Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mekala Venkata Ramanaiah, Spsr Nellore ... vs P.P., Hyd on 6 September, 2022
Author: U. Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
Criminal Appeal No.983 of 2014
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao) This Criminal Appeal is filed by accused 1 to 9 aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.09.2014 in Sessions Case No.78/2010 passed by learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore wherein learned judge found all the accused 1 to 9 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w 149, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 326 of IPC and sentenced them as follows:
(i) For the offence under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC, life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default, suffer 5 years simple imprisonment (for short 'SI').
(ii) For the offences under Sections 147 and 148, two years rigorous imprisonment (for short 'RI') coupled with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and IDS six months SI.
(iii) For the offences under Section 341 IPC, RI for one month coupled with fine of Rs.500/- IDS 15 days SI.
(iv) For the offences under Section 324 r/w 149 IPC three years RI coupled with fine of Rs.1,000/- IDS to undergo one year SI.2
(v) For the offences under Section 326 r/w 149 IPC three years RI coupled with fine of Rs.1,000/- IDS one year SI.
2. The matrix of the case which led to above conviction and sentence is thus:
(a) All the accused are residents of Marripadu Village, Sangam Mandal, Nellore district and they are supporters of CPI(M) party.
Accused No.1 is leader of CPI(M) Party in Marripadu Village, who ruled the village for about two decades. A-1 was involved in other criminal cases. The deceased Mekala Bhaskaraiah, son of Balaramaiah was resident of Marripadu, who was originally supporter of CPI(M) party. Recently, he joined in Congress-I party. Mekala Padmavathi/PW-1 is his wife, who was elected as a MPTC member on behalf of the Congress-I Party by defeating CPI(M) candidate. The popularity of Mekala Baskaraiah gradually increased due to his social service to the people and the dictatorial and unruly behavior of A-1, paved the way for the successive political victories of Bhaskaraiah and Congress-I party. A-1 could not digest successive defeats and loss of political clout in the village and other neighbouring areas. A-1 felt that the deceased was a hurdle to him to 3 his political future and to recapture power. Hence A-1 decided to kill the deceased and openly gave threats to him that he would kill him.
(b) On 23.08.2006 at about 8-00 P.M., the deceased returned to his house in Marripadu in an Auto after securing diesel for tractor and alighted near Badibavi Centre and proceeding towards his home. Meanwhile, all the accused who were already armed with deadly weapons like iron rods and knives with common object of killing him surrounded the deceased and A-1 shouted and instigated the other accused to kill the deceased. Immediately the wife and son (PW1 and PW11) of deceased, on seeing the accused surrounding him, rushed towards Badi Bavi Centre. A-1 armed with an iron rod beat the deceased on his both legs. Receiving those injuries, deceased fell down on the ground. A-4 and A-5 beat him on his right thigh. PW-1 with folded hands prayed the accused not to kill her husband but A-4 pushed her and her son aside. Then A-2 and A-3 beat deceased with rods on his both legs. A-7 poked several times with an iron rod on his left abdomen. A-6 beat him with iron rod on his left knee and A-8 beat him with iron rod on his right knee in the presence of PWs-2 to 6 who also requested them not to injure the deceased. The accused paid 4 deaf ear and threatened them with dire consequences. Then A-1 instigated A-9 to hack the deceased with knife and A-9 hacked the deceased on his head with a knife (Moddu Kathi) and on receiving injuries on vital parts, the deceased became unconscious. Meanwhile, K. Bhaskar Reddy, A. Satyanarayana and K. Bhaskar (PWs-7, PW-8 and LW-9), who are police constables on picket duty in Marripadu, rushed to the scene of offence along with other villagers. After attacking the deceased, the accused left the scene of offence by threatening all those who gathered at scene of offence.
(c) Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Nellore in the Auto of KamatamVenu/PW-10. On the way to Nellore, the deceased succumbed to the injuries and died. At Government Hospital, Nellore, PW18-the Medical Officer declared him dead. Thereafter, PW1 got drafted Ex.P1-report and sent through PW2 to the Sangam P.S. and a case in Cr.No.125/2006 was registered.
(d) After investigation, PW-19-The Inspector of Police, Butchireddipalem laid charge-sheet against all the accused for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 326, 324, 307 r/w 149 IPC. The trial Court framed charges against accused for the aforesaid 5 offences and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The plea of the accused is one of total denial of offence. They claimed that due to political rivalry, they were falsely implicated in the case by the opposite party leaders through PW1.
