Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 548 (AP)

Metta Shankara Rao v. State of A. P.

2014-04-15

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

body2014
JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. Seven homicidal deaths in a hamlet of a village, in Srikakulam District and this includes, those of two children, three men and two women. The horrific incident can easily be imagined. The prosecution alleged that the accused, by name, Metta Shankara Rao, R/o Mettapeta H/o Nagirikatakam Village, Jalumuru Mandal, Srikakulam District, caused the death of all the seven, including that of his two minor children, a boy and a girl of tender age. The magnitude of the incident is not difficult to assess and naturally, the prosecution has evinced lot of interest. As many as 48 prosecution witnesses were examined and 53 documents were filed. 26 material objects were taken on record. 2. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence before him, the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, through judgment, dated 30.04.2012 in S.C. No. 64 of 2011, held the accused guilty of causing all the seven deaths and imposed the capital punishment of death. While the trial Court referred the matter to this Court under Section 366 Cr.P.C., for confirmation, the accused filed Crl. A. No. 1265 of 2012. Both of them are heard together. 3. The accused was employed in C.R.P.F. He was married to Vijayalaxmi, the daughter of P.W. 3 and out of their wedlock, they had two children, Manasa and Divakar. The wife of the accused died in the year 2007. Alleging that the accused herein is responsible for the death of his wife, he was prosecuted in S.C. No. 72 of 2007 by the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, under Section 304-BI.P.C. Through its judgment, dated 30.03.2009, the trial Court convicted the accused herein for the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C., and imposed the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for seven (7) years. In Crl. A. No. 64 of 2009, the Sessions Court, Srikakulam, suspended the sentence and the accused was released on bail. 4. On 01.12.2010, P.W. 1, the Village Revenue Officer of Nagirikatakam filed a complaint, Ex. P. 1, before the Station House Officer, Jalumuru. He stated that the Village Talayari, by name, Talasamudram Raja Rao, came to him early in the morning and informed that the accused killed not only his two minor children, but also D. 3 to D. 7. 4. On 01.12.2010, P.W. 1, the Village Revenue Officer of Nagirikatakam filed a complaint, Ex. P. 1, before the Station House Officer, Jalumuru. He stated that the Village Talayari, by name, Talasamudram Raja Rao, came to him early in the morning and informed that the accused killed not only his two minor children, but also D. 3 to D. 7. He is also said to have informed him that in the process, the accused hurled bombs at various places and set the hayrick of P.W. 9 and Bullock Cart of P.W. 16, on fire. Crime No. 51 of 2010 was registered and investigation was taken up. Almost the entire police administration of the district landed in the village, even before Ex. P. 1 was received and the investigation was taken up. Individual scenes of offence panchanama, inquest and post-mortem were conducted on the respective deceased. The accused is said to have been taken to the police station at 7.00 A.M. on 01.12.2010, and interrogated. He is said to have confessed to the committing of offences alleged against him. After completing the investigation, a comprehensive charge sheet was filed. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the trial Court herein framed as many as 17 charges against the accused. Almost all the charges were held proved and punishments of different descriptions were imposed. Since the capital punishment was imposed, rest of them virtually become inconsequential, unless the sentence of death is set aside and he is found guilty of those offences. 5. Initially, on receipt of the reference from the trial Court, this Court requested Sri T. Padyumna Kumar Reddy, to assist it as an Amicus Curiae. Thereafter, Sri N. Vidya Prasad, learned counsel, was entrusted with the State brief by the A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee. Both the learned counsel have addressed arguments at length. 6. Learned counsel submit, at the outset, that the very institution of the case against the accused, is some what extraordinary, in view of the fact that it is only a Village Revenue Officer, P.W. 1, that too, who did not see the occurrence and was in a different village at that time, that filed the complaint, whereas none of the spouses or children of deceased 3 to 7 have chosen to file complaint; oral or written. They submit that the only source of information for P.W. 1 about such a ghastly incident was L.W. 56 - Talasamudram Rajarao, and for the reasons best known to them, the prosecution did not examine such an important witness. They submit that for all practical purposes, the filing of Ex. P. 1 was superfluous, in view of the fact that the police, in large number, have landed in the village, much before Ex. P. 1 was submitted. 7. Learned counsel submit that it is unthinkable as to how Talasamudram Rajarao, or P.W. 1, came to know that the heads of the two children were cut and even while leaving the trunks in the house of the accused, the heads were taken away to a different village and the prosecution failed to explain this phenomenon, anywhere in the lengthy trial. They further submit that P.W. 24, the Principal of a private boarding school, where the children of the accused, D. 1 and D. 2, were studying, did not produce the relevant material to show that the accused approached him for custody of the children. Learned counsel submit that P.W. 24 faltered and fumbled on several aspects, such as his talking on the telephone, when a call was received from the accused, his failure to reveal to anyone in the village on 01.12.2010 that he is the Principal of the Institution, or the custody of the children having been given by him and his failure to produce any material to show that the accused ever approached him, and that any entry was made in the attendance register about the permission having been granted to the accused to take away the children. It is also argued that even if a student in a school dies due to illness or accident, everyone in the institution gets the knowledge of the same and condolences are arranged, whereas P.W. 24 stated that till 04.12.2010, he did not inform to anyone in the school, about the factum of the death of two children - D. 1 and D. 2 (for four working days). 