Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 122 (AP)

Vatambeti Ramesh v. State of AP. , Rep PP.

2023-01-18

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

body2023
JUDGMENT : C.Praveen Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri G.Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.Dushyanth Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. Sole accused in Sessions Case No.205 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati, is the appellant herein. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [For short ‘I.P.C’.] for causing the death of his wife Sandhya by subjecting her to cruelty on 25.10.2012 at Kothapalemmitta village, Srikalahasti Mandal. 3. Vide Judgment, dated 21.10.2015, the learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting the accused under Section 498-A of I.P.C, convicted him for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. Accordingly, he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C and also sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. The facts as culled out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses are as under:- (i) P.W.1 is the father of the deceased, while D.W.1 is the mother of the deceased. The accused is the husband of the deceased. P.Ws.2 and 3 are related to the deceased and P.W.1. The marriage of the accused with the deceased took place on 25.10.2012 at Kothapalem village, Srikalahasti Mandal. At the time of marriage, P.W.1 claims to have presented M.Os.1 to 10. Both of them lead happy marital life for some time. It is said that about a week prior to the incident, both the accused and deceased came to the house of P.W.1. The accused left his wife in the house of P.W.1 and a week thereafter, he came to the house of P.W.1 and took his wife on his byke. On the way, P.W.1 called the accused over phone and informed that both of them met with an accident. Immediately, P.W.1 and D.W.1 along with relatives went to Government Hospital, where they found the deceased dead. (ii) Law was set into motion by lodging a report, which led to registration of a case in Crime No.78 of 2012 of B.N.Kandriga police station. Ex.P15 is the First Information Report. Immediately, P.W.1 and D.W.1 along with relatives went to Government Hospital, where they found the deceased dead. (ii) Law was set into motion by lodging a report, which led to registration of a case in Crime No.78 of 2012 of B.N.Kandriga police station. Ex.P15 is the First Information Report. On receipt of information about registration of the crime, P.W.13-Circle Inspector of Police collected the F.I.R and started investigating the matter. As the death of the deceased was within seven years of marriage, he sent a requisition to Mandal Executive Magistrate, B.N.Kandriga, who he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars. Ex.P13 is the Inquest Report. At the time of inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and recorded the statements. After completing the inquest, he sent the body for Post Mortem examination. (iii) P.W.12, who worked as Civil Assistant Surgeon in Area Hospital, Srikalahasti, conducted Post Mortem over the body of the deceased and opined the cause of death of deceased due to ‘Cardio-respiratory arrest due to pressure over the air passages due to throttling, homicidal could not be ruled out.’ Ex.P14 is the Post Mortem Certificate. (iv) P.W.13-Inspector of Police, B.N.Kandriga Mandal, who continued his investigation, left the Area hospital along with Sub-Inspector of Police, B.N.Kandriga, proceeded to the scene of offence and in the presence of P.W.10, seized M.Os.11 to 13 under Ex.P6. On 21.12.2012, while P.W.13 was present in the police station, P.W.8 appeared before him along with the accused and presented a written report stating that the accused admitted his guilt before him. Ex.P17 is the written report prepared by P.W.8. In the presence of P.W.10, P.W.13 arrested the accused and interrogated him. During interrogation, the accused confessed about the offence. (v) In pursuance of confession, the accused led the police party to the groundnut fields of T.V.Subbarao to show the place where the gold ornaments were hidden. The same were seized under Ex.P12 seizure mahazarnama. M.Os.1 to 10 are the gold ornaments seized by P.W.13 under Ex.P12. After collecting all the necessary documents and after completing the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No.9 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasti. 5. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., came to be furnished. After collecting all the necessary documents and after completing the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No.9 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasti. 5. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., came to be furnished. Since the case is triable by a Court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Basing on the material available on record, charge as referred to above came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW.13 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 besides marking M.Os.1 to 13. Out of 13 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 did not support the case of the prosecution and were treated hostile by the prosecution. 