Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 14 (AP)

Kothapalli Veeranna v. State of Andhara Pradesh

2008-01-17

B.PRAKASH RAO, L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2008
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J : In S.C. No.47 of 2000, the Court of Special Judge for SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, West Godavari at Eluru, tried Al to AS for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and Section 3(1)(x) of S.Cs & S.Ts (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act"). During the trial of the case, A-2 died on 12.1.2005, and the case against him abated. Through its judgment, dated 28.10.2005, the trial Court acquitted A4 and A.5, but convicted Al and AJ for the offences referred to above. It sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. For the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the said accused were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. Hence, this appeal by A1 and A3. 2. The prosecution pleaded that the deceased, by name Rambabu, was employed as a farm-servant with the 1st appellant, for about 10 years prior to 1998, and that on 24.11.1998, a written report, Ex.P.1, was received from Kothapalli Narasimha Rao, A5, to the effect that the dead body of the deceased was found on the Bode (ridge) in his fish tank at about 6 p.m. on 23.11.1998, and that PW.2 had informed the same to the mother of the deceased, PW.5. On receiving the information, PW.9, an elder of the community, had submitted another report at 7 a.m., on the next day, which is marked as Ex.P.2, stating that he too received information that the dead body of the deceased was found in the fields of A5. 3. The police took up the investigation and examined several witnesses. Important among them is PW.3, the maternal uncle of the deceased. Ultimately, it was alleged that the appellants herein, the father and son; AS, the brother of 1st appellant; A4, the son of AS; and A2, a relation of A1, have caused the death of the deceased, by forcibly administering pesticide to him. All the accused pleaded not guilty. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants herein, in the manner referred to above. 4. All the accused pleaded not guilty. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants herein, in the manner referred to above. 4. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, submits that there is neither eye-witness account, nor any circumstantial evidence, to sustain the conviction of the appellants. He submits that except the ipse dixit of the prosecution, there was no material worth its name, to link the appellants herein to the death of the deceased. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the trial Court had adopted a far-fetched reasoning, beyond any imagination, to connect the appellants with the occurrence. He submits that the very charge framed against the appellants was without any factual basis. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that though there were no eye-witnesses to the incident, the very fact that the deceased was employed with the 1st appellant as a farm-servant and that complaints were made about the alleged illicit intimacy of the deceased with the daughter of the 1st appellant, leads one, to the inescapable conclusion that the appellants herein may have administered the poison to the deceased, to avoid any disrepute to the family. 6. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 14 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.17. Contradiction in 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded from PW.4 was marked as Ex.D.1. It also marked M.Os.1 to 3 on its behalf. 7. Before undertaking the appreciation of evidence, it is beneficial to extract the charge framed by the prosecution against the appellants herein. It reads as under: "FIRSTLY: That you A1 to A.5 on 23rd day of November, 1998 at about 12-00 hours on the eastern side bund of fish tank of A5 of you of Bethapudi Village did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of one Inje Rambabu and in furtherance of which, A2 and A4 of you while not allowing the deceased to move, A.3 of you poured forcibly a pesticide poison into the mouth of the deceased while Al and A5 of you guarding the scene of offence and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. LASTLY: That you Al to A.5 on the same date, time and place as mentioned in charge No.1 supra and in furtherance of which committed the murder of one Inje Rambabu (deceased) who is a member of scheduled caste which is punishable for a term of ten years or more against you and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(2){v) of the S.Cs and S.Ts (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, read with Section 34 IPC, and within my cognizance." From this, it is evident that specific acts were attributed to the appellants herein, as well as A2, A4 and A5, as to the manner in which the deceased was done to death. Heavy burden rested upon the prosecution, to prove the individual accusations made against the appellants and other accused. 8. There is no dispute that the deceased was employed as farm-servant with the 1st appellant. The investigation into the matter commenced, with the submission of a complaint, Ex.P.1, by none other than A5, on 24.11.1998. Except that he noticed a dead body in his fish tank and that the persons named therein have brought the body to the bund, he did not make any accusation against anyone. It was pointed out that smell of pesticide emanated from the dead body. This was followed by another complaint, marked as Ex.P.2, submitted by PW.9. Here again, no accusation was made against anyone, in relation to the death of the deceased. 9. PW s.4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. They were the better persons to speak about the cause of the death of the deceased. Admittedly, both of them were living separately. 