Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Yedlapati Raghavendra Prasad vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 December, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(2)ALD720, 2001(1)ALD(CRI)42, 2001(1)ALT(CRI)147
Author: Ramesh Madhav Bapat
Bench: Ramesh Madhav Bapat
JUDGMENT
1. Criminal Appeal No.739 of 1999 is filed by the sole accused in Sessions Case No.695 of 1997, who was tried by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. On evidence the learned Judge has convicted him and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. Whereas Criminal Revision Case No. 11 of 2000 is filed by the defacto complainant for enhancement of sentence. Both the cases arise out of Sessions Case No.695 of 1997, they are disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The gravamen of the charge against the accused was that on 6-2-1997 at about 9-00 p.m. the accused-appellant herein committed the murder of one Kolhapalli Madhava Rao at Chaitanyapuri Colony, Kazipet.
3. The prosecution case can briefly be narrated as follows: That the accused was working as a Medical Officer in Regional Engineering College Campus Dispensary at Warangal. The deceased was working as a Professor in Electrical and Electronics Engineering in Regional Engineering College, Warangal. PWI happened to be the son of the deceased. PW10 happened to be the wife of the deceased. The deceased was suffering with heart pain and he was required to undergo Angioplasly about one and half year prior to the date of incident. The deceased used to visit the dispensary where the accused was working for regular check up and also for medicines. Whenever the medicines were not available in the dispensary, the deceased used to purchase medicines from the medical shops and used to present the medical bills to the accused for issuance of medical certificate to claim reimbursement. It is further stated that the accused was not certifying the medical bills submitted by the deceased with regard to the non-availability of medicines and he was harassing the deceased. The deceased alleged to have lodged a complaint with the Principal of Regional Engineering College, Warangal. The deceased was the President of Regional Engineering College Teachers Association and protested against the high handed action of the accused. It is said that on one occasion there was exchange of abuses between the accused and the deceased in the house of one Adinarayana Rcddy, who was examined as PW17 in this case. At that time the accused alleged to have proclaimed that the would kill the deceased. It is said that PW1 went to the Regional Engineering College Club to question the accused and slapped him. On that, the accused told PW1 that he would see the end of the deceased.
4. About a week prior to the incident, the deceased informed PW1 that one person by name Ravi (PW20) informed him that the accused alerted him of being attacked as he looks like PW1.
5. On 6-2-1997 the deceased went to the house of PW7, who was working as Regional Enforcement Officer, Warangal. According to PW7, on the date of the incident, the deceased came to his house at about 7-40 p.m. and left his house at about 8-45 p.m. on a scooter. According to PW3, on 6-2-1997 at about 8-30 p.m. he went to the Games room situated near the Regional Engineering College Petrol pump to meet his friends. PW3 requested PW2 to drop him on a bike to his house. PW2 was not having a bike. Therefore, he took the keys of the bike from his friend named B. Gavesh Babu (PW16). PW2 was driving the motor cycle and PW3 was sitting as pillion rider They went to Chaitanyapuri Colony and noticed that one scooter was being followed by one Fiat Car. The scooter and the car took a turn into a lane leading to Prashanthi Nagar. PW2 also turned that way. The scooter stopped in front of the house of Dr. V. Rama Rao, PW4. At that time the deceased got down and went towards the house of PW4. The accused was also got down from the car and beat the deceased on his back side of his head with a stick while the deceased was holding the gate of Mr. Rama Rao (PW4). When PW3 asked the accused as to why he was beating the deceased, then the accused alleged to have warned him for interference. Thereafter the deceased fell down. The accused left in his car towards the main road. PW2 informed PW3 that the deceased was Madhava Rao and also identified the accused and the deceased in the street lights. PW4 and his wife came out of the house and found that a body was lying in front of the gate of their house. PW4 observed one person leaving in a car and PW4 also noticed two boys standing near the gate.
