Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 342 (AP)

Pradekar Sahebu @ Bau v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2014-03-06

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

body2014
Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The sole accused in S.C.No.98 of 2010 on the file of the Family Court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad filed this appeal, feeling aggrieved by the conviction and sentence ordered against him by the trial Court. The case of the prosecution was that on 13.09.2009 at about 11.00 hours, P.W.1, Upa-Sarpanch of Daulatabad Village submitted a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tanoor stating that he received information from one Sri Ipthe Anand Rao to the effect that the accused killed his mother at about 11.30 p.m. on 12.09.2009 by tightening a nylon rope around her neck and that she died due to strangulation. The father and brother of the accused i.e. P.Ws.2 and 3, they are said to have informed him that though they resisted the attempt of the accused, he continued with the same and killed the deceased. Crime No.51 of 2009 was registered under Section 302 I.P.C. against the accused and the matter was taken up for investigation. Scene of offence panchanama was prepared and inquest and post-mortem were conducted. The Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet. Taking the same into account, the trial Court framed the charge and conducted the trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. M.Os. 1 to 3 were also taken on record. The trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and imposed sentence of imprisonment for life. Fine of Rs.100/-was also imposed, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Hence, this appeal. Ms. Hema Jaiswal, learned counsel for the accused, submits that there is no evidence worth its name, on record, and still, the trial Court convicted the accused. She contends that none of the family members submitted the complaint and even P.W.1 stated that he received information from someone and the so- called 'someone' was not examined. Learned counsel further submits that the father of the accused i.e. the husband of the deceased was treated hostile and P.W.3, the brother of the accused, was evasive, even in his chief-examination. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the circumstantial evidence available on record is sufficient to sustain the conviction and sentence against the accused. The complaint about the death of the deceased was submitted by the Upa- Sarpanch of the Village. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the circumstantial evidence available on record is sufficient to sustain the conviction and sentence against the accused. The complaint about the death of the deceased was submitted by the Upa- Sarpanch of the Village. A perusal of Ex.P1 discloses that it is full of hearsay information and one hardly can cull out as to who exactly is the person, that has seen the occurrence. The entire evidence of P.W.1 is very brief and it reads as under: "Chief-examination: I am Upa-Sarpanch of Karbala Village. Pothaji and Anand are from my village and are my caste men. The deceased Ansabai was known to me. About one year three months back, at about 8.00 a.m., a person came and told to me about the death of the deceased Ansabai and thereafter, I sent a complaint to police. Ex.P1 is the complaint given by me to the Police. I was examined by the police. Cross-examination: I do not know reading and writing Telugu. Ex.P1 is written by S.I. of Police. I know the contents of Ex.P1 complaint and they were explained to me." From this, it is evident that P.W.1 is not the person who had direct knowledge about the death, let alone his being the eye witness, to the occurrence. He simply stated that at 8.00 a.m., a person came and told him about the death. At the most, he can account for passing on the information about the death of the deceased to the Police, and not beyond that. P.W.2 is the father of the accused and husband of the deceased. He stated that the deceased killed herself by hanging with a rope, and he did not see the accused killing the deceased. Naturally, he was treated hostile. However, one cannot brush aside the evidence of an important person like P.W.2. If, in fact, he has seen or doubted the accused killing the deceased, being her husband, he cannot be expected to either keep quite or to present a distorted version. It has already been noticed in the evidence of P.W.1 that Ex.P1 was written by the Sub-Inspector of Police. P.W.3 is the brother of the accused. This witness stated that the accused tied the rope to the neck of the deceased and she died on the spot. There is not even a whisper that he has seen the occurrence. It has already been noticed in the evidence of P.W.1 that Ex.P1 was written by the Sub-Inspector of Police. P.W.3 is the brother of the accused. This witness stated that the accused tied the rope to the neck of the deceased and she died on the spot. There is not even a whisper that he has seen the occurrence. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the entire family was having one acre of land, but he alone is cultivating it, to the exclusion of the accused. Except this, there is no other evidence, which can throw light upon the occurrence. P.W.4 is a neighbor of P.W.2 and what all he stated is that on hearing noises from the house of P.W.2, he proceeded to the house and found P.Ws.2 and 3 coming out. P.W.2 is said to have told him that the accused killed the deceased. When P.W.2 himself did not say so, the evidence of this witness is of no use. The only basis for the trial Court to hold the accused guilty was that the version presented by P.W.3 is accorded with the post-mortem report. That is too specious a reason, to convict an accused. It is only when there exists adequate evidence to prove that the injuries on the body of a deceased are caused by the accused, that he can be held guilty. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C.No.98 of 2010 on the file of the Family Court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, dated 15.09.2010, against the appellant- accused, are set aside. The appellant-accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is needed in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-accused shall be refunded to him. The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.