(e) During trial PWs-1 to 19 were examined and Ex. P1 to P24 marked and MOs 1 to 9 were exhibited on behalf of prosecution. On behalf of defense Ex.D1 and D2 were marked.
(f) After closure of prosecution evidence the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein also they denied the commission of offence and claimed that the prosecution evidence was false. They did not choose to adduce any oral evidence.
(g) The trial Court on appraisal of the evidence, particularly the evidence of PWs 1 to 8 and 11, came to conclusion that the prosecution established its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced all the accused as stated supra.
Hence the Criminal Appeal.
3. Heard arguments of Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants / A1 to A4, A7 &A9, Sri Veera Reddy, learned counsel for A8 and Smt. C.Vasundhara Reddy, learned counsel for 6 A5 & A6, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.
4. Learned counsel Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy would argue that Marripadu Village is admittedly a faction ridden village and there were political feuds between the members of CPI(M) party and Congress party. In fact, even according to the prosecution, the murder of Mekala Bhaskaraiah took place due to political factions. In that view, the trial Court should have taken note of the fact that there was every possibility of implication of innocents in the opposite party to wreak the political vengeance. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have given serious consideration to the grave lapses and delays in important procedural aspects and inconsistencies and improvements in the prosecution evidence as projected by the defence side and ought to have analyzed the facts and evidence to decide whether the accused were really the culprits in the instant case or not. However, unfortunately the trial Court has not considered the important points of arguments raised by the accused in right perspective and convicted the accused on the basis of interested and partisan evidence of the witnesses.
7
(a) In expatiation, he firstly argued that there was no trustworthy and reliable evidence of independent witnesses to hold that the accused are guilty. All the eye witnesses are partisan witnesses and inimical towards all the accused. When the incident was allegedly occurred in the early part of night at 8.00 P.M. at the Badi Bhavi junction of the village which is a open place surrounded by many houses, there would not be a dearth for independent witnesses if the incident was occurred in the manner projected by the prosecution. However, only interested and partisan witnesses alone were selectively chosen by the I.O. In further expatiation he would argue, of the eye witnesses, PW1 is the wife of the deceased; PW2 contested against A1 in the Panchayat elections and won, but of course, he did not support prosecution case; PW3-Boddu Narasaiah and PW4-Puliboina Ramanaiah are the accused in a criminal case on the charge of hurling bombs against the present A1 and in order to budge A1 and bring to their terms, PWs 3 and 4 were selected; PW5- Kukati Kondaiah admittedly has some misunderstandings with A1 and left him and joined Congress party and he developed enmity with A1 and other accused. Further, he admitted that Badi Bhavi centre is 8 surrounded on all sides by the residential houses of Samadhi Madhu, Katugunta Ragaiah, Bontha Sudhakar and Golla Krishnaiah. Beyond those houses, the house of PW 4 is situated. Learned counsel vehemently argued that leaving the above independent witnesses, the prosecution has selectively chosen PW4. Then PW6-Kapu Kajaiah is concerned, he along with PWs 2, 3 and 4 left the party of A1 and joined Congress party and so he has political rivalry with A1. PWs 7 and 8 - the Police Constables though claimed that they were attending picketing duty at Marripadu and on hearing the hue and cry of the deceased they rushed to the scene and witnessed the incident, however, they did not produce any record to show that on the date of incident picket post was arranged in Marripadu village and these witnesses were on duty. Hence, their evidence is of no value. PW11 is the son of deceased and he too is an interested witness and his evidence cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel thus argued that the prosecution examined only interested and partisan witnesses by hushing up the independent witness.
