Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 88 (AP)

Bommakanti Laxman v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2008-02-07

B.PRAKASH RAO, L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2008
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J : The sole accused in Sessions Case No.793 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial filed these two appeals, aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court dated 22.12.2005. 2. The appellant was charged with offences under Sections 417, 420, 498-A, 302, 304-B, 20 I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegation against him was that he married one Degala Shantha @ Bommakanti Shantha, the deceased, some time in the year 2003 concealing the fact that he was earlier married to some one else. It was also alleged that he induced P.W.I, in the presence of P.W.G, to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- promising that he would send him to Dubai, but failed to do so; and thereby committed an offence under Section 420 IPC. The appellant was accused of harassing Shantha physically and mentally, demanding additional dowry and that he murdered her on the intervening night of 7/8.2.2005 by pouring kerosene on her. It was further alleged that with a view to screen the evidence from the prosecution, he had removed the dead body to a remote place. 3. Through the judgment under appeal, the trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 417, 420 and 201 IPC and convicted him. The trial Court sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentences for different periods ranging from one year to five years of rigorous imprisonment, were imposed for the offences punishable under other provisions. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. The case against the appellant started with the submission of the complaint EX.P1 dated 13.2.2005 by P.W.1, the brother of the deceased. Extensive reference was made in Ex.P1 to the manner in which the appellant is said to have married the deceased, the monetary transactions said to have been carrid out, and the commission of murder of the deceased, by the appellant. By the time, the complaint was submitted and the police plunged into action, the dead body was in a mutilated condition. The police got the inquest of the dead body, through Ex.P.2 and post-mortem, vide Ex.P.3. The appellant pleaded not guilty of the charges levelled against him. The trial Court convicted him. in the manner indicated above. By the time, the complaint was submitted and the police plunged into action, the dead body was in a mutilated condition. The police got the inquest of the dead body, through Ex.P.2 and post-mortem, vide Ex.P.3. The appellant pleaded not guilty of the charges levelled against him. The trial Court convicted him. in the manner indicated above. 5. The appeals were filed through legal aid. Since the Counsel, who presented the appeals, did not appear, at the request of this Court, Sri Syed Nasintddin Ansari assisted the Court. He submits that there is uncertainty as to the very arrival of information to the police about the incident. He points out that the prosecution failed to prove the marriage between the appellant and the deceased and several conclusions were arrived at, by the trial Court, on guesswork. Learned Counsel submits that there are contradictions between EX.PI on the one hand, and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, the brother and sister of the deceased, on the other hand. Learned Counsel further contends that P.Ws.1 and 3 categorically stated that the information about noticing of the dead body reached them first even before Ex.P1 was submitted and P.W.1 failed to reveal the source of his information. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the case is mostly based on the circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has adduced cogent and consistent evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant. He contends that in a matter of this nature, the minor contradictions are bound to exist and once the principal aspects are proved, the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court cannot be interfered with. 7. P.Ws.1 and 3 are the brother and sister of the deceased respectively. P.W.2 is the person, who is said to have noticed the dead body of the deceased first. P.W.4 is a panch to the observation of the scene of offence. P.W.S is the doctor, who examined the dead body and conducted autopsy. He opined that having regard to the condition of the dead body, he cannot give any opinion as to the cause, or the approximate time of death of the deceased. P.W.6 is said to be a witness when P.W.1 said a sum of Rs.80,000/to the appellant. However, he did not support the case of the prosecution. He opined that having regard to the condition of the dead body, he cannot give any opinion as to the cause, or the approximate time of death of the deceased. P.W.6 is said to be a witness when P.W.1 said a sum of Rs.80,000/to the appellant. However, he did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.7 is a witness to the alleged confession and recovery of the kerosene tin at the instance of the appellant. He was declared hostile. The prosecution alleged that P.W.8 is a witness before whom the appellant and the deceased introduced themselves as husband and wife. However, he did not stand by it; and accordingly, was declared as hostile. PW.9 is a photographer and P.W.10 is the Mandal Revenue Officer, who conducted inquest over the dead body. P.Ws.11 and 12 are the Investigating Officers. 8. The prosecution has also filed Exs.P.1 to P.15. Important among them is Ex.P1-complaint, Ex.P2-inquest report and Ex.P.4-post-mortem report. The trial Court framed the following points for its consideration. 1. Whether the accused married the deceased and in so marrying he suppressed his earlier marriage with Ananthalaxmi ? 2. Whether the accused collected a sum of Rs.80,000/- from P.W.1 promising him to send him to Dubai ? 3. Whether the death of the deceased is established and whether the skeleton body found near Bokkala Vaagu of Kondagattu belongs to the deceased? 4. Whether the accused committed murder of the deceased and burnt the dead body? 5. Whether the accused harassed the deceased for dowry so soon before her alleged unnatural death? 6. Whether the accused is liable for punishment for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act? 7. Whether the accused had caused disappurance of evidence? 8. To what relief? Except points 6 and 7, it answered rest of them against the appellant. Therefore, it needs to be seen as to whether the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court can be sustained in law and on facts. 