Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 163 (AP)

D. Bala Obulesu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2014-02-05

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, M.S.K.JAISWAL

body2014
Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.693 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur. He was tried for the offence of committing the murder of A.Ramanjaneyulu @ Chandra on 18.05.2007 at 2.30 p.m. at Tabujula Village of Peddapappur Mandal, Anantapur District. The trial Court held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Fine of Rs.500/- was imposed. The case of the prosecution was that the accused and the deceased were having illicit intimacy with one D.Obulamma, P.W.6, and on account of jealousy and to ensure that the information about the relationship between him and P.W.6 is not known to others, the accused was planning to kill the deceased. The deceased is said to be a regular farm servant of V. Mohan Reddy, P.W.5. On 18.05.2007, the deceased was said to be irrigating the garden of P.W.5, whereas P.Ws.3 and 4 were engaged as farm servants to remove the weed. It was alleged that though the accused also used to be engaged as farm servant by P.W.5, he was not engaged on 18.05.2007. It was also alleged that at around 2.30 p.m., Ramanjaneyulu was irrigating the plants at a distance of about 15 feet from the place where P.Ws.3 and 4 were working. The accused is said to have come from backside of Ramanjaneyulu and hit him with a sickle four or five times. P.Ws.3 and 4 are said to have gone to the spot on hearing the cries of the deceased and by that time they went there, the accused is said to have escaped by leaving his chappal and a rope. Both of them are said to have informed the parents of the deceased, P.Ws.1 and 2, and P.W.1 submitted a complaint, Ex.P1, to the Station House Officer, Muchukota Police Station and on the basis of the same, Crime No.25 of 2007 was registered. The steps required under law, such as conducting inquest and post-mortem were taken and on the basis of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The steps required under law, such as conducting inquest and post-mortem were taken and on the basis of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The trial Court framed the following charge against the accused: “That you on the 18th day of May, 2007 at about 2.30 p.m. in the garden land of Valluri Mohan Reddy son of Thippa Reddy of Tabjula Village situated ½ k.m. to the eastern side of Tabjula Village, did commit murder intentionally or knowingly causing the death of A.Ramanjaneyulu @ chandra son of Daivadheenam of Tabjula Village by hacking him with sickle on his neck, face, right shoulder, right hand wrist and left leg and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.” Before the trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P1 to P11 were filed. M.Os.1 to 13 were marked. Smt.C.Vasundhara Reddy, learned counsel for the accused, submits that the trial Court convicted her client just on the basis of assumptions and inferences and the evidence of the so-called eyewitnesses is not only inconsistent, but also is untrustworthy. She contends that P.Ws.3 and 4 are closely related to the deceased as well as P.Ws.1 and 2 and their evidence was required to be appreciated with care and caution. She contends that though P.W.5 stated that P.Ws.3 and 4 were engaged for removal of weed in the garden, the latter stated that they were collecting firewood at the relevant point of time. He submits that while P.W.3 stated that there is illicit intimacy between the deceased and P.W.6, exactly the opposite was stated by P.W.6. She further submits that though P.Ws.3 and 4 stated that the accused gave four or five blows to the deceased with sickle, the post-mortem report, Ex.P6, revealed that there are as many as 10 injuries and all in the front part of the body. She contends that the very theory of the accused attacking the deceased from behind becomes unbelievable. Learned counsel submits that the inordinate delay in submission of the report, Ex.P1, was certainly utilized in preparing a complaint to implicate the accused. She contends that the very theory of the accused attacking the deceased from behind becomes unbelievable. Learned counsel submits that the inordinate delay in submission of the report, Ex.P1, was certainly utilized in preparing a complaint to implicate the accused. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that P.Ws.3 and 4 categorically stated that they have seen the accused committing the murder of the deceased and the mere fact that they are related to P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased cannot be a ground to discard their evidence. She further submits that the minor discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 or for that matter, between the evidence of those two witnesses or that of P.W.5, cannot create any doubt as to the involvement of the accused in committing the offence. The incident occurred in a garden owned by P.W.5. While the deceased was engaged as a regular farm servant by P.W.5, P.Ws.3 and 4 are said to have been engaged as daily labourers. It was pleaded by P.Ws.3 and 4 that the accused used to be engaged as a daily labourer, but he was not engaged on that day. This is totally at variance with what is stated by P.W.5. He stated that the accused was also engaged by him on that day and he was required to work in a different field. The purpose for which P.Ws.3 and 4 were engaged is not consistently spoken by the prosecution witnesses. While according to these two witnesses, they were engaged for collecting firewood, P.W.5 stated that the work assigned to them was to clear the weed in the garden. The two aspects referred to above can be treated as trivial, if the other evidence proves the involvement of the accused in causing the death of the deceased and they cannot constitute the basis to set aside the conviction. P.W.4 is none other than the sister of P.W.1 and the father of the deceased. P.W.3 is the husband of P.W.4. Therefore, the evidence of these two witnesses needs to be examined with a bit of care and caution. P.W.3 stated that when the deceased was irrigating the plants, the accused came from behind and hit him on the head with a sickle. The distance between the places where the deceased and P.W.3 were standing was said to be 15 feet. Therefore, the evidence of these two witnesses needs to be examined with a bit of care and caution. P.W.3 stated that when the deceased was irrigating the plants, the accused came from behind and hit him on the head with a sickle. The distance between the places where the deceased and P.W.3 were standing was said to be 15 feet. If that is so, P.W.3 could have proceeded to the spot and made an attempt to catch hold of the accused after intervening in the matter. He did not say that any attempt was made by the deceased to prevent the accused from attacking him. It is not as if that with one blow, the deceased fell down and other blows were given to him thereafter. There is serious discrepancy about number of injuries also. According to P.Ws.3 and 4, the accused hit the deceased four or five times. The post-mortem report, Ex.P6, however, reflects as many as nine incised wounds at various places of the body and an abrasion on the back of the right shoulder. Rest of the injuries are not accounted for. P.Ws.3 and 4 stated that on noticing their arrival, the accused has fled away. The very presence of the accused at the scene of offence becomes doubtful. The reason is that P.W.5 stated that the accused was engaged by him to work in a different place and has reported to him at 12.30 p.m. and thereafter, left for other field at 1.30 p.m. Both the fields are located far away from each other. P.W.1 submitted the complaint, Ex.P1. He stated that he received information from P.W.3 about the death of his son. It is not mentioned as to where he was, when the information was received. The complaint reads as though he himself has seen everything. It was submitted at 6.00 p.m. Four and half hours time that intervened is sufficient for anyone to think over and deliberate; and not only to implicate a person of his choice but also to weave the story in support thereof. The only motive that was attributed to the accused to kill the deceased was his illicit intimacy with P.W.6. However, P.W.4, the wife of P.W.3, categorically stated that there was no illicit intimacy between those two persons and P.W.6 is the sister by courtesy to the accused. P.W.6 was declared hostile. Nothing objectionable was elicited through her. The only motive that was attributed to the accused to kill the deceased was his illicit intimacy with P.W.6. However, P.W.4, the wife of P.W.3, categorically stated that there was no illicit intimacy between those two persons and P.W.6 is the sister by courtesy to the accused. P.W.6 was declared hostile. Nothing objectionable was elicited through her. When the very motive attributed to the accused for committing the offence was proved to be wrong, and the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 is found to be inconsistent and not trustworthy, we find it difficult to sustain the conviction of the accused. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C.No.693 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur, dated 03.10.2008, against the appellant-accused, are set aside. The appellant-accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-accused shall be refunded to him. The miscellaneous petitions filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.