Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 112 (AP)

Suram Gorla Kondaiah v. State of A. P.

2008-02-13

B.PRAKASH RAO, L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2008
JUDGMENT: L. Narasimha Reddy A-1 to A-3 in S.C.No.164 of 2000 in the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore, are the appellants. Together with A-4 and A-5, they were tried for the offence of committing the murder of one Suram Venkata Reddy, S/o. China Narasa Reddy, on the intervening night of 16/17-10-1999. Through its judgment dated 15-12-2005, the trial Court acquitted A-4 and A-5, but convicted the appellants herein, of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life, and to pay fine of Rs.50/- each, in default, to suffer imprisonment for 15 days. Hence, this appeal. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution, is as under: The deceased, Venkata Reddy, was working as Post Master of Dubagunta Village, of Nellore District, and was associated with the Telugu Deasam Party. A-1 is the leader of Congress party, and there were differences between both of them. PW-1, son of Venkata Reddy, was studying MCA at Chennai, and came to his Village, in October, for Dasara vacation. On 16-10-1999, the family members had dinner, and thereafter, Venkata Reddy slept on a cot, in the verandah. To his left, PW-1, and Venkateswarlu, his cousin brother slept. To the left of Venkata Reddy, his daughter, PW-2, and wife, PW-4, slept in a pendal. PW-3, another son of Venkata Reddy, together with his wife, slept inside the house. At around 1:00 a.m., in the mid-night, PW-1 woke up, on hearing the sound, and found A-1, A-2 and A-3, on the right side of his father, armed with axe, knife and spear, respectively. All the three accused have attacked Venkata Reddy simultaneously, and caused injuries on the right side of his neck; the right shoulder; the right armpit; right thigh, and other parts of the body. Venkata Reddy started crying, when he was attacked, and on hearing the cries, PW-4 also woke up immediately, and soon thereafter, PW-4 and his wife came from inside the room. PW-1 also noticed the presence of A-4 and A-5 nearby the compound wall, and they were said to have called A-1 and A-3, to come, since the work was over. 3. PW-1 and other inmates of the family tried to shift Venkata Reddy to Hospital, in a school van, and even while he was being shifted to the van, they found him dead. 3. PW-1 and other inmates of the family tried to shift Venkata Reddy to Hospital, in a school van, and even while he was being shifted to the van, they found him dead. PW-1 went to the Police Station and submitted the complaint, Ex.P-1. The Police registered the F.I.R., rushed to the village, and conducted the preliminary investigation. Inquest on the body was conducted, vide Ex.P-3, and the body was sent to postmortem. The report thereof, Ex.P-14, revealed that the death was on account of shock and hemorrhage, due to the injury to major blood vessels, on the right side of the neck. Subsequently, the Police arrested the accused and filed charge-sheet. All the accused pleaded not guilty, and the trial Court recorded its findings, as mentioned in the previous paragraphs. 4. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, submits that the very presence of PWs 1, 2 and 3, at the scene of occurrence is doubtful, in view of the fact that no stains of blood of the deceased were found on the clothes of these witnesses. He contends that it is highly improbable that PW-1, who is said to have seen the entire occurrence, and tried to shift the deceased to the hospital, did not get any stains of blood in the process. He submits that the dead body of the deceased was noticed at about 5:00 a.m., by PW-4, and though the cause of the death was not known, a story, implicating the accused was woven, taking advantage of the political differences. It is also his contention that Ex.P-1 was prepared subsequently, and was not submitted by PW-1 in the Police Station, at the point of time mentioned therein. He further contends that the other witnesses, such as, PWs 5, 6, 7 and 9 are planted ones, and their evidence is not trustworthy. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that as many as three eye-witnesses and five circumstantial witnesses were examined in this case, and that the prosecution has proved the case against the appellants herein, beyond any pale of doubt. He contends that except making some suggestions, out of context, the defence was not able to point out any inconsistencies in the evidence of eye-witnesses, as well as the circumstantial witnesses. He contends that except making some suggestions, out of context, the defence was not able to point out any inconsistencies in the evidence of eye-witnesses, as well as the circumstantial witnesses. He submits that the fact that there existed political rivalry between A-1 and the deceased, if at all, would prove the motive, than to throw any doubt on the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 6. Of the 14 witnesses, examined by the prosecution, PWs 1 and 3 are the sons; PW-2 is the daughter, and PW-4 is the wife of the deceased. While PWs 5 and 7 were said to have seen the accused, coming out of the house, after the commission of the offence, PWs 6 and 9 deposed that they have seen the accused armed with weapons, few hours before the commission of the offence. PW-8 is the photographer, and PW-10 is a punch for arrest of the accused; whereas PW-11 is the punch for inquest. PW-12 is the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem. PW- 13 is the S.I. of Police, who registered the case, and PW-14 is the Inspector of Police, who conducted the investigation. 