Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Soudajjagari Narayanappa 2 Others on 25 September, 2019
Author: C.Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, M.Satyanarayana Murthy
1
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.616 of 2012
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice C.Praveen Kumar) Heard the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents-accused.
The present appeal, under Section 378(3)&(1) Cr.P.C., is filed by the State, against the judgment dated 15.02.2011 in S.C.No.173 of 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, acquitting respondent No.1- accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 302 and 324 I.P.C. and respondent Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.2 and 3, for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:
Accused Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of accused No.3. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased, by name Manjunatha. There were land disputes between the family of the deceased and the family of the accused. On 22.02.2009, at about 3.00 p.m., when P.W.2, who is the brother of the deceased, was watering his chilli crop, a galata took place between him and accused Nos.2 and 3. On the same day, at about 7.00 p.m., accused Nos.1 to 3, armed with a dagger and sticks, trespassed into the house of P.W.1, abused him in filthy language, and with a common intention to kill the husband of P.W.1, dragged him to the nearby fig tree, where accused No.1 stabbed the deceased with the dagger, due to which the deceased sustained a bleeding injury to his right hand. Thereafter, the accused pushed the deceased on to the ground and beat him indiscriminately with hands and sticks and kicked him with legs, resulting in the deceased sustaining severe injuries. When P.W.1 and P.W.3, wife and daughter 2 of the deceased, tried to rescue the deceased, they also received simple injuries. This incident was witnessed by P.Ws.4,5,7 to 10 and one Kuruba Somanna (L.W.11) and Kuruba Naganna (L.W.12). P.Ws.4 and 5 rescued the deceased from the clutches of the accused. On receipt of information, P.W.2 rushed to the house and found the deceased in unconscious state. He shifted the deceased to PHC, Gudibanda, where P.W.11-staff nurse examined the deceased and declared him brought dead. On the basis of Ex.P1-report lodged by P.W.1, a case in Crime No.5 of 2009 came to be registered by P.W.14-Head Constable of Gudibanda Police Station, on 23.02.2009 at 11.30 a.m., for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC, and Ex.P13-Express FIR was issued. P.W.15, who was in-charge Inspector of Police, Madakasira Circle, proceeded to the Primary Health Centre, Gudibanda, found the dead body of the deceased, examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1, 2, 4, 5 and others present there, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.12 and another panch witness and blood relatives of the deceased, and then sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem examination. He visited the scene of offence, drew Ex.P14-rough sketch thereof and got it photographed. P.W.13, the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, issued Ex.P8-post-mortem examination report, opining that the deceased died due to cerebral haemorrhages. He also examined the injured, P.Ws.1 and 3, and issued Exs.P10 and P11-wound certificates. On 24.02.2009, he examined P.W.3 and recorded her statement. P.W.16-Inspector of Police, who took up further investigation, examined P.Ws.7, 8, 10 and other witnesses and recorded their statements.
Basing on their statements, as it was found that accused Nos.4 and 5 have no role to play in the commission of the offence, they were deleted from the array of the accused, after obtaining permission from the Superintendent of Police, Anantapur. On 08.08.2009, P.W.16-Inspector of Police, Madakasira, arrested accused Nos.1 and 2 and upon production before the Court, they were remanded to judicial custody. Upon receipt of Ex.P8-post-mortem examination 3 report and Ex.P16-RFSL report and after completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.19 of 2009 by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madakasira.
On appearance of the accused, copies of material documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Since the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Anantapur. The learned Sessions Judge made over the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, for trial, where charges under Sections 450, 302 and 324 IPC came to be framed against A1, and under Section 302 r/w. 34 IPC against A2 and A3, read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and got Exs.P1 to P16 and M.Os.1 and 2 marked on its behalf. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with respect to the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which they denied. The accused reported no defence evidence, but Ex.D1-relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 was marked on behalf of the defence.
Having considered the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court found the accused not guilty of the charges framed against them and acquitted them, by the judgment under appeal. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by the State.
The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State would contend that the Sessions Court erred in not believing the evidence of P.Ws.1 to
5. Basing on the evidence of P.W.13-doctor, he would contend that the injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 and 3 would establish their presence at the scene and their version cannot be disbelieved. He would, therefore, contend that the judgment 4 under appeal needs to be interfered with and the accused are liable for conviction for the charges framed against them.
Now, the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they are charged beyond reasonable doubt and if so, whether the Sessions Court erred in acquitting the accused?
