Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1085 (AP)

Doppasani Suribaby v. State Of A. P.

2022-10-20

B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : The sole accused is the appellant herein. The present Criminal Appeal came to be filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment, dated 14.03.2014, in Sessions Case No.493 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Kovvur. 2. Vide judgment, dated 14.03.2014, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. 3. The graveman of the charge against the accused is that on the midnight of 27.04.2009, the accused woke up and observed his wife i.e., Doppasani Rama Lakshmi (hereinafter, referred to as “the deceased”) talking with an unknown male person. It is stated that on seeing the accused, the said person fled away. When questioned, his wife is said to have given evasive answers as a result of which, he caught hold of the neck of his wife and pushed her on to a cot, picked up an electrical aluminum cable wire having black insulation and tightened it around the neck leading to her death. 4. The facts, in nutshell, are as under: P.W.1 is the Village Revenue Officer. P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased while P.W.3 is the husband of P.W.2. P.W.4 is the neighbour. P.W.5 is the person whose house is near to the house of the accused and he was present in the house of the accused at the time when the V.R.O. and Sarpanch visited the house of the accused. P.W.6 is the Sarpanch. The accused is the husband of the deceased. The marriage between the deceased and the accused took place about 15 years prior to the incident and they were blessed with two daughters and one son. On 28.04.2009, while P.W.1 was on duty at Panchayat Office, Bheemolu, at 11:00 A.M., the Village Servant by name Rayi Satyanarayana (not examined) came and informed P.W.1 about the death of the deceased and accused being responsible for the same. On the said information, P.W.1 went to the house of the accused and saw the dead body lying on the cot inside the house and froth coming out from the nose of the dead body. On the said information, P.W.1 went to the house of the accused and saw the dead body lying on the cot inside the house and froth coming out from the nose of the dead body. The accused was also present in the house at that time. The evidence of P.W.1 discloses that even P.Ws.5 and 6 were present in the house of the accused at that time. When P.W.1 enquired the accused (in the presence of P.Ws.5 and 6) as to how the deceased died, the accused is alleged to have confessed that on the previous night, he saw the deceased talking to a male person and when he went near the deceased, the said male person escaped from that place. Thereafter, he questioned the deceased about the said person and when she gave reckless answer stating that there is no necessity for her to reveal the information about the male person and asked him to do whatever he can, the accused caught hold of the neck of the deceased, pushed her on to the cot, tied an electric wire around her neck, tightened the same and caused her death. It is the case of P.W.1 that he took the deceased to the police station and produced him before the Sub Inspector of Police and also gave a report under Ex.P-1. Basing on the same, a case in Crime No.64 of 2009 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P-12 is the copy of the F.I.R. As it was a case of grave nature, P.W.8 – Inspector of Police, who registered the crime, rushed to the police station, secured the accused and kept him under surveillance. Thereafter, he along with mediators rushed to the scene of offence, which is located in Bheemolu Village, and observed the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and also prepared scene observation report, apart from taking photographs of the scene in different angles. He also prepared a rough sketch of the scene, which is placed on record as Ex.P13. Thereafter, he conducted the inquest over the dead body in the presence of panch witnesses. Ex.P-3 is the Inquest Report. During inquest, he examined the relatives of deceased and recorded their statements. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. He also prepared a rough sketch of the scene, which is placed on record as Ex.P13. Thereafter, he conducted the inquest over the dead body in the presence of panch witnesses. Ex.P-3 is the Inquest Report. During inquest, he examined the relatives of deceased and recorded their statements. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. P.W.7 – Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Kovvur, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 28.04.2009 and issued Ex.P-11 – Post Mortem Certificate. According to him, the cause of death was due to asphyxia death due to strangulation and smothering. P.W.8, who continued with the investigation, arrested the accused at 7:30 P.M. in the presence of mediators and recorded the confession statement about the commission of the offence. Pursuant to the confession made, a cable wire said to have used in the commission of offence was recovered. After completing the investigation, P.W.8 filed charge sheet, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.19 of 2009 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kovvur. 5. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were supplied to him. As the offence is triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of the Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the same was made over to the Court of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Kovvur for trial and disposal in accordance with law. 6. Basing on the material available on record, charge, as referred to earlier, came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-13 and also M.O.1. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to which he denied. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on his behalf. 8. It is to be noted here that out of seven witnesses, P.Ws.2 to 6 did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile by the prosecution. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on his behalf. 8. It is to be noted here that out of seven witnesses, P.Ws.2 to 6 did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile by the prosecution. Relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 and the evidence of the Investigating Officer, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 8. Sri S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor, mainly submits that though P.Ws.2 to 6 did not support the prosecution case, but the evidence of P.W.1 establishes the involvement of the accused in the crime. He further submits that since the dead body of the deceased is found in the house of the accused, presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can be drawn to connect the accused with the crime. 9. In order to draw presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the initial burden is on the prosecution to prove the case and thereafter, the burden shifts on to the accused to prove that he is innocent of the same. As seen from the record, in the instant case, P.Ws.2 to 6, who are not only the family members of the deceased, but were present at the time when the accused had disclosed about the commission of the offence, did not support the prosecution case. Except P.W.1, all other witnesses resiled from their earlier statements. That being so, it cannot be said that the prosecution has discharged its initial burden to prove its case. 10. Coming to the merits of the case, it is no doubt true that the accused, in his 313 Cr.P.C. examination, denied every question that was put to him but at the same time, it is also to be noted that he was present in the house at the time when the V.R.O. is said to have visited his house. If really the conduct of the accused is to cause the death of the deceased, he would have escaped from the scene of offence. If really the conduct of the accused is to cause the death of the deceased, he would have escaped from the scene of offence. Be that as it may, the evidence of P.W.1 show that on receiving information about the incident at about 11:00 A.M., he went to the scene of offence and noticed the dead body lying in the house of the accused and the accused standing there and at the same time, P.Ws.5 and 6 were present in the house. P.W.1 is said to have questioned the accused about the incident in the presence of P.Ws.5 and 6. Though P.W.1 deposed about the alleged confession by the accused about the commission of the offence, but P.Ws.5 and 6 did not support the same. On the other hand, they deposed that P.W.1/V.R.O. was not present in the house at that relevant point of time. Therefore, the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that V.R.O. has no motive to speak false applies equally to P.W.6/Sarpanch, who categorically stated that V.R.O. never came to the house at that relevant time. Therefore, a doubt arises as to the alleged confession made by the accused disclosing the commission of the offence. 11. Further, whether the confession made by the accused can be called as ‘extra judicial confession’. Though the word ‘confession’ or ‘extra judicial confession’ is not defined under the Indian Evidence Act, but it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that any statement made by the accused voluntarily and on his own can only be called as an extra judicial confession. In the instant case, pursuant to a question put by P.W.1, the accused is said to have disclosed about the offence narrating the manner in which the deceased died. Therefore, prima facie, we are of the view that the said statement cannot be called as ‘extra judicial confession’. 12. At this stage, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant herein was granted special remission as per the Head Office memo No. Rc-2/74/2021 dated 14.08.2022 vide G.O.Ms.No.121, Home (Paroles) Department dated 14.08.2022 connected with G.O.Ms.No.91, Home Paroles Department dated 16.08.2021. Copy of the Release Certificate is placed on record by learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. Copy of the Release Certificate is placed on record by learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. For the aforesaid discussion, since the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., the appellant/accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and the judgment of the trial Court requires interference. Accordingly, we are inclined to acquit the appellant/accused by extending benefit of doubt. 14. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused in the Judgment, dated 14.03.2014, in Sessions Case No.493 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Kovvur, for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of I.P.C., is set aside and he is acquitted for the said offence. Since the appellant/accused was already released on bail as per the Release Certificate issued by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, dated 15.08.2022, the fine amount, if any, paid by him shall be refunded to him. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.