Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 165 (AP)

Pittala Purushotham v. State of A. P.

2008-02-27

B.PRAKASH RAO, L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2008
JUDGMENT (Per L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) In Sessions Case No, 294 of 2003, the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, tried A-1 to A-4 for the offence of committing murder of one Kandula Shankar, resident of Prashanthi Nagar, C.C. Colony, Narsapur, on 09-08-2002. Though charge was framed against A-5 also, the case against him was split up, in view of the fact that he could not be apprehended. 2. Through its judgment, dated 21-02-2006, the trial Court convicted A-1 to A-4, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B(1) and 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life, Fine of Rs. 1000/- each was imposed with a direction that, in default of payment there of, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months, each. 3. A-1 filed Criminal Appeal 374 of 2006, A-2 and A-4 filed Criminal Appeal No. 436 of 2006, and A-3 filed Criminal Appeal No.1085 of 2006, aggrieved by the judgment of trial Court. 4. The prosecution alleged thatA-1, brother-in-law of the deceased, was running private finance, and in the process, he demanded his brother-in-law, the deceased, to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. It is stated that since the deceased refused to accede to his request, A-1 developed grudge and conspired with A-2 to A-5 to eliminate the deceased. It is alleged that on 09-08-2002, all the accused gathered near L.B. Auto Stand, Manchiryala, and on the demand made by A-2 to A-5, A-1 provided an auto rikshaw for them at 8 p.m., by hiring it from one Thundi Ravi, P.W. 6, on the pretext of going to second show of a cinema. 5. A-2 to A-5 are said to have reached the house of deceased at 9 p.m., called him out, by knocking the door, and took him along with them, stating that A-1, his brother-in-law, sustained injuries in an accident. After going to some distance, they are said to have throttled the neck of the deceased with a cycle chain and left the dead body, by the said of the road. P.W. 1, a stranger to the family, is said to have noticed the dead body, in the morning of the next day, and soon thereafter, submitted a complaint, Ex.A-1, to the police. Investigation was taken up and subsequently, all the accused, except A-5, are apprehended. P.W. 1, a stranger to the family, is said to have noticed the dead body, in the morning of the next day, and soon thereafter, submitted a complaint, Ex.A-1, to the police. Investigation was taken up and subsequently, all the accused, except A-5, are apprehended. On the basis of the confessions, said to have been made by the accused, Material Objects were recovered. Inquest on the dead body and thereafter, postmortem, were conducted. Charges were framed and the accused pleaded not guilty. The trial Court convicted and sentenced A-1 to A-4. 6. Sri E. Ayyapu Reddy, learned Senior counsel for the appellants, submits that there is absolutely no evidence worth its name, direct or circumstantial, to prove the charges and that the trial Court convicted the appellants without any basis. He contends that even the family members of the deceased have stated in their evidence that they only suspect the involvement of A-1, and nothing further. He also contends that there is no even a whisper about appellants 2 to 4 in the evidence and that the judgment of the trial Court cannot be sustained either in law or on facts. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that through there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence, the circumstances speak for themselves and that the prosecution has proved the charges framed against the accused. He contends that the fact, that A-1 was inimically disposed against the deceased and that he hatched a plan to cause harm to him, is evident from the facts established during the trial. He contends that the judgment of the trial Court does not warrant interference. 8. P.E. 1 is a stranger to the family and he submitted a complaint, Ex. P-1, at 8.30 a.m. on 10-08-2002, stating that at 7.00 a.m., on 10-08-2002, when he was passing on the road near R.K. 4, Srirampur, Mandamarri, on the outskirts of Gadda Shivaru, he noticed the dead body. He described the complexion and other particulars of the dead body. 9. P.W. 2 is the mother, P.W. 3 is the sister and P. W. 4 is the younger brother of the deceased. P.W. 5 was declared hostile. P.W. 6 is the owner of the auto rickshaw, which was said to have been hired by A-2 to enable A-2 to A-5, in committing the offence. P.W. 7 was declared hostile. P.Ws. 9. P.W. 2 is the mother, P.W. 3 is the sister and P. W. 4 is the younger brother of the deceased. P.W. 5 was declared hostile. P.W. 6 is the owner of the auto rickshaw, which was said to have been hired by A-2 to enable A-2 to A-5, in committing the offence. P.W. 7 was declared hostile. P.Ws. 8 and 11 are the witnesses to the inquest and P.W. 9 is the photographer. P.W. 10 is the A.S.I. of police, who suspected that A-1 committed murder of the deceased. P.W. 12was declared hostile. P.W. 13 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body and P.W. 14 is the Circle Inspector of Police, who conducted the investigation. P.W. 15 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who issued F.I.R. and recorded the statement of P.W. 1. The inquest panchanama is marked as Ex. P-7 and the postmortem report is marked as Ex. P-16. 10. The evidence of P.W. 1 is not of much use in this case, except to the extent that he noticed the dead body. Nothing can be expected from him, about the cause of the death. P.Ws. 2 to 4, the mother, the sister and the brother of the deceased, respectively, have stated in their chief examination that they only suspect tile involvement of A-1 in causing the death of the deceased. P.W. 3 is none other than the wife of A-1. It was elicited through P.W. 2 that she informed the police that the death of her son may have been caused by unknown persons. When their version in the chief examination itself is so wavering, it cannot be said that by examining these witnesses, the prosecution has advanced its stand, in any manner. 11. The owner of the auto-rickshaw, P.W. 6, is not expected to know anything about the incident, nor it was suggested to him that he knows about the incident. The rest of the witnesses are only the photographer, the panch witnesses, the investigating officials and the doctor, who conducted the autopsy. 12. We are rather surprised as to how the trial Court had recorded a finding about the complicity of the accused in the instant case, on the basis of such scanty evidence. Law requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, though not absolute proof, to connect the accused with the occurrence. 12. We are rather surprised as to how the trial Court had recorded a finding about the complicity of the accused in the instant case, on the basis of such scanty evidence. Law requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, though not absolute proof, to connect the accused with the occurrence. Suspicion cannot acquire the status of proof, howsoever strong it may be. Suspicion can certainly be a starting point to enable the prosecution to proceed to establish the guilt of the accused, with the help of oral and documentary evidence. When direct evidence is not available, circumstantial evidence can be taken help of. When even according to the prosecution witnesses, there exists nothing beyond suspicion, that too wavering in nature, there was absolutely no basis for the trial Court in convicting the accused. 13. All the Criminal Appeals are accordingly allowed and the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial Court against the appellants are set aside. They shall be set at liberty, at once, unless they are required in any other case.