8. As regards the death of D. 3, learned counsel submit that there is contradictory version of P.Ws. 6 and 7, on the one hand, and that of P.W. 12, on the other hand. They submit that while according to P.Ws. 8. As regards the death of D. 3, learned counsel submit that there is contradictory version of P.Ws. 6 and 7, on the one hand, and that of P.W. 12, on the other hand. They submit that while according to P.Ws. 6 and 7, the accused came to their house and took D. 3 along with him to his house straight away, P.W. 12 stated that the accused and D. 3 proceeded towards a canal to answer the nature calls at 8.00 P.M., and that the accused alone returned on a motor cycle at 10.00 P.M. It is also argued that apart from stating that they have seen the accused killing D. 3, P.Ws. 6 and 7 stated that they have seen, the accused taking D. 5, also along with him, and killing him in the backyard of his house, whereas D. 5 was taken in the injured condition to a hospital and he died there. The attention of this Court has drawn to the evidence of P.Ws. 12 and 9, who stated that they have seen D. 5 coming from a place in the village in injured condition and that he has been shifted in the ambulance, to the nearby Government Hospital. Learned counsel submit that no person connected with the ambulance, or the hospital, was examined to disclose that D. 5 was brought in injured condition and that he died out of injuries. 9. In relation to the death of D. 4, learned counsel submit that there are conflicting versions presented by the prosecution itself. It is urged that P.W. 8, the wife of D. 4, stated that the accused came to their house at 10.00 P.M., and took D. 4 along with him on the pretext of taking intoxicants and that the same was witnessed by P.W. 12, whereas P.W. 16 stated that he heard the voices of the accused and D. 4, but he did not open the door and found the dead body of D. 4 in the morning. They have also referred to the evidence of P.W. 16, who is said to have called his friend - P.W. 5 from a neighboring village and the evidence of none of those witnesses is believable. It is argued that the death of D. 5 is not at all explained by the prosecution, and there are conflicting versions of P.Ws. They have also referred to the evidence of P.W. 16, who is said to have called his friend - P.W. 5 from a neighboring village and the evidence of none of those witnesses is believable. It is argued that the death of D. 5 is not at all explained by the prosecution, and there are conflicting versions of P.Ws. 4, 6 and 7, on the one hand, and P.Ws. 9, 12 and 18, on the other hand. 10. Learned counsel for the accused further submit that the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the accused caused the death of D. 6, by name, Parvathamma. According to them, P.W. 10, the son, and P.W. 17, the husband of D. 6, were very much in the house, when the incident is said to have taken place and there is no consistency in the evidence of those two witnesses. They submit that according to P.W. 10, the accused knocked the door, D. 6 opened it and soon thereafter, the accused started inflicting injuries with knife, and D. 6 collapsed on the spot, whereas according to P.W. 17, the accused caused injuries to D. 6, and thereafter, dragged her to neighboring house, and on the way he, continued to beat her. Learned counsel submit that according to prosecution, D. 6 received injuries to her hands, when deceased attacked her and she ran to the house of P.W. 15 and there she implored the accused not to attack her; but the evidence of P.W. 15 is substantially different from this. 11. As regards the death of D. 7, wife of P.W. 12, learned counsel submit that though the incident is said to have taken place on the terrace of the house of P.W. 13, she clearly admitted that she did not see the accused or D. 7, climbing the terrace, and in that view of the matter, it cannot be held that the accused killed D. 7. 12. 12. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel that the family of the accused was completely ruined by certain interested persons by subjecting him to trial and conviction in relation to the death of his wife, and when he was virtually leading dejected and depressed life, D. 3 and D. 4 hatched a plan to offer the human sacrifice of the helpless children of the accused, in a Temple, to unearth the hidden treasures and in the process, D. 3 and D. 4 colluded with P.W. 24, brought the children without the knowledge of the accused, cut the heads of those children, right in the house of the accused, which was almost abandoned, and took the heads to Sri Someshwara Temple in the neighboring village. They submit that the prosecution ought to have tried P.W. 24, the real culprit, as an accused, but has left him scot-free and made an endeavor to cover up the bloodbath that was enacted in the village. Learned counsel submit that the killing of the children of the accused by D. 3 and D. 4 was witnessed by D. 5, the paternal uncle of the accused, and afraid of that, D. 3 and D. 4 caused the death of D. 5, which, in turn, was witnessed by the two innocent women, D. 6 and D. 7, and to remove the evidence, D. 3 and D. 4 continued their killing spree and murdered those two women also. 13. It is argued that having witnessed the beastly, savageous and inhuman activities of D. 3 and D. 4, the villagers have killed them by beating and obviously for that reason, not a single villager figured as a witness, to speak against the accused. They submit that this version of the accused was presented to almost every material witness and that with the weakening of the case of the prosecution, on various aspects, the one presented on behalf of the accused, gains acceptability. They submit that the accused was made a scapegoat for the barbarous activities undertaken by D. 3 and D. 4 to satisfy their selfish ends, and the entire family of the accused was ruined. They contend that an attempt was made to offer accused also, to gallows as part of the same design. They submit that the accused was made a scapegoat for the barbarous activities undertaken by D. 3 and D. 4 to satisfy their selfish ends, and the entire family of the accused was ruined. They contend that an attempt was made to offer accused also, to gallows as part of the same design. Learned counsel submit that the trial Court did not appreciate various aspects and has simply accepted the version of the prosecution and that the accused deserves to be acquitted of all the charges framed against him. 14. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that this is a rarest of rare cases, where a person, who was already convicted, in relation to the death of his wife, and was found to have killed as many as seven persons, including his two minor children and two women. She submits that in relation to each and every death, the prosecution examined the relevant witnesses, and while in some cases there are direct eyewitnesses, in other cases, the circumstantial evidence was adduced to the satisfaction of the trial Court and that the sentence and conviction ordered against the accused does not warrant interference. It is also pleaded that the non-examination of L.W. 56, Talasamudram Rajarao, or some of the relations of the deceased, is not fatal to the case. 15. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further argued that the law does not require the information about any incident, to be furnished to the police in any particular manner and once a crime has been registered in relation to seven deaths in the village, non-filing of any complaint by the relations of the deceased, is of no significance. She further contends that P.W. 24 has deposed in detail, as to the manner in which the two children, D. 1 and D. 2, were taken away by the accused and in the extensive cross-examination nothing contradictory was elicited from him. It is also her case that the accused took the plea of alibi, stating that on the concerned night, he went to a movie in the neighboring town; slept in the bus station, after consuming alcohol and arrived the village only in the next morning, and once that plea was not substantiated, the case of the prosecution deserves to be accepted. Another argument advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that Exs. Another argument advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that Exs. P. 3 and P. 14, which are found to be in the writing of accused, would probablise the commission of the offence by him in pursuance of a preconceived notion and plan. 16. Handling of a case, involving seven deaths, that too, when the accused has already been convicted by a Court of law for causing the death of his wife, is by no means an ordinary task. Not only the Court, but also everyone, who get acquainted with the incident, would be prone to ignore some niceties in the field of law, and there is every likelihood of the suspicion taking the place of the proof. Sympathies and the tendency to jump to conclusions, play their own role, in this behalf. 17. Mettapeta is not an independent village and is a small hamlet. Almost a holocaust has taken place, in that hamlet wherein the heads of two minor children were cut off and they were taken to a Temple in the different village, and three men and two women were killed; hayrick, cattle shed and a bullock cart were set on fire and bombs were hurled. This is said to have gone for about 10 hours commencing from evening of 30.11.2010 to 4.50 A.M., on the next day. The curious part of it is that all these barbaric and cruel acts are said to have been committed by only one person, without assistance from anyone. If, in fact, the accused was found resorting to even half of these horrifying acts, he deserves to be sent to gallows, whatever be the sympathies. At the same time, the Court is required to undertake a close scrutiny of the events and analyze them with reference to the settled principles of law, uninfluenced by the background of the accused, on the one hand, and the gravity of the crime, on the other hand, though they too have their impact in the process of the very application of principles, but within the parameters, and not to the extent of deviating from the principles. 18. The accused no doubt was found guilty of causing the death of his wife and he was imposed the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years. The lower Appellate Court suspended the sentence and released him on bail. 18. The accused no doubt was found guilty of causing the death of his wife and he was imposed the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years. The lower Appellate Court suspended the sentence and released him on bail. After the death of his wife, the family of the accused comprised of himself and his two minor children. The children were admitted in a residential school run by P.W. 24, in a different village. 19. The complaint about the incident reached the police through submission of Ex. P. 1 by P.W. 1. It reads: I am working as V.R.O. of Nagirikatakam since August, 2009. Mettapeta village is situated within the limits of Nagirikatakam Panchayat. Today while I was at Nagirikatakam village, at about 5-00 A.M., my village Talayari Talasamudramu Rajarao came to me and informed me that Metta Sankarao, S/o. Late Jaggappadu of Mettapeta village has killed his children i.e. daughter Metta Manasa and son Metta Divakar in the night of 30.11.2010 and kept the head portions near Someswara Temple of Mukhlingam and thereafter he killed his villagers Pyla Venkati S/o. Neelayya, Boddepalli Damayanthi W/o. Koteswararao, Voota Parvathi W/o. Simmanna and Pyla Lakshmana S/o. Ykasi by hacking them with a knife and he also hacked Metta Yerrayya, S/o. Latchayya with a knife and the said Yerrayya died in the Hospital, Narasannapeta while undergoing treatment and that he killed them as they gave evidence before court against him in the death case of his wife and as such he was convicted in that case and as such he bore grudge against them and so he killed them with knife intentionally and that the Talayari came to know the same facts and he informed the same to him. When the village Talayari informed the said facts to me I went to Mettapeta village and found the dead bodies of the children without heads in the main hall of the own house of Sankararao. I also found that Pyla Lakshmanarao, S/o. Yekasi also was killed on the back yard of the house of Sankarao. Similarly, on the terrace of Pyla Appanna, Boddepalli Damayanthi was killed and dead body is found. Voota Parvathi was cut and killed on the pial of the house of Voota Thavitayya. In the paddy filed of Metta Sankararao, the dead body of Pyla Venkatarao who was killed is there. Similarly, on the terrace of Pyla Appanna, Boddepalli Damayanthi was killed and dead body is found. Voota Parvathi was cut and killed on the pial of the house of Voota Thavitayya. In the paddy filed of Metta Sankararao, the dead body of Pyla Venkatarao who was killed is there. Therefore, the same facts are informed to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jalumuru for further action. 