Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 198 (AP)

Santennagari Chowdappa v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-01-24

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

body2023
JUDGMENT : C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. Accused 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No. 80 of 2016 are the appellants herein. Originally, they were tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short “I.P.C.”] for causing the death of one P. Nagappa on 14.09.2014 at about 11.00 P.M. in his house situated at Kalluru Village, Lepakshi Mandal of Ananthapuram District. 2. Vide judgment dated 22.04.2016, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur convicted both the accused under Section 302 r/w. 34 I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two (2) years each for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. 34 I.P.C. 3. The facts, in issue, are as under: (a) The deceased is the husband of A.2 while A.1 is said to be the paramour of A.2. PW-1 is the son of deceased and A.2. PWs. 3 and 4 are the brothers of the deceased. PW-2 is the daughter of the deceased and A.2. It is said that there was an adulterous relationship between A.1 and A.2 which was reported to the Police, who admonished them. PW-1 was working in Wine Shop at Hindupur while PW-2 was married and living in Bagepalli Village Chikkaballapur Mandal. PW-1 claims to have advised A.2 not to continue her relationship with A.1, but to no avail. She claims to have seen A.1 and A.2 together number of times and she advised, but both the accused have tended to turn a deaf ear. (b) On 14.09.2014 at 8.30 P.M. PW-3 was informed by his sister about A.1 and A.2 having sex in bushes. Immediately, he went there and saw both of them in the bushes. On seeing them, A.1 ran away from the spot. They brought back A.2 and admonished her for having such extramarital relationship and left A.2 and the deceased in their house. (c) Later on, PW-6 informed about the quarrel between A.1 and the deceased. On hearing cries, PWs. 3, 5 and 6 went towards the house of the deceased and noticed A.1 running away on seeing them. They went inside the house and found the dead body of the deceased on the cot and the same was informed to PWs. 3 and 4. On hearing cries, PWs. 3, 5 and 6 went towards the house of the deceased and noticed A.1 running away on seeing them. They went inside the house and found the dead body of the deceased on the cot and the same was informed to PWs. 3 and 4. They noticed scratch injuries on the face and neck of the deceased. A report about the said incident was given to PW-12 by PW-1 on 15.09.2014 at about 7.15 P.M. which came to be registered a case in Crime No. 121 of 2014 under Section 302 r/w.34 I.P.C. Ex.P9 is the F.I.R. Further investigation in this case was taken up by PW-15-Inspector of Police, who on receipt of a copy of the F.I.R. proceeded to the scene of offence and held inquest over the dead body between 7.00 A.M. to 10.00 A.M. Ex.P10 is the Inquest Report. During inquest, PW-15 examined the family members of the deceased. At the time of inquest, he also seized wearing apparels of the deceased and then sent the dead body for Post Mortem examination. He also prepared a panchanama and sketch of the scene which is placed on record as Ex.P11. (d) PW-8 working as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Hindupur, conducted Post Mortem over the dead body of the deceased on 16.09.2014 at 1.30 P.M. and issued Ex.P3–Post Mortem Certificate. According to him, the cause of death is due to smothering and the injuries on the face and neck of the deceased are simple in nature. (e) On 27.09.2014 at about 9.00 A.M. while PW-10 Village Revenue Officer was present in Kalluru Grama Panchayat, A.1 and A.2 came to him and confessed about committing the murder of the deceased and expressed fear of arrest and torture by the Police. He recorded the statement of both the accused, took them to Inspector of Police, Taluka Police Station and handed over both the accused along with his report. (f) PW-13-Inspector of Police, who was present in the Police Station, arrested both the accused and remanded them to judicial custody. PW-14-Inspector of Police, who continued the investigation, obtained all the documents and then filed a Charge Sheet, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 10 of 2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur. 4. (f) PW-13-Inspector of Police, who was present in the Police Station, arrested both the accused and remanded them to judicial custody. PW-14-Inspector of Police, who continued the investigation, obtained all the documents and then filed a Charge Sheet, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 10 of 2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur. 4. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were supplied to them. As the offence is triable by 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 Sessions Judge, Hindupur for trial and disposal in accordance with law. 5. Basing on the material available on record, charges, as referred to earlier, came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11 and M.Os.1 and 2. 7. After the closure of Prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to which, they denied. However, they did not adduce any evidence except Exs.D1 to D3 in support of their plea. Believing the evidence of PW-1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 8. Dr. Sri Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants mainly submits that there is absolutely no legal evidence is available on record to connect the accused with the crime. According to him, the prosecution is not coming forward with the true version in this case. In other words, his argument appears to be that the prosecution has suppressed true facts of the case and brought into existence a new report in the evening of 15.09.2014. Hence, pleads that the entire case of the prosecution is surrounded with suspicion. 