(b) Secondly, learned counsel argued that there was inexplicable delay in lodging the FIR and also in forwarding the FIR 9 along with original report to the jurisdictional Magistrate. He would argue that in a faction case like this, prompt registration of FIR and dispatch to the concerned Court are essential to avoid twisting of facts and implication of innocents. However, in the instant case though offence allegedly took place at 8.00 P.M. on 23.08.2006, the FIR was lodged with Sangam Police Station only at 12:30 A.M on the midnight of 24.08.2006. Even the registration of FIR at the given time is also a highly doubtful fact for the reasons to be submitted in the next point. Even assuming that it was registered at 12:30 A.M, still it was a belated lodging of FIR after consultation with the MLA Polamreddy Srinivasulu Reddy and other leaders of the party. Added to it, the FIR reached the Court of the Additional JFCM, Kovvur at 09.50 A.M. on 24.08.2006. The distance between Sangam P.S. to the Magistrate's Court is only 35 KMs and no reason for the delay was shown by the police. All these laches, he would stress upon, indicate that the FIR was not registered at the given time and it was a product of long deliberations and consultations. Hence, the prosecution case cannot be relied upon. On the requirement of prompt lodging of FIR and its dispatch to Magistrate, learned counsel placed reliance on (i) 10 Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamilnadu1 (ii) Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) v. State of U.P.2 (iii) Nallabothu Ramulu @ Seetharamaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh3 and (iv) Bheemgonda v. State of Andhra Pradesh4.
(c) Thirdly, learned counsel would argue, apart from the delay as stated supra, Ex.P1 report has another inherent defect in it and thereby Ex.P1 cannot be legally recognized as First Information Report. According to PW1, on her dictation, one of her villagers drafted Ex.P1-report at DSR Government Hospital, Nellore and she signed on it and sent the same to Sangam PS through PW2-Gosu Hazarathaiah. However, PW2 totally denied the prosecution case. He stated that he did not witness any incident and he did not accompany PW1 to DSR Government Hospital and most importantly, PW1 did not send Ex.P1 report through him to Sangam PS. In that view, the present Ex.P1 basing on which FIR was claimed to be registered cannot be said to be the report lodged by PW1. On the other hand, the police, in order to accommodate the political leaders, might have fabricated Ex.P1 report in the name of PW1 by 1 (1972) 3 SCC 393 2 (1994) 5 SCC 188 3 (2014) 12 SCC 261 4 2017 (1) ALD (Crl.) 93 11 implicating the accused. He placed reliance on Nakka Sreenivasa Rao @ Sreenu v. State of Andhra Pradesh5 to contend that when there is a material contradiction in the evidence as to the genesis of FIR, the prosecution case has to be doubted.
5. Learned counsel would further argue that for another reason also Ex.P1 cannot be treated as the earliest report on the incident. According to PWs 7 and 8-constables, they were on picketing duty at Marripadu and after witnessing the incident, PW8 informed to the S.I. and C.I. of police through VHF wireless set about incident and within one hour the C.I. of police K.Malyadri came to the spot and enquired the witnesses. Even if we believe Ex.P.1 as that of PW1, it should be held that she lodged report long after C.I. of police commenced investigation basing on the information of PW8. Therefore, the information sent by PW8 about the incident was the first in point of time and all other reports i.e., Ex.P1 and the report said to have been sent by PW1 through PW2 were all hit by Section 161 Cr.P.C. He thus prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the lower Court's judgment.
5 2019 (1) ALD (Crl.) 672 12
6. Smt. C.Vasundhara Reddy, learned counsel for A5 & A6 argued in the same lines. Stressing upon the delay, she would argue that in spite of receiving the information from PW8, the S.I. and C.I. did not bother to register FIR knowing that it was the earliest information relating to the murder. However, they acted upon and visited the scene of offence basing on the earlier information. Therefore, the subsequent report i.e., Ex.P1 said to be submitted by PW1 through PW2 is hit by Section 161 Cr.P.C. On this aspect, she cited the decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Punati Ramulu6. Nextly, learned counsel argued that in spite of availability of many independent witnesses, the prosecution has chosen only those persons who are inimically disposed of towards accused. Hence, the prosecution case is totally unreliable.
7. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for A8 also argued in identical manner contending that Ex.P1 was hit by Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement in view of the earlier information provided by PW8. He further argued that there was inordinate delay in dispatching the FIR to the Magistrate.
61994 (Suppl) SCC 590 = 1993 AIR (SC) 2644 13
8. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor while supporting the judgment of trial Court, would argue that in this case a number of eye witnesses who witnessed the incident have categorically deposed about the presence of all the accused and their participation in the crime and their individual overt acts in brutally killing the hapless deceased and their testimony was not shattered in the cross examination and therefore, relying upon their evidence, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused. In view of the unimpeachable evidence of eye witnesses, he would argue, the minor defects if any in the prosecution case would not debilitate the prosecution case.
