Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1041 (AP)

G. A. Venkatramaiah v. State of AP

2024-08-09

K SREENIVASA REDDY, K SURESH REDDY

body2024
JUDGMENT : K.Sreenivasa Reddy, J. Sole accused in Sessions Case No.677 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the learned Sessions Judge’) is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 379, 201 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) by the learned Sessions Judge. 2. Vide Judgment, dated 27.10.2016, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant herein/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (02) years more for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Further, the appellant herein/accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (06) months more for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC. The appellant herein/accused was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and he was acquitted of the said offence in terms of Section 235 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’). 3. The substance of the charges as against the appellant herein/accused is that on 6th February, 2013 at about 11.30 PM, at the house of one G.Subbaramaiah Setty (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’) he did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of the deceased by throttling his neck and pressing the face with a pillow, because of the same, the deceased died with asphyxia. Thereafter, the appellant herein/accused committed theft of cash of Rs.21.00 lakhs and gold ornaments about 42 Tulas from the deceased. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: The accused and the material prosecution witnesses are all residents of Ragikunta village in Pavagada Taluq of Karnataka State. The deceased was also resident of the same village. P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased. P.W.4 is the wife of P.W.3. P.W.6 is the daughter of the deceased. The deceased was residing in the first floor and P.W.3 was residing in the second floor of the same house at Roddam. The deceased was also resident of the same village. P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased. P.W.4 is the wife of P.W.3. P.W.6 is the daughter of the deceased. The deceased was residing in the first floor and P.W.3 was residing in the second floor of the same house at Roddam. Wife of deceased died six months prior to the death of the deceased. P.W.6, who is the daughter of the deceased, was studying at Anantapuramu. The deceased was alone in the house and P.Ws.3 and 4 were supplying food and refreshments to him. The deceased was doing real estate business. The deceased had lands in Ragikunta and Mopurlapalli villages and they were leased out to the appellant herein/accused. The appellant herein/ accused made the deceased to take part in real estate business. The appellant herein/accused regularly used to visit the house of the deceased. There was one house site at Pavagada (Karnataka State) in the name of the deceased. The appellant herein/accused made the deceased to sell the plot in Pavagada for a consideration of Rs.7,50,000/-. The appellant herein/accused asked the deceased to purchase a dwelling site at Anantapuramu for a cost of Rs.30.00 lakhs and further asked to arrange the balance amount. The deceased borrowed an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs from L.W.16/ S.Raghava Reddy and the deceased was also having cash of Rs.5.00 lakhs to Rs.10.00 lakhs in his house. On 06.02.2013 at about 10.00 AM, P.W.3 went to Dharmavaram and returned to Roddam at about 10.00 PM. By that time, the deceased came and opened the gate and P.W.3 went inside his house, which is situated in upstairs. At about 11.00 PM on the same day, the appellant herein/accused pressed the switch of the calling bell. P.W.3 went out and saw the appellant herein/ accused. The deceased went out and opened the door of the house. P.W.3 saw the deceased and the accused going into the house. P.W.3 went inside his house thinking that the appellant herein/accused is known person. On 07.02.2013 at about 6.00 AM, P.W.4, who is the wife of P.W.3, went to downstairs to sweep the courtyard; she found the doors of the house were opened. After sweeping the courtyard, P.W.4 went to upstairs. At about 8.00 AM, P.W.4 sent breakfast with P.W.3. At 8.00 AM, P.W.3 took the breakfast and called the deceased but, there was no reply from inside the room. After sweeping the courtyard, P.W.4 went to upstairs. At about 8.00 AM, P.W.4 sent breakfast with P.W.3. At 8.00 AM, P.W.3 took the breakfast and called the deceased but, there was no reply from inside the room. P.W.4 went inside and found the deceased was dead and P.W.3 was shocked and shouted and sought the attendance and assistance of P.W.5 and L.W.7/Gouse Mohiddin. Three of them went inside the house and found the deceased facing the earth and P.W.5 turned the body and found that blood was oozing from the nose and mouth. P.W.5 and L.W.7/Gouse Mohiddin informed P.W.3 that the deceased was dead as the body was cool. P.W.3 found the same. With the help of L.W.8/A.Lokesh Guptha and another by name Nooru Sab, they brought the dead body from the cot and kept in verandah. P.W.3 found the cell phone, cash and gold ornaments of the deceased were missing. On 07.02.2013 at about 9.00 AM, while P.W.1 was at Mandal Revenue Office, he was informed that the deceased died in