Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of A.P. vs Tadi Satyanarayana Reddy on 10 July, 2019
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, M.Satyanarayana Murthy
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.594 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice) This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State represented by the Public Prosecutor, challenging the judgment, dated 18.02.2008 in Sessions Case No.228 of 2006 on the file of the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada, in not finding the accused guilty and accordingly, acquitting him for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC (under three counts).
2, The facts as culled out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses are as under:
P.W.1 is the elder sister of Veerayamma (herein after referred to as the deceased No.1) and P.Ws.2 and 7 are the younger brothers of deceased No.1 and brothers-in-law of the accused. The accused and the deceased No.1 were blessed with one female issue. After five years of the marriage, differences arose between the accused and the deceased No.1, as a result of which deceased No.1 came to her parents house. It is stated that the accused married another woman and the deceased No.1 was given in marriage to another person. Thereafter, accused and the deceased No.1 again started living together and they were blessed with four issues and out of them, one female issue is alive. It is stated that the accused and the deceased No.1 were running a poultry farm and they were also running a shop at Gandredu centre. The collection from the chicken shop run by the accused and his wife was kept at their house. They also engaged a boy to run the shop. The accused requested the mother of P.W.2 to HAC, J & MSM, J Crl.A.No.594 of 2013 2 supervise the shop at Narasapurapupeta and as such, his mother-in-law and Prakash both went to the house of the accused on Saturday. On the next day, P.W.2 was informed that his another sister would be coming on Monday. Later on, the deceased Prakash informed his sister that they are coming by Monday evening as the accused was requesting them to stay there. On the date of the incident i.e., on 25.09.2005, P.W.3 who is the Van driver working under the accused was asked by the accused to inform about the incident in the house to P.W.1 and others. He returned to the house of the accused and kept the vehicle at the house of the accused by 7.00 or 7.30 P.M. At that time, he found the accused, his wife, mother-in-law and another boy at the house of the accused. At about 4.00 A.M. the accused came to him along with two others and asked him to come to his house. Then himself, accused and other two persons namely Nerellu (L.W.7) and Ganeswara Rao (P.W.4) went on a motor cycle to the house of the accused. By that time, several people gathered there. He found three dead bodies lying at the house. He was asked by the accused to inform Ammireddy (P.W.6) on telephone about the incident. As they were not able to contact him on telephone, P,.W.3 and the accused went to Anaparthi on a motor cycle, talked with P.W.6 and returned back to Mamidada. The accused and P.W.6 came in a car. On 26.09.2005 at 6.00 A.M., the accused went to the police station and lodged a report stating that his wife, mother-in-law and another boy was killed by some unknown persons. P.W.13 recorded the said statement under Ex.P12, basing on which, he registered a case in Cr.No.93 of 2005 under Section 302 IPC and issued F.I.R. and submitted the same to the concerned. Thereafter P.W.13 sent the F.I.R. along with the statement of the accused to the III Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class, HAC, J & MSM, J Crl.A.No.594 of 2013 3 Kakinada. P.W.13 informed about the incident to the Inspector of Police, who asked him to visit the scene of offence. After his arrival at the scene of offence, the Inspector of Police came there and took up investigation.
On the instructions of Inspector of Police, he conducted inquest over the dead body of Laxmi (No.2). P.W.14-the then Inspector of Police conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased No.1 in the presence of P.W.12, 8 and others. P.W.10 conducted inquest over the dead body of N.Prakash Reddy (deceased No.3). The inquest reports are Exs.P2 to P4. After conducting inquest, P.W.14 examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and sent the dead bodies for Post-mortem examination. The Inspector of Police also conducted panchanama of seizure in the presence of P.W.12 under Ex.P8-scene of observation report. During the said proceedings, he seized M.O.1-knife, M.O.2-blood stained gunny bag, M.O.3 blood stained white colour bed sheet, M.O.4-blood stained cement pieces, M.O.5 controlled cement pieces, M.O.6-hawai chappals, M.O.7-three keys tied with nylon thread, M.O.8-match box, M.O.9-steel lock, M.O.10- bloodstained earth, M.O.11- controlled earth and M.O.12-knicker and M.O.13- cash of Rs.1,000/-. At the request of the Inspector of Police, P.W.5 took photographs of the scene of offence and also the dead bodies. P.W.11 conducted post-mortem examination over the dead bodies of the deceased and issued Exs.P4 to P6-postmortem reports. He opined that the cause of the death was due to cut injuries received by them.
