Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1291 (AP)

Manne Nagaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-09-12

K.SREENIVASA REDDY, K.SURESH REDDY

body2024
JUDGMENT : K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J. Sole accused in S.C.No.76 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the S.Cs & the S.Ts (PoA) Act -cum- X Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, ("Sessions Judge" for short) is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal. Vide impugned judgment dated 28.08.2015, in the said Sessions case he was convicted for the charges punishable under Sections 302, 364 and 201 IPC and, sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and further directed to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The accused was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and further directed to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five (5) months for the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five (5) years and further directed to pay fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four (4) months for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. In the fine of Rs.60,000/-, PW.1 is entitled for an amount of Rs.50,000/- and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The substance of the charge as against the accused is that on 06.07.2011 at 08.00 p.m., the accused caused death of one Byragi Bhavani Prasad (hereafter referred to as "the deceased") by throttling his neck and thrown away of the dead body of the deceased into Eastern side of the canal to cause screening of evidence of the commission of offence with an intention to escape from legal punishment. In order to commit the crime, the accused kidnapped the deceased through the son of the accused on his bicycle. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : (i) PWs.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. PW.2 is the wife of PW.1. PW.1 is a coolie in a nursery. About eight (8) years back, PW.1 shifted to Burrianka. PW.1 used to carry plants and do other manual labour in the nursery. PW.2 weeds out unwanted plants. PW.2 is the wife of PW.1. PW.1 is a coolie in a nursery. About eight (8) years back, PW.1 shifted to Burrianka. PW.1 used to carry plants and do other manual labour in the nursery. PW.2 weeds out unwanted plants. They were blessed with one Govindu aged about eight (8) years and the deceased aged five (5) years. They were residing in a rented house near/in Burrilanka Village. Accused who is also resident of Burrilanka Village used to run coffee hotel. PW.1 borrowed an amount of Rs.15,000/- from the accused. There was a quarrel between the accused and PW.2 wherein the accused beat PW.2. PW.1 repaid Rs.15,000/- to the accused. Later PW.1 shifted from previous house to another house to avoid any disputes with the accused. But the accused bore grudge on them. On 06.07.2011 at about 08.00 p.m., the deceased went out to play. Thereafter, he was found missing. During entire night, PWs.1 and 2 searched for him in their relatives' houses and neighborhood. On the next day morning PW.1 came to know that the accused took away the deceased. Thereafter, PW.1 lodged a report in the police station. (ii) On 07.07.2011 at 08.00 a.m., PW.13- Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadiyam Police Station received Ex.P1-complaint from PW.1 and the same was registered as Crime No.111 of 2011 for the offences under Section 363 IPC. Ex.P10 is the F.I.R. PW.13 examined PWs.1 and 2 and recorded their statements. PW.13 visited the scene of offence near the house of PW.1, situated in S.C. peta, Burrilanka Village and prepared rough sketch vide Ex.P11. PW.13 prepared another rough sketch of the scene under Ex.P12, where the deceased was missing. PW.13 examined PWs.3 and 4 and recorded their statements. (iii) On 07.07.2011, on receipt of the information from PW.13, PW.14-Inspector of Police, Rajahmundry Rural Circle took up investigation. Thereafter, he examined the accused in the presence of PWs.9 and 10. PW.13 arrested the accused and recorded his confessional statement and the accused showed the place where the offence was committed and the body of the deceased was thrown. Ex.P6 is the mediators report. (iv) PW.13 proceeded to the place where the dead body was thrown i.e., Kadiyam Locks. The accused showed 5th gate of the Lock, where he disclosed that he has thrown the dead body of the deceased. PW.13 secured the presence of PWs.5 and 6 and searched. Ex.P6 is the mediators report. (iv) PW.13 proceeded to the place where the dead body was thrown i.e., Kadiyam Locks. The accused showed 5th gate of the Lock, where he disclosed that he has thrown the dead body of the deceased. PW.13 secured the presence of PWs.5 and 6 and searched. On search by PWs.5, 6 and others, body of the deceased was recovered. PW.14 prepared observation report of the scene under Ex.P7. Thereafter, PW.14 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P8 is the inquest report. (v) On 08.07.2011 at about 12.30 p.m., PW.8-Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital, Rajahmundry conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P3 is the provisional postmortem certificate. According to the doctor, the cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia due to press on the front of the neck. (vi) PW.14-Inspector of Police recorded the statements of witnesses i.e., PW.11 and other witnesses and after obtaining material documents and certificates and completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 14 and marked Exs.P1 to P13 besides M.O.1, on behalf of the prosecution. On behalf of the defense, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.D1 was marked. 5. Heard Sri K. Pridhvi Raju, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Kochiri Anand Kumar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that absolutely there is no motive for the accused to cause the death of the deceased. He further submitted that PWs.3 and 4 are planted witnesses and much credence cannot be given to the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 and prays to allow the criminal appeal. 