6. At about 9-15 p.m. PWs.2 and 3 came and informed PW6 that the deceased was lying with injuries in front of the house of PW4. PW6 informed PW5 and rushed to the Administrative building in search of Jeep. They went to the house of PW4 and found the deceased was still breathing. Meanwhile an Ambulance came and they lifted the deceased into the Ambulance and took him to Rohini Hospital.
After some time, the doctor declared the deceased dead.
7. At about 9-00 p.m., PW1 received the information about the deceased lying in front of the house of PW 4. PW1 proceeded to the house of PW 4 and by that time he found few employees of Regional engineering College had gathered there. From there he accompanied his father to the hospital where his father was declared dead. The dead body was taken to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal.
8. At about 9-40 p.m., PWI returned to the house of PW4 to enquire with him as to how the incident took place. PW4 told him that one person came in a Fiat Car and on seeing him he fled away. When PWI insisted for about the details of the incident, he was told that PWs.2 and 3 were present at the place of incident. According to PWI he went to the house of PW2 at about 2.00 a.m., on 7-2-1997. At about 9-15 p.m., PW30, the Circle Inspector of Subedari, who was on patrolling duty, received the information of murder of Madhava Rao. He proceeded to the scene of offence and took the report from PW4 and sent the report to Kazipet Police Stalion for registering the crime. The Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police registered the report, which is marked as Ex.Pl. Thereafter he issued the copies of FIR to all concerned. PW30 examined PW4 and his wife at the scene of offence. Meanwhile he received the C.D. file, then he went to Rohini Hospital and from there to M.G.M. Hospital and then he went to Regional Engineering College and examined PWs.2, 5 and 6.
9. On 7-2-1997 at about 6-30 a.m. PW30 visited M.G.M. Hospital and conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW19. Ex.P5 is the inquest report. At the time of inquest, he seized MOs.l to 3. thereafter PW30 sent the dead body for post mortem examination.
10. PW30 visited the scene of offence and prepared the panchanama of the scene of offence in the presence of PW21, which is marked as Ex.P6.
11. PW23, the Professor of Forensic Medicine, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P12 post-mortem report. According to the Doctor, the cause of death was due to multiple injuries. The Doctor noticed that more than one weapon was used at the time of the attack.
12. PW30, after obtaining search warrant, broke open the house of the accused and seized the documents, knife and one and one-fourth bottle of Royal Challenge Whisky and seized them under Exs.P8 to P10.
13. On 21-2-1997 the accused surrendered before PW30. It is alleged that the accused expressed his willingness to discover the article (stick). He alleged to have led the Police Officers and panch witnesses to Vangapalli village but the stick could not be traced out.
14. The incriminating articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The report given by the Forensic Science Laboratory is filed on record as Ex.P33. Thus, on completion of investigation, PW30 filed the charge-sheet.
15. The defence of the accused is of total denial.
16. In order to bring guilt to the home of the accused, the prosecution led the evidence of PWs.l to 30. they produced certain documents and they were marked as Exs.Pl to P34. Contradictions were brought on record by the defence and they were marked as Exs.Dl to D19.
17. In order to prove that the deceased died homicidal death, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW30, who had conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW19. Ex.P5 is the inquest report.
18. After the inquest was over, the dead body of the deceased was sent to PW23, the Doctor. PW23 was working as Professor of Forensic Medicine, Kakatiya Medical College, Warangal. On 7-2-1997 on receipt of requisition from the C.I. of Police, K..U.C Circle, he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and noticed the following external and internal injuries on the person of the deceased.
(1) Vertically placed laceration on the top of left side skull measuring 8 cm. x 2 cm. x Scalp tissue deep, incised looking present 10cm. From the left ear root and 13 cms. from the eye brow, gaping crushed hair bulbs.
(2) 2 cms. towards left of the above injury one vertically placed incised looking wound of 3 cm. x 1 cm. x skin deep crushed hair bulbs present 9 cm. from the root of left ear root and 16 cm. from the eye brow on the left side.