On 16.10.2005, the accused is said to have confessed before P.W.12 about the commission of the offence. The said statement was reduced into writing. Thereafter, he was produced before P.W.14, who effected arrest of the HAC, J & MSM, J Crl.A.No.594 of 2013 4 accused. In pursuance of his confession, M.O.1-knuife alleged to have been used in the commission of offence was seized from the hayrick under Ex.P9-confessional statement. After receipt of all the material and the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, a charge sheet came to be filed before the III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kakainada, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.53 of 2005. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. As the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the leaned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where it came to be numbered as Sessions Case No.228 of 2006.
3. On appearance of the accused, charge under Section 302 IPC (under three counts) were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In support of it's case, the prosecution examined, P.Ws. 1 to 15 and marked Exs.P1 to P18 besides case property, M.Os. 1 to 13.
5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the offence. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on his behalf.
6. After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court allowed the appeal acquitting the accused for the offences with which HAC, J & MSM, J Crl.A.No.594 of 2013 5 he was charged. Challenging the same, the State preferred this appeal.
7. Now the point for determination in this appeal is whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper?
8. Learned Public Prosecutor mainly submits that though there is evidence on record to connect the accused with the crime, the trial Court acquitted the accused. He submits that the finding of the trial Court that there is no evidence is absolutely incorrect. The evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 7 is which corroborates with the other evidence is sufficient to hold the accused guilty. He further submits that since the dead bodies were found in the house, the burden is on the accused to disprove the same. In the absence of any explanation, presumption has to be drawn that the accused alone is responsible for the deaths of the deceased.
9. The same is opposed by the counsel for the accused.
10. As seen from the record, there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 1,2, 3 and 7 to connect the accused with the crime. No doubt, it is a case of three deaths, but firstly, the prosecution has failed to prove its case insofar as the motive is concerned. The family members, who were examined to speak enmity did not state about any ill-feelings between the accused and the deceased No.1. On the other hand their evidence goes to show that the accused and the deceased No.1 were doing business by running chicken shop and family members HAC, J & MSM, J Crl.A.No.594 of 2013 6 including the mother-in-law and Prakash used to help them in running the business.
11. P.W.1 is the sister of the deceased No.1. She in her evidence states that the accused and the deceased No.1 were separated, but subsequently they started living together and blessed with children. She further deposed that on coming to know about the death of her sister, she came to the place where the deceased and the accused were living and saw the dead body of her sister. She also deposes that her mother was also killed. She admits that she has no personal knowledge about any sort of difference between the accused and the deceased No.1. She further states that her mother and the other deceased Prakash were living at Machavaram. However, she states that on the date of incident, her mother and Prakash were at the house of the accused. She was informed about the incident by Prakash on telephone.
12. From the evidence of this witness, it is clear the prosecution was not able to prove any motive or ill-feelings between the accused and the deceased No.1 and also the presence of the accused in the house at that time. Nallamilli Prakasha Reddy-deceased No.3 who said to have telephoned to P.W.1 did not speak anything about the presence of the accused in the house at that time.
13. P.W.2 is brother-in-law of the accused i.e., brother of the deceased No.1. According to him, the accused and the deceased No.1 were running chicken shop and they also engaged a boy to run the shop. The accused requested the mother of P.W.2 to supervise the shop at Narasapurapupeta and as such, they went to the house of the accused on Saturday. On Monday, driver of the van HAC, J & MSM, J Crl.A.No.594 of 2013 7 (P.W.3) informed about the death of the deceased. His evidence is also hearsay. Even his evidence does not refer to the presence of the accused in the house at that time.
