Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 30 (AP)

Meesala Nadipi Ramulu v. State of A. P.

2008-01-22

B.PRAKASH RAO, L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2008
JUDGMENT: L. Narasimha Reddy The appellants herein were tried as A1 to A4 for the offences under Sections 302, 109 read with Section 34 I.P.C. in S.C.No.336 of 2003 in the Court of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. They were accused of committing the murder of one Paddanna at about 7.30 p.m. on 17.11.2002 near the house of one Sri Sreeramulu, who was examined as P.W.6. 2. Through its judgment, dated 06.09.2005, the trial Court held A2 and A3 guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., A1 of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 109 I.P.C. and A4 of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. All of them were sentenced to imprisonment for life. 3. The deceased and the appellants are residents of a village by name Thummalapenta of Kolimigundla Mandal, Kurnool District, so much so, they belong to the same caste and they are known to one another. It was alleged that P.W.3, the wife of the deceased and A4 travelled in a tractor about two years prior to the date of the incident to attend a marriage at Proddutur and that while returning in the tractor, A4 sat by the side of P.W.3 and pressed her hand. The latter is said to have complained the same to her husband, the deceased, who, in turn, is said to have bet the former i.e. A4. In addition to this, A1 and A2 were said to have suspected that the deceased had illicit intimacy with the wife of A2 and that resulted in strained relations between the spouses. With this motive, all the accused are said to have conspired to kill the deceased and waited for an opportunity. 4. On 17.11.2002, the deceased and his father, P.W.1, were said to be returning from an R.M.P doctor at Kolimigundla at about 7.30 p.m. after taking treatment and when both of them reached the house of P.W.6, A4 is said to have caught hold of the deceased and A2 is said to have stabbed him on his neck with a dagger. In the meanwhile, A3 is said to have hacked the deceased on the left hand with a manchu kathi and on receiving the injuries, the deceased is said to have fallen on the ground. In the meanwhile, A3 is said to have hacked the deceased on the left hand with a manchu kathi and on receiving the injuries, the deceased is said to have fallen on the ground. P.W.1 is said to have ran out of fear into the house of P.W.6 and both of them have seen the occurrence with the help of light outside as well as the moonlight. The accused are said to have escaped into a low-lying area on being convinced that the deceased died. Subsequently, the mother and the wife of the deceased, P.Ws. 2 and 3 respectively, are said to have come to the scene of occurrence and that the deceased was shifted to the Government Hospital at Tadipatri in a jeep. The doctor is said to have declared him dead. 5. Necessary charges were framed on the basis of the above allegations. The accused pleaded not guilty. The trial Court convicted all of them and sentenced to imprisonment as mentioned above. 6. Sri P.Gangarami Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that Ex.P1, which is the very basis for charging the appellants for the offences, is shrouded in mystery and that there are several contradictions as to the very origin of it. He contends that on several material aspects, such as the time of occurrence, the manner of submission of Ex.P1 and the person, who scribed it; there are serious contradictions and conflicting opinions. The learned counsel submits that admittedly, the village was a faction-ridden one and the case was framed in such a way as to implicate the innocent persons. According to the learned counsel, the unexplained delay in registering the case was utilized for this purpose. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the incident was directly witnessed by P.W.1, the father of the deceased, and that his account is contained not only in Ex.P1 but also in his evidence. He submits that the minor discrepancies as to the timing elicited through a rustic witness, as P.W.1, cannot constitute the basis to disturb the conviction ordered against the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that not being well-versed with the Court proceedings, P.W.1 could not explain the source of Ex.P1, but by itself, the said discrepancy cannot become so crucial as to shake the very basis for prosecution. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that not being well-versed with the Court proceedings, P.W.1 could not explain the source of Ex.P1, but by itself, the said discrepancy cannot become so crucial as to shake the very basis for prosecution. He further submits that there was no delay in registering the crime. 8. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses to prove its case. It has filed Exs.P1 to P13. P.Ws. 1 to 3 are father, mother and wife respectively of the deceased. P.W.4 is the grand father of P.W.3 and he has been examined only to speak about the alleged outraging the modesty of P.W.3 by A4 about two years prior to the date of incident. P.W.5 was examined to prove that he has seen the accused armed with hunting sickles and running away after committing the murder of the deceased. He was also said to be the eyewitness to the occurrence. However, he was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court. Nothing serious was elicited from this witness. P.W.6 is the person before whose house the incident is said to have taken place. P.W.7 is a witness for inquest. P.W.8 is a mediator for the scene of offence panchanama. He was declared hostile. P.W.9 is a witness for recovery panchanama. The doctor, who conducted postmortem, was examined as P.W.10. He opined that the deceased would have died out of shock and haemorrhage and due to injuries on the left side of the neck vessels caused by injury No.1 mentioned in the postmortem certificate. P.W.11 is the Inspector of Police and the actual investigation in the case was conducted by P.W.12, the Sub-Inspector of Police. 9. There is serious dispute as to the very origin of Ex.P1, which gave rise to the initiation of proceedings against the accused. According to P.W.1, the father of the deceased, he got Ex.P1 drafted by one Sri Sudhakar at L & T Guest House. It was said to have been scribed at 1.00 a.m. on the next day (the intervening night of 17/18th November, 2002). A perusal of Ex.P1, however, discloses that it is a statement recorded by P.W.12 at the Government Hospital, Tadipatri from P.W.1. The time is also mentioned therein. It was said to have been scribed at 1.00 a.m. on the next day (the intervening night of 17/18th November, 2002). A perusal of Ex.P1, however, discloses that it is a statement recorded by P.W.12 at the Government Hospital, Tadipatri from P.W.1. The time is also mentioned therein. It is felt necessary to extract the very preamble of Ex.P1, which reads as under: "Statement of Harijana Thakkellapalli Pedda Naganna @ Somulu, 45 years, S/o. Bala Nagappa, Thummalapenta Village, Kolimigunda Mandal recorded on 17.11.2002 at 22.30 hours at Government Hospital, Tadipatri". 10. It is evident that there are serious discrepancies on several important aspects, such as the scribe, the place at which it was prepared and the time at which it was submitted. To be precise, while P.W.1 said that it was scribed by one Sri Sudhakar to his dictation, P.W.12 said that he recorded the same from P.W.1. As to the place, P.W.1 said that it was written at L & T Guest House, but P.W.12 stated that it was recorded at Government Hospital, Tadipatri. On the crucial aspect about the time, P.W.1 said that it was scribed at about 1.00 a.m. in the midnight, whereas P.W.12 stated that it was recorded at 22.30 hours i.e. 10.30 p.m. 11. Even if maximum latitude is given on these aspects, on account of the fact that P.W.1 is a rustic witness as urged by the learned Public Prosecutor, it needs to be seen as to whether there is any adequate evidence to link the accused to the occurrence. 12. According to the case presented by the prosecution, there exist two eyewitnesses i.e. P.W.1 and P.W.6. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased and being an interested witness, that too, hailing from the faction village. Therefore, his evidence needs to be examined with a bit of caution. The evidence of P.W.6, who is an independent witness, would have been of greater significance. Not only the incident is said to have taken place in front of his house, but also, this witness is said to have observed the entire occurrence, together with P.W.1. However, he was declared hostile and nothing substantial was elicited from him in the cross-examination. 13. So far as P.W.1 is concerned, there is substantial variation as to the very time of occurrence. However, he was declared hostile and nothing substantial was elicited from him in the cross-examination. 13. So far as P.W.1 is concerned, there is substantial variation as to the very time of occurrence. In his chief-examination, he stated that the incident occurred at 7.30 p.m. In the cross-examination, he stated that it took place at 9.30 or 10.00 p.m. Such a variation has its own significance in the context of sustaining the conviction against as many as four individuals and it cannot be brushed aside under the theory that P.W.1 is a rustic witness. If the witness did not have any clear idea about the time, there ought to have been consistency about lack of clarity also. The very fact that he has mentioned the time with reference to minutes also, suggests that he had clear idea about the time. 14. One important aspect of the matter is that P.W.1 and his son, the deceased, were said to have taken treatment from an R.M.P. doctor in the same village at about 7.00 p.m. and that the incident is said to have taken place when both of them were returning from the doctor. The best person to speak about the fact namely, whether the deceased and P.W.1 were together and if so, purpose and time thereof, is the doctor, who is said to have treated them. It is not as if the doctor hails from a different place or that he was not available for being examined. Not only he was not examined in the Court as a witness, but even P.W.12 did not think it fit to examine him during the course of his investigation. This lapse adds to the strength of the case of the accused that they have been implicated by weaving a story. 