9. According to him, the prosecution is not coming forward with the true version in this case. In other words, his argument appears to be that the prosecution has suppressed true facts of the case and brought into existence a new report in the evening of 15.09.2014. Hence, pleads that the entire case of the prosecution is surrounded with suspicion. 9. Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the State, opposed the same contending that when there are eye witnesses who speak about the illicit relationship between the A.1 and A.2; the presence of A.2 in the house of the deceased on the date of incident; A.1 leaving the house in a hurried manner and in the absence of any explanation given as to how the dead body was in the house, an inference can be drawn that A.1 and A.2 alone are responsible for the death of the deceased. According to him, if really A.1 and A.2 are innocent of the crime, at least they should have explained the same in their Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination, more so, when the plea taken by them, falsifies the medical evidence. He would further submit that in the instant case, the motive for the commission of the offence is established beyond reasonable doubt, more so, through the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, who are none other than the children of A.2 and the deceased. In other words, he would contend that there is no reason for PWs. 1 and 2 to speak falsehood against their own mother if she is innocent. Under those circumstances, he would contend that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court warrants no interference. 10. The point that arises for consideration is: Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 11. Before proceeding further, it is to be noted here that the extra-judicial confession made by both the accused before PW-10 disclosing the commission of the offence and seeking help from the Police was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, it may not be necessary for us to go into that portion of the case. 12. Coming to the incident in question, there are no eye witnesses to the incident, but as seen from the record, the entire case now rests on the evidence of PWs. Hence, it may not be necessary for us to go into that portion of the case. 12. Coming to the incident in question, there are no eye witnesses to the incident, but as seen from the record, the entire case now rests on the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, who not only speak about the illicit relationship between A.1 and A.2 but also the panchayatdars as well as the family members admonishing A2 to discontinue her illicit relationship with A1. The fact of seeing both the accused together hours prior to the incident, quarrel/cries being heard from the house of the deceased and A.1 leaving from the house of the deceased in a hurried manner at about 11.00 P.M. at night. As against the version of these witnesses, the defence is mainly relying upon the suppression of the earlier report and the proceedings conducted by the Police in the morning of 15.09.2014. 13. It is now to be seen whether the defence taken by the accused namely suppression of the case and coming out with a new set of facts by the prosecution would make the evidence of other witnesses improper or incorrect? 14. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced, it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence of some of the witnesses. Though the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor tried to contend that the prosecution has to prove the theory of last seen and the body in the house with A2 by itself, but the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the entire case has to be viewed in suspicion in view of the anomalies in the evidence of the witnesses. It may not be necessary for us to reiterate what all the witnesses have stated, suffice to say that the evidence of PW-1 discloses that on 14.09.2014 at about 10.00 P.M. while he was on duty in Indra Wines, PW-4 telephoned and informed him about the death of his father. Immediately, he went to Kallur and found the dead body of his father on a cot with injuries on his nose and throat and also found a bubble injury on the right side of the stomach. He questioned his mother as to the persons responsible for the death of his father, but there was no response from her. Immediately, he went to Kallur and found the dead body of his father on a cot with injuries on his nose and throat and also found a bubble injury on the right side of the stomach. He questioned his mother as to the persons responsible for the death of his father, but there was no response from her. On the same day night i.e. on 14.09.2014, he telephoned to Sub-Inspector of Police, Lepakshi, but there was no reply to his phone. On the next day i.e. on 15.09.2014 at about 9.00 A.M to 10.00 A.M, he furnished an information to the police in the form of the report Ex.P1. Witness identified his signature on Ex.P1. According to him, the police came to the scene of offence at 12.00 P.M., and started investigation by recording 161 Cr.P.C. statement. He also speaks that police holding inquest over the body of the deceased and he being present at the time of inquest. 