20. From a perusal of this, it is evident that the complainant i.e. P.W. 1 is totally unrelated to any of the deceased and he is only an official of the Government, working in the main village. The source of information for P.W. 1 is Taliari - L.W. 56. Barring Ex. P. 1, there is no written complaint or signed statement from any of the relations of D. 3 to D. 7. It is important to mention that in relation to those deceased, the respective family members deposed as witnesses. 21. The law, no doubt, does not insist on the furnishing of information to the police, about the occurrence of a crime, in a particular manner. A crime can be registered on receiving information from the very victim or any person who is acquainted with it or the police itself, on gaining knowledge of the incident. The registration of a crime constitutes the starting point for undertaking investigation and without the formal registration of a crime, any step taken by the police, cannot be treated as part of investigation. 22. The submission of a complaint, wherever it is done, has important role to play, at least on two aspects. The first is about the timing and the second is about the contents. If the complaint is submitted soon after the occurrence, its credibility is not seriously doubted, because there does not exist any scope for the manipulation of facts, or to undertake any confabulation to fold in, the persons who are inimical to the complainants. As regards contents, the Courts take the complaint almost as the standard version of the incident and starting point of investigation. In a given case, certain new facts may come out during the course of investigation. However, whatever is stated during the course of trial, must accord with, or confirm to, the complaint. As regards contents, the Courts take the complaint almost as the standard version of the incident and starting point of investigation. In a given case, certain new facts may come out during the course of investigation. However, whatever is stated during the course of trial, must accord with, or confirm to, the complaint. This would be possible only when the complainant is the person who had correct knowledge of the facts relating to the crime and the subsequent evidence proceeds on the lines presented in the complaint. 23. In the instant case, a serious lapse has taken place. As indicated earlier, P.W. 1 did not have any knowledge about the ghastly incident that took place in the village. It is only through L.W. 56 that he came to know about it. The best person to speak about the incident therefore, would have been L.W. 56. Failure to examine him is certainly detrimental to the case of the prosecution. Added to this, the effect of non-submission of complaint by the dependants of the deceased, cannot be ignored. L.W. 56 is a Government servant and not associated with the victims or accused. A serious doubt would arise as to whether he could have witnessed, so many crimes, or whether his version also was hearsay. Though non-submission of complaint may not be treated as detrimental, in many cases at least when the prosecution comes forward with a plea that there existed eye-witnesses, that too, who are closely related to the victims, the failure to file a complaint by such an eye-witness, who is immediately related to the victim, would certainly have its impact upon the acceptability of the version of such a witness. 24. The starting point for all these deaths in the horrifying night is the bringing of the two children from the institution run by P.W. 24. It is after those two children are brought to the village, and were put to death, that the subsequent events are said to have taken place. The question as to whether the deaths of the children were caused by the accused or whether there exists any possibility of killing them, somebody else would be discussed a bit later. 25. P.W. 24 stated that the accused came to his institution between 4.00 and 4.30 P.M., on 30.11.2010, and sought permission to take his children, stating that there is a function in his house. 25. P.W. 24 stated that the accused came to his institution between 4.00 and 4.30 P.M., on 30.11.2010, and sought permission to take his children, stating that there is a function in his house. In the cross-examination, he admitted that there is no record to disclose that permission was accorded to the accused or that he has informed anybody about the accused having been handed over the custody of the two children. The chief-examination of P.W. 24 is brief. It reads: I am working as Principal-cum-Correspondent of Nethaji Residential School, Budithi Cross Road Junction, Saravakota Mandal since 1998. In our School there is LKG class to 10th Class. I know the accused and he joined his children Manasa and Divakar in our School and the Divakar was studying LKG and Manasa was studying 3rd Class in our school. On 30.11.2010 between 4 p.m., to 4.30 p.m., the accused came to our school and he sought permission to take his both children Manasa and Divakar along with him by, saying that there is a function in his house on that date. On 01.12.2010 I noticed missed calls in my cell phone made by the accused. Then I made a phone call to the accused for the said missing calls of him. The accused told me by phone that he killed seven persons. Then I asked what about the children and he told me that he also killed his both children, then I cut off my phone. At about 10 A.M., I went to the Mettapeta village and I found the trunks of both the