The sum and substance of the charges framed against the accused is that on 22.02.2009, at about 7.00 p.m., accused No.1 trespassed into the house of the deceased, dragged the deceased to the nearby fig tree, stabbed him with a dagger on his right hand, and when the deceased fell on the ground, accused Nos.1 to 3 beat him with sticks indiscriminately causing his instantaneous death, and further when P.Ws.1 and 3 came to the rescue of the deceased, accused No.1 beat them and caused bleeding injuries.
P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. In her evidence, she stated that on the date of the incident, at about 3.00 p.m., a galata took place between accused Nos.2 and 3 and her brother-in-law/P.W.2 with regard to watering the chilli crop. On the same day, at about 7.00 p.m., when she along with her husband was taking dinner in their house, accused No.1 trespassed into their house, dragged the deceased to a nearby Fig tree (Raavi Chettu) on the street and stabbed him with a dagger on his right hand, resulting in bleeding injury. On seeing the same, she along with P.Ws.4 and 5 went to the rescue of the deceased, but by that time, the accused beat the deceased with sticks, due to which he sustained injuries and fell unconscious. Immediately, she telephoned to 108 ambulance and took the deceased to Primary Health Centre, Gudibanda, where he was declared brought dead. She further stated that she and her daughter, P.W.3, sustained contusion injuries in the incident. She set the law into motion by lodging the report. She identified M.Os.1 and 2-blood-stained shirt and underwear as that of the deceased.
5
Though in her chief-examination she stated that accused No.1 stabbed the deceased with a dagger on his right hand, in her cross-examination, she admits that she did not see the dagger and could not say about the size of the dagger. She also stated that she did not know what happened to the said dagger. It was further elicited in her cross-examination that prior to the incident, there were no disputes whatsoever between them and the accused with regard to watering the chilli crop, and that she does not know what had happened between P.W.2 and the accused at 3.00 p.m. on 22.02.2009. This version of P.W.1 runs contrary to her statement in her chief-examination that a galata took place between P.W.2 and accused Nos.2 and 3 with regard to watering chilli crop. She also admits that Devaraju, Eranna and Manjanna, who are Telugu Desam Party members, accompanied her to the Police Station to lodge Ex.P1-report and as per their directions, she gave Ex.P1-report to the police. Further, except stating that she and P.W.3 received contusion injuries in the incident, she did not specifically state as to how many injuries they sustained and which of the three accused Nos.1 to 3 caused those injuries. Thus, P.W.1 cannot be treated as a totally reliable witness.
P.W.2, the younger brother of the deceased, deposed in his evidence that on 22.02.2009, at about 3.00 or 3.30 p.m., there was an altercation between him and accused Nos.2 and 3 with regard to watering his chilli crop and that he informed the same to the deceased. On the same day, on coming to know about the galata between the accused and the deceased, he went to the house of the deceased. The said galata took place between 7.00 and 8.00 p.m. By the time he reached the scene, he found a stab injury on the right hand of the deceased and accused Nos.1 to 3 along with one Vijayasanthi and Lakshmamma were beating the deceased with hands and legs. He went to the rescue of the deceased, by which time the deceased fell unconscious. Himself and P.W.1 shifted the deceased to Primary Health Centre, Gudibanda, where the doctor declared him brought dead.
6
In his cross-examination, P.W.2 admits that except the quarrel that took place between him and accused Nos.2 and 3 on 22.02.2009, at about 3.00 p.m., no quarrels took place between them previously and that there were no ill-feelings between their family and the family of the accused till then. He denied to have stated to the police as in Ex.D1 that on the date of incident, when he was at his fields, he was informed that accused No.1 stabbed the deceased with a dagger. While P.W.1 stated that the accused beat the deceased with sticks, according to P.W.2, the accused beat the deceased with hands and legs. P.W.2 did not even speak about the alleged injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 and 3 in the incident. Thus, there is no consistency and corroboration between the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2.
P.W.3 is the daughter of the deceased. As she was a minor at the time of giving evidence in the Court, the Court, after recording satisfaction about her ability to depose, proceeded with her examination. In her chief-examination, she stated that the accused stabbed her father on the stomach while he was taking food, resulting in a bleeding injury. She further deposed that accused No.1 dragged her father from the house while he was taking meals to the front side of the house, where the accused stabbed her father with a dagger, causing a bleeding injury. She stated that the accused took the deceased to their house and again brought him back to their house. In the meantime, ambulance came and took the injured to Gudibanda Primary Health Centre.