15. Further, it is unnatural that a father would remain as a spectator when his son is being attacked. In the natural course, he is expected to struggle to save his son or at least to raise hue and cry. At 7.30 p.m., the village will be busy with activity and people will be readily available, all around. However, P.W.1 is said to have hidden, and seen the incident. Several doubts surround the version put forward by P.W.1. P.W.12 stated that the village was faction- ridden to such an extent that he had arranged a regular police picket. At 7.30 p.m., the village will be busy with activity and people will be readily available, all around. However, P.W.1 is said to have hidden, and seen the incident. Several doubts surround the version put forward by P.W.1. P.W.12 stated that the village was faction- ridden to such an extent that he had arranged a regular police picket. Viewed in this context, heavy burden rested upon the prosecution to lead independent and clinching evidence, other than the one, of P.W.1. 16. Courts attach much significance, to the time of occurrence and the registration of case by the Police. Longer the gap, greater is the possibility of the complainant or the prosecution, as the case may be, to meditate upon the issue and create a version, in such a way as to link unconnected persons with the incident. It is more acute in cases where factions exist. 17. Let it be proceeded on the assumption that the incident has taken place at 7.30 p.m., the time mentioned by P.W.1 in his chief-examination and in Column No.3(a) in the F.I.R. marked as Ex.P8. However, in column 3(b), the time at which the intimation was received at the Police Station was mentioned as 00.30 hours on the next day i.e. 18.11.2002. Entry in the General Diary was also made at that time. Therefore, there is a gap of about five hours between the two events. The distance between the Police Station and the place of occurrence is said to be 14 k.m. It was not as if the incident occurred at midnight. In fact, the information about the incident is said to have been passed on by a Constable posted in that very village. 18. There are several indicators to point out the timings mentioned in Ex.P8 is not correct. It has already been pointed out that Ex.P1 is a statement recorded from P.W.1 in the Government Hospital at 22.30 hours. Therefore, that time i.e. 22.30 hours at least ought to have been mentioned, as the time at which the intimation of occurrence was received, if not an earlier point of time. Secondly, in his evidence, P.W.12 stated that he received information about the incident on telephone and thereafter proceeded to the Government Hospital, Tadipatri to record the statement from P.W.1. Therefore, that time i.e. 22.30 hours at least ought to have been mentioned, as the time at which the intimation of occurrence was received, if not an earlier point of time. Secondly, in his evidence, P.W.12 stated that he received information about the incident on telephone and thereafter proceeded to the Government Hospital, Tadipatri to record the statement from P.W.1. Soon after receipt of the information about the occurrence, an entry in the General Diary is required to be made before P.W.12 left for the Hospital. Such an entry was made only at 00.30. hours on the next day. This discrepancy as well as the long gap between the time of occurrence and the time at which the information was received by the Police remains unexplained. 19. The motive suggested to the accused for committing the murder of the deceased does not justify the gravity of offence. It was about two years prior to the date of occurrence that A4 is said to have caught hold the hand of P.W.3. On this, the deceased is said to have beaten A4. Neither any complaint was submitted nor any person who is said to have witnessed the said occurrance was examined. By itself, this incident cannot be treated as a motive for all the accused to do away with the deceased. 20. Another factor that was treated as constituting the motive was that A1 and A2 suspected that there existed illicit relation between the deceased and the wife of A2. Here again, not a single witness was examined to speak of the said facts. Human ingenuinity is so capable that it can bring about a chain or links to connect two events, howsoever remotely that may be. 21. We have already pointed out the serious discrepancies in, and the unreliable nature of, the evidence on record on several crucial aspects such as the very origin of Ex.P1. The unreliability of the self-serving deposition of P.W.1 not to speak of the contradictions in his own evidence and the delay in registering the crime are some more important aspects. When so many serious doubts persist, it is not at all safe to convict the accused. 22. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded in S.C.No.336 of 2003 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, dated 06.09.2005, against the appellants-A1 to A4, is set aside. When so many serious doubts persist, it is not at all safe to convict the accused. 22. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded in S.C.No.336 of 2003 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, dated 06.09.2005, against the appellants-A1 to A4, is set aside. The appellants-A1 to A4 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants-A1 to A4 shall be refunded to them.