7. After completion of 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 prosecution witnesses, to which he denied. In support of his case, he examined D.W.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf. 8. Considering the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, namely accused being last seen in the company of the deceased; false explanation given by the accused with regard to the death vis-à-vis the report of the Medical Officer; extra judicial confession made before P.W.8; and the recovery of gold ornaments belonging to the deceased at the instance of the accused, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 9. Sri G.Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel for the appellant, mainly submits that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved and even if proved do not form a chain of events to connect the accused with the Crime. Learned counsel took us through the evidence of the witnesses to show as to how the prosecution failed to prove each of the circumstances relied upon by them. 10. Learned counsel took us through the evidence of the witnesses to show as to how the prosecution failed to prove each of the circumstances relied upon by them. 10. On the other hand, Sri S.Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the same contending that though there are no eye witnesses to the incident, but the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are proved establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 11. The point that arises for consideration is: “whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 12. It is not in dispute that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the case rests on the circumstantial evidence. It is well established principle of law that in a case arising out of the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove each of the circumstance relied upon by them and the circumstances so proved should form a chain of events, which should lead to an irresistible conclusion establishing the guilt of the accused. 13. In R.Damodaran v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police, AIR (2021) SC 1173, the Apex Court after referring to the judgment of a three Judge Bench in Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706, held that, in a case which rests on circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests: 1. the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; 2. those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; 3. the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and 4. the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See Gambhir v. State of Maharastra, (1982) 2 SCC 351 ) 14. the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See Gambhir v. State of Maharastra, (1982) 2 SCC 351 ) 14. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred to above, it is now to be seen whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are proved and if proved, whether they form a chain of events connecting the accused with the crime leading to an inescapable conclusion, the guilt of the accused. 15. The prosecution mainly relied upon four circumstances namely, 1) the accused being last seen in the company of the deceased 2) explanation given by the accused with regard to cause of death 3) extra judicial confession made before P.W.8 and 4) recovery of gold ornaments belonging to the deceased at the instance of the accused after his arrest. 16. In so far as the first circumstance namely the accused being last seen in the company of the deceased is concerned, the entire case is based on the evidence of P.Ws.1, 5 and D.W.1. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased, who in his evidence, deposed that on 25.10.2012, he performed the marriage of his daughter with the accused and at the time of marriage, he presented M.Os.1 to 10. According in him, both of them lead happy marital life till Sankranti festival i.e., three years prior to the date of incident. According to him, the accused came on byke to his house, left his wife there and went back to his house. A week thereafter, he came stating that he has to go to the factory and took his wife from the house of P.W.1. It is said that D.W.1 (wife of P.W.1) called the accused over phone, who informed that they met with an accident. Immediately, all of them went to Government hospital, where they found the body of the deceased. The accused informed him as to how the accident took place. However, he lodged a report suspecting the involvement of the accused, in view of a ligature mark found around the neck of his daughter. At that point of time, P.W.1 was declared hostile. 17. The accused informed him as to how the accident took place. However, he lodged a report suspecting the involvement of the accused, in view of a ligature mark found around the neck of his daughter. At that point of time, P.W.1 was declared hostile. 