a suspicious circumstance. Both of them rushed to the house of the deceased and enquired with regard to the incident. Thereafter, P.W.1 presented a report to the police. On 07.02.2013 at about 10.00 AM, P.W.35, Sub-Inspector of Police, Roddam Police Station, while he was in the police station, received a report from P.W.1. P.W.35 registered the same as a case in Crime No.6 of 2013 under Section 174 CrPC. Ex.P49 is the FIR. As per the instructions of the Inspector of Police, Penukonda Circle, as per the Memo, dated 07.02.2013, P.W.35 handed over the case to P.W.37, Sub-Inspector of Police, Penukonda Police Station. P.W.37, Sub-Inspector of Police, Penukonda Police Station received the FIR and reached the scene of offence situated near Ambedkar Circle. P.W.37 prepared scene observation report in the presence of P.Ws.10 and 12, which is marked as Ex.P53. P.W.35 called the Clues Team, which includes a dog squad and finger print expert. They secured the scene of offence and P.W.37 prepared sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P54 is the sketch of scene of offence. P.W.37 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased after issuing notice to the blood relatives and witnesses. During inquest M.Os.23 to 28 were seized from the scene of offence. Ex.P.55 is the Inquest Report. They secured the scene of offence and P.W.37 prepared sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P54 is the sketch of scene of offence. P.W.37 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased after issuing notice to the blood relatives and witnesses. During inquest M.Os.23 to 28 were seized from the scene of offence. Ex.P.55 is the Inquest Report. After conclusion of inquest, P.W.37 sent the dead body of the deceased through Police Constable No.528 to the hospital for autopsy. On 07.02.2013 at about 4.30 PM, P.W.34, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Penukonda, on requisition, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P.48 is the Post-Mortem Certificate. According to the Doctor, the cause of death of the deceased is due to asphyxia (Hypoxic hypoxia or anoxia due to smothering). P.W.38, Inspector of Police, Penukonda Police Station, verified the investigation done by P.W.37 and came to a conclusion that it was on correct lines. Thereafter, he took up investigation and visited the scene of offence i.e. in house of the deceased. P.W.38 examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and 21, L.W.7/Gouse Mohiddin, L.W.8/ A.Lokesh Guptha, L.W.15/S.Fayaz Basha, L.W.16/S.Raghava Reddy, L.W.20/G.Veerappa and recorded their statements. On 21.02.2013, P.W.38 examined L.W.22/Uppara Obulesu, P.Ws.16 to 20 and recorded their statements. On 22.02.2013, on credible information, P.W.38 apprehended the appellant herein/accused in the presence of P.W.22 and L.W.29/S.Jamsheer Basha. P.W.38, after interrogating the appellant herein/accused, recorded his confessional statement. In pursuant to the confession of the appellant herein/accused, P.W.38 recovered the cell phone, gold kept in the sheep shed. P.W.38 reconstructed the scene, when the appellant herein/accused had narrated the entire crime story. After completion of investigation, P.W.38 filed the charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 38 and got marked Exs.P1 to P86. Ex.D1 to D3 were marked on behalf of the defence. On behalf of prosecution, M.Os.1 to 31 were marked. 6. The plea of appellant herein/accused is one of denial. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there is no direct eyewitness to the scene and the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. According to the learned counsel, the alleged recovery of gold jewellery and cash were all false and concocted. He further submitted that the account was opened in the Karnataka Bank for the purpose of making transactions from whom the appellant purchased the property. According to the learned counsel, the alleged recovery of gold jewellery and cash were all false and concocted. He further submitted that the account was opened in the Karnataka Bank for the purpose of making transactions from whom the appellant purchased the property. According to him, the explanation offered by the appellant that he had 600 goats, agriculture lands and the entire amount which he deposited in the bank belongs to him, is reasonable and probable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is a well-reasoned Judgment and it calls for no interference by this Court. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submitted that the explanation given by the appellant is false and his subsequent conduct in not visiting his partner i.e. the deceased, would raise eyebrows of any person. All these circumstances would point finger at the appellant that he is the person who caused the death of the deceased. There is absolutely no trustworthy explanation given by the appellant. 9. In the light of the above contentions, the point that would arise for consideration in this Criminal Appeal is:- “Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charge levelled against him, beyond all reasonable doubt?” 10. Admittedly, there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence; the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature and all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. 