7. The machinery of law, as regards this case was set in motion, with the submission of a report, Ex.P-1, by PW-1. The precise contents of Ex.P-1 have already been mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. He gave a graphic description of the events, that took place on that night. Specific locations, at which himself and his cousin, Venkateswarlu; his father, the deceased; his sister; mother, PW-4, elder brother, PW-3, have slept, on that night; were furnished. He stated that on hearing a noise, he woke up and found A-1 to A-3 by the side of his father, armed with weapons. He has also stated that once his father raised a cry, on receiving blows from A-1 to A-3, his mother and sister also woke up and shortly thereafter, A-3 has also come out from inside the house. He described the attempt made by him, to shift his father to the hospital in a school van. 8. Apart from narrating the manner in which the incident has taken place, PW- 1 has mentioned the names of the accused, as well as the roles played by them. He described the attempt made by him, to shift his father to the hospital in a school van. 8. Apart from narrating the manner in which the incident has taken place, PW- 1 has mentioned the names of the accused, as well as the roles played by them. Ex.P-1 was clear to the effect that, while A-1 to A-3 attacked the deceased with different weapons, A-4 and A-5 were watching the occurrence, by standing nearby a compound wall. 9. The cross-examination of this witness was mostly on three aspects, viz., the manner in which Ex.P-1 was submitted; the description of the names of the accused, and absence of any stains of blood of his father, on his clothes. On all these aspects, the evidence of the witnesses was unshaken. He categorically stated that Ex.P-1 was submitted in the Police Station between 3:45 and 4:00 a.m., on 17-10-1999. The defence has only suspected the ability of PW-1, who was studying MCA; to draft Ex.P-1. So far as the description of the names of some of the accused is concerned, the suggestion was about absence of a word "Gorle", which connotes the surname, or some such thing as regards some of the accused. It was suggested to this witness, that he was not acquainted with the accused, at all. So far as the manner in which he confirmed the death of the deceased is concerned, he stated that by putting his finger, before the nose of his father, he was able to determine, whether he was dead or alive. 10. PW-2, the daughter of the deceased is another eye-witness. She too described the manner in which her family members slept, after taking dinner, and her noticing the accused, on hearing the cries of her father. The description of A-1 to A-3 by this witness, did not leave any scope for the defence, to doubt the accuracy, on that aspect. 11. PW-3, though not a direct witness to the occurrence, was sleeping in his house, much before the accused left the place. After the commission of the offence, he came out. He too identified all the witnesses, and nothing was elicited through him in the cross-examination. PW-4 is none other than the wife of the deceased. Her description of the events is in no way different from, or inferior to, the one given by PWs 1 and 2. After the commission of the offence, he came out. He too identified all the witnesses, and nothing was elicited through him in the cross-examination. PW-4 is none other than the wife of the deceased. Her description of the events is in no way different from, or inferior to, the one given by PWs 1 and 2. It is noteworthy that all the eye- witnesses spoke of mere presence of A-4 and A-5, but did not attribute any specific acts to them. It only adds to the credibility of their evidence. 12. Assuming that the evidence of the wife, and children of the deceased cannot be relied upon, absolutely, there is circumstantial evidence of other witnesses. PW-5 is a resident of the same village. He stated that his wife complained of, serious illness and at about 1:00 a.m., he came out of his house, with a view to get a tractor, to take his wife to the hospital, at Atmakur. At that time, he is said to have heard the cries from the house of the deceased, and found five persons coming out of the house. When he went inside the house of Venkata Reddy, he found him dead. He has also witnessed PW-1 and others, trying to shift the deceased to the hospital, in a school van, but given up the idea, on finding that Venkata Reddy died. He has also stated the time at which the complaint was submitted by PW-1. Except suggesting that he is a follower with the deceased, nothing substantial was elicited through this witness. The evidence of PW-7 is almost to the same effect, except the fact that he came out of his house, on hearing cries. The houses of this witness, on the one hand, and that of the deceased are separated by three houses. While PW-5 has only stated that number of persons were coming out, PW-7 has identified all the accused, together with the arms, held by them. 13. PWs 6 and 7 spoke to the effect that, when they were going to the fields, they came across all the accused at about 11:00 p.m., and some of them holding weapons. While PW-5 has only stated that number of persons were coming out, PW-7 has identified all the accused, together with the arms, held by them. 13. PWs 6 and 7 spoke to the effect that, when they were going to the fields, they came across all the accused at about 11:00 p.m., and some of them holding weapons. Therefore, the important circumstance, namely, the accused, having been in a group and some of them with weapons as well as their coming out of the house of the deceased, after commission of the offence, were seen by the witnesses, referred to above. From this, it can safely be concluded that the prosecution has proved the charge, that A-1 to A-3 have committed the murder of the deceased, Venkata Reddy. 14. The medical evidence is clear to the effect that the death of the deceased took place on account of the hemorrhage and shock, as a result of the disruption of the blood vessels, at the neck region. PW-12 has given a succinct opinion in the postmortem report, and affirmed the same in his evidence. Nothing was elicited, to doubt the correctness of his evidence. 15. Under these circumstances, we do not find any basis to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.