Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1005 (AP)

Kanchumoju Anna Rao v. State Of A. P.

2004-09-15

P.S.NARAYANA

body2004
( 1 ) (CRIMINAL Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Crl. P. C. against the order in SC No. 114 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District.) the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 114 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, is the appellant in the present Criminal appeal. The appellant was charged with Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC ). But however, on appreciation of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 13 and Exs. P-1 to P-16, the appellant-accused was convicted for the offence under Sections 304-II and 201 IPC, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 304-II IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two and half years for the offence under Section 201 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred. ( 2 ) SRI T. S. N. Murty, Counsel representing the appellant would submit that except the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused to P. Ws. 1 and 2 and the evidence of P. W. 4 to the effect that the accused was seen along with the deceased, here is no other material available on record and the conviction on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, which is not clear, cannot be sustained and hence, the appellant-accused is entitled for an acquittal. ( 3 ) ON the contrary, the Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the dead body of the deceased, in fact, had been recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the accuse and apart from this aspect of the matter, the accused and the deceased were last seen and this aspect was spoken by P. W. 4 and that the evidence of P. Ws 1 and 2 relating to extra judicial confession made by the accused to these witnesses, is definitely sufficient to sustain he conviction and hence, the sentence may have to be confirmed. ( 4 ) HEARD both the Counsel. Perused the material available on record and also the findings recorded by the learned Judge. ( 4 ) HEARD both the Counsel. Perused the material available on record and also the findings recorded by the learned Judge. ( 5 ) THE Inspector of Police, Bobbili Circle laid charge sheet against the sole accused in Crime NO. 32 of 2000 registered under sections 302 and 201 IPC. The version of the prosecution is that the accused is a resident of Gongadavalasa village and one Dasari Karthi, aged about six years (hereinafter referred to in short as the deceased), is also the resident of the same village. It is also the version of the prosecution that on 17. 3. 2000 at about 12 noon, the accused and the deceased played in the elementary school area, for some time and the accused brought two mangoes from nearby tope and placed by his side, while so, the deceased Karthik picked up one of the mangoes and ran away and the accused also ran after him, caught hold the said Karthik near a mango tope and caught hold of his neck and squeezed the neck of the deceased with both his hands and due to which the deceased died on the spot and due to fear, the accused took the dead body of the deceased and hid the same I the heap of jute sticks, and later on, he came to know about the fact of searching the dead body of the said Karthik by the villagers, he again removed the dead body from the heap of jute sticks and threw the same in the gorja of Pathinaidu banda in the bushes. As the people of the entire village are searching for the missing boy, the accused terrified and confessed his guilt before Maradana Appalanaidu and Gongada Swamnaidu, the S. I. of police registered a case and the Inspector of police had taken up the investigation. The same was taken on file as PRC NO. 11 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Bobbili, who had committed the same to the Court of Session Vizianagaram, who in turn had made over the same to the Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. The learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded the evidence of P. Ws 1 to 13 and marked Exs. P-1 to P16. 11 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Bobbili, who had committed the same to the Court of Session Vizianagaram, who in turn had made over the same to the Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. The learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded the evidence of P. Ws 1 to 13 and marked Exs. P-1 to P16. After recording the reasons in detail, the learned Judge had arrived at a conclusion that the appellant-accused is guilty of an offence under section 304-II and 201 IPC and accordingly, he convicted and sentenced the accused to the periods already referred to supra. ( 6 ) THE evidence available on record had been dealt with in detail by the learned Judge commencing from paragraphs 9 to 24. Exs. P3 and P14 would go to show that the dead body of the deceased was hidden in the buses of Pothinaidu banda. An attempt was made to take the defence of insanity and the same was disbelieved by the learned Judge. For the reasons recorded, inasmuch as the plea of insanity taken by the accused had not been established, in view of the clear evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2, the extra judicial confessions made by the accused to P. Ws 1 and 2, and also in view of the recovery of the dead body in pursuance of disclosure statement, the learned Judge arrived at a conclusion that all the circumstances proved the guilt of the accused. Apart from this evidence, the evidence of P. W. 4 is only available on record and he deposed that he had seen the accused and the deceased as a last appearance prior to the total disappearance of the deceased from the village. P. W. 4 also deposed about the subsequent search made by the villagers for the deceased boy. ( 7 ) THE evidence of P. W. 3, P. Ws 5 to 7 also had been appreciated by the learned Judge. P. W. 4 also deposed about the subsequent search made by the villagers for the deceased boy. ( 7 ) THE evidence of P. W. 3, P. Ws 5 to 7 also had been appreciated by the learned Judge. P. W. 8 is the photographer and P. W. 9 is R. Srirama Murthy who acted as Panchayatdar, P. W. 10 is P. C. 524, who had escorted the dead body of the deceased from the scene of offence to Hospital, P. W. 11 is the Sub-Inspector of police, who had registered the crime No. 32/2000 is the Inspector of Police who deposed about the details of the investigation and P. W. 13 is the doctor. Ex. P-2 is the report of P. W. 1 given to Bobbili police. Ex. P-1 is the statement of the accused recorded by P. W1 admitting the offence. Ex. P-3 is the observation report. Ex. P4 to P-11 are positives with negatives of dead body of the deceased. Ex. P-12 is the inquest report. Ex. P-13 is the F. I. R. in crime No. 32 of 2000. Ex. P-14 is the rough sketch, Ex. P.-15 is the post mortem certificate and Ex. P-16 is the wound certificate of the accused in the present case. ( 8 ) EVEN as per the version of the prosecution, when the deceased boy was running away, most probably, the accused caught hold of him and in the course of the struggle relating to the mango, it might have been that the accused had committed the offence, with which he had been charged. The learned Judge, no doubt, arrived at a correct conclusion in convicting the accused under section 304-II and also section 201 IIPC in the facts and circumstances of the case. But, however, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances under which the incident is said to have happened, the sentence imposed is definitely on the higher side. ( 9 ) IN the result, the conviction imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, on 04. 01. 2001 in Sessions Case No. 114 of 2000 against the appellant-accused for the offences under Sections 304-II and 201 IPC is hereby confirmed. ( 9 ) IN the result, the conviction imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, on 04. 01. 2001 in Sessions Case No. 114 of 2000 against the appellant-accused for the offences under Sections 304-II and 201 IPC is hereby confirmed. But, however, the sentence is modified as hereunder: (1) The Sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Ten years for the offence under Section 304-II IPC is modified and reduced to a period of four years, but the imposition of fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months is hereby set aside; (2) The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two and half years for the offence under Section IPC is modified and reduced to six months; (3) Both the modified sentences shall run concurrently. Except the modification of the sentence referred to supra, in all other respects, the findings of the learned Judge are hereby confirmed. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed subject to the above modification.