Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 144 (AP)

Avuthu Siva Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2008-02-21

B.PRAKASH RAO, L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2008
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J :- In S.C. No.88 of 2005, the Court of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Krishna at Vijayawada tried Al to All for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-8 IPC. All the accused were alleged to have conspired and ultimately, killed one Thummuru Soul Reddy and his wife, by name Srilatha, between 5:00 and 5:30 p.m., on 23.11.2004 on the road between Butumillipadu and Buddavaram of Krishna District. During the pendency of the case, A5 died. Through its judgment, dated 24.9.2007, the trial Court acquitted A.2 and convicted A.l, A.3, A4 and A.6 to A.11 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC. All of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. No fine amount was imposed. A1 and A.6 to A.11 filed Criminal Appeal No.15l4 of 2007, A.3 filed Criminal Appeal No.1425 of 2007 and A4 filed Criminal Appeal No.l436 of 2007, assailing the judgment of the trial Court. 2. Deceased No.1, Soul Reddy, P.W.1 and P.W.3 are the sons of A1. P.W.2 is their mother. A2 is the sister of A1. There existed disputes between Al and his sons, in relation to the properties. Disputes also existed between Al and his wife-P.W.2, as to matrimonial matters. For quite some time, A.1 was residing in the house of his sister-A2 3. P.W.l submitted a report-Ex.P.l to the A.S.I. of Police-P.W.23 at 7:30 p.m., on 23.11.2004, stating that on 22.11.2004, his brother Soul Reddy went to Vempadu Village, to oversee the agricultural operations, and on 23.11.2004, his sister-in-law, Srilatha, went to that place carrying lunch. He is said to have received information at about 6:00 p.m., from one Mr. Venkateswara Rao-P.W.7 that the dead bodies of Soul Reddy and Srilatha were found on the road between Butumillipadu and Buddavaram. He mentioned the property disputes, that are existing between their father and paternal aunt, on the one hand, and himself and his brothers, on the other. He suspected the involvement of his father-A.!, his paternal aunt-A.2 and her sons in the murder of the deceased. On receiving the information, the police proceeded to the site and preliminary steps were taken. Inquest and post-mortem were conducted on the next day, vide Exs.P.8, P.9, P.20 and P.2l. 4. Prosecution received impetus, when P.WA furnished some information about his noticing the crime. On receiving the information, the police proceeded to the site and preliminary steps were taken. Inquest and post-mortem were conducted on the next day, vide Exs.P.8, P.9, P.20 and P.2l. 4. Prosecution received impetus, when P.WA furnished some information about his noticing the crime. After conducting further investigation, the prosecution formed an opinion that A.l and A.2 engaged the services of A4 to A.11 through A.3, to liquidate the deceased. A.2 is said to have arranged money. Part of the money and some weapons are said to have been recovered from A.3, and at the instance of the other accused. The accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. The trial Court rendered its judgment, in the manner mentioned above. 5. Sri T. Bali Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1425 and 1514 of 2007 submits that there is no direct evidence in this case and even the circumstantial evidence is full of missing links. He contends that the theory of conspiracy was not at all proved and with the acquittal of A.2, the very basis for the same disappears completely. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that P.Ws.1 to 3 do not have any direct or indirect information about the occurrence and though P.WA is a stranger to all the accused, no Test Identification Parade was conducted. He made similar comments, as regards the evidence of other witnesses, who are said to have the knowledge about the incident. He also submits that the mere suggestion as to the existence of motive for A.1 and A.2 does not add any strength to the case of the prosecution. 6. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in Criminal Case No.1436 of2007, apart from repeating the contentions advanced by Sri Bali Reddy, submits that the prosecution failed to prove even the circumstantial evidence. According to him, the recoveries, even if taken to be true, do not have the effect of proving the allegation against the appellants. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the proof of motive for A.I and A2 to do away with the deceased, coupled with the recoveries effected, on the inforn1ation furnished by A.3, A4 and A6 to A.11, completes the chain, to connect the accused with the occurrence. 8. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the proof of motive for A.I and A2 to do away with the deceased, coupled with the recoveries effected, on the inforn1ation furnished by A.3, A4 and A6 to A.11, completes the chain, to connect the accused with the occurrence. 