Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 85 (AP)

Vasiredy Koteswara Rao v. State of AP. , Rep PP.

2023-01-06

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

body2023
JUDGMENT : C.Praveen Kumar, J. Sole accused in Sessions Case No.169 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Guntur is the appellant herein. He was tried for the offences punishable under Section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Vide Judgment dated 14.12.2016, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Guntur convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven (07) years. He was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Act and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two (02) months. The appellant/ accused was further sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of five (05) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen (15) days for the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Act. 3. The substance of the charge against the accused is that on 23.11.2013 at about 4.30 a.m., at the house of accused situated in College bazaar, Chebrole, the accused unlawfully and maliciously stored sulphur and potassium in his house and due to pressure, it caused an explosion which resulted in collapse of roof and walls of the house, leading to death of the mother of the accused, who was sleeping there. 4. The facts in issue are as under: (i) P.W.1 was working as Village Revenue Officer, Chebrole during the relevant time. On 23.11.2013, one Mothadu Machala Venkaiah, came and informed him about the blast at the house of the accused. On that, he went to the said place and noticed a tiled house caved in and also noticed the mother of the accused dead with some material over her body. Immediately, he went to the police station and lodged a report before P.W.7, who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Chebrole Police Station. (ii) Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.219 of 2013 came to be registered under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Ex.P.11 is the FIR. Immediately, he went to the police station and lodged a report before P.W.7, who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Chebrole Police Station. (ii) Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.219 of 2013 came to be registered under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Ex.P.11 is the FIR. Further investigation in this case was taken up by P.W.8, Inspector of Police, who on receipt of case, proceeded to Chebrole Police Station, collected the FIR and then visited the scene of offence. At the scene, he prepared a Panchanama, which was marked as Ex.P.2. He seized burnt cloth pieces, burnt paper pieces, soil from beneath the almyrah, phosphorus power, sulphur powder etc., at the scene. He also got prepared a rough sketch at the scene, which is marked as Ex.P.12. (iii) Thereafter, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, which is marked as Ex.P.3. After completion of inquest proceedings, he sent the dead body for Post-Mortem examination. P.W.6, who was working as Civil Assistant Surgeon at District Hospital, Tenali, conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued Ex.P.10 Post-Mortem Certificate. According to him, the cause of death was due to trauma and injury to the ribs, hemorrhage and shock. (iv) On 27.11.2013, on receipt of reliable information, the Investigating Officer along with panch witnesses proceeded to Chebrole cinema hall for apprehending and arrest of accused. On seeing the police party the accused tried to skulk away, but he was surrounded and apprehended. On interrogation he is said to have confessed about the commission of offence. Ex.P.4 is the admissible portion of the said confession. Pursuant to the confession made by the accused, accused lead the police to the shed of Gavinedi Venkateswarlu, from where he brought three polythene covers, containing 24 packets consisting of potassium, weighing about 800 grams each along with some granite chips in other pouch. The same were seized under Ex.P.5. 5. After collecting all the necessary documents, a charge sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.29 of 2014 on the file of VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur. 6. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were furnished to him. The same were seized under Ex.P.5. 5. After collecting all the necessary documents, a charge sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.29 of 2014 on the file of VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur. 6. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were furnished to him. As the offence is triable by Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the same was made over to the Court of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Guntur for trial and disposal in accordance with law. 7. 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, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. In support of the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 besides M.O.1 to M.O.11. Out of nine (09) prosecution witnesses, P.W.2 to P.W.5 did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile by the prosecution. 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. The accused did not adduce any evidence on his behalf. 9. Relying upon the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.9, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Guntur convicted the accused. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal came to be filed. 