children in the house of the accused and I noticed the heads of both the children in Someswara Temple. On 04.12.2010 I was examined by the D.S.P. of Police and S.I. of Police and there are 3 or 4 constables present at that time. 26. In the cross-examination, he admitted that though he went to the village, he did not reveal his identity and did not inform about the incident till 04.12.2012, to anyone. It was also suggested to him that on 01.12.2010, the accused called him on phone and questioned as to why he i.e. P.W. 24, sent the children along with D. 3 and D. 4. The nature of answer given by P.W. 24 in his cross-examination fits into that theory. It was also suggested to him that on 01.12.2010, the accused called him on phone and questioned as to why he i.e. P.W. 24, sent the children along with D. 3 and D. 4. The nature of answer given by P.W. 24 in his cross-examination fits into that theory. At the end of the cross-examination, the following was elicited from him: It is not true to suggest that the accused' has not taken his children from our school on 30.11.2010 between 4.00 p.m., and 4.30 p.m., as stated by me. It is not true to suggest that on 01.12.2010 the accused made a phone call to me questioning about the sending of my children by me without his permission with Pyla laxamanarao (D. 3) came to my school and took the children Manasa and Divakar with them and it was also noted in my school registers. It is not true to suggest that on 01.12.2010 the accused made a phone call to me questioning about the sending of my children by me without his permission with Pyla Laxamanarao (D. 3) and Pyla Venkatarao (D. 4) and that they have killed both the children of him and therefore to verify the same I went to Mettapeta village. It is not true to suggest that the accused has not given any missed calls to me and accused never told me by phone that he has killed the children or the other persons. It is not true to suggest that Police also seized school records of the children and now I am deposing false at the instance of the police. 27. To our mind, the prosecution ought to have been suspicious about the role of P.W. 24. Had they started investigation on that line, valuable information could have been secured. But for the fact that P.W. 24 handed over the custody of the children, they would not have been subjected to such a cruel act. Once P.W. 24 failed to substantiate his version that the accused had taken away his children, the needle of suspicion continues to point at him. 28. The prosecution endeavored a lot to convince the Court that the accused brought the children from the residential school, to his home, cut their heads, took them to a Temple to perform an act, in the process of unearthing a hidden treasure in the Temple. 28. The prosecution endeavored a lot to convince the Court that the accused brought the children from the residential school, to his home, cut their heads, took them to a Temple to perform an act, in the process of unearthing a hidden treasure in the Temple. It has to be seen as to how far the prosecution was successful in this regard. Basically it is only the greedy people, who are determined to acquire wealth, whatever be the means that would resort to such heinous acts. Whatever be the level of greed, no person would go to the extent of killing his own children for this purpose. After all, the acquisition of the wealth would be for the happiness of that person, and in some cases, for the happiness of his family members. The accused has already lost his wife and he is on bail. It is just unthinkable that a person of that nature will go to the extent of killing his two children. If the children are killed and the wife already died; the question as to for whose benefit such a person would acquire the wealth, becomes a matter of serious consideration. 29. The prosecution did not explain as to by whom the heads of the two children came to be noticed in a bag in the room of a Temple. No effort was made by it to establish that the heads seen at the Temple were that of the children of the accused i.e. D. 1 and D. 2. The further case of the prosecution is that soon after committing the murder of the children, the deceased came to the house of D. 3, a friend of him, to accompany him to answer the nature calls on the river side near the village. How far this can go with the natural course of events, is a different aspect. 30. Be that as it may, there are two versions about the acts of the accused, vis-à-vis D. 3. According to P.W. 6, the wife, and P.W. 7, the daughter of D. 3, the accused came to their house, by which time, D. 3 was lying in the bed and despite his disinclination, the accused insisted, and the deceased accompanied him. Be that as it may, there are two versions about the acts of the accused, vis-à-vis D. 3. According to P.W. 6, the wife, and P.W. 7, the daughter of D. 3, the accused came to their house, by which time, D. 3 was lying in the bed and despite his disinclination, the accused insisted, and the deceased accompanied him. Both the witnesses stated that suspecting something foul from the accused, they accompanied him and D. 3; and according to them, the accused took the deceased to his house P.Ws. 6 and 7 are said to have hidden near the house of one Seepana Kesava and watched, when the accused hacked D. 3 with knife and caused a cut injury around the neck. D. 3 is said to have fallen in the backyard of the house of the accused and that the latter covered him with coconut leaves. Thereafter, D. 5 is said to have come to that place, and admonished the accused for his act of putting the hayrick of P.W. 9 on fire. The witnesses further stated that the accused has taken D. 5 also along with him to the backyard and there he killed him and covered this body also with coconut leaves. This part of the evidence, in relation to the death of D. 5, would be discussed in further detail, at a later stage. 31. P.W. 12, however, has a different version altogether about the death of D. 3. He stated that he was sitting in front of his house at 8.00 P.M., and he saw the deceased and D. 3 proceeding towards the riverside to answer nature call. He further stated that though the accused and D. 3 went at about 8.00 P.M., it is only at 10.00 P.M., that the accused alone came back on a motorcycle. This version does not at all fit into the one, presented by P.Ws. 6 and 7. It is important to mention that P.W. 12 is a person whose lower limbs were amputated and is virtually immobile. Incidentally, his wife - D. 7 was also killed during the same night. 