7. Sri Kochiri Anand Kumar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State submitted that though the case rests on the circumstantial evidence, there is evidence on record to show that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused and thereafter on the very next day, the dead body was recovered from a canal. He further emphasized that the accused made confession before the police and at the instance of the same, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the canal. He further emphasized that the accused made confession before the police and at the instance of the same, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the canal. In view of the said reasons, learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused of the aforesaid offences. The judgment was well reasoned and calls for any interference of this Court. 8. Now, the point that arises for determination is : “Whether the prosecution is able to bring home guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, for the charges leveled against him?” 9. PW.1 who is the father of the deceased, deposed that there were quarrels between the accused and PW.2, who is his wife. He borrowed an amount of Rs.15,000/- from the accused and once the accused beat his wife. He repaid the said amount to the accused. To avoid the disputes with the accused, he shifted his residence to other place. But the accused continued to have grudge against them. According to PW.2, she deposed that there was quarrel between her and the accused, and the accused used to follow her and used to hurl comments against her. On 06.07.2011 at about 08.00 p.m., PW.2 went for milk. The deceased was playing in front of their house with one Siva Sankar. PW.2, after returning with milk, could not find the deceased. During entire night, PWs.1 and 2 searched with the relatives and neighbors, but they could not find him. 10. PW.3 stated that he and PW.4 went to 2nd show at Cinema Theater at Kadiyam. At that point of time, both of them saw the accused and his son taking the deceased in their motor cycle. The deceased was sitting in between the accused and his son (juvenile). They were going towards Burrilanka to Kesavaram side. The deceased was wearing a "nicker". PW.4 called the accused, but without giving any reply, but looking back, they went away. He and PW.4 went to Cinema Theater. After they returned to their village, they found PWs.1 and 2 were searching for the deceased. PW.3 informed PWs.1 and 2 that the accused along with his son took the deceased on his motor cycle. 11. PW.5 states that about three (3) years back, he and others were taken to Kadiyam Locks by PW.14 and others. After they returned to their village, they found PWs.1 and 2 were searching for the deceased. PW.3 informed PWs.1 and 2 that the accused along with his son took the deceased on his motor cycle. 11. PW.5 states that about three (3) years back, he and others were taken to Kadiyam Locks by PW.14 and others. The accused was asked to show the place where he threw the dead body of the deceased and the accused showed 5th gate. PWs.5 and 6 and others were asked to search at gate No.5. They asked PW.12 (Luskar) to decrease the water level, by opening the four gates. Thereafter, PWs.5 and 6 and others searched for the body and the body was recovered by PW.6 at 5th gate. PW.6 also deposed on the same lines as PW.5. 12. PW.8 who was Civil Assistant Surgeon, on autopsy found three (3) injuries: (1) Bluish discoloration of face and anterior chest wall are present. (2) A diffuse contusion present in between the chin and manubrium sternum in front of the neck. Bluish in colour on opening subcutaneous tissue congested. Blood clots present in the muscle layers. Tears present in the intima of both carotids arteries. Fracture of right grater carnue of the hyoid present. Haemorrhages present at the fracture side. Other laryngeal cartilages are intact and congested. (3) A crescentric abrasion present on the chin in the mid line. On cut section soft tissues congestion present. 13. He opined that cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia due to compression on front of the neck. Ex.P3 is provisional postmortem certificate. Ex.P4 is RFSL report and Ex.P5 is final opinion issued by PW.8. 14. PW.9 is the V.R.O. did not support the prosecution case and was treated hostile by the prosecution. PW.10 another V.R.O. who was a mediator for recovery of the dead body of the deceased and inquest. 15. On perusal of the entire material on record, goes to show that there were disputes between the accused and PW.2. PW.1 is said to have taken an amount of Rs.15,000/- from the accused. On coming to know the disputes between the accused and PW.2, PW.1 repaid amount of Rs.15,000/- to the accused and thereafter, shifted the residence to another place. Deceased is the son of PW.1 and PW.2. The accused bore grudge against PWs.1 and 2. PW.1 is said to have taken an amount of Rs.15,000/- from the accused. On coming to know the disputes between the accused and PW.2, PW.1 repaid amount of Rs.15,000/- to the accused and thereafter, shifted the residence to another place. Deceased is the son of PW.1 and PW.2. The accused bore grudge against PWs.1 and 2. In order to settle scores, the accused took away the deceased on the date of incident i.e., 06.07.2011 at about 08.00 p.m., through his son (juvenile) while he was playing in front of the house. PWs.3 and 4 who were going to watch 2nd show cinema in the night, saw the deceased going along with the accused and his son. Immediately, after the movie, when they returned to the house, they found PWs.1 and 2 and others searching for the deceased. Immediately, PW.3 informed them it is the accused who took away the deceased with them. On the next day at 08.00 a.m., PW.1 lodged a complaint before the police. Accordingly, the case has been registered and the accused was examined in the police station. The accused made confessional statement to the police in the presence of PWs.9 and 10. Thereafter, the accused led the police personnel and the mediators to the place where he threw the dead body of the deceased at 5th gate of the canal. 