10. Sri Prabhu Nath Vasireddy, learned counsel for the appellant mainly submits that except the evidence of official witnesses, there is no other evidence available on record. According to him, there is no material on record to show that the appellant unlawfully and maliciously stored sulphur and potassium in his house. Further, the learned counsel would contend that the prosecution witnesses in their crossexamination admit that no material has been collected to show that the appellant is the owner of the house. It is further submitted that merely because he was present in the house along with other inmates, does not by itself fasten him with liability of being in possession of explosive substance. For all the above reasons, he would submit that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that merely because he was present in the house along with other inmates, does not by itself fasten him with liability of being in possession of explosive substance. For all the above reasons, he would submit that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 11. On the other hand, Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the same contending that the appellant is a habitual offender, involved in number of cases under the provisions of the Explosives and Substances Act, 1908. Since he is the only male member present in the house, the Court can infer that the explosive substance was obtained and stored by him in the said house. In any event the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that in view of the recovery of potassium and sulphur from appellant, it can be inferred that he alone is responsible for the incident in question. 12. The point that arises for consideration is:- “Whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?” 13. POINT:- In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for appellant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, it is necessary to refer to Section 3 and 5 of the Act, which are as under: Section 3: Punishment for causing explosion likely to endanger life or property.—Any person who unlawfully and maliciously causes by— (a) any explosive substance an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property shall, whether any injury to person or property has been actually caused or not, be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment of either description which shall not be less than ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; (b) any special category explosive substance an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property shall, whether any injury to person or property has been actually caused or not, be punished with death, or rigorous imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 5: Punishment for making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances.—Any person who makes or knowingly has in his possession or under his control any explosive substance or special category explosive substance, under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he is not making it or does not have it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, shall, unless he can show that he made it or had it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, be punished,— (a) in the case of any explosive substance, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; (b) in the case of any special category explosive substance, with rigorous imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 14. Before dealing with the provisions of the Explosives and Substances Act, 1908, it is to be noticed that the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Guntur convicted the appellant/ accused under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for seven (07) years. In order to base a conviction under Section 304 Part-II of IPC, it has to be established that the accused alone was responsible for the incident in question. As seen from the record, except the official witnesses, all other witnesses resiled from their earlier statements and as such, they were treated hostile by the prosecution. 15. To prove that accused is the owner of the house or that he was in possession of the explosive substances which was stored in his house, it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence of the official witnesses. 16. P.W.1 is the Village Revenue Officer, who said to have proceeded to the house where the explosion took place and after seeing the body lying there, he set the law into motion by lodging a report. He was present when police have prepared Panchanama of the scene, rough sketch and also inquest. He also speaks about arrest of the accused and recovery made pursuant to the arrest, from the shed of one Gavinedu Venkateswarlu. In the cross-examination, he admits that he cannot say in whose name the house which they have examined, stood. He was present when police have prepared Panchanama of the scene, rough sketch and also inquest. He also speaks about arrest of the accused and recovery made pursuant to the arrest, from the shed of one Gavinedu Venkateswarlu. In the cross-examination, he admits that he cannot say in whose name the house which they have examined, stood. He further states that he had not enquired in the Panchayat Office in whose name the house, they have searched, stood in the panchayat record. According to him, walls of the house were constructed with lime mortar and not with mud and that he has seen the house before blast. 17. Pursuant to an application made vide Crl.M.P.No.2158 of 2015, dated 20.11.2015, P.W.1 was recalled for further chiefexamination. In the cross-examination made to the evidence recorded on record, P.W.1 categorically admits as under: “When I gave evidence during the first occasion I had gone through the scene of offence panchanama and the report. I don’t’ know to where the police officer had taken the above said seized material M.Os.4 to 11 after their seizure. No rough scene of offence of panchanama was prepared at the spot. It is true there are no corrections whatsoever or any interpolations in Ex.P.2 panchanama. It is not true to suggest Ex.P.2 was not prepared on 23.11.2013 but on a later date at the police station.” 18. It is also necessary to extract the evidence of P.W.1 in his own words insofar as the owner of the house is concerned: “I can’t tell in whose name the house we have examined stood. It is not true to suggest that the said house doesn’t belong to the accused. I have not enquired in the Panchayat office in whose name the house we have examined stood in Panchayat record. The walls of the said house were constructed with time mortar and not with mud. I have seen the said house before the blast.” 19. Coming to the evidence of P.W.9, the Investigating Officer, he in his cross-examination admits as under: “I did not investigate to know in whose name the house collapsed belonged to. When I visited that house I have found no traces of explosion there.” 