32. Though in the event of there being conflicting versions, the one presented by the kith and kin of a victim deserves to be accepted, a totally different picture emerges in this regard. Incidentally, his wife - D. 7 was also killed during the same night. 32. Though in the event of there being conflicting versions, the one presented by the kith and kin of a victim deserves to be accepted, a totally different picture emerges in this regard. There is the intrinsic evidence, which warrants this Court to doubt the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 7. The first is that, according to them, D. 5 was taken by the accused to the backyard of his house and was not only killed there instantly, but also was covered with coconut leaves. The record, however, discloses that D. 5 was seen with serious injuries by P.Ws. 12 and 4 and was sent to a Government hospital in nearby village, in an ambulance. The record also discloses that D. 5 died in the hospital. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 7 becomes totally unbelievable. Another reason is that they did not choose to submit any complaint whatever about the death of D. 3. 33. As regards death of D. 4, even according to the prosecution, there is no eye-witness account and reliance is placed upon circumstantial evidence. P.W. 12 is one of the witnesses relied upon for this purpose. He is said to have seen the accused taking D. 4 on a motorcycle, towards the field at about 10.00 P.M. This is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 8, the wife of D. 4. She stated that the accused came and tapped the door at about 10.00 P.M., and asked D. 4 to accompany him for taking intoxicants. She further stated that though her husband was reluctant, the accused insisted and both of them went, but did not return. 34. P.W. 16 is the person nearby whose house, D. 4 is said to have been put to death. He stated that at about midnight, he heard the voices of accused and D. 4, and out of fear he did not open the door. The accused is said to have come to the house of P.W. 16, and when the door was not opened, he is said to have hurled a bomb. On information given by him, P.W. 5 is said to have come to the house of P.W. 16, early in the morning. The accused is said to have come to the house of P.W. 16, and when the door was not opened, he is said to have hurled a bomb. On information given by him, P.W. 5 is said to have come to the house of P.W. 16, early in the morning. The fact that P.W. 16 did not submit any complaint, nor did he furnish information about what he has seen to any other, makes his version suspicious. The trial Court disbelieved the allegation that the accused hurled bombs. 35. D. 5 is the paternal uncle of the accused. It has already been mentioned that P.Ws. 6 and 7 deposed about the accused taking D. 5 along with him. Some other witnesses such as P.Ws. 4, 9, 12 and 18 have a different version altogether. According to them, the accused has set the cattle shed and hayrick of P.W. 9 and the bullock cart of P.W. 16 on fire at about midnight, and D. 5 came out and admonished the accused, for these acts. D. 5 is said to have taken the accused by putting is hand on the shoulder, in an effort to pacify him, but shortly thereafter, P.W. 14 saw D. 5 coming back with injuries, and at his instance an ambulance was called. P.W. 18 stated that she saw D. 5 coming with towel put on the injuries on the neck and head at that time. The death of D. 5 occurred in the hospital. However, no one, who shifted D. 5 to the hospital, was examined. The evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 7, in relation to the alleged attack of D. 5 cannot be believed because according to them, D. 5 was killed in the backyard of the house of the accused and that the dead body was covered with coconut leaves. If that is excluded, there is no other evidence, that can prove that the accused attacked D. 5. 36. D. 6 and D. 7 are women. P.W. 12 is the husband, P.W. 10 is the son and P.W. 17 is the father of husband of D. 6. No specific enmity as such was attributed between D. 6, on the one hand, and accused, on the other hand. 36. D. 6 and D. 7 are women. P.W. 12 is the husband, P.W. 10 is the son and P.W. 17 is the father of husband of D. 6. No specific enmity as such was attributed between D. 6, on the one hand, and accused, on the other hand. P.W. 10 stated that himself, his father - P.W. 17, and his mother - D. 6 were sleeping in their house and at about 4.00 A.M., in the morning of 01.12.2010, the accused came and tapped the door and it was opened by D. 6. Soon after the door was opened, the accused is said to have dealt blows to D. 6 and that she instantly died then and there. The evidence of P.W. 17, is somewhat different. He stated that after D. 6 opened the door, the accused dragged her, and thereafter, took her to a nearby place, even while beating her on the way. Both P.Ws. 10 and 17 are said to have remained silent out of fear and they did not offer any resistance at all. 37. P.W. 14 is a woman, in the neighborhood of P.W. 17. She has an altogether different version about this incident. She stated that after D. 6 opened the door, the accused caused injuries on the hands of D. 6, and immediately, she i.e. D. 6, ran into the house of Anasuyamma - P.W. 15 and that the accused chased her. P.W. 15, however, did not speak about D. 6 entering her house. She stated that from her window she has seen D. 6, imploring upon the accused not to attack her, but the latter continued that act. P.W. 10 is said to have run away to the main village of Nagirikatakam and came back to the village only when asked to attend the funeral ceremonies. 