8. On the basis of the permission accorded by this Court, Sri V.V. Anil Kumar, the learned Counsel for P.W.1, had assisted the learned Public Prosecutor, and has made certain submissions, with the permission of 1 the learned Public Prosecutor. 9. It is a case of double murder. It is rather intriguing that the suspicion for such an incident is against none other than the father of the deceased No.1 and father in-law of deceased No.2. Therefore, heavy burden rests upon the Court to screen the evidence properly, to arrive at a proper conclusion. 10. There existed serious disputes between A.1 and his sons viz., P.W.1, P.W.3 and the deceased as regards the properties. A1 retired as the District Medical Officer and he appears to have acquired vast extents of urban and rural properties. Several civil and criminal cases came to be instituted between them in the context of enjoyment thereof. His wife-P.W.2 also started living separately and even she filed a case under Section 498-A IPC against her husband at that age. Added to this, A1 started living in the house of his sister-A.2. This much is sufficient to infer that there existed motive for A.I and A.2 to cause harm to the deceased or for that matter, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. However, mere existence of motive would not suffice to convict an individual. The other steps, such as preparation, attempt and execution must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court. 11. The manner, in which, the death of the deceased occurred, is spoken to by P.Ws A, 5, 6 and 7. P.W.4 is the driver of an auto rickshaw. He stated that at the relevant point of time, when he was coming in the auto rickshaw together with passengers, the motor cycle, on which both the deceased were riding, had overtaken him and at a distance, he saw A.6 to A.8, along with 8 members, and that he does not know the names of A.6 to A.8. He stated that at the relevant point of time, when he was coming in the auto rickshaw together with passengers, the motor cycle, on which both the deceased were riding, had overtaken him and at a distance, he saw A.6 to A.8, along with 8 members, and that he does not know the names of A.6 to A.8. Before him, A.5 is said to have stated in loud voice that 'this is the vehicle observing the motor cycle' and soon thereafter, the other persons stabbed the deceased with pen knives. He is said to have stopped his auto rickshaw fifty yards away from the scene of offence, due to fear. He stated that he informed, what he has seen, only to his wife and it is only on the next day that he mentioned it to others. No Test Identification Parade was conducted for this witness to identify the persons, whom he is said to have seen. Further, this witness did not state as to which of the accused have attacked which of the deceased and in what manner. When two persons were put to death and several persons are said to have participated in it, the Court would find it difficult to fix the responsibility, unless specific acts are attributed to the accused concerned. 12. P.W.5 is the owner of the land, near the scene of occurrence. He is said to have noticed the attack on the deceased at about 5:00 p.m. However, in the chief-examination itself, he stated that he cannot identify anyone, except A.8. Even for him, no identification parade was held. P.W.6 was declared hostile. P.W.7 is the resident of Buddavaram Village. He was said to be going to Butumillipadu Village, to engage agricultural labourers for his farming work and on the way, noticed four persons on one side and five persons on the other side of a bridge and when he proceeded upto 1 kilo meter after the bridge, he heard the cries of a male and a female coming on a motor cycle. He is said to have remained at Butumillipadu Village for the entire night, due to fear. He did not state that he has passed on any information to P.W.1. 13. P.W.8 was declared hostile. P.W.9 is the vendor of cell phones and even his evidence is not much of use. He is said to have remained at Butumillipadu Village for the entire night, due to fear. He did not state that he has passed on any information to P.W.1. 13. P.W.8 was declared hostile. P.W.9 is the vendor of cell phones and even his evidence is not much of use. So is the case with the evidence of P. W.10, who is said to have sold the vehicle to an unknown person. P.W.II was declared hostile. P.W.12 worked as a Manager of Andhra Bank at Gundala, where A.2 had an account. From him, it was elicited that A.2 has withdrawn a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- at the relevant point of time. P.W.13 is the S.I. of Police, who registered a case, on a complaint submitted by A.2. P.W.17 is another S.I. of Police, who registered Crime No.1 09 of 2004 on a complaint submitted by A.2. P.W.14 is a Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered Crime No.654 of 2003, on a complaint submitted by A.1. Similarly, P.W.15 was examined to suggest that he registered Crime No.878 of 2002 against A.1 and A.2, on a compliant submitted by P.W.2 under Section 498-A. This is sufficient to suggest that there existed disputes between A.1 and A.2, on the one hand, and P.Ws. 1 to 3 on the other. 