11. P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased. He was residing in the second floor of the house, where the deceased was residing in the first floor of the house. The wife of the deceased died six months prior to the death of the deceased. P.W.6 is the daughter of the deceased and she was studying at Anantapuramu. The deceased was alone in the house and P.Ws.3 and 4 were supplying the food and refreshments to him. The deceased was doing business, more particularly, the real estate business. The wife of the deceased died six months prior to the death of the deceased. P.W.6 is the daughter of the deceased and she was studying at Anantapuramu. The deceased was alone in the house and P.Ws.3 and 4 were supplying the food and refreshments to him. The deceased was doing business, more particularly, the real estate business. The deceased had lands in Ragikunta and Mopurlapalli villages and they were leased out to the appellant herein/accused. It is the appellant herein/accused, who made the deceased to take part in the real estate business. The appellant herein/accused was regularly attending the house of the deceased. The appellant herein/accused induced the deceased to sell the plot in Pavagada for a consideration of Rs.7,50,000/- and further, the appellant herein/accused asked the deceased to purchase a dwelling site in Anantapuramu at a cost of Rs.30.00 lakhs. The appellant herein/accused further asked the deceased to arrange the balance amount. In connection with that, the deceased borrowed an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs from L.W.16/S.Raghava Reddy in the presence of P.W.13. 12. On 06.02.2013 at about 10.00 AM, P.W.3 went to Dharmavaram and returned at about 10.00 PM. By that time, the deceased went and opened the gate and P.W.3 went inside the house which is situated in upstairs. On the same day, at about 11.00 PM, the appellant pressed the calling bell, P.W.3 went out and saw the accused. The deceased went out and opened the door of the house. P.W.3 saw the deceased and accused going into the house. P.W.3 went into the house thinking that the accused is a known person. 13. P.W.4, wife of P.W.3 deposed that on 06.02.2013 at 8.00 PM, she served Idly to the deceased. On that day, P.W.3 went to Dharmavaram and returned home at 10.00 PM. P.W.3 went inside the house after the deceased opened the doors of the house. Again, at 11.00 PM, P.W.3 saw the accused entering into the house after the doors being opened by the deceased. Thereafter, they went and slept in the house. On 07.02.2013 at about 6.00 AM, P.W.4, who is wife of P.W.3, went down to sweep the courtyard. At that time, the doors of the house were found opened. After sweeping the courtyard, P.W.4 went upstairs. At about 8.00 AM, P.W.4 sent breakfast through P.W.3. Thereafter, they went and slept in the house. On 07.02.2013 at about 6.00 AM, P.W.4, who is wife of P.W.3, went down to sweep the courtyard. At that time, the doors of the house were found opened. After sweeping the courtyard, P.W.4 went upstairs. At about 8.00 AM, P.W.4 sent breakfast through P.W.3. P.W.3 tried to wake up the deceased by shouting aloud, but as there was no response from the room of the deceased, on hearing cries of P.W.3, P.W.4 went down. They raised their voice to the maximum and tried to wake up the deceased, but in vain. Thereafter, they invited the assistance of P.W.5 and another and they went and found the deceased facing his head towards the earth. P.Ws.3 and 5 turned the body and found blood and water oozing out from the mouth and nose and also found the face in black colour. Thereafter, they went inside the house and found missing of gold ornaments and cash. 14. A plain reading of the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 goes to show that they are not eyewitnesses to the incident. Their evidence would reveal the circumstances that the accused had visited the house of the deceased on 06.02.2013 at 11.00 PM. P.W.3 categorically deposed that he saw the accused entering into the house along with the deceased; since the accused is a known person, he did not suspect any foul play. P.W.4, who is wife of P.W.3, deposed that the accused visited the house of the deceased on 06.02.2013 at 11.00 PM. On the next day i.e. on 07.02.2013 when she went to downstairs to sweep the courtyard, she noticed the doors of the house open. Thereafter, at about 8.00 AM, when she sent breakfast to the deceased through P.W.3, there was no response from the deceased despite the fact that they raise hue and cry. P.W.3 with the assistance of P.W.5 turned the body and found the blood was oozing. 15. It is quite evident from a perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 that it is the appellant herein/accused, who came to the house of the deceased at 11.00 PM and thereafter, on the next day it was found that the cash and gold jewellery were missing from the room of the deceased. 16. 15. It is quite evident from a perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 that it is the appellant herein/accused, who came to the house of the deceased at 11.00 PM and thereafter, on the next day it was found that the cash and gold jewellery were missing from the room of the deceased. 