Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1457 (AP)

Yerraballi Rajesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-10-16

K.SREENIVASA REDDY, K.SURESH REDDY

body2024
JUDGMENT : (K. Suresh Reddy, J.) 1. Sole accused in Sessions Case No. 85 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole (for short, 'the trial Court'), is the appellant. He was tried and convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 18-09-2012 in the afternoon, the accused beat one Kodamala Nayomi (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') on her head with an iron rod near Gangamadugu Vagu in between Rallapalli-Vedullacheruvu Villages causing her death, thereby committed the ‹offence punishable under Section 302 IPC 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The deceased was a resident of Punugodu Village and her marriage was performed with one Daniel about six years .pr r to her date of death. Due to some disputes between the deceased and her husband, the former left the company of the latter and started living with her mother-P.W.2. P.Ws.3 and 4 are brother and sister of the deceased respectively. The deceased used to work as a Cook in Alpha Public School, Kanigiri. At that juncture, the deceased said to have developed illegal intimacy with the accused. While so, on 19-09-2012 at about 8 a.m., the Village Servant, Rallapalli Village-P.W.10 found a female dead body at the scene of offence and immediately he informed the same to the in-charge Village Revenue Officer, Rallapalli Village-P.W.1. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the scene of offence and found dead body of a female person, aged about 30 years. Immediately, P.W.1 went to Veligandla Police Station and gave a report-Ex.P1 to police. On the basis of Ex.P1-report, P.W.17-the then in-charge Sub- Inspector of Police, Veligandla Police Station, registered a case in crime No. 22 of 2012 of Veligandla Police Station under Section 302 IPC and issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. Ex.P22 is original FIR. Having received a copy of FIR from P.W.17, P.W.22-the then Inspector of Police, Kanigiri, proceeded to the scene of offence and recorded a statement from P.W.1. P.W.22 prepared Ex.P12-Scene Observation Report in the presence of P.W.1 and one K.Prabhudas (L.W.19). Ex.P22 is original FIR. Having received a copy of FIR from P.W.17, P.W.22-the then Inspector of Police, Kanigiri, proceeded to the scene of offence and recorded a statement from P.W.1. P.W.22 prepared Ex.P12-Scene Observation Report in the presence of P.W.1 and one K.Prabhudas (L.W.19). P.W.22 also prepared Ex.P26-Rough Sketch at the scene of offence. P.W.22 seized M.0s.1 to 5 at the scene of offence in the presence of mediators. P.W.22 also got the scene photographed and the photographs were marked as Exs.P2 to P11. P.W.22 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.Ws.1 and 10, L.W.19 and one T.Rajarathnam (L.W.20). P.W.22 recorded statements of P.Ws.2, 3, 5, 9 and others at the inquest. In the inquest, it was opined that the deceased might have been killed by someone. Ex.P13 is inquest report. After completion of inquest, P.W.22 sent the dead body to Area Hospital, Kanigiri, through P.W.16 for conducting post modem examination. P.W.15-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Kanigiri, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.15 found three injuries on the person of the deceased. P.W.15 opined the cause of death was due to shock due to haemorrhage as a result of heady injury. P.W.15 issued post mortem certificate-Ex.P21. Subsequently, P.W.22 visited Alpha Public School, Kanigiri, and recorded statements of P.Ws.6, 7 and others. P.W.22 also recorded a statement from P.W.8. P.W.22 also collected call detail records pertaining to the mobile numbers of the accused and the deceased and they were marked as Exs.P28 and P33 respectively. On 29-09-2012, P.W.1 produced the accused stating that the accused made extra judicial confession before him and the same was marked as Ex.P14. P.W.1 presented a report-Ex. P15 to P.W.22. Then, P.W.22 secured the presence of P,.W.13 and another and recorded confessional statement of the accused under Ex.P18. On the confession made by the accused, P.W.22 recovered M.O.6-Cell Phone said to have belonged to the deceased near the scene of offence under Ex.P19-Panchanama. On 30-09-2012, P.W.22 recorded statement of P.W.21 and also re- examined P.W.1. P.W.22 sent M.Os.1 to 3 and 7 to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Guntur, under Exs.P30 and P31. R.F.S.L. Report was marked as Ex.P32. After completion of investigation, P.W.22 filed charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 22 and got marked Exs.P1 to P33 apart from exhibiting M.Os.1 to 16. 5. P.W.22 sent M.Os.1 to 3 and 7 to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Guntur, under Exs.P30 and P31. R.F.S.L. Report was marked as Ex.P32. After completion of investigation, P.W.22 filed charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 22 and got marked Exs.P1 to P33 apart from exhibiting M.Os.1 to 16. 5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him. On behalf of defence, D.W.1 was examined and got marked Ex.D1. 6. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, 'the trial Court convicted the accused as stated supra. 7. Heard Sri S.Bala Mohan Ranga, learned legal aid counsel appearing for the appellant-accused, and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 8. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 9. According to the case of prosecution, four months prior to the date of incident, the deceased left the company of her husband and started living with her mother-P.W.2. P.Ws.3 and 4 are brother and sister of the deceased respectively, of course P.W.4 did not support the case of prosecution and she was declared hostile. A reading of the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 would disclose that the deceased was maintaining objectionable contacts with other men. Except stating that the deceased was working as a Cook in Alpha Public School, Kanigiri, nothing has been elicited by the prosecution from their evidence. 10. The prosecution adduced the evidence of P.W.9 who is a shepherd. P.W.9 in his evidence deposed that he saw one male person and one female person near the scene of offence just prior to the incident. The prosecution examined this witness to show that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused. In his evidence, P.W.9 specifically stated that he did not properly observe the male person. Hence, it can be safely concluded that this witness was planted by the prosecution and therefore no reliance can be placed on his testimony. 11. The next evidence available on record is of P.W.S. According to P.W.5, he is working as a Clerk in Alpha Public School, Kanigiri, where the deceased also worked as a Cook. Hence, it can be safely concluded that this witness was planted by the prosecution and therefore no reliance can be placed on his testimony. 11. The next evidence available on record is of P.W.S. According to P.W.5, he is working as a Clerk in Alpha Public School, Kanigiri, where the deceased also worked as a Cook. He stated that on 18-09-2012, the deceased obtained permission from the Director to leave the school at about 2 p.m. on the ground that she had to attend a function of her relatives and that he paid an amount of Rs.1,000/- to the deceased as per the direction of their Director and thereafter, the deceased left the school. P.W.6, who is also working as a Cook in Alpha Public School, stated that on 18-09-2012, the deceased informed her that she had to attend a function of her close relatives and that the deceased took some advance amount from the Director and left the school at about 2 p.m. 12. The next evidence available on record to show that the deceased met the accused at Rallapalli Village is of P.W.7. According to P.W.7, he used to work as a Driver in Alpha Public School, Kanigiri. P.W.7 deposed that on 18-09-2012, the deceased requested him to drop her at Rallapalli Village as she had to attend a function at her relatives' house. P.W.7 further deposed that he took the motorcycle belonging to P.W.8 and took the deceased on motorcycle and that when they reached near Rallapalli Village, the accused stopped the motorcycle and thereafter, the deceased and the accused left towards Rallapalli Village and he returned back to the school. In cross-examination, P.W.7 specifically admitted, that when he dropped the deceased near Rallapalli Village, nobody was present. P.W.7 also stated in his cross-examination that he was not able to furnish the number of the motorcycle on which he took the deceased to Rallapalli Village. Thus, P.W.7 completely changed his version during the course of cross-examination. As such, the evidence of P.W.7 cannot be relied upon and he is not a truthful witness. 13. So far as call detail records i.e. Exs.P28 and P33 are concerned, even according to the investigating officer, the mobile numbers stand in different names and not either in the name of the accused or in the name of the deceased. 14. As such, the evidence of P.W.7 cannot be relied upon and he is not a truthful witness. 13. So far as call detail records i.e. Exs.P28 and P33 are concerned, even according to the investigating officer, the mobile numbers stand in different names and not either in the name of the accused or in the name of the deceased. 14. Except the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 9, there is nothing on record to connect the appellant-accused with the alleged offence. As already pointed out, the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 is not at all helpful to the case of prosecution' in connecting the accused with the alleged offence. So far as the evidence of P.W.9 is concerned, in cross-examination, he categorically stated that he did not properly observe the male person along with the female person at Gangamadugu Vagu. Thereafter, the only evidence available on record is of P.W.7 who completely said a goodbye to his version in chief examination. As such, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 9. 15. Having carefully examined the case in its entirety and for the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant-accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judgment under appeal is liable to be set aside. 16. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by judgement dated 29-01-2016 in S.C.No. 85 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole. The appellant-accused is acquitted of the charge and he shall be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other case. Fine amount paid, if any, by the appellant-accused shall be refunded to him. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in consequence.