17. P.W.1 was cross examined by learned counsel for the accused and by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Except putting suggestions, nothing was elicited by the prosecution. The defence counsel, who cross examined P.W.1, elicited that M.Os.1 to 8 were on the person of his daughter and that he does not know how they reached the police station. P.W.1 further states that he has seen the M.Os in the police station. To a suggestion that M.Os were in his house and they brought to the police station on the direction of the police after the arrest of the accused was denied. The evidence of this witness is silent with regard to any act of harassment or demand by the accused. Probably for that reason, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. But, however, this evidence would show that on the fateful day, the accused and deceased left the house in the motor cycle and immediately thereafter, information was passed on to D.W.1 about the accident. This fact of leaving the house of P.W.1 by the accused and deceased is also spoken to by D.W.1, the mother of the deceased. 18. D.W.1, in her evidence, categorically deposed that about three years back on a Wednesday, the accused and her daughter together left on the motor cycle of the accused to the in-laws’ house of the deceased. It was also stated by her that at that time the deceased did not wear any jewellery and kept the same with D.W.1. She further informed the deceased that she would bring her ornaments to her in-laws’ house on some other day. Her evidence also discloses that ornaments, which are in the Court, were presented by her to her daughter during her life time. She further states that the police asked her to get the ornaments, and as such, she took the ornaments and hand over to the police. 19. At this stage, it would also be useful to refer the evidence of P.W.5, who is an auto driver. He, in his evidence, deposed as under: “I am running auto. She further states that the police asked her to get the ornaments, and as such, she took the ornaments and hand over to the police. 19. At this stage, it would also be useful to refer the evidence of P.W.5, who is an auto driver. He, in his evidence, deposed as under: “I am running auto. I have seen P.W.1 at the place of death of his daughter. I do not have acquaintance with P.W.1. I know the accused. About 3 years back in between 6.30 p.m., and 7.00 p.m., while I was coming with auto carrying passengers from Sulurpet to Bucchinaidu Kandriga, I saw that the accused as well as deceased were fallen by the side of the road. I got down from the auto and observed that she was already died. When I observed the accused was breathing and made him to stand and by the time he stood up he was enquiring about his wife her which I told him that his wife was there. The accused saw his wife and stated that his wife was alive and thereafter I brought them to the Government Hospital, B.N.Kandriga. I informed to the police about the incident and the police came to the hospital. I was examined by the police. I stated the said facts to the police.” No cross examination was done in fact rightly so by the prosecution. 20. From the evidence of P.W.5, it is clear that on the fateful day, while he was going with passengers from Sulurpet to Bucchnaidu Kandriga, he saw the accused as well as deceased fallen by the side of the road. He got down from the auto and observed that she was already dead. He also noticed the accused breathing and after standing, enquired about his wife. The accused saw his wife and stated that his wife was alive and thereafter, he brought them to Government Hospital, B.N.Kandriga. P.W.5 claims to have informed to the police about the incident and the police came to the hospital. 21. From the evidence of these three witnesses, it is clear that the accused and deceased together left the house on the fateful day at about 5.00 or 5.30 P.M., but the manner in which the incident took place was also intimated immediately after the incident to P.W.1 by the accused. 21. From the evidence of these three witnesses, it is clear that the accused and deceased together left the house on the fateful day at about 5.00 or 5.30 P.M., but the manner in which the incident took place was also intimated immediately after the incident to P.W.1 by the accused. The said information furnished by accused to P.W.1 mainly that there was an accident, gets corroboration from the evidence of P.W.5. Therefore, two issues are answered from the evidence of these three witnesses, namely, last seen stands proved, but it cannot be said that there was any false information given by the accused with regard to the death, since the evidence of P.W.5 corroborates the version of the accused. It may be true that P.W.5 has not seen the incident/accident, but he noticed both of them lying on the ground by the side of the road and he stopped auto, lifted the accused and made him stand. Then the accused enquired about his wife and as she was alive, she was shifted to Government General Hospital. Since the evidence of P.W.5 assumes importance for the reason that he was not declared hostile by the prosecution. 