3) as to what had happened the previous night. After one hour, he returned back. Again at about 11-00 p. m. , he went to the house of the accused and next day morning, when PW2 woke up, he did not find the deceased. Then he went to the house of PW1 and informed PW1 s wife (i. e. , PW3) as to what had happened the previous night. After coming to know of this information that his son was missing, PW1 made efforts to trace his whereabouts and later he gave a report to the SI of Police i. e. , PW11 on 5-3-1997, who registered the same as Crime No. 8 of 1997. After discovery of the body of the deceased on 30th April 1997, basing on an extra judicial confession made by the accused to PW6 on 23-2-1997, the police removed the dead body from the manure pit and held inquest over the exhumes of the dead body. Ex. P5 is the inquest report. Though the Civil Assistant Surgeon (PW10) conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex. P8 post-mortem certificate, the cause of death and the time of death could not be known, as there were only skeletal remains. After receipt of the inquest report and the post-mortem certificate, PW11 altered the Section of law to Section 302 of the Indian Penal code and arrested the accused persons on 1-5-1997, who were remanded to judicial custody. ( 5 ) IN support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 12 and exhibited Exs. Pl to P21. The plea of the accused is one of total denial. ( 6 ) LEARNED senior Counsel Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, appearing for the appellants, vehemently contended that the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence and there is no proof that the skeletal remains found, belong to the deceased and basing on the super-imposition test conducted by the Doctor it is not safe to convict the accused. His further submission is that it is only after the discovery of the body on 30-4-1997, the prosecution witnesses have come forward and stated so many things and as such their evidence cannot be taken into consideration at all. His further submission is that it is only after the discovery of the body on 30-4-1997, the prosecution witnesses have come forward and stated so many things and as such their evidence cannot be taken into consideration at all. Further, he submitted that the crucial witness in this case is Suhasini, i. e. , the daughter of the accused, but she was not examined by the prosecution for the purpose of establishing the motive and her non-examination is fatal of the case of the prosecution. ( 7 ) HEARD the learned Public Prosecutor. ( 8 ) IN the light of the above submissions, we have gone through the evidence scrupulously. In Ex. P1, given by the father of the deceased (PW1), he states that he came to know of the affairs between his son i. e. , the deceased and suhasini only on that day i. e. , on 5-3-1997. But, in his evidence, PW1 states that he knows about the affair by 22-2-1997 and he informed the same to PW3 on 23-2-1997 itself. It is curious to note here that when her son was found missing, PW3, the mother, did not inform the same to her husband, i. e. , PW1, immediately thereafter. Apart from that, the other improbability in the case of the prosecution is that when the deceased was missing and when the parents of the deceased were very much aware of the affair between their son and Suhasini, the daughter of the accused, it is not known as to why PW1 did not give any report to the police till 5-3-1997. It is only after the skeletal remains of the deceased were found, the entire case was buiit up by the police. ( 9 ) FURTHER according to the evidence of the Doctor (PW10), who conducted the super-imposition test, the skull could be belonging to the person in the photograph but bones could not be determined. From the above, it is clear that the Doctor has also not conclusively established that the skull that was found is that of the deceased. ( 9 ) FURTHER according to the evidence of the Doctor (PW10), who conducted the super-imposition test, the skull could be belonging to the person in the photograph but bones could not be determined. From the above, it is clear that the Doctor has also not conclusively established that the skull that was found is that of the deceased. In a case of this nature, Suhasini, the girl with whom the deceased was allegedly having affair prior to his missing, is a crucial witness and for obvious reasons best known to the prosecution, the prosecution has not chosen to examine the said Suhasini as a prosecution witness in order to establish the important aspect of motive. All these circumstances clearly throw any amount of doubt on the case of the prosecution and therefore, it is not safe to base a conviction on the evidence that is available on the record. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the appellants-accused are entitled to benefit of doubt. ( 10 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside. Both the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. They shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.