(3) On the back of the skull in between the parietal prominences of temporal bone on the occipital bone one triangular laceration with avulsed skin of the skull and contused underlying tissues, measuring 6 cms. x 4 cms. situated 10 cm., from the base of the skull, crushed hair bulbs, gaping and blood clots and fluid blood seen coming out.
The underlying tissues are contused, the temporalis muscle showed presence of parallel contusions multiple in number placed separately, the left side squalmous portion of temporal bone found to be fractured from front back wards measuring 8 cms. and gaping.
(4) The lips were lacerated with fractured frontal upper and lower jaw teeth and the jaws the lower lip laceration measured 4 cm. x 1 cm. x through the through, and upper lip of 6 cm. x 1.5 cm. extending into the right angle of the lip, gaping and filled with blood clots.
(5) 'The left side base of nose is found to be avulsed with fracture of the nasal cartilage, blood clots present.
(6) The right side eye tissues, the ear canal are injured and blood is percolated into the tissues in the form of Haematoma, black eye.
(7) The left arm back showed presence of contusion of 4 cms. diameter situated 4 cm. above and elbow joint. The outer part of the left am is contused 10 cms. in diameter.
(8) Abrasion of 0.5 cms. present on back of left elbow.
(9) 4 cms. above the left wrist on the dorsum of fore arm had one abrasion of 3.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. with contused underlying tissues.
(10) On the right side abdominal flank one obliquely placed abrasion with contused fatty tissue measuring 7 cm. x 1.5 cm. 16 cm. above the inguinal ligament and 8 cm. towards the right side.
19. As per his observation, he issued the post-mortem certificate, which is produced on record as Ex.P12. He further opined that the injuries noticed on the person of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature of cause the death. He further opined that the injuries are possible by repeated beating by blunt objects. He further opined that the death of the deceased might have been caused 18 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. In the evidence the Doctor was opined that the injuries noticed on the person of the deceased might have been caused by two different weapons i.e., hard and blunt objects.
20. Considering the evidence led by the prosecution, we are of the considered view that the prosecution could prove that the deceased died homicidal death.
21. As stated earlier the prosecution led the evidence of about 30 witnesses. Out of 30 witnesses, PW! happened to be the son of the deceased. PW2 is the son of P\V6 and neighbour of PW1. He is an eyewitness to the incident. PW3 is the eyewitness to the incident and friend of PW2, PW4 is a Professor of Computer Science in Warangal Regional Engineering College. The incident had taken place in front of the gate of his house. PW5 is the Senior Project Lecturer. He was not an eye-witness to the incident. He had seen only the dead body. PW6 has an important role to play in this case. He happened to be the Assistant Registrar in the Regional Engineering College, Warangal and father of PW2. He was informed about the incident by PWs.2 and 3. PW7 is the Police Officer. PW8 is the wife of PW9. She has no much role to play in this case. Others are formal witness. Out of the witnesses, PWs.18, 24 and 25 were declared hostile. PW.23 is the Doctor, who has issued Ex.P12 post-morterm certificate. His evidence has already been discussed above so as to come to the conclusion that the deceased died homicidal death.
22. Looking to the entire evidence relied upon by the prosecution, it is evident that the entire case rests upon the evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 6.
23. PW1 happened to be son of the deceased Madhava Rao. He speaks about his father suffering from heart pain and lie had undergone Angioplasty surgery. He further stated in his evidence that the accused is a Doctor. His deceased father was required to consult him for medical check up now and then. He also speaks about the accused harassing the deceased in certifying the medical bills. He was not an eye witness to the incident.
24. The first information report in question was given by PW4 Dr. V. Rama Rao. In front of his house, the offence in question is alleged to have been coiumifled. PW4 in his evidence stated that on 6-2-1997 at about 9-00 p.m. he was talking with his colleague Dr. T. Ramesh on telephone and his wife was in the kitchen. He heard some shouts of commotion near the gate of his house. Immediately he came out of the house and opened the gate and noticed that one person was lying in front of his gate. He also saw the face which was smeared with blood. There was a pool of blood under his head. Further he stated in his evidence that he had seen one scooter parked at some distance from his gate where the person was lying and two young boys requested him for help. When he went very near to the person, who was lying in front of his gate, he identified the said person as deceased Madhava Rao, Professor in Electrical and Electronics Engineering in Regional Engineering College, Warangal. By looking to the evidence of PW4, it is evident that he was not an eye-witness to the incident. He could only identify the injured person as Professor Madhava Rao and thus he was responsible for setting the criminal law in motion.
