Telangana High Court
Burri Chinna Gangaram, Karimnagar Dt., vs State Of Ap., Rep. Pp. Hyd., on 7 February, 2022
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
CRL.A.No.757 of 2013
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) Assailing the judgment dated 21-08-2013 in S.C.No.65 of 2013 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, at Jagital, the appellant, who is the sole accused in the said case, filed the present Criminal Appeal.
2. Vide aforesaid judgment, the Trial Court convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The Trial Court directed that the appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is as follows:
The appellant/accused and one Baddam Chandra Reddy are having their agricultural lands side by side and the appellant/accused cultivated paddy crop in his land and when that HCJ & AKS,J ::2:: Crl.A.No.757 of 2013 crop came up for harvesting, he intended to take a harvesting machine into his land through the land of that Chandra Reddy and that Chandra Reddy objected from taking the harvesting machine through his land and he denied permission. Then some heated words were exchanged between them. On the same day i.e. on 05-05-2011, during afternoon, the appellant/accused and his wife went to the house of that Chandra Reddy and there, they noticed the son of Chandra Reddy, who is the de facto complainant, in the house. Then they informed him about the objection of Chandra Reddy about passing of harvesting machine through their land. Then the de facto complainant stated that he will look into the matter and thereafter he left to Jagtial to attend some work. While, he was there at Jagtial, he received a phone call from one Erolla Chandra Goud to the effect that the appellant/accused brutally murdering his father Chandra Reddy near the agricultural land of one Neeli Srinivas adjoining to the Allipur to Sriramnagar road. Then the de facto complainant rushed to the spot and noticed the brutally murdered dead body of his father at the scene and HCJ & AKS,J ::3:: Crl.A.No.757 of 2013 thereafter he lodged a complaint with the Police, Raikal, on the same day night.
4. Based on the complaint, the Police, Raikal, registered a case in Cr.No.43 of 2011 under Section 302 IPC and investigated into the case and after completion of investigation, the Police charge sheeted the appellant/accused for the said offence.
5. The Trial Court has framed the charge against the appellant/accused for the above said offence. The appellant/accused denied the said charge and prayed for trial. Accordingly, the Trial Court proceeded with the trial.
6. During the course of trial, the prosecution, in order to establish the guilt of the accused for the said offence, examined as many as fifteen witnesses i.e. P.Ws.1 to 15 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-24 documents. M.Os.1 to 10 were exhibited. On behalf of the appellant/accused, Exs.D-1 to D-8 were marked but no oral evidence was adduced.
7. The Trial Court, on consideration of both the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the appellant/accused and HCJ & AKS,J ::4:: Crl.A.No.757 of 2013 imposed the sentence in the manner stated above. Being aggrieved by the verdict of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, at Jagital, the appellant/accused preferred this Criminal Appeal.
8. Heard Sri Burri China Gangaram, learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
9. Impugning the judgment, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the sentence of conviction to life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- is against the principles of criminal jurisprudence and vehemently argued that the case of the prosecution is based on motive and seizure of M.O.8-sickle on the alleged confession of the appellant/accused but the prosecution through its witnesses failed to establish the said motive as the independent witnesses PW-4, PW-7 and PW-8 have not supported the motive aspect and they were declared as hostile witnesses by the prosecution and there is no corroboration between the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6. It has been further contended that the alleged confession of the HCJ & AKS,J ::5:: Crl.A.No.757 of 2013 appellant/accused and seizure of M.O.8-sickle is contrary to the provisions of Sections 24 to 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the appellant/accused was in police custody much prior to the alleged confession and recovery and hence, the confession and recovery of M.O.8 is not admissible in evidence. It has also been argued that owing to the enmity between the deceased and the appellant/accused and only on suspicion, the appellant/accused is roped in the alleged offence by the relatives of the deceased, who are the main witnesses.
10. Further, the learned counsel for appellant/accused while placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar1, argued that in a case governed by circumstantial evidence, if the chain of circumstances, which is required to be established by the prosecution is not established, the failure of the appellant/accused to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, is not relevant at all and when the chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused. He would, therefore, submit that in the 1 Laws (SC) 2021 9 40 HCJ & AKS,J ::6:: Crl.A.No.757 of 2013 instance case, the complete chain of events establishing the guilt of the appellant/accused has not been established and urged that the conviction of the appellant/accused cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.
11. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State would contend that Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., based on the evidence placed on record, more particularly, the evidence of PW-13, who is one of the mediators of the confession-cum-seizure panchanama marked under Ex.P-19, Ex.P-20, the relevant portion in the panchanama, under which the seizure of a motor cycle used by the appellant/accused at the time of commission of offence and Ex.P-21 another recovery panchanama under the cover of which M.O.8-Sickle and M.Os.9 and 10 blood stained clothes of the appellant/accused said to be worn at the time of committing the offence and it has been further argued that the evidence of PW-13 extended a perfect support and gave corroboration to the evidence of PW-1-defacto complainant and PW-15-Investigating Officer. It is further argued that the HCJ & AKS,J ::7:: Crl.A.No.757 of 2013 circumstantial evidence of the material witnesses of the prosecution extended support to the case of the prosecution that the appellant/accused had a motive to murder the deceased and prayed for upholding the Judgment of the Trial Court.
12. Now the point for consideration is whether the judgment of the trial Court in convicting the appellant-accused is sustainable?
13. Before coming to the conclusion, it is necessary to refer to the evidence adduced by the prosecution. There were total 15 witnesses examined by the prosecution. PW-1 is the de facto complainant and son of the deceased Baddam Chandra Reddy, PW-2 is the friend of PW-1, PW-3 is the younger brother of the deceased, PW-4 is the circumstantial witness, who informed about the incident to PW-1 over phone, PWs 5 to 8 are the circumstantial witnesses, PWs 9 and 10 are the Photographers, who took the photos of the scene of offence and the dead body of the deceased at Mortuary of Government Hospital, Jagital, PW-11 is the panch witness for Inquest Report, PW-12 is the panch witness for crime detail form, PW-13 is the panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama, PW-14 is the Medical Officer, who HCJ & AKS,J ::8:: Crl.A.No.757 of 2013 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, and PW-15 is the Investigating Officer.
14. According to PW-1, they have got 10 acres of land at Sriramnagar Colony Shivar and in between their land, the land of appellant/accused and the land of another one is intervening. He stated that on 05.05.2011 at about 3.30 PM, the appellant/accused along with his wife came to their house and informed him that his father objecting them in taking the harvesting machine from their land, on that he said that when there is a separate way to reach the land of appellant/accused, there is no need to enter into their land and he assured them that if they failed to take that harvester through the another way, then he will discuss the same later on. He further stated that on that day, at about 6.30 PM, while he was at Jagital along with his friend, he received a phone call from PW-4 (E.Chandra Goud), who has informed that the appellant/accused hacked his father to death with sickle in between Allipur to Sriramnagar Colony on the kacha road, then they rushed to the scene and found his father in the pool of blood with injuries and he also noticed a cut injury on the neck of his father with bleeding and HCJ & AKS,J ::9:: Crl.A.No.757 of 2013 his father found dead. He further stated that as his father raised objection to allow the harvesting machine for passing through their land, the appellant/accused murdered his father and on the same day at about 9.00 PM, he lodged a complaint-Ex.P-1 with the Police. During his cross-examination, it is elicited that there is a separate way for approaching the land of appellant/accused and he denied the suggestions that in between his father and the appellant/accused for about 20 to 25 times quarrels took place but he said only for once the quarrel took place. He also denied the suggestion that his father closed the channel, through which SRSP Canal Water can be reached through their land to the field of appellant/accused and in that connection several times quarrels took place. His entire cross-examination reveals the denial of earlier enmity between his father and the appellant/accused and conducting of panchayaths on various issues.
15. PW-2, friend of PW-1, deposed on the lines of PW-1. In the cross-examination, he deposed that on the same day of incident, PW-1 has informed him about the appellant/accused along with his wife coming to the house of PW-1 and asking PW-1 for providing HCJ & AKS,J ::10:: Crl.A.No.757 of 2013 a way to take harvesting machine to the field of appellant/accused and he pleaded ignorance about holding of panchayaths between father of PW-1 and the appellant/accused in the presence of elders earlier.
16. The evidence of PW-3, who is brother of the deceased, also on the same lines as deposed by PW-1 and in his cross- examination, Exs.D-1 and D-2-relevant contradictions in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., are marked.
17. PW-4, PW-7 and PW-8 have not supported the prosecution case and they turned hostile.
18. PW-5, who is the elder and circumstantial witness, deposed that on 05.05.2011 at about 3.30 PM, while he was at the house of PW-1, the appellant/accused and his wife came to the house of PW-1 and informed to PW-1 about his father objecting them from taking harvester through the field of the deceased to the field of appellant/accused. In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that prior to the death of the deceased Chandra Reddy, there were no cordial relations in between the appellant/accused HCJ & AKS,J ::11:: Crl.A.No.757 of 2013 and the deceased Chandra Reddy and Exs.D-3 and D-4-relevant contradictions were marked in the 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW-5. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that four days after the death of Chandra Reddy, the Police took the custody of the appellant/accused and he pleaded ignorance about how many days the appellant/accused in the Police custody.
19. The evidence of PW-6, who is also relative of the deceased, need not be repeated as the same is on the lines of PW-1 and in his cross-examination, Exs.D-5 and D-6-relevant contradictions in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., are marked.