38. If the evidence of these four witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 10, 17, 14 and 15 is superimposed, one hardly finds anything common. On the other hand, serious contradictions and variations are noticed. Apart from that, the conduct of P.W. 10, a young man of 26 years, and P.W. 17 his father, who is fairly young and energetic, is so unnatural, if not shameful, that not only both of them have chosen to remain silent, but escaped from the place, when D. 6 was said to have been attacked by the accused. Apart from that, the conduct of P.W. 10, a young man of 26 years, and P.W. 17 his father, who is fairly young and energetic, is so unnatural, if not shameful, that not only both of them have chosen to remain silent, but escaped from the place, when D. 6 was said to have been attacked by the accused. Such an indifferent and timid attitude cannot be found from individuals of that physic, even if a valuable item is taken away forcibly, let alone, the respectful lady, the mother and wife, respectively, being killed. 39. D. 7 is the wife of P.W. 12. The death of his wife is said to have taken place in the terrace of P.W. 13. The manner in which D. 7 has gone to the terrace of P.W. 13 is not explained. Further, no one has seen the attack on D. 7 by the accused. The only link sought to be established by the prosecution is that P.W. 13 is said to have heard the voices of accused and D. 7 on the terrace. The incident is said to have taken place at 4.50 A.M. If one takes into the series of events in the small village, the entire residents would be so restless and restive, that hardly one can expect them to be asleep, and it would not have been difficult for them to nab the accused. 40. A serious attempt was made by the prosecution to point out that the accused had a detailed plan to liquidate several persons, who according to him, were responsible for his being convicted in relation to the death of his wife. Reliance was placed upon Ex. P. 3, a poster said to be in the handwriting of the accused. The contents thereof are to the effect that the accused was subjected to cruel treatment by several persons in the village in many respects and that time has come for him, to take revenge upon them. To prove that the writing on Ex. P. 3 is that of the accused, the notebook, said to be in the writing of the accused, marked as Ex. P.W. 14, was relied upon and both the documents were sent for examination. The reports are to the effect that Ex. P. 3 is in the writing of the same person who wrote Ex. P. 14. The trial Court also relied upon these documents. P.W. 14, was relied upon and both the documents were sent for examination. The reports are to the effect that Ex. P. 3 is in the writing of the same person who wrote Ex. P. 14. The trial Court also relied upon these documents. 41. We examined the documents as well as reports, with a bit of care and caution. The prosecution was also aware that it is difficult for it to establish that a single individual caused the death of so many persons in the village in a span of 8 hours. Therefore, it intended to fall back upon a detailed plan said to have been drawn by the accused. Basically nowhere in Ex. P. 3, there is any manifestation of the intention of the accused to kill any particular individual. Secondly, the incident occurred in the intervening night of 30.11.2010 and 01.12.2010 and almost the entire police administration, ranging from the Station House Officer to the DIG, with the contingent of about 100 police personnel visited the village and every inch of the spot was not only mentioned in the scene of offence panchanama, but also was photographed. Nowhere in those proceedings mention was made about Ex. P. 3, which is a fairly large poster. A perusal of Ex. P. 14 also discloses that though substantial part of it was written obviously by the accused, subsequent portions are in a different form. On behalf of the accused a plea was taken to the effect that after he was arrested, he was made to write Ex. P. 3 and parts of Ex. P. 14. 42. There is another angle to the case. The accused is said to have confessed of the commission of offence before P.Ws. 1 and 2. Both of them are officials of the Revenue Department. This, however, stands belied from the fact that from the evidence of P.W. 4. He stated that the accused was taken into custody by the police at 7.00 A.M. on 01.12.2010. Once the accused is in the custody of police, the question of his making extra-judicial confession, that too, before the revenue officials, does not arise. 43. The prosecution made an endeavor to present a picture as though killing of two kids was for the purpose of unearthing hidden treasures and the murder of D. 3 to D. 7, is part of the same transaction. 43. The prosecution made an endeavor to present a picture as though killing of two kids was for the purpose of unearthing hidden treasures and the murder of D. 3 to D. 7, is part of the same transaction. There is a clear anomaly in this. 44. P.Ws. 6 and 7 stated that they returned from their fields at 5.00 P.M., and at about 6.00 P.M., they have seen D. 1 and D. 2, the children of accused, playing in front of their house. If that is so, the death of the children can be at about 7.00 - 7.30 P.M. An attempt was made to contend that the deceased purchased cool drink bottle from P.W. 21 and whisky from P.W. 20 and after mixing poison in the cool drinks, it was administered to the children and when they fell unconscious, their heads were cut. If any person had a plan to kill individuals for presenting them as sacrifice for a treasure trough, he will be under the grip of fear and tension and everything will be done clandestinely. He cannot be expected to undertake any other activity and any effort would be made to maintain utmost secrecy. Even according to the prosecution, the heads of the children were cut, and they were taken to the Temple, even while the trunks were left in the open house. If one goes by the prosecution case, the heads of the children are cut around 7.30 P.M., and it takes quite some time for their heads to be taken to the Temple. The very purpose of taking the heads would be to undertake some satanic savageous activity and the concerned person is bound to be busy there. However, by 8.00 P.M., the accused was found in the village in the company of D. 3. It has already been mentioned that no one was examined in connection with the presence of the heads of the children in the premises of the Temple. Though P.W. 24 was examined in this behalf, his evidence is only about the gathering of the people, but not as a first person, to have noticed it. The Archakas of the Temple were examined as P.Ws. 22 and 23, but they did not support the case of the prosecution. 