(a) Nextly, refuting the argument of the appellants on the aspect of delay in lodging FIR, learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that there was absolutely no delay in giving report to the police. He would submit that the offence took place at about 8.00 P.M. and since PW1 rushed to the DSR Government Hospital, Nellore along with her injured husband, she could not give report immediately. However, after her husband was officially declared dead by the Doctors at the Government Hospital around 11.00 P.M., 14 she got prepared a report and sent to SHO, Sangam PS through PW2 and the police registered FIR at 00.30 hours on 24.08.2006. Thus, in the entire process, there was no delay in lodging report with the police.
(b) Regarding the arguments of the appellants that PW2 did not carry the report to the Sangam PS and hence Ex.P1 was not the report which was submitted by PW1 and it was a report fabricated by the police at the instance of political leaders, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the said argument is totally baseless. While admitting that PW2 turned hostile and denied the entire prosecution case, learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that PW2 is admittedly an accused in a criminal case on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur, wherein the present A1 is the de facto complainant. Therefore, it is obvious that he was won over by A1 probably on the promise of securing his acquittal in that case. Therefore, the hostile evidence of PW2 cannot be accepted as basis to discard Ex.P1. On the other hand, PW17 - the SI of Police, Sangam PS clearly deposed that he registered the Cr.No.125 on the basis of Ex.P1 report brought to the police station and presented by PW2 on 15 the night of 24.08.2006. His evidence confirms that Ex.P1 was promptly lodged and FIR was registered without any delay. While admitting that there was some delay in dispatching the FIR and original report to Magistrate, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would argue that since the FIR was registered promptly in time, the delay if any in its dispatch to the Magistrate cannot be viewed seriously to suspect the prosecution case. On this aspect, he relied upon Anjan Dasgupta v. State of West Bengal7.
(c) Regarding the arguments of the appellants that the earliest information was provided by the PW-8 through VHF Set to PW17 and PW19 basing on which, though FIR was not registered, still the police rushed to the scene and commenced the investigation and examined the witnesses and therefore the later information under Ex.P1 was hit by Section 161 Cr.P.C and since the earliest information was concealed by the police, the prosecution case shall be discarded is concerned, denouncing the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor while admitting that on PW8's information, PW17 or PW19 did not register the FIR immediately, however, would argue that in view of the tense situation in Marripadu Village, probably the 7 (2017) 11 SCC 222 = 2016 SCC Online SC 1390 16 police might have given importance to visit the scene of offence first and oversee the law and order conditions in the village rather than registering the FIR. He argued, in that process, PW19 immediately rushed to the village and enquried the villagers about the incident. While he was still in the village, in the meanwhile, PW1 sent Ex.P1 report to Sangam P.S. through PW2, basing on which PW17 registered FIR and sent copy of express FIR to PW19, which he received at 2.00 A.M. and commenced the investigation. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would thus argue that having regard to the chronology of events, it is clear that the time lag between the information of PW8 and Ex.P1 was minimum and hence, non- registration of FIR on the information of PW8 cannot be viewed seriously. He thus prayed to dismiss the appeal.
(d) Learned Senior Counsel Sri Ch. Dhanunjaya addressed arguments on behalf of de-facto complainant in tune with learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He would argue that all the witnesses are the residents in and around the scene of offence and hence their evidence is probable and natural. Further, each witness has deposed about the overt acts of accused and also the presence of other 17 witnesses at the scene. Their ocular evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence. Therefore, the prosecution has amply established the guilt of accused. He also argued that there was no delay in registering the FIR and that Ex.P1 is the earliest and full version relating to the offence.
9. The points for consideration in this appeal are:
(a) Whether the deceased Mekala Bhaskaraiah met with homicidal death on the night of 23.08.2006 due to the injuries sustained by him at Badi Bhavi centre in Marripadu village?
(b) If point No.1 is held affirmatively, whether all the appellants / accused are responsible for such death and are guilty of the offences with which they are charged by the trial Court?