15. In the cross examination, PW-1, who is the son of the deceased, categorically admits that information was furnished to the police at about 9.00 P.M. and only one information was given to the police and that he has not furnished any other information to the police nearby his house at Kalluru village. He also deposed that his sister and himself gave complaint to the police. The cross examination of this witness also reveals that police examined him between 9.00-10.30 A.M. on 14.09.2014. 16. PW-2, who is the sister of PW-1, also deposed that at about 12.00 A.M on 14.09.2014, PW-1 called him and informed him about the death of his father. On the next day i.e. on 15.09.2014, she saw the dead body of her father. This witness in her cross examination states something different with regard to lodging of the report. She admits that PW-1 and herself submitted the First Information Report to the police in Government Hospital stating that both of them talked together and furnished information to the police, which was scribed by PW-1 in the hospital and handed over the same to the Sub-Inspector of police. It will be appropriate to extract the same as under: “PW-1 furnished a first information and second information furnished by LW-4 and I and PW-1 furnished the third information. PW-1 and me submitted a first information to the police in Govt. Hospital. It will be appropriate to extract the same as under: “PW-1 furnished a first information and second information furnished by LW-4 and I and PW-1 furnished the third information. PW-1 and me submitted a first information to the police in Govt. Hospital. Me and PW-1 talked together and furnished an information to the police which was scribed by PW-1 at hospital and handed over to the Sub-Inspector of police.” 17. Coming to the evidence of PW-3, he is a resident of Kallur village, Lepakshi Mandal. According to him, himself, PW-6 and deceased went to the bushes and saw both A1 and A2 in the bushes at about 8-30 to 9-00 P.M. on 14.09.2014. He admonished A2 for having such extra marital relation and took her to the house, and then disbursed to their respective houses. But however, at about 11.00 P.M., he claims to have seen A1 going away from the house of the deceased in a hurried manner. In the cross examination, he admits that he reached the scene of offence at 11.00 P.M and within five minutes PW-4 came there and telephoned to PW-1 and that PW-1 reached the scene of offence at 12.00 A.M. It is said that PW-1 came to scene of offence by motor cycle along with another person, who works along with him in the bar. 18. In so far as lodging of the report is concerned, PW-3 in his cross examination admits that PW-2 and her husband reached the scene of offence on the same night at 12.00 hours by two wheeler. He also admits that PWs. 1 and 2 furnished information to the police at Government Hospital, Hindupur at 11.00 A.M. on 15.09.2014, basing on which, the police registered a case and the statements of PWs. 1, 2 and 3 were recorded by Sub-Inspector of police at the Government Hospital in Hindupur. But the evidence of investigating officer (PW-12) with regard to lodging of the report, is something different. His evidence shows that on 15.09.2014 at 7.15 P.M. while he was present in Lepakshi police station, he received a written information from PW-1 which lead to registration of a case in Crime No. 121 of 2014 under Section 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C and issued FIR which is marked as Ex.P9. In the cross examination, he admits that the sole informant i.e. PW-1 came to police station and furnished the information. In the cross examination, he admits that the sole informant i.e. PW-1 came to police station and furnished the information. He further deposed that Ex.P1 was already scribed before its presentation. The evidence of PW-15 shows as if the report was given on 15.09.2014 at about 7.15 P.M. which is totally different from what PWs. 1 to 3 have stated. 19. Even the evidence of PW-15 Inspector of police, Hindupur Rural police station would reveal that on 15.09.2014 at about 7.30 P.M. while he was present in Hindupur II Town police station, he received information about reporting of a murder case in Lepakshi police station and accordingly, he reached Lepakshi police station at 8.00 P.M. and then he took up investigation. 20. From the above, it is clear that while the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 3 speaks about lodging of the report on the morning of 15.09.2014 between 9.00 A.M. and 11.00 A.M. the evidence of investigating agency shows as if the report was given at 7.15 P.M. on 15.09.2014. Hence, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the earliest information given to police with regard to the commission of offence was suppressed and subsequently the witnesses have been introduced to speak to the theory of last seen etc, cannot be brushed aside. 21. It is well established settled principle of law that when the First Information Report is doubtful, the entire fabric of the case collapses. In that view of the matter, we do not intend to go into other aspects of the matter, as feel that it is a fit case, where benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused. 22. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants/A1 and A2 in the Judgment dated 22.04.2016 in Sessions Case No. 80 of 2016 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C, are set aside and they are acquitted for the said offence. Consequently, the appellants/A1 and A2 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case or crime. The find amount, if any paid by the appellants/A1 and A2 shall be refunded to him. 23. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.