9. The appellant flatly denied the allegation that he married the deceased. Both of them belong to different castes and different places. P.Ws.1 and 3, the brother and sister of the deceased, did not furnish the particulars about the alleged marriage. EX.PI is also silent about it. 9. The appellant flatly denied the allegation that he married the deceased. Both of them belong to different castes and different places. P.Ws.1 and 3, the brother and sister of the deceased, did not furnish the particulars about the alleged marriage. EX.PI is also silent about it. The only witness namely P.W.8 is said to have known the appellant and the deceased as husband and wife, but he was declared hostile and nothing was elicited from him, in the cross-examination. 10. One serious allegation against the appellant is that he concealed his earlier marriage when he married the deceased. P.Ws.1 and 3 have made serious issue about it and the same constituted the substance of a charge. In his chief-examination, P.W.1 did not speak anything about the earlier marriage of his sister, the deceased, However, in his cross-examination, he stated as under. "It is a fact that the deceased was initially married to one Bhoomaiah of Govindaram Village and after his death, she came back to our house," In contrast, P.W.3, the sister of the deceased, stated in her chief-examination as under: "The deceased Shantha is my younger sister. She was married to one Bhoomaiah of Govindaram Village. He deserted the deceased. About three years back the accused married the deceased." The contradiction is clearly evident. If such is the variation about the earlier marriage of the deceased and the status of her first husband, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 needs to be scrutinized with great care and caution. 11. About the manner in which the deceased is said to have become acquainted with the accused, P.W.1 stated in the cross-examination as under: "While she was living with us, she was alone going to Kondagattu and coming back. The deceased was representing that she was going to Kondagattu, but I had no personal knowledge whether she was going to Kondagattu or elsewhere." 12. Suggestions were made to the effect that the deceased had acquaintance with several persons. About the state of affairs that are said to have existed immediately before the alleged incident, P.W.1 stated in EX.P1 that the deceased went to the house of the appellant on her own accord but did not come back. In his chief-examination, he, however, stated that when the appellant started harassing the deceased, she came to the house of the witness and lived there for one year. In his chief-examination, he, however, stated that when the appellant started harassing the deceased, she came to the house of the witness and lived there for one year. The appellant is said to have taken the deceased from the house of P.W.1 almost on the same date of the incident. This vast variation remains unexplained. 13. P.W.I never alleged in his chief-examination that the appellant demanded any dowry from the deceased. The allegation made against him was that a sum of Rs.80,OOO/- was received by him with a promise that he would arrange a passport for Dubai and he did not comply with the same. It was also alleged that when P.W.1 pressed about it, appellant made a further demand of Rs.50,000/- and started harassing the deceased. Hence, there does not exist any element of Section 498-A IPC, particularly, when the very marriage between the appellant and the deceased was not proved. The amount of Rs.80,000/- was said to have been paid in the presence ofP.W.6. That witness, however, has turned hostile. Therefore, even the charge of extracting money or cheating P.W.1 becomes untenable. 14. P.W.2 is said to have noticed an unknown dead body on 13.2.2005 and that on the same day, he informed the police. P.W.1 did not indicate his source of information about noticing the dead body or the time thereof, either in EX.P1 or in his evidence. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mallial Police Station, who registered the F.I.R., was examined as P.W.12. In his chief-examination, he stated that he received EX.P1 at 8 p.m. on 13.2.2005, registered Crime No.7 of 2005, and soon thereafter, he issued Express F.I.R. to the Court, apart from taking other steps in the investigation. It clearly suggests that the starting point for the investigation is submission of Ex.P1. However, the cross-examination of this witness proceeds as under. "On 13.2.2005 at 5 p.m., I came to know about the existence of the dead body of the deceased near Kondagattu. We informed P.W.1 about it and P.W.1 came to the Police station and gave complaint Ex.P1, after visiting the scene and identifying the dead body." 15. This completely belies the theory that the starting point for the investigation is submission of Ex.P1. When the information about the dead body is received at 5 p.m. on 13.2.2005, the police was supposed to register a crime, and proceed further. This completely belies the theory that the starting point for the investigation is submission of Ex.P1. When the information about the dead body is received at 5 p.m. on 13.2.2005, the police was supposed to register a crime, and proceed further. Steps were taken almost, in the reverse direction, namely; informing P.W.1 about the incident and receiving a complaint thereafter. 16. One of the circumstances that weighed with the trial Court to hold the appellant guilty, is that during her lifetime, the deceased submitted a complaint against the appellant under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In the evidence, it has been elicited that the police closed the complaint, as being without any basis and thereafter, a private complaint was made before the trial Court, which in turn referred the matter to the police. Crime No.3 of 2005 was registered but it is said to have been closed, since no substance was found in it. Even after going through the entire evidence on record, we are unable to arrive at a conclusion that the marriage between the deceased and the appellant was proved. There are several missing links in the whole episode and there does not exist any reliable evidence to link the appellant herein, with the death of the deceased. 17. Both the criminal appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded in S.C. No.793 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial, dated 22.12.2005, against the appellant-Bommakanti Laxman S/o. Kistaiah, are set aside. He shall stand acquitted of all the charges held proved by the trial Court against him. He shall be set at liberty forthwith unless needed in any other case.