16. It is evidence on record that immediately after registration of the case, PW.13 examined PWs.3 and 4 on the very next day of the abduction of the deceased. Their evidence is trustworthy and there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.3 and 4. After watching the movie, when they saw PWs.1 and 2 searching for the deceased, immediately they stated that they saw the deceased in the company of the accused and his son. Thereafter, on the basis of the statement made by the PWs.3 and 4, the police personnel took the accused to the police station where he is alleged to have made confessional statement before the police. In pursuance to the confessional statement, the accused led the police and mediators to the Kadiyam Locks. The accused showed 5th gate of the Lock, where he threw the dead body of the boy. PWs.5 and 6 were asked to search for the dead body. They requested PW.12 Luskar to see that water level is decreased by opening the other gates. The accused showed 5th gate of the Lock, where he threw the dead body of the boy. PWs.5 and 6 were asked to search for the dead body. They requested PW.12 Luskar to see that water level is decreased by opening the other gates. Thereafter, the dead body was recovered at gate No.5. The Luskar was examined as PW.12. He too concurred with the evidence of PWs.5 and 6 that on 07.07.2011, at about 04.00 p.m., when the police personnel went along with the accused and they asked PW.12 to close the Locks since the dead body is to be recovered. They waited till water level has decreased. PWs.5 and 6 and others had searched near 5th gate. Dead body of the deceased was traced with the help of swimmers. There is consistency in the evidences of PWs.5, 6, 9, 12, 13 and 14. All the witnesses categorically stated to the extent that at the instance of the accused, the dead body was recovered near 5th Lock (gate). It is not needless to mention here that the corpus deliciti has been recovered at the instance of the accused and the same is one of the circumstances against the accused. In the present case on hand, the body was recovered within 24 hours from the canal. On 06.07.2011 at about 08.00 p.m., the alleged incident is said to have been taken place. On 07.07.2011 at about 03.00 p.m., dead body was recovered from the canal. 17. In the present case on hand, there were disputes between the accused on one hand and PWs.1 and 2 on the other. The accused beat PW.2 earlier and he was following PW.2. In fact, the PW.1 obtained an amount of Rs.15,000/- from the accused. Because of the disputes he repaid the amount, shifted to other place in order to avoid the accused. The accused was taken to police station and basing on his confessional statement, the dead body of the deceased was recovered. 18. In the decision in Anuj Kumar Gupta Alias Sethi Guptha Vs. State of Bihar, (2013) 12 SCC 383 , Hon'ble Apex Court held that : “17. The accused was taken to police station and basing on his confessional statement, the dead body of the deceased was recovered. 18. In the decision in Anuj Kumar Gupta Alias Sethi Guptha Vs. State of Bihar, (2013) 12 SCC 383 , Hon'ble Apex Court held that : “17. From the above evidence of PW-9, supported by the version of PW-4, it has come to light that at the instance of the appellant and the co-accused Arun Mandal, the body of the deceased Chhotu was recovered from Maldiha Dhar (river stream) and that it was noted at that time the eyes of the dead body and the tongue were protruding out. There were also signs of marks on the neck of the deceased Chhotu. The said part of the confessional statement as recorded by PW-9, cannot be said to straightaway implicate the appellant and the co-accused to the killing of the deceased. Leaving aside the rest of the part of the admission, the identity of the place at the instance of the appellant and the co-accused, as to where the dead body of the deceased was lying, which was exclusively within the knowledge of the appellant, was certainly admissible by virtue of the application of Section 8, read along with Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 18. In such circumstances, in the absence of any convincing explanation offered on behalf of the appellant accused as to under what circumstances he was able to lead the Police party to the place where the dead body of the deceased was found, it will have to be held that such recovery of the dead body, which is a very clinching circumstance in the case of this nature, would act deadly against the appellant considered along with rest of the circumstances demonstrated by the prosecution to rope in the appellant in the alleged crime of the killing of the deceased. Therefore, once we find that there was definite admission on behalf of the appellant by which the prosecuting agency was able to recover the body of the deceased from a place, which was within the special knowledge of the appellant, the only other aspect to be examined is whether the appellant came forward with any convincing explanation to get over the said admission. Unfortunately though the above incriminating circumstance was put to the appellant in the Section 313 CrPC questioning where he had an opportunity to explain, except a mere denial there was no other convincing explanation offered by him.” 19. Section 27 of the Act is in nature of a proviso or an exception, which partially lifts the ban imposed by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and makes admissible so much of such information whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates to the fact thereby discovered when made by a person accused of an offence while in police custody. 20. In the case on hand, there was motive for the accused. The last seen theory is established by the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4. To settle scores with PWs.1 and 2 and in order to implement his ill-designed plan, the accused abducted the deceased on 06.07.2011 at about 08.00 p.m., thereafter caused death of the deceased and threw dead body into a canal. 21. All the circumstances established by the prosecution firmly and unerringly point out the guilt towards the accused and they form a chain so complete that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else. This Court is of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is well reasoned and calls for no interference. Hence, there are no merits in the present Criminal Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 22. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence, imposed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the S.Cs & the S.Ts (PoA) Act -cum- X Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry in judgment, dated 28.08.2015, in S.C.No.76 of 2012. Needless to state that the period already undergone by the appellant/Accused shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.