25. As stated earlier, PWs.2 and 3 alleged to be an eye witnesses to the incident and both of them alleged to have given information to the father of PW2 i.e., PW6, who was working as Assistant Registrar in Regional Engineering College, Warangal.
26. Now we have to scrutinise the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 coupled with the evidence of PW6 so to ascertain whether they were, in fact, an eye-witnesses to the incident.
27. As stated earlier, PW2 happened to be the son of PW6. It is stated by him in his evidence that on 6-2-1997 he was playing games in games room from 4-30 onwards. The games room is situated opposite to the petrol pump outside the campus of the Regional Engineering College. Some friends were also along with him. One of his friend Mr. Way Bhaskar, PW3, requested him at about 9-00 p.m. to drop him at his house on his motor cycle. But PW2 has stated that he has no motor cycle. Therefore, Uday Bhaskar took the keys of other friend named Gavash Babu and requested PW2 again to drop him at his house on a motor cycle. Thereafter, according to the evidence of PW2, he was riding the motor cycle of Mr. Gavash Babu and PW3 was silting on the pillion seat of the motor cycle. They entered the area known as Chaitanyapuri Colony in a lane. They noticed while entering Chaitanyapuri Colony that one car of Fiat make was going ahead of them, they also noticed that one scooter was going a little ahead of the car. The scooter and the car turned into left side of the lane and they also turned in the same lane. The scooter was stopped opposite to the house of Rama Rao i.e., PW4. Then the car was stopped behind the scooter. The deceased was going on a scooter. According to the evidence of PW2 that he identified the deceased as Madhava Rao. He further stated that he had seen the deceased Madhava Rao going towards the house of Rama Rao PW4 and deceased was trying to open the gate of house of Rama Rao by pushing it. He further stated in his evidence that he had seen the accused geeling down from the Fiat car and followed the deceased MadhavaRao. He further stated in his evidence that he had seen the accused beating the deceased on his head with a stick. According to him, 5 or 6 times the deceased was beaten on his head by the accused. Then PW2 parked his motor cycle. At that time his friend Mr. Uday Bhaskar PW3, who was sitting on the pillion seat requested the accused not to beat the deceased. Then the accused alleged to have threatened them for interference. Then according to the version of P\V2 he stood by the side of his friend Uday Bhaskar. The deceased fell down with injuries and thereafter the accused left the place in his car.
28. Apparently it appears from the evidence of PW2 from the examination-in-chief that he was an eye witness to the incident. But we have to scrutinise the evidence of this eye-witness very carefully so as to ascertain whether he was an eyewitness to the incident or whether he was planted as an eye-witness to the incident subsequently. PW2 has categorically and emphatically stated that he identified the accused and the deceased and he called PW4 to give him help. But when he called P\V4, he did not tell him that the victim was Madhava Rao. According to the version of PW2 that he went to his father to inform him about the incident so as to get help to remove the injured person to the hospital. A suggestion was put to him that when he had gone to his father PW6, who was sitting in the club, to inform about the incident, he did not specifically inform him that he had seen the accused beating the deceased. This is a very important admission secured in the cross-examination. If at all, PW2 was able to identify the accused and the deceased, he would have definitely told his father that he had seen the accused beating the deceased, but the fact remains that he did not inform his father specifically that he had seen the accused beating the deceased.