20. From the answers elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.9, it appears that no investigation was done to find out the ownership of the house, where the blast took place. When I visited that house I have found no traces of explosion there.” 20. From the answers elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.9, it appears that no investigation was done to find out the ownership of the house, where the blast took place. The prosecution proceeded on a footing that as the accused alone resides there, it has to be interfered that he is responsible for the incident. Things definitely would have been in favour of the prosecution, had the accused alone was residing in the house, but, the evidence on record is otherwise. Though, P.W.3 did not support the prosecution case, but in the earlier portion of his evidence he deposed that the accused used to reside in the house with his mother and his elder brother. P.W.8 in his cross-examination admits that at the scene of offence, the deceased, the accused and his wife resided. To a suggestion that one Siddaiah also resides in the house, was denied. Therefore, from the above, it is clear that the accused is not the only person living in the house. The other members of the family like his brother, mother and wife were living in the house at that point of time. Therefore, the argument that the accused alone is responsible for the incident namely, procuring, storing and being in possession may not be correct. 21. Even the argument of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that since the accused being male member an inference can be drawn that he procured the material and stored it in the said premises, may not be correct, when the evidence of Investigating Officer shows that he has made no efforts to know the source of procurement of sulphur and potassium by the accused. Though, he tried to elicit the same from the accused, but he did not reveal the same. 22. From the above discussion, prima facie it stands established that no material was collected that the house belongs to the accused; and that he was in exclusive possession in that house. Merely because he was living in that house does not by itself establish that he was responsible for securing and procuring and being in possession of explosive substances. More so, when there is more than one person living in the said house. 23. Merely because he was living in that house does not by itself establish that he was responsible for securing and procuring and being in possession of explosive substances. More so, when there is more than one person living in the said house. 23. Apart from the above, one strange thing which requires to be noted in this case is that pursuant to the arrest of the accused explosive substances were recovered from the shed of Gavinedi Venkateswarlu and such recovery is not part of the charge framed in this case. So, the said recovery from the said shed has no relevance to the case on hand. Question is whether there was any recovery of explosive material from the scene of offence? 24. Insofar as the recovery of material from the scene of offence, P.W.1, who was examined as panch witness to the scene, admits in his cross-examination which was extracted earlier, that the material seized at the scene was alleged to have been taken to some other place by the police. He admits that he does not know to which place the Police Officer had taken the above material M.Os.4 to 11 after their seizure. He further states that no rough sketch was prepared at the spot. Apart from that P.W.9, who succeeded P.W.8 states that he visited the house of the accused after taking charge. But, he did not find any traces of explosion when he visited the house of the accused. 25. From the above, it is clear that the evidence of P.W.1, shows that the material seized from the scene of offence was transported to some other place and no explosive substances was found when P.W.9 visited the scene. According to learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, it has to be inferred that the material seized from the scene of offence was transported to the shed of Gavinedi Venkateswarlu. But there is no material to show that what was seized was an explosive substance, for the reason, P.W.8 in his cross-examination admits that he has not sent the explosive material to the Controller of explosives. But, on the other hand, he sent it to the Forensic Science Laboratory, who is not a competent authority to say whether the substance is an explosive substance or not. But, on the other hand, he sent it to the Forensic Science Laboratory, who is not a competent authority to say whether the substance is an explosive substance or not. More so, when the said premises is not in exclusive possession of the accused and when there is no material or any investigation done that it was accused who procured the said material. Apart from that, what was recovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 may not be related to the case on hand also. 26. Hence, convicting the accused under Section 304 Part-II of IPC may not be correct. Apart from that, Section 3 of the Act postulates that whoever unlawfully and maliciously causes serious injury to property shall, whether any injury to person or property has been actually caused or not, shall be punished. But, as observed earlier, there is no material to show that it was the accused, who was responsible for causing explosion. Similarly, even Section 5 of the Act will not apply, for the reason that there is no material to show that accused alone was in exclusive possession of the house or that he alone procured the material and stored it in the house. 27. Further, another male person, who was living with the accused, is his elder brother, who was shown as L.W.2 and then given up. In view of the finding given above, we feel that it is a fit case where benefit of doubt can be extended to the appellant/ accused. 28. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed, setting-aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Guntur vide Judgment, dated 14.12.2016, in Sessions Case No.169 of 2015 against the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.