20. PW-9 and PW-10 are Photographers and in their evidence Exs.P-5 to P-16-photographs along with Compact Discs, were marked, which depict the scene of offence and the dead body of the deceased. In their cross-examination, Exs.D-7 and D-8-relevant contradictions in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., respectively, are marked.
21. PW-11, who is panch witness for Inquest Report, stated that on 06.05.2011, Police conducted Inquest over the dead body of the HCJ & AKS,J ::12:: Crl.A.No.757 of 2013 deceased Chandra Reddy at the Mortuary Room of Area Hospital, Jagtial, in his presence and in the presence of another panch witness by name E.Shanker Reddy (LW-18) and the Police at the time of conducting inquest, seized M.Os.1 to 4-blood stained shirt, banian, dhothi and lungi of the deceased Chandra Reddy, under the cover of Inquest Panchanama-Ex.P-17. According to PW-11, they expressed their opinion before the Police that the murder of the deceased Chandra Reddy took place in the hands of appellant/accused on account of disputes in between them.
22. PW-12, who is panch witness for Crime Detail Form, stated about the scene of offence-cum-crime details form-Ex.P-18, under which the Police seized M.Os.5 and 6-plastic tins containing controlled earth and blood stained earth.
23. PW-13, who is panch witness for Confession-cum-Recovery stated that on 11.05.2011 at about 3.00 PM, as per the request of the Police, he along with another panch witness enquired the appellant/accused, who was in the custody of the Police, by taking the appellant/accused aside, on that the appellant/accused confessed that on 05.05.2011 when the appellant/accused was HCJ & AKS,J ::13:: Crl.A.No.757 of 2013 taking the harvesting machine to his field, the deceased Chandra Reddy objected him and not allowed the harvester to go through his field and further the appellant/accused stated before them about the appellant/accused and his wife approaching the son of deceased and while the deceased was returning from Allipur in the evening hours, he caught holding the deceased and inflicting injuries with sickle on the neck, face and left cheek of the deceased and thereafter escaping from the place of offence on motor cycle along with sickle. PW-13 further stated that the Police recorded the confessional-cum-recovery panchanama of accused and seized motor cycle-M.O.7, sickle-M.O.8 and the blood stained clothes shirt-M.O.9 and lungi-M.O.10 of the appellant/accused under the cover of panchanamas under Exs.P-18, P-19 and P-20.
24. During his cross-examination, it is elicited that the Inspector of Police called him and asked to question the appellant/accused and accordingly, he enquired the appellant/accused and the motor cycle was seized by the Police at the instance of the appellant/accused. Though PW-3 had acquaintance with the deceased and the appellant/accused as he belongs to the same HCJ & AKS,J ::14:: Crl.A.No.757 of 2013 locality, he pleaded ignorance about the earlier disputes between the deceased and the appellant/accused. According to him, the panchanamas were drafted by the Police personnel.
25. PW-14, the Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy over the dead body, has stated that on 06.05.2011 on the requisition of Police, Korutla, he conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased B.Chandra Reddy and found six ante- mortem injuries on the dead body as mentioned in the relevant column of Post Mortem Examination Report-Ex.P-22 and he has opined that the cause of death was "due to shock and also due to the injuries to major structures of the neck and spinal card."
26. PW-15, who was the Investigating Officer, narrated the manner in which he conducted investigation into the offence.
27. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses and nobody was examined in defence. There is no eye-witness of the incident. The learned trial Court convicted the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence and confessional-cum-recovery panchanama of the appellant/accused.
HCJ & AKS,J ::15:: Crl.A.No.757 of 2013
28. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that as per the depositions of PWs 1 to 12, there is no direct evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the only incriminating evidence against the accused is the recovery of motor cycle, sickle, blood stained shirt and lungi marked under M.Os.7 to 10 and the recovery of incriminating articles is nothing but false, as such, the confession and recovery of articles cannot be relied upon. In Sugali Dungavath Lakshman Naik @ Anda v. State of Andhra Pradesh2, it was held that "the other circumstance that remains for consideration is recovery of sickle and the blood stained shirt of the accused. These two articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and as per the F.S.L.Report, blood was detected and origin of blood stains was found as human, but the blood group could not be determined. Therefore, mere recovery of articles would not itself indicate that it was the accused, who are perpetrators of the crime."
2 2020 (1) ALD Criminal 172 AP HCJ & AKS,J ::16:: Crl.A.No.757 of 2013
29. Viewed from any angle, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the impugned judgment is not sustained both on facts and on law. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
30. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant-accused in Sessions Case No.65 of 2013 dated 21-08-2013, by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, at Jagtial, are set aside. The appellant-accused shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.
31. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in this Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 07.02.2022 svl/kvr