29. The prosecution led the evidence of PW3 as an eye-witness. PW3 happened to be the pillion rider of the motor cycle which P\V2 was riding. He has stated in his evidence that he was sitting on a motorcycle which was driven by PW2. PW2 was giving him lift up to his house. He also states in his evidence that when they were going on the motor cycle, they has seen the deceased going on a scooter and stopping the scooter near the gate of Rama Rao. He further stated in his evidence that he had seen the accused beating the deceased on his head with a stick while the deceased was trying to open the gate of the house of Rama Rao. He further stated that when he asked the accused as to why he was beating the accused, the accused threatened him not to interfere unnecessarily. He further stated in his evidence that when the deceased fell down, the accused left in his car. Then he states that PW2 told him that the deceased was Madhava Rao. He further states that he identified the accused and the deceased in the gate lights and the street lights. The evidence of this witness was also states that he did not inform the incident to the father of PW2 and also he did not inform the incident to others who were present in the club. He further stated that he reached his house at about 9-45 p.m. Even after going to the house, he did not inform his parents and brother about the incident and about the identification of the accused and the deceased. This admission given by PW3 is fatal to the prosecution. If at all, PW3 is a natural witness to the incident, he would have informed his parents about the accused and the deceased. The evidence of PW3 further discloses that in between 1-00 and 2-00 a.m., PW1, who happened to be the son of the deceased, came to his house and he informed him about the incident but he farther does not say as to who committed the offence.
30. Now we have the evidence of PW6, who is also a crucial witness in this case as far as the identification of the accused and the deceased is concerned.
31. PW6 was working as Assistant Registrar in Regional Engineering College, Warangal. he states in his evidence that on 6-2-1997 between and 9-20 p.m. he was in the Regional Engineering College club. At that time PW2 his son and PW3, friend of his son, came to the club and he was called outside the club through the Attender. At that time PW2 alleged to have told him that the deceased was lying in front of the house of PW4 with serious injuries inflicted by the accused. According to the version of PW6, he informed the same to his colleague including PW5 and he rushed to the Administrative building to get a Jeep. He further states in his evidence that when he reached the place of offence, he found that the deceased was lying with injuries. Meanwhile an Ambulance came and he was removed to Rohini Hospital. After admitting the injured in the hospital, the Doctor declared the injured as dead. He claims to be a heart patient. Therefore, according to him, he came home and slept by taking sedative. In the cross-examination he has admitted that he does not remember whether he failed to state before the Police that PW.2 informed him that the deceased was beaten by the accused. He was confronted with the Police statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC. In the Police statement he has specifically stated that he did not know who had beaten Sri Madhava Rao. It means that PWs.2 and 3 were not able to identify the assailant and therefore they did not tell PWs.6 that they had seen the accused before the Court beating the deceased Madha Rao. He was further confronted with reference to his 161 Cr.PC statement, which is marked as Ex.D4. this witness had stated that he did not wake up his son who was sleeping, "So I do not know what are the things my son witnessed at the house of Professor Rama Rao" It means that when PWs.2 and 3 had gone to see PW6 and informed him about the incident, they themselves were not aware as to who was the assailant. It is very difficult to believe that if PWs.2 and 3 where eye-witnesses, they would have disclosed the name of the accused to the father of P\V2. Therefore, we are of the considered view that PWs.2 and 3 were not eye-witnesses to the incident and they were subsequently planted as eyewitnesses.
32. If the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 is disbelieved, nothing remains in the prosecution case. Therefore, we are of the considered view that it is a fit case for giving benefit of doubt to the accused and therefore, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the accused-appellant herein. We further direct that he be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
33. As far as Criminal Revision Case No.11 of 2000 is concerned, Mr. M. Chandrasekhar Rao, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defacto complainant cited different rulings in respect of the maintainability of Criminal Revision by a private person. Reliance was made by the learned Counsel on the rulings reported in Bissu Mahgoo v. Stale of Uttar Pradesh, and Krishnan and another v. Krishnaveni and another. He has also placed reliance on different rulings so as to support the conviction. But we have already held that the prosecution case as brought on record is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty and therefore it is not necessary for us to go into the details of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel.
Hence, we dismiss the criminal revision case.