14. P.W.l6 is the mediator for recovery of certain material objects. P.W.18 is the S.I. of Police, who was examined to speak about the seizure of the scooter, which is said to have been utilized in the process of conm1itting offence. P.W.19 is a witness for the seizure report. The seizure of amount of Rs.70,000/- from A.2 was said to have been effected in the presence of P.Ws.20 and 21. The case property was examined by P.W.22. The AS.I of Police, who registered the case, leading to these appeals, is examined as P.W.23. P.W.24 is the D.S.P, who conducted the investigation. The prosecution has also examined the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, as P.W.25. The investigation was undertaken by two more police officials, who are examined as P.Ws. 26 and 27. 15. It needs to be seen as to how far the prosecution has established the various links to complete the chain in the process of connecting the accused with the occurrence. The investigation was undertaken by two more police officials, who are examined as P.Ws. 26 and 27. 15. It needs to be seen as to how far the prosecution has established the various links to complete the chain in the process of connecting the accused with the occurrence. Learned Public Prosecutor had relied heavily upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Geejaganda Somaiah v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 3 SCC (Crl.) 135 = 2007 AILD 131 (SC), wherein it was held that the recoveries in a criminal case, if fully accord with the letter and spirit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, can provide strong basis for proving the case against the accused. 16. It was the case of the prosecution that Al and A2 have engaged the services of A4 to All through A.3 for committing the crime. The theory of conspiracy 'was removed. On a close scrutiny, it becomes clear that not a single witness spoke about the acquaintance with the accused. Hardly there exists any evidence to show that either A3 was very closely acquainted with A.I and A.2 or that the latter have approached the former with this specific proposal. The evidence is also silent as to whether A3 is a person habituated in arranging anti-social elements or musclemen for committing crimes. Left to himself, A3 did not have any grievance to do away with the deceased. The mere fact that a I sum of Rs.70,000 /- was stated to have been recovered does not lead us any further. Reason is that the recovery is not of a weapon, nor of a substance, the possession of which was supposed to be exclusively with the said witness. Further, the recovery, said to have been made from A.3, would have assumed importance, if only the source, from which that money had accrued to him, has known. It was the consistent case of the prosecution that A.2 has drawn a sum of Rs.4,00,000 /- from her account and part of the same was given to A,3 for making arrangements. The trial Court acquitted A.2. Apart from that, unless the manner, in which the money was drawn by A.2, is pleaded and proved, mere drawal, even if established, cannot lead, by itself, to an absolute inference, that it was utilized for payment to the other accused. 17. The trial Court acquitted A.2. Apart from that, unless the manner, in which the money was drawn by A.2, is pleaded and proved, mere drawal, even if established, cannot lead, by itself, to an absolute inference, that it was utilized for payment to the other accused. 17. It is no doubt tl1le that the recoveries, if proved, may provide very useful link for connecting the accused to the crime. However, much would depend upon the substances, that are recovered, and the plea of the prosecution, as to how the objects recovered were used in commission of crime. 18. In the present case, as many as 28 material objects were marked. These include the garments, empty bottles of water and brandy, plastic glasses, shoes, cell phone, carry bag, empty packets, three vehicles etc. Only M.Os.17, 26 and 27 are knives. Rest of them are not capable of being used in commission of any crime. The recovery of these objects itself is doubtful. Further, the prosecution failed to prove that M.Os.17, 26 and 27 were used by any of the accused. In addition to that, it is not even indicated as to whether any injuries, that can be said to have been caused by the said weapons, were found on the bodies of the deceased, at all. When such is the vagueness and uncertainty of the evidence in relation to recoveries, hardly there exists anything to connect the accused with the occurrence. 19. In our opinion, It IS not even a case of extending the benefit of doubt to the accused. On the other hand, it is the one, where, even a doubt does not exist about the involvement of the accused, except of AI and A2. As regards those two accused also, nothing specific was either pleaded or proved. 20. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded in S.C. No.88 of 2005 on the file of the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Krishna at Vijayawada against the appellants-AI, A3, A4 and A6 to All is set aside. The appellants A1, A3, A4 and A6 to All shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case.