45. Though P.W. 24 was examined in this behalf, his evidence is only about the gathering of the people, but not as a first person, to have noticed it. The Archakas of the Temple were examined as P.Ws. 22 and 23, but they did not support the case of the prosecution. 45. Having dealt with the facts of the case, in the permissible amount of detail, certain aspects of the proof in a criminal case need to be addressed. Basically, it is for the prosecution to prove the case against accused. There may be instances where, apart from making a flat denial of the prosecution, the accused may come forward with a defence. In such a case, two or three options are open to him. The first is to adduce defence evidence to substantiate the plea of the accused. The second is to confine the exercise in this behalf, to the one of putting the same, in the cross-examination, to various prosecution witnesses. The third is to apprise the Court of the events, in the course of answering the queries put under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. 46. The relative strength and the corresponding weakness of the cases of the prosecution on the one hand, and that of the accused wherever pleaded, on the other hand, progresses, to a large extent in an inverse proportion. If the evidence on record is not adequate and the version of the prosecution becomes weak, the case of the accused gains strength to that corresponding extent. 47. Similarly, any weakness that is noticed in the effort made by the accused, through independent evidence, or otherwise would naturally add to the strength of the case of the prosecution. Though it is no part of the duty of the Court to record a finding as to how the incident may have occurred, if not, as pleaded by the prosecution; almost headway takes place to go nearer to the truth, though not find the truth itself. Many a time, the Courts, as do the onlookers; may not relish a result, which leaves an important episode at the cross-roads. Though it would be sufficient to reject the case of the prosecution, once the Court is not satisfied with the evidence, cases of this nature, involving quite large number of deaths, need a bit more than mere denial of the case of the prosecution. 48. Though it would be sufficient to reject the case of the prosecution, once the Court is not satisfied with the evidence, cases of this nature, involving quite large number of deaths, need a bit more than mere denial of the case of the prosecution. 48. From the discussion undertaken in the preceding paragraphs, we find that there are several missing links in the case of the prosecution, apart from lapses on the part of material witnesses and the prosecution. The accused did not intend to play the role of a simple spectator to the case of the prosecution and to take advantage of the lapses, if any. He came with his own independent version. To put it in positive terms, the case of the accused was that D. 3 and D. 4 were after treasure trough, nearby the village and they took advantage of the miserable condition of the accused and his two children. D. 3 and D. 4 are said to have gone to P.W. 24, the Principal of the School/Hostel and brought the minor children of the accused i.e. D. 1 and D. 2 with the collusion of P.W. 24, to the house of the accused itself, which was totally unprotected, killed them, took away their heads, leaving trunks in the house and when this was witnessed by D. 5, the paternal uncle of the accused, D. 3 and D. 4 killed him. This incident i.e. killing of D. 5, in turn, is said to have been witnessed by D. 6 and D. 7, the women and D. 3 and D. 4 continued their beastly and barbaric acts against those two innocent women also and killed them, so that their heinous acts are not revealed to anyone. However, to their misfortunate that was also witnessed by the villagers and those two persons were put to death by the villagers. This theory gains support not only from the weakness of the case of the prosecution, but also from the fact that nature of injuries that were found on the bodies of D. 3 and D. 4. 49. Giving a clean acquittal to a person who was handed out a death sentence is certainly an extreme step. However, equally same is the conviction and sentence of death to a person, who was already under misery. 49. Giving a clean acquittal to a person who was handed out a death sentence is certainly an extreme step. However, equally same is the conviction and sentence of death to a person, who was already under misery. Obviously, the police wanted to have respectable exit for the ghastly incident involving seven deaths, and the accused became handy for them. Once they reached the village in good numbers before dawn, they were not required to wait till P.W. 1 submitted the complaint. Failure to examine L.W. 56 squarely invites the inference provided under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. The non-submission of complaints or non-recording of singed statements from the kith and kin of the deceased, speaks for the lack of transparency on the part of the prosecution. The internal contradictions on material aspects have already been pointed out. 50. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence handed out in S.C. No. 64 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, dated 30.04.2012, against the appellant-accused, are set aside, on all the charges. 51. In the ordinary course of things, whenever the accused is found not guilty in an appeal, he would be set at liberty. In the instant case, we find that the accused lost his wife and his two children and he is in a totally disturbed condition. There is every likelihood of his being hated or attacked in the village, if he goes to his native place. We therefore direct that the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam, shall take steps to put the accused in Sri Rama Krishna Ashramam, at Visakhapatnam, with the consent of the authorities of the Mission for a period of about one year. Setting at liberty of the accused shall be only after the Superintendent of Police makes necessary arrangements, which shall be not later than three days from today. 52. In view of the judgment in the criminal appeal, the reference is answered accordingly. 53. The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.