10. PW.4, the father of the deceased e did not have any information, as to the cause of the death. He relied upon the intimation said to have been furnished to him by PW.3, his brother-in-law. PW.5, the mother of the deceased, no doubt stated in her chief-examination that herself and her brother, PW.3, admonished the deceased for his moving closely with the handicapped daughter of the 1st appellant. However, the source of the information as to the said conduct of the deceased, was not mentioned. Neither this witness, nor PW.3, have stated that the 1st appellant had ever complained to them against the deceased, for any reason, whatever. 11. The evidence of PW.3 is very extensive in its content. However, the source of the information as to the said conduct of the deceased, was not mentioned. Neither this witness, nor PW.3, have stated that the 1st appellant had ever complained to them against the deceased, for any reason, whatever. 11. The evidence of PW.3 is very extensive in its content. He elaborated the manner in which he recovered the dead body of the deceased. Here again, he did not mention any source of information as to the alleged conduct of the deceased, vis-a-vis the daughter of the 1st appellant. The evidence of this witness is full of contradictions and uncertainties. Contradictions in the evidence of PWs.4 and 5 were elicited through the Investigating Officer, PW.13. Their depositions in the Court were at substantial variance, with the statements recorded from them under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Except this, there is no other evidence, to link the appellants herein with the incident. A clear suggestion was made to the Investigating Officer-PW.13, that the appellants herein were implicated, yielding to the pressure from political groups, in the locality. 12. It is somewhat interesting to note as to how the trial Court satisfied itself, as to the death of the deceased. It is to be noted that some of the witnesses have spoken to the existence of an empty pesticide tin and a sickle, but those items were not treated as material objects. The discussion undertaken by the trial Court runs on the following lines: "Therefore, from the above evidence, it is clear that there was an empty pesticide tin and a sickle found near the dead body of the deceased and that the Inspector of Police (PW.13) had seized the same. For the lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer for not production of those material objects before the Court, the evidence of the witnesses including the M.R.O. (PW.1) that they found an empty endrin tin and a sickle near the dead body of the deceased cannot be disbelieved. Therefore, the argument advanced on behalf of the accused that because of the endrin tin was not produced by the prosecution, the entire case of the prosecution has to be disbelieved, does not hold substance. If really the accused have nothing to do with the death of the deceased, there was no reason for the 2nd accused to go and enquire P. W.3 about the deceased. If really the accused have nothing to do with the death of the deceased, there was no reason for the 2nd accused to go and enquire P. W.3 about the deceased. The said conduct of the 2nd accused shows his guilty mind to know the reaction of the family members of the deceased. So also, there is no reason for the 3rd accused, who accompanied PWs.2 and 3 in search of the deceased, on seeing the dead body of the deceased at the fish tank bund of the 5th accused, to fled away in a hurry saying that he did not know who killed the deceased. So also, there is no reason for the 1st accused to approach PWs.3 and 5 for a compromise, if really the 1st accused has nothing to do with the death of the deceased and if the deceased himself committed suicide. The 1st accused has got strong motive to do away the deceased, who was working as farm-servant under him, having noticed the illicit intimacy of the deceased with his daughter. The 1st accused alone cannot do away the deceased, who was an young man. Therefore, he must have taken the assistance of the 3rd accused, who is his son, and 2nd accused, who is his close relative. No doubt it is the case of the prosecution that the 4th accused also firmly held the deceased when the 3rd accused poured pesticide poison forcibly in mouth of the deceased. " 13. At the cost of repetition, we point out that not a single witness has spoken to the various acts attributed to the individual accused. None spoke about the alleged illicit relations. All the same, the trial Court had drawn several inferences, and in fact, provided every possible link to connect the accused with the occurrence. Such an approach is impermissible in law. Howsoever tempting or attractive, an inference or imagination may be, it cannot take place of a proven fact, which alone is needed to hold an individual, guilty of an offence. When the prosecution has miserably failed to examine even a single witness, to speak to the facts mentioned in the chargesheet, it is totally understandable as to how the trial Court was able to find the appellants herein as guilty. When the prosecution has miserably failed to examine even a single witness, to speak to the facts mentioned in the chargesheet, it is totally understandable as to how the trial Court was able to find the appellants herein as guilty. We are, therefore, left with no alternative, except to allow the appeal and to set aside the conviction and sentence ordered against the appellants. 14. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, and set aside the conviction and sentence handed out to the appellants herein, in S.C. No.47 of 2000, on the file of the Special Judge under SCs/STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, West Godavari, at Eluru. The appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them.