16. P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the Village Revenue Officer and Village Revenue Assistant of Roddam Mandal, respectively, on coming to know about the alleged incident, since they know the deceased, they rushed to the house of the deceased on 07.02.2013 at about 9.00 AM. They enquired the people who gathered near the scene of offence and it revealed that the deceased had lands at Ragikunta of Karnataka and the accused was leaseholder of the said lands. The accused used to visit the house of the deceased. According to their enquiry from the mob, who gathered at the scene of offence, the deceased took a hand loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs from one K.Raghava Reddy, to do business. It is further stated that the accused visited the deceased on the earlier night. 17. P.W.6, who is the daughter of the deceased, though not an eyewitness to the incident, stated that the accused was seen in the company of the deceased by her, number of times. According to her, in order to purchase a plot in Ananthapuramu, the accused made the deceased to sell the property in Pavagada for a consideration of Rs.7.50 lakhs. The said amount was kept in the house. Along with the said sum, the deceased had withdrawn an amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs from Canara Bank. P.W.6 further deposed that apart from the amounts of Rs.6.00 lakhs and Rs.7.50 lakhs, there was some other cash lying with the deceased and after the alleged incident, the entire cash and other jewellery of her mother and grandmother were missing. 18. P.Ws.7, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 did not support the prosecution case and they were treated hostile by the prosecution. 19. P.W.24, who was the Bank Manager, Karnataka Bank, deposed that on 07.02.2013, the accused visited the bank and opened an account. The accused opened the account with Rs.8,70,000/-. On the same day, he deposited Rs.12.30 lakhs. On 11.02.2013 the accused had withdrawn Rs.3.50 lakhs and again on 13.02.2013 he withdrew a sum of Rs.12.50 lakhs. 19. P.W.24, who was the Bank Manager, Karnataka Bank, deposed that on 07.02.2013, the accused visited the bank and opened an account. The accused opened the account with Rs.8,70,000/-. On the same day, he deposited Rs.12.30 lakhs. On 11.02.2013 the accused had withdrawn Rs.3.50 lakhs and again on 13.02.2013 he withdrew a sum of Rs.12.50 lakhs. Again, on 15.02.2013 the accused had withdrawn a sum of Rs.4.85 lakhs. The accused having deposited the amount on 07.02.2013, he withdrew a total sum of around Rs.20.85 lakhs from his account by 15.02.2013. There was a balance amount of Rs.15,000/- lying in the account of the accused. 20. The incident took place on 06.02.2013; immediately on the very next day, the accused went to Dommithimarri village, which is situated in the State of Karnataka, visited Karnataka Bank of Dommithimarri branch and opened an account and withdrew the same within a period of a week. Thus, leading to raise of one’s eyebrow at the accused. The accused offered an explanation to the extent that he got 600 goats and cash to deposit the said amount. Except making a statement to the extent that he owns 600 goats, absolutely there is no concrete evidence has been brought in to support his contention. 21. In connection with that, during the course of arguments in the trial Court, while exercising the powers under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the trial Court had put a question to the accused that how many square feet of house land he had. Accused stated that the length of the house is 95 feet and width is 35 feet. Immediately, the trial Court said to have invited a Surveyor from Mandal Revenue Office, which is the next building of the trial Court and asked to calculate how many cents of the land it comes. Immediately, the Surveyor submitted that Ac.7.633 cents of land, out of which, accused built his house and put a shed for sheep and goats and four buffaloes. In the cross-examination of P.W.3, he deposed that he does not know as to whether the accused had 600 goats. It is impossible to come to a conclusion that 600 goats can be kept in a small shed built by him. No prudent person would believe the version of the accused in the absence of any material. 22. In the cross-examination of P.W.3, he deposed that he does not know as to whether the accused had 600 goats. It is impossible to come to a conclusion that 600 goats can be kept in a small shed built by him. No prudent person would believe the version of the accused in the absence of any material. 22. Another circumstance to prove the accusation against the accused is that the gold jewellery belonging to the deceased family was recovered at the instance of accused. Along with the accused, the Investigating Officer and the mediators went to Ragikunta village and reached the house of the accused. There, the accused produced the gold ornaments which were kept in the sheep shed. There, the police drafted a Mahazar. Ex.P69 is the Mahazar. 23. The investigating agency had shown to the property to P.W.6, who is the daughter of the deceased and P.Ws.3 and 4. All the witnesses identified the gold jewellery and stated that they are the belongings of her mother and grandmother. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the gold jewellery produced by the investigating agency, belongs to the accused. There is absolutely no supporting evidence to the statement made by the accused that the gold jewellery belongs to him. Except making a statement that he owns 600 goats and other agriculture lands, there is absolutely no documentary evidence has been filed to substantiate his case. 24. It is pertinent to submit here that no prudent person would keep the gold jewellery in a sheep shed. He would either deposit the same in the bank locker or keep the same in his house. By virtue of the same, it can safely be inferred that the plea of the accused that the gold jewellery belongs to him is not true. Further, it can be safely inferred by this Court that accused has come up with a false plea that the property belongs to him. 25. The other circumstance would point finger at the accused is that, any partner in the business, on coming to know about the death of his other partner, would immediately be present to perform his last rites or be with the deceased partner. But, a perusal of evidence on record it revealed that after the incident, the accused was not seen nor has gone to the house of the deceased. But, a perusal of evidence on record it revealed that after the incident, the accused was not seen nor has gone to the house of the deceased. On the other hand, as per the evidence of P.W.24, Bank Manager, on the very next day i.e. 07.02.2013 he deposited amount in the Karnataka Bank by opening an account. 26. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accused has another account and the learned Sessions Judge had proceeded on the foot that there was no account lying in the name of the accused. If really such is the case, there is no reason for the accused to open an account in the Karnataka Bank on the very next day of the death of the deceased and deposit certain sum into the said account and further withdrawing the same within a period of one week. If really a bank account exists in the name of accused, there is no reason as to why he did not deposit the amount in the said bank account, instead of depositing the same in a new account by opening the same on the very next day of death of the deceased. In that connection, there is absolutely no explanation given by the accused. Apart from the same, not attending to the obsequies or final rites of the deceased would go to show that the subsequent conduct of the accused which is relevant as per Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In view of the circumstances prevailed, the evidence on record goes to show that the finger points towards the accused. All the links found to form a chain, right from the beginning to show that it is the accused and accused alone that had caused the death of the deceased and thereafter, committed theft of cash and gold jewellery. The subsequent acts of the accused i.e. depositing cash on the very next day of the death of the deceased by opening an account in Karnataka Bank and recovery of gold jewellery from the sheep shed would point finger at the accused. 27. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment in Ashish Jain Vs. The subsequent acts of the accused i.e. depositing cash on the very next day of the death of the deceased by opening an account in Karnataka Bank and recovery of gold jewellery from the sheep shed would point finger at the accused. 27. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment in Ashish Jain Vs. Makrand Singh and others, (2019) 3 Supreme Court Cases 770, at paragraph No.41 held as thus: “In light of the aforementioned discussion and reappraisal of evidence by this Court, we do not find any glaring infirmity in the acquittal granted by the High Court. On the other hand, we find it well reasoned, and therefore accept the view of the High Court. The appellants have failed to establish that the High Court has erred in its conclusion. Unless any blatant illegality or substantial error in the order of acquittal is proved by the appellants, and as long as the conclusion of acquittal is a possible view based on the circumstances and material on record, this Court is not bound to interfere with the same. As a reasonable suspicion or doubt persists in our minds regarding the guilt of the accused based on the case of the prosecution, the scales of criminal justice tilt in favour is acquittal of the accused. In such a scenario, the acquittal of the accused persons is confirmed.” 28. In the present case on hand, there is evidence to the extent that accused and the deceased were last seen together on 06.02.2013 at 11.00 AM. In pursuant to the same, recovery of gold jewellery and cash that has been deposited into the account opened by the accused in Karnataka Bank. The fact remains that the accused failed to establish that the amount deposited by him in Karnataka Bank on the very next day of the death of the deceased and the recovered gold jewellery from his sheep shed belongs to him, though he contends that he owns 600 goats and agriculture lands. 29. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that it is the accused who caused the death of the deceased. 29. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that it is the accused who caused the death of the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge, on proper appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, had rightly found the appellant herein/accused guilty of the offences and accordingly, convicted the accused of the charges levelled against him, which warrants no interference by this Court. 30. In the result, the Criminal Appeal No.1218 of 2016 is dismissed confirming the Judgment, dated 27.10.2016 passed in Sessions Case No.677 of 2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.