10. POINT No.1: The oral evidence of eye witnesses i.e., PW1, PW3 to PW8, PW11 and PW13; the evidence of PW15 who is witness for the inquest conducted by PW19-the C.I of Police and the evidence of PW16-the post mortem Doctor coupled with the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.P18-Inquest report and Ex.P19-Postmartem certificate would all cumulatively show that the deceased Mekala Bhaskaraiah sustained grievous injuries on the night of 23.08.2006 at about 08:00 PM near Badi Bhavi centre in Marripadu Village and 18 died on the way to the DSR Government Hospital, Nellore and thus suffered homicidal death. While the eye witnesses spoke about genesis of the injuries suffered by the deceased in the hands of his assailants, PW-15 deposed that himself Mudi Balakota Reddy (LW-
19) and Puliboyina Seenaiah attended the inquest conducted by PW19 over the dead body of deceased at the headquarters hospital, Nellore and noticed twelve injuries on the dead body and opined that the apparent cause of death of deceased was due to murder. Be that it may, Column No.VII of Ex.P18 - Inquest Report shows that the deceased suffered twelve grievous injuries, some of which were fractures. Thus the oral evidence of PW-15 and Ex.P18 corroborates with each other. Then PW-16 - the postmortem doctor deposed that he found fracture injuries on the right thigh, right leg, right ankle bones, left thigh bone and both bones of left leg of the deceased. He also found fracture of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5thribs on the right side with lung contusion. He also noticed fracture of left parietal bone with extra dural haematoma. He deposed that the death of deceased was due to extra dural haematoma on the left side of the brain with hypovolemic shock and accordingly issued Ex.P.19-postmartem certificate. All the 19 fracture injuries, particularly the fracture injury on the left parietal bone of the skull and fracture on the right side ribs would indicate, whoever caused such injuries, must have caused with an intention to kill the deceased. Therefore the uncontroverted oral and documentary evidence would clearly establish that the deceased suffered homicidal death. In fact, the accused have not disputed the factum of homicidal death of deceased but their contention is that they were not responsible for his death and when some unknown persons committed his murder, they were falsely implicated.
Therefore, it has now to be seen whether accused were guilty of the murder of the deceased, in the point infra.
11. POINT No.2 According to prosecution the circumstances which led to the murder of deceased are thus:
Initially the deceased and A1 belonged to CPI(M) party and later the deceased joined Congress Party and sometime prior to his death, elections took place and deceased's wife i.e., PW1 contested as MPTC against one Rukminamma who was supported by A1 and PW1 won the elections. Later, in the panchayat elections, PW2- Gosu 20 Hazarathaiah was supported by the deceased and he won against A1. Since then A1 and his party men bore grudge against the deceased and once A1 threatened the deceased to kill him. While so, on 23.08.2006 at about 08:00 PM the deceased returned to Marripadu from Butchireddipalem village having purchased diesel for his tractor. While he alighted auto at Badi Bhavi Centre and proceeding to his home, all the accused waylaid him with iron rods and knives and attacked him and caused grievous injuries. On hearing the Galata PW1 and PW11 rushed to the scene and requested the accused not to injure him but the accused pushed them aside and A9 hacked the deceased with Moddu Katti on his head and deceased fell unconscious. PWs 2 to 6 and PW13 who are the neighbours rushed there and witnessed the incident. They too tried to intervene but the accused threatened them. PWs 7 and 8 the police constables who were on picketing duty also rushed to the spot and witnessed the incident. After perpetrating the crime the accused skulked away.
PW1, PW2, PW6 and PW7 took the injured - deceased in the auto of PW 10 to DSR Government Hospital, Nellore but on the way the deceased succumbed to injuries.
21
12. We have carefully scrutinized the evidence of eye witnesses. In their evidence, all of them claimed to have rushed to the scene on hearing the Galata and cries and witnessed all the accused attacking deceased with iron rods and A9 hacking the head of the deceased with MO-3. They deposed about individual acts of the accused and the presence of other witnesses consistently.
Coming to the veracity of their evidence, admittedly all the eye witnesses are residents of Marripadu Village and they have acquaintance with all the accused. Further, their houses are located within the vicinity of Badi Bhavi Centre i.e., the scene of offence. For instance, the house of deceased, PW1 and PW11 is situated at a distance of 140 Yards from the scene of offence as shown in Ex.P21. The house of PW4 (Serial No.19 in Ex.P21) is situated nearer to the scene of offence than PW1's house. The house of PW5 (Serial No.14) is in close proximity to the scene of offence. PWs-2 and 3 who were sitting on a parapet wall near the scene of offence rushed to the spot on hearing the cries. PW-6 who was at the house of PW-4 rushed along with him to the spot on hearing the cries. PWs-7 and 8 22 who were on picketing duty at PH Centre located at a distance of one furlong rushed to the scene on hearing the cries. The incident was occurred in the early part of the night i.e., at about 08:00 PM which is generally not a sleeping time. As the incident was occurred in the night time in the village where there will be no much din of the vehicles, the sounds from the scene of offence can be said to be audible to a reasonable distance. Therefore the possibility of above witnesses witnessing the incident can be accepted. Of all the eye witnesses, the house of PW5, as already stated supra, is very much close to the scene of offence and only the road is intervening in between. Hence we concentrated on his evidence.