14. Coming to the evidence of P.W.3, according to him, on the date of incident, he went to the house of the accused at 7.00 or 7.30 p.m., and found the accused, his wife, his mother-in-law and another boy at the house of the accused. At about 4.00 A.M., the accused came to him along with two others and asked him to come to her house. Himself, accused and other persons went on a motor cycle to the house of the accused. By that time, several persons gathered there and he saw three dead bodies scattered. Himself and accused went to Anaparthi and informed about the incident to Ammireddy. On receipt of such information, he accompanied the accused in a car. In the cross- examination, he admits that the accused, Ammireddy and another went to the police station in that car and reported the matter to police. He was examined by the police and police suspected him in this case. He was interrogated by police for a period of 22 days. He also states that accused was also suspected by police and both of them were kept in the police lock up for the purpose of interrogation and investigation. He admits that by the time he was taken to police station for the purpose of interrogation, the accused was already there at the police Station. One Thadi Veeraraghavareddy, elder brother of the accused and another person by name Sathi Ram Babu Reddy were also suspected by the police and they were also kept in the police station along with them for 22 days and thereafter, they were left by the police while remanding the accused.
15. The evidence of P.W.4 may not be of any helpf to the prosecution. P.W.5 is a photographer who took HAC, J & MSM, J Crl.A.No.594 of 2013 8 photographs. P.W.6 though was not declared hostile, support the defence of the accused. According to him, on the date of incident during night time on 25.09.2005, the accused was with him from 10.00 P.M. to 12 'O' clock in the mid night. At 12 'O' clock, he asked the accused to go to his wife as his wife was alone in the house. The accused informed him that his mother-in-law and another boy are also there at the house and saying so, he stayed back with him till 12.30 in the mid night and then left the house.
16. From the evidence of this evidence, it is clear that the accused was not present in the house and that the accused was in the company of P.W.6 till 12.30 and then left to his house. He did not depose anything about the ill- feelings or enmity between the accused and the deceased No.1.
17. P.W.7 is the brother-in-law of the accused and elder brother of P.W.2. His evidence does not show existence of the ill-feelings between the accused and the deceased No.1. He states that the accused used to move out for purchase of chicken and his sister used to attend the sale of chicken at the shop. He also speaks about his mother and Prakash helping the accused in the same business.
18. That is all the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, as stated earlier, there are no eye witnesses to the incident. From the evidence, the prosecution is relying upon two circumstances namely extra judicial confession made before P.W.12 and the confessional statement leading to discovery of M.O.1-knife under Ex.P10 and the presence of three dead bodies in the house.
HAC, J & MSM, J Crl.A.No.594 of 2013 9
19. Though, extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, at the same time, if it is found to be true, correct and trustworthy, it can be acted upon. Whether extra judicial confession made the basis for conviction or whether it should be corroborated on material particulars, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case on hand, extra judicial confession was made before P.W.12. According to him on 16.10.2005, the accused came to him and confessed before him of the offence. He handed over the accused to police and what was revealed by the accused, was reduced into writing. But, according to P.W.13, on 26.09.2005 at 6.00 A.M., the accused came to police station and complained that his wife, mother-in-law and another boy were killed by some unknown persons. Therefore, there is discrepancy in the evidence of these two witnesses with regard to extra judicial confession made by the accused.
20. Further, the admission elicited in the cross- examination of P.W.3 would go to show that the accused was in the police station for 22 days. But now the accused is shown to have been arrested in the month of October, which is apparently false, in view of the evidence of P.W.3. That being so even the seizure of the weapon also becomes doubtful. As stated earlier, the evidence of P.W.3 discloses that the accused was in the police Station for nearly 22 days prior to effecting the arrest of the accused. Hence, we are not inclined to believe the extra judicial confession, the arrest and recovery of M.O.1. Admittedly, no witness speaks about the ill-feelings between the accused and the deceased No.1. Apart from that, there is also no evidence to show that the accused was present in the house at the time of the incident. On the other hand, the evidence of HAC, J & MSM, J Crl.A.No.594 of 2013 10 P.W.6 would go to show that on the date of incident, the accused came to his house and stayed there till midnight. When he asked him to go to his house as his wife is alone in the house, the accused informed him that his mother-in- law and another boy were also there in the house. He stayed with him till 12.30 mid night and then left the house of P.W.6, which establishes that he was not present in the house at the time of the incident. We therefore, feel that it may not be safe to draw an inference that the accused alone was present in the house and responsible for causing the deaths of the deceased. The trial Court on consideration of entire oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, acquitted the accused. We feel that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the same.
21. In the result, the Criminal Appeal dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 18.02.2008 in S.C.No.228 of 2006 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
________________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J _________________________________ M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,J Date:10-07-2019 Hsd HAC, J & MSM, J Crl.A.No.594 of 2013 11