P.W.3 did not depose about any injuries having been sustained either by her or her mother (P.W.1) in the incident. She did not also specifically state as to who among accused Nos.1 to 3 used the dagger to stab the deceased. She stated that the accused stabbed the deceased on his stomach, which is contrary to the evidence of P.W.1, who specifically stated that accused No.1 stabbed the deceased with a dagger on his right hand.
P.W.4, in her evidence, deposed that on the date of incident, at about 7.30 p.m., he along with the deceased was taking meals in the house of the 7 deceased and at that time, accused No.1 came into the house of the deceased, quarrelled with the deceased and took him away from the house. There was a galata between the accused and the deceased under a ravi tree. The deceased received stab injury to his right hand with a dagger inflicted by accused No.1 in the incident. In the meantime, P.W.2 came and took the deceased in 108 ambulance to the hospital and the deceased died on the way to hospital. Contrary to his statement in his chief-examination that the deceased received stab injury to his right hand with a dagger by accused No.1, in his cross- examination, P.W.4 stated that he does not know as to how the deceased sustained injury. He also stated that he gave statement to the police in Kannada language and he does not know what was written by the police in Telugu in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
P.W.5, in his chief-examination, deposed that on the date of the incident, the deceased and P.W.4, while taking dinner in the house of the deceased, accused No.1 came and took the deceased out of the house at about 7.00 p.m. All the accused then beat the deceased and accused No.1 stabbed the deceased on his right hand with a dagger, resulting in injury. The deceased became unconscious and in the meantime, P.W.2 came there and took the deceased in an ambulance to Gudibanda Hospital. The deceased died on the way to hospital. P.W.5 further stated that the accused killed the deceased due to water disputes. However, in his cross-examination, P.W.5 admits that he does not know what was written by the police in his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement. He also admits that he does not know where the deceased sustained injuries on his body.
Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 is self-inconsistent and does not come to the aid of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Both of them did not speak anything about the injuries said to have been sustained by P.Ws.1 and 3 in the incident. Further, both of them admit that they were not aware as to what was written in 161 Cr.P.C. statements. Further, P.W.4 goes to 8 the extent of stating that he does not know who caused injuries to the deceased. Hence, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5.
P.Ws.6 to 10, who are said to be independent witnesses, did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. Nothing came to be elicited in their cross-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor.
P.W.11 is the Staff Nurse, PHC, Gudibanda, who deposed about her examining the deceased, who was brought to hospital in 108 ambulance, and declaring him brought dead.
P.W.12 is the mediator to Ex.P7-inquest panchanama of the deceased. In his evidence, he deposed that during inquest, he found bloodstains on the clothes of the deceased but he did not find any injuries on the person of the deceased.
P.W.13-doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, deposed in his evidence that he conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased at 4.40 p.m. on 23.02.2009 and issued Ex.P8-post-mortem examination report. As per Ex.P9-final opinion, the deceased appeared to have died of cerebral and subarachnoid haemorrhages in the brain due to medical disorder may be hypertension or aneurysmal rupture 10-20 hours prior to the commencement of post-mortem examination. He further deposed that he also examined P.Ws.1 and 3 on the same day at 6.15 p.m. and issued Exs.P10 and P11-wound certificates. According to him, the injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 and 3 are simple in nature.
Thus, even the medical evidence on record does not help the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained in the alleged incident. Though the evidence of P.W13-doctor reveals about the simple injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 and 3, but P.W.1 failed to give any particulars about the injuries sustained by her, 9 while P.W.3 did not even depose about receiving injuries in the incident. As observed earlier, even the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 is silent on this aspect.
From the above, it is clear that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 is not only self-inconsistent but also lacks corroboration with each other and does not point towards the guilt of the accused. There is no evidence on record to establish either the motive on the part of the accused to kill the deceased or the commission of offence by them, beyond reasonable doubt. This apart, there is no recovery of dagger which was alleged to have been used by accused No.1 to stab the deceased. Having regard to the laches on the part of the prosecution, we hold that the Sessions Court was justified in acquitting the accused for the offences with which they were charged and tried, and in our view, the judgment under appeal does not warrant any interference in this Appeal.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, ACJ _________________________ M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,J Dt: 25.09.2019 IBL/RRR 10 HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRIMINAL APPEAL No.616 of 2012 DATE: 25.09.2019 IBL