Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 373 (AP)

Ellala Linga Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2014-03-10

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

body2014
Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The sole accused in S.C.No.187 of 2008 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Karimnagar was tried for the offence of committing murder of one Sri Hanumandla Bhoopathi Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) on 20.11.2005 and causing disappearance of the evidence in that behalf. Through its judgment, dated 06.11.2009, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. Sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months was imposed for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and punishment of three years imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months was imposed for the offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C. Hence, this appeal. The information about the death of the deceased reached the Station House Officer, Bejjanki Police Station with the submission of complaint, Ex.P1, by P.W.1, wife of the deceased, on 23.11.2005. She stated that out of her four daughters, P.W.2 is a widow residing in the same village and the deceased was helping her in cultivation. The accused is said to be owning the lands by the side of the lands of P.W.2. It was alleged that there are quarrels between P.W.2 and the accused in relation to boundaries of land and at one stage, the accused took a vow that he would liquidate the deceased. She further stated that at about 8.00 a.m. on 20.11.2005, the deceased left the house for the fields, but did not come back. She is said to have been informed by the husband of the Sarpanch, Sri Peechu Shankar Reddy (not examined), that the deceased is lying in the well of one Sri Edumyakala Balamallu and that it was witnessed by one Sri Edumyakala Anjaiah. On receiving this information, P.W.2 is said to have gone to the well and identified the dead body as that of her father, Bhoopathi Reddy. Ultimately, P.W.1 stated that the deceased may have slipped into the well and died. On the basis of Ex.P1, Crime No.180 of 2005 was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and the matter was taken up for investigation. Ultimately, P.W.1 stated that the deceased may have slipped into the well and died. On the basis of Ex.P1, Crime No.180 of 2005 was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and the matter was taken up for investigation. 18 days thereafter i.e. on 08.12.2005, P.W.2, the daughter of the deceased, submitted a complaint to the Police stating that P.Ws.3 to 5 informed her that on 20.11.2005, in the afternoon, at about 5.00 p.m. they heard some voice in the field of the accused and when they went nearby, they found that the accused was sitting in his cattle shed, and the deceased was nearby him, and she suspected that the death of the deceased may have been caused by the accused. The police modified the F.I.R. and the provision of law in it was changed. The dead body was removed from the water, inquest and post-mortem were conducted. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the trial Court framed the charge. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 15 and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. On behalf of the defence, Exs.D1 to D3 were marked. M.Os.1 and 2 were also taken on record. The trial Court gave its verdict as mentioned at the threshold. Smt. Vasundhara Reddy, learned counsel for the accused, submits that even to the best of the imaginations, the facts stated by the prosecution would not provide any link between the accused and the death of the deceased. She contends that P.W.1, none other than the wife of the deceased, submitted complaint three days after the alleged incident and even according to her, the death was on account of slipping into the well. She contends that about three weeks later, not P.W.1, but her daughter, P.W.2, gave a supplementary complaint, implicating the accused. She contends that the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 6 does not deserve any consideration at all, since they did not reveal what is said to have been witnessed by them to anyone and their evidence is inconsistent. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that though there is some discrepancy as to the versions about the cause of the death and delay in submission of the complaint, a detailed and thorough investigation undertaken by the Police has brought home the guilt of the accused. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that though there is some discrepancy as to the versions about the cause of the death and delay in submission of the complaint, a detailed and thorough investigation undertaken by the Police has brought home the guilt of the accused. She contends that P.W.1 did not name anyone, because nothing was forthcoming at that stage and once almost an eye-witness account of P.Ws.3 and 6 has come to the notice of P.W.2, a further complaint was submitted and relevant evidence was placed before the trial Court. Even the family members of the deceased i.e. P.Ws.1 and 2 were not aware of the death of the deceased for about 3 days after he left home. On noticing his dead body also, they did not suspect the involvement of anyone. This is evident from Ex.P1, filed by P.W.1 three days after the alleged incident. P.W.1 stuck to that very version when she was examined in the Court. Here itself, it needs to be mentioned that P.W.1 is said to have received the information about noticing of dead body of the deceased in the well through the husband of the Sarpanch, by name Shankar Reddy. That gentleman was not examined as witness. Since P.W.1 did not accuse anyone, non-examination of Shankar Reddy was not of any consequence. A significant turn in the case took place with the filing of a supplementary complaint by P.W.2. In case any vital information has poured in, it was expected of P.W.2, to inform the same to P.W.1, so that necessary steps could have been taken. However, on her own accord, P.W.2 informed the Police that she came to know from P.Ws.3 to 5 that they heard some loud voice “do not kill, do not kill” on 20.11.2005, when all of them were in the fields and when two of them i.e. P.Ws.3 and 5 went nearby the cattle shed of the accused, they noticed the presence of the deceased also. First of all, the credibility of the complaint given at such length of time or the version of the witnesses who did not pass on the information for such a long time, needs to be taken note of. Though in a given case, subsequent information can also be taken into account, that would be possible if only it is not tainted with any manipulations. Though in a given case, subsequent information can also be taken into account, that would be possible if only it is not tainted with any manipulations. P.W.3 stated that she went as a labourer on 20.11.2005 to the field of Anantha Reddy, P.W.6, and at about 5.00 to 5.30 p.m., she heard loud voice in the cattle shed of the deceased. Herself and other labourers are said to have informed the incident to P.W.6 and latter, herself and other labourers have also noticed from a distance that the deceased was sitting and the accused was standing. Thereafter, they are said to have returned to their houses. Even if this evidence in the chief-examination is to be treated as truthful, what emerges from it is, that it may account for the theory of ‘last seen together” and no criminal acts were attributed to the accused, much less any injuries were noticed on the deceased. P.W.6 repeated the same thing. He too did not attribute anything to the accused nor stated that any injuries are noticed upon the deceased. It is three days thereafter, that one Sri Anjaiah (not examined) is said to have informed Shankar Reddy (not examined) that the dead body was floating in the well. In the chief-examination itself, P.W.6 stated that one week after the incident, he informed P.W.2 about what he has noticed. The complaint from P.W.2 emerged one week after she is said to have received information from P.W.6. With this sequence of events, it becomes just impossible if not impermissible to identify any particular person as responsible for the death of the deceased. Once the starting point of the investigation was the theory put forward by P.W.1, namely that the deceased died on account of slipping into the well, the prosecution needed an un-shaky, consistent and reliable evidence to improve upon that version. The subsequent complaint made by P.W.2 becomes unacceptable for more reasons than one. The first is about the delay from the date of occurrence, but also the one that intervened the day on which she is said to have received information from P.W.6 and the date on which it is submitted. The second is about the existing enmity between herself and the accused on account of boundary disputes. There was every possibility of her deliberating during this period, upon the ways to implicate the accused. The second is about the existing enmity between herself and the accused on account of boundary disputes. There was every possibility of her deliberating during this period, upon the ways to implicate the accused. The third is about not so consistent and not so serious evidence of P.Ws.3 to 6. The medical evidence available through the deposition of P.W.12, the Doctor, and post-mortem report, Ex.P7, is to the effect that the death occurred due to drowning and no external injuries caused by any third party, were noticed. This being the case, the finding recorded and the consequential sentence ordered by the trial Court cannot be accepted. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C.No.187 of 2008 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, dated 06.11.2009, 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.