13 PW-5 deposed that on the night of incident at about 08:00 PM when he was at his house, he heard the hue and cry from outside and when he came out he saw PWs-1 to 4 and PW6 and PW11 came to the spot. He further stated that A9 was armed with a Moddu Katti and other accused were armed with iron rods and they surrounded the deceased. A1 bet on his both legs and ankles by shouting "champandira naakodukini" (kill the fellow). Then deceased fell down after receiving bleeding injuries. A4 and A5 bet him on his 23 legs indiscriminately causing bleeding injuries. A6 bet him on the upper portion of knees with iron rod. A8 also bet on the upper portion of his knee. A7 poked iron rod into the waist of the deceased and bet on his legs. Similarly, A1 to A3 also bet on both the legs of the deceased with iron rods indiscriminately. This witness further deposed that when PW1 and PW11 requested the accused not to kill the deceased, A4 pushed them. When himself, PW2, PW3 and PW6 made similar request, A4 threatened them with dire consequence. After that, on the instigation of A1, A9 hacked on the head of the deceased with a Moddu Katti and the deceased fell unconscious. This witness was thoroughly cross-examined. Except eliciting that due to some misunderstandings with A1, this witness, the deceased and some others joined Congress (I) Party, no specific animosity was extracted which necessitated this witness to speak falsehood against the accused to implicate them in a false case.
14. Then we scrutinized the evidence of two independent witnesses PWs 7 and 8. They were the constables who were engaged in picketing duty in Marripadu. PW-7 deposed that due to the election disputes between A1 and PW2, police picketing was arranged in 24 Marripadu Village and he was on duty along with PW8 and LW9 since one week prior to the incident. He stated that on the night of incident while he was on picketing duty at 08:00 PM at Primary Health Centre, which was at a distance of one furlong from Badi Bhavi Centre, he heard the hue and cry from the Badi Bhavi Centre and rushed to the spot and observed A9 hacking the deceased with a ModduKatti (MO-3) on his head. On seeing the police, A9 escaped and the other accused who were having iron rods surrounded the deceased who laid on the road with bleeding injuries. PW1, PW2, PW6 and this witness took the injured in the Auto Rikshaw of PW10 to the Government Hospital, Nellore but in the midway at Potireddipalem, the deceased died and at the Government Hospital, the Medical Officer at casualty ward declared him dead. In the Cross-examination he stated that apart from the accused, and PWs 1 to 6, about 20 persons were present at the scene. PW-8 also deposed in similar lines and in the cross-examination he stated that after incident, he informed to PW17-the S.I. of Police and PW19-the C.I. of Police through VHF wireless set about the incident. Except suggesting that these witnesses deposed falsehood to oblige the local 25 leaders, which they denied, nothing specific was extracted to impeach the credibility of their evidence. Thus the evidence of PW-5 - the nearest witness and PWs 7 and 8 - the independent witnesses amply corroborated the evidence of other eye witnesses on all the material particulars. Further, the ocular evidence of the eye witnesses is corroborated by the Medical Evidence. In that view, the argument of the appellants that the PWs 1, 3 to 6 and 11 are interested witnesses and their evidence shall be discarded cannot be accepted.