22. Two things are required to be noted here. Firstly, the prosecution has failed to prove any motive for the accused to cause the death. There is no whisper in the evidence of any of the witnesses to show that there was any kind of harassment or ill feelings or differences between the husband and wife. Secondly, the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the evidence of P.W.5 would show that there was an accident; accused and deceased fell on the ground and it was P.W.5, who came there, saw the accused and as the deceased was alive, shifted her to hospital, where she was declared dead. If really, the case of the prosecution that it was the accused, who throttled the deceased is accepted, definitely, the conduct of the accused would have been otherwise. The accused could not have indulged in such at a place, where there is heavy flow of traffic. He would have done the same by taking the deceased to the lonely place, but definitely not on a road. As urged, possibility of involvement of third person also cannot be ruled out. 23. The accused could not have indulged in such at a place, where there is heavy flow of traffic. He would have done the same by taking the deceased to the lonely place, but definitely not on a road. As urged, possibility of involvement of third person also cannot be ruled out. 23. The third circumstance relied upon is the extra judicial confession made by the accused before P.W.8, but P.W.8 did not support the prosecution case and he was treated hostile by prosecution. To a suggestion that the accused confessed as if he killed Sandhya and took away her gold ornaments was denied by him. 24. Coming to the recovery of M.os.1 to 10-gold ornaments, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Ac, it is to be noted here that there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was wearing gold ornaments at the time when she left along with the company of the accused. P.W.1 only speaks about giving M.Os.1 to 10 to the deceased at the time of marriage. His evidence is silent as to the wearing of gold ornaments by the deceased at the time she left the house along with accused. Even P.W.5 does not speak about any gold ornaments on the body of the deceased, which get support from the evidence of D.W.1, who is no other than the mother of the deceased. As stated earlier, the defence examined D.W.1, after the prosecution has given up her after citing her as a prosecution witness. In her evidence, she categorically states that she advised the deceased not to go with gold ornaments, as it was 5.00 P.M. by then. She informed the deceased that she would bring her ornaments to her in-laws house on any other day. Apart from that, she also states that she handed over the ornaments to the police on being asked by them. She informed the deceased that she would bring her ornaments to her in-laws house on any other day. Apart from that, she also states that she handed over the ornaments to the police on being asked by them. It may be true that P.W.8, who acted as a panch witness, speaks about the recovery of the same, but in view of the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the evidence of D.W.1, who is none other than the mother of deceased and in whose cross examination, nothing has been elicited to disprove the same except confronting her with her 161 Cr.P.C statement, which should not have been allowed in view of Section 162 Cr.P.C, which clearly postulates that ‘a witness can be confronted with her 161 Cr.P.C statement, if called by the prosecution only and not by the defence, after being cited as a prosecution witness.’ 25. Though P.W.10 speaks about the arrest of accused and the recovery made pursuant to his arrest, but in the cross examination, he admits that he does not know the contents of the arrest and confession mahazar, but however states that it was read over to him and that he does not remember the contents. It would be appropriate to extract the same ; “M.Os.1 to 10 were shown to us by the accused. The same was reduced into writing by the C.I of police and I signed on the written paper. Ex.P11 is my signature on arrest and confession mahazarnama dt.21.12.2012 written on 2.30 p.m. I do not know the contents of arrest and confession mahazarnama but the same were read over to me and now I do not remember the contents. Ex.P12 is the seizure mahazarnama, dt.21.12.2012 written at 4.30 p.m.” 26. Therefore, out of the four circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, only the first circumstance, namely, the accused being last seen in the company of the accused is proved, but that circumstance, in the given set of circumstances, may not be sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused for the reasons stated supra, namely, that earliest point of time, not only the accused furnished information that they met with an accident, but also the evidence of P.W.5, which we have discussed earlier proves the accident. 27. In view of the above, a doubt arises as to the recovery made pursuant to the arrest of the accused. 27. In view of the above, a doubt arises as to the recovery made pursuant to the arrest of the accused. Hence, we feel that it is a fit case, where benefit of doubt can be given to the accused and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court are liable to be set-aside. 28. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused in the Judgment dated 21.10.2015 in Sessions Case No.205 of 2013 on the file of the Special Judge-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Tirupathi for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C, are set aside and he is acquitted for the said offences. Consequently, the appellant/Accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or crime. The find amount, if any paid by the appellant/Accused shall be refunded to him. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.