15. Coming to the next argument about delay in lodging FIR, we see absolutely no force in this argument. It is true that prompt lodging of FIR is essential, particularly in a factious case to avoid twisting of facts and false implications. However, going by the chronology of the proven facts in this case, we find no such delay, much less inordinate and inexplicable delay. The offence took place at about 08:00 PM in Marripadu Village. Since the deceased was grievously wounded and in a critical state, PW1 who is his wife was naturally anxious to provide him treatment and hence rushed to the Government Hospital along with her husband. However on the way, he died and the said fact was officially declared by the Medical 26 Officers at the Government Hospital around 11:30 PM as deposed by PW1. It was only thereafter, she got drafted Ex.P1 report and sent through PW2 to Sangam Police Station where PW17 registered FIR basing on the said report at 00:30 hours on 24.08.2006. Further, Ex.P18-the inquest report shows that the inquest on the dead body was conducted at the mortuary room in the Government Hospital, Nellore at about 10:15 hours on 24.08.2006. In the inquest report the FIR Number is clearly mentioned as 125 of 2006 indicating that the report was promptly lodged and FIR was registered at the given time. Hence there is no delay in lodging report in our view.
16. In the decision i.e., Thulia Kali's Case (1 Supra) cited by appellants, the Apex Court has cautioned that FIR in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The object behind insisting upon prompt lodging of the report is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the actual culprits who took part in the crime etc., so as to avoid embellishments in the report. In that case there was delay of more than 20 hours in lodging the FIR. In Meharaj Singh's case (2 27 Supra) also the apex Court reiterated the same principle and emphasized the need to give police report and its registration as FIR at the earliest point of time particularly in a murder case. The apex court provided some external checks to test whether FIR was promptly lodged and registered. The first test is, forwarding the original report and FIR to the nearest Magistrate without delay and second one is the reference of FIR in the inquest report. These tests are to ensure prompt registration of FIR.
In the instant case, as already stated, there was no delay in filing report and lodging FIR and further, the same was mentioned in the inquest report also which was conducted on the next day morning.
17. Then Nallabothu Ramulu's case (3 supra) also relates to delay in registration of FIR. In that case the offence was occurred at 01:00 AM on the intervening night of 17.03.1993. Due to faction feuds, about fifty accused allegedly waylaid the victims and attacked with bombs and caused injuries and in the incident, some persons died and some were injured. The incident took place at Dammalapadu Donka. According to prosecution, the PW28 - the S.I. of Police and other police staff reached the scene within 15 minutes and shifted the 28 injured first to the village and then to the hospital within an hour. Some injured witnesses have narrated about the incident but PW28 did not record their statement and register FIR. However, the injured PW1's dying declaration was recorded in the hospital as Ex.P1 at 03:15 AM basing on it only FIR was registered. Hon'ble Apex Court found fault with non-registration of FIR at the earliest point of time basing on the statements of the injured witnesses. Such carping was mainly due to the background facts that the offence was occurred in the dead of the night where the light facility was not available and the prosecution's theory that with the help of tractor lights and torch lights the assailants were identified was not possible as hurling of bombs raised smoke and dust making it impossible to identify the assailants and because of the said fact and also due to the existence of factions in the village, the delay in registration of FIR gave scope for improvements in prosecution case. However, on facts this decision can be distinguished. In the instant case the offence took place in the village and identification of assailants was not an issue. Thus, we cannot countenance the argument of the appellants that there was delay in lodging the report and registration of FIR. 29
18. Then, on another ground also it is argued that there was delay in registration of FIR. The counsels for appellants argued that admittedly PW8 informed to PW17 and PW19 about the incident through VHF wireless set immediately after incident and within one hour, PW19 reached the Marripadu village and enquired villagers. In spite of receiving information from eye witness, PW17 did not register FIR but he claimed to have registered FIR basing on Ex.P1 report said to have been brought to police station by PW2 much later.
19. We gave our earnest consideration. As can be seen from the evidence of PWs 8 and 17, it is true that PW17 has not registered FIR basing on the information sent by PW8 through VHF set. The question is whether this failure of PW17 debilitate the veracity of prosecution case. It is true that PW8 sent information through VHF set to PW17 and PW19 within short time after the incident. Similarly, PW1 also sent Ex.P1 report to Sangam PS through PW2 within reasonable time after the incident and the same was registered as FIR by PW17. There is no much time difference between the information of PW8 and Ex.P1 report sent by the PW1. Further, most 30 importantly, there is no inconsistency or discrepancy between the information sent by PW8 and facts in Ex.P1 report, which is evident from the depositions of PW1 and PW8. Further, PW1 and PW8 withstood the rigour of cross-examination and deposed about the manner of occurrence of the incident to the satisfaction of the Court. Therefore, mere defect on the part of the PW17 in not registering FIR on the information of PW8 cannot be viewed with magnifying glasses.
20. It is nextly argued that Ex.P1 cannot be said to be the report given by PW1 because PW2 denied to have carried Ex.P1 to Sangam Police Station and presented to PW17. Consequently, Ex.P20-FIR cannot be said to be registered on the basis of report said to be sent by PW1 to the Police Station. On the other hand, the local politicians after deliberations might have created a false report and obtained signature of PW1 and got registered the FIR. Needless to emphasize, this argument is advanced because, PW2 did not support the prosecution case and denied to have carried Ex.P1 report to Sangam Police Station. However, we find no much force in this argument. It is true PW2 did not support prosecution case. Though he admitted 31 that on the date of incident he was present in the village, he denied witnessing the accused attacking the deceased and causing injuries. However, he admitted that he saw Bhaskaraiah lying near Badi Baavi centre and a Auto came there. He further stated that the accused were not present at the place of incident and he did not accompany PW1 to the DSR Government Hospital, Nellore in the Auto. He further stated that PW1 did not send Ex.P1 report through him to Sangam Police Station. On the request of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this witness was declared hostile and permission was accorded for cross examination. In the cross-examination, he stated that he is an accused in a criminal case pending on the file of the AJMFC, Kovvur, in which A1 is the de facto complainant. Though this witness denied having witnessed the incident, however, other prosecution witnesses i.e., PW1, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7 clearly deposed about his presence and witnessing the incident and also his accompanying PW1 to the Government Hospital in the auto. Further, PW17 clearly deposed that on 24.08.2006 at 00.30 hours, Ex.P1 report was brought to the police station by PW2, basing on which he registered Ex.P20- FIR. In the light of the aforesaid overwhelming evidence, the denial 32 made by PW2 cannot be considered. As rightly argued by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, PW2 might turned hostile because criminal case filed by A1 against him must be hanging over his head as a sword of Damocles. Thus, the fact remains that Ex.P1 report was sent to the police station by PW1 through PW2 and basing on it, FIR was registered by PW17.
21. The next argument is that there was inexplicable delay in forwarding the original report and FIR to the Magistrate which creates doubt whether FIR was registered at the time claimed. It is true that FIR was lodged at 00:30 hours on 24.08.2006 but it reached the Additional JMFC at 09:50 AM on 24.08.2006. Obviously there is a delay of about nine hours in dispatching the FIR. However, such delay is not fatal in every case particularly when the genesis of FIR at the given time is a believable fact. In the instant case it is already discussed supra that FIR was promptly registered. In that view, delay if any in its dispatch to the Magistrate cannot be given much importance. In Anjan Dasgupta's (7 supra) case cited by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the murder of the deceased took place on 16.06.2000 at about 04:50 PM and report was lodged with 33 jurisdictional Police Station at about 07:30 - 08:00 PM on that day. The FIR was dispatched from the Police Station to the jurisdictional Magistrate on 22.06.2000. Setting aside the arguments of appellants that the delayed dispatch of FIR to the Magistrate was indicative of antedated registration of FIR, the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:
"24. The present is the case, where recording of the FIR on 16-6- 2000 itself has been proved, accepted by the trial court also, thus mere dispatch of the FIR on 22-6-2000 from the police station to the Magistrates' Court has no bearing on the basis of which any adverse presumption can be drawn. From the above discussion, we are of the clear view that the FIR was genuine FIR and the trial court committed an error in drawing adverse inference against the prosecution and refusing to attach value to the FIR.
25. The conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge that the FIR was manipulated is thus found to be erroneous. The FIR has been proved by the evidence as noted above. Thus, one of the basis of the decision of the Sessions Judge for discarding the prosecution case is knocked out."
In the instance case also as we held that the complaint was lodged without delay and FIR was promptly registered, the delay in dispatch of FIR to the Magistrate is of no consequence. Consequently, 34 the decisions in Bheemagonda (4 supra) and Nakka Srinivasa Rao (5 supra) cited by the appellants will not improve their case.
22. Thus, on a conspectus of facts, evidence and law, we do not find any merits in the arguments of the appellants / accused. The trial Court having rightly considered the evidence on record, convicted the accused, which, in our view is sustainable under law.
23. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in Sessions Case No.78/2010.
_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J ___________________________ G.RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Date:06.09.2022 MVA / KRK