Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Satti Arunasri Pw.2 vs Sathi Tata Reddy Tatanna A1 5 Others on 22 May, 2020
Author: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M. Satyanarayana Murthy, B. Krishna Mohan
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
&
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
Criminal Appeal No.911 of 2013
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy)
1. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused/respondents herein, for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C), under the calendar and judgment in Sessions Case No.460 of 2010 dated 30.09.2011 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, the present appeal is filed under Section 372 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C) by the wife of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased).
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused and Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy are known to each other, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are close associates and residents of Anaparthi village, Accused Nos.3 to 5 are residents of Kinaparthi village of Addateegala Mandal. All the accused allegedly conspired together to do away with the life of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy.
3. During the month of August, 2006, Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy sold an extent of Ac.0.98 cents to Accused No.1 for a valid consideration of Rs.8,00,000/-, Accused No.1 got the sale deed registered in favour of his wife. An extent of Ac.0.52 cents of poramboke land adjoining Ac.0.98 cents was left, Accused No.1 also paid consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- towards cost of poramboke land. Some time later, there were proposals for laying bye-pass road which runs by the side of the land sold by Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy to 2 the wife of Accused No.1. But on coming to know about the proposals for laying bye-pass road, Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy approached Accused No.1 and asked him to retransfer the land sold by him, but Accused No.1 did not agree. There were deliberations between Accused No.1 and Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy in connection with retransfer of the land in question. However, Accused No.1 did not agree. Then Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy started demanding Accused No.1 for retransfer of the land for sale consideration along with interest thereon, even then Accused No.1 did not agree.
4. As Accused No.1 is not yielding to the pressure of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy, he started threatening Accused No.1, therefore, Accused No.1 decided to do away with the life of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy as he was keeping him under constant threat, in spite of observing Ayyappa Deeksha by Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy about forty days prior to the date of offence. Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy used to attend Sivalayam regularly on every morning to worship and to perform rituals, where he is maintaining "Peetham", along with some other persons.
5. Accused No.1 and his associates are well aware about the movements of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy every day. On 20.12.2007 Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy left the house at 4:15 am to go to Sivalayam to perform pooja and other rituals and to make preparations for Sabarimala pilgrimage with "Irumudi" (sacred ghee, rice, coconut etc., will be packed in a new cloth for being offered to the God), on the way when reached Manda Srinivasa Reddy's house, all 3 the accused waylaid Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy, hacked him with curved knives on his neck, back side, abdomen and also on the hands. Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy raised cries saying "baboi champestunnaru" fell down and died on the spot and the dead body was found in a pool of blood. Sathi Aggi Reddy (P.W.5) and Karri Satyanarayana Reddy @ Jamalapuram Babi (P.W.6) who were on the way to temple, Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) and Sathi Ramasubba Reddy @ Babi (P.W.8) witnessed the incident. Sathi Aggi Reddy (P.W.5) identified Accused Nos.1 and 2 at the scene of offence. After committing murder of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy, all the accused fled away from the scene of offence in a Blue colour Maruthi 800 car towards Sivalayam. At the scene of offence the monkey cap of Accused No.1 was removed when Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased) resisted and struggled with him. On coming to know about the incident, Karri Subbi Reddy (P.W.1) rushed to the scene of offence and lodged report, the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.109 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C) by S.P.V.S Kumar, Sub- Inspector of Police, Rayavaram P.S. (L.W.22) and issued express FIR.
6. S. Ganga Raju, Inspector of Police, Anaparthi Circle (P.W.18) took up investigation, visited the scene of offence and prepared observation report (Ex.P7), got photographed the scene of offence through Angara Venkatesh (P.W.7), held inquest over the dead body in the presence of mediators Karri Veera Bhadra Reddy, VRO (P.W.10) and later the dead body of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased) was sent to the hospital for conducting autopsy over the dead body 4 and after conducting postmortem examination, Dr.K. Nagendra Prasada Rao (P.W.9) issued opinion that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage on account of multiple stab and incised wounds on the body and neck. Thereafter, Accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested at Kanavaram village at about 5:00 am on 27.01.2008 by S. Ganga Raju, Inspector of Police (P.W.18) in the presence of mediators and Accused No.1 confessed that as Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased) demanding to re-transfer the land in the name of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased), himself along with Accused Nos.2 and 5 decided to do away with the life of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy. Accused No.2 was separately interrogated, he disclosed the same and the Maruthi Car bearing No.AP 31 F 45 used to escape from the scene of offence was kept at his house and led S. Ganga Raju, Inspector of Police (P.W.18) and mediators to his house, shown the car, the same was seized under the cover of mediators report (Ex.P24). S. Ganga Raju, Inspector of Police (P.W.18) further proceeded to Kinaparthi village along with his staff, mediators and Accused Nos.1 and 2, arrested Accused Nos.3 to 5 at the residence of Accused No.5 at about 11:00 am. On interrogation all the three disclosed their identity and also disclosed about hatching plan to do away with the life of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy and its implementation. Accused No.3 made confession leading to discovery in the presence of mediators, assured to show the weapon used in crime which was kept in a haystack at Koppavaram village, led S. Ganga Raju, Inspector of Police (P.W.18) and mediators to haystack at Koppavaram village and the same was seized in the presence of mediators.
5
7. S. Ganga Raju, Inspector of Police (P.W.18) examined the Maruthi 800 Car bearing No.AP 31 F 45, found blood stains on the seat cover of the seat by the side of driver and got the seat cover removed with scissors under the cover of mediators report. The material objects were sent to FSL along with letter of advice and on receipt of postmortem report (Ex.P6) and FSL report (Ex.P25), having satisfied that the accused committed brutal murder of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy in the early hours of the day, filed charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate.
8. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram in turn committed the case to Sessions Division having concluded that the case is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge registered the same as Sessions Case No.460 of 2010, made over the same to VI Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry for trial and disposal of the case in accordance with law.
9. The Sessions Court upon securing the presence of the accused, on hearing Additional Public Prosecutor and defence counsel, framed a sole charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C, explained the same to the accused in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
10. During trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.18 were examined, marked Exs.P1 to P25, D1 to D8 and M.O.1 to M.O.8. 6
11. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating material that appeared against them, they denied the same and examined K. Mangadevi, Sub-Inspector of Police, Rayavaram (D.W.1) and K. Durga Prasad, Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramachandrapuram (D.W.2).
12. Upon hearing argument of both the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel, considering the evidence on record, the Sessions Court disbelieved the evidence of Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) and Sathi Ramasubba Reddy (P.W.8) who supported the prosecution evidence while Sathi Aggi Reddy (P.W.5) and Karri Satyanarayana Reddy @ Jamalapuram Babi (P.W.6) did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. All the four witnesses are alleged direct witnesses. The prosecution based its case both on direct and circumstantial evidence. As the prosecution failed to prove witnessing the incident by Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) and Sathi Ramasubba Reddy (P.W.8), as their conduct is improbable to the natural conduct of human being, the Sessions Court disbelieved their evidence and also disbelieved the circumstantial evidence, acquitted them for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
13. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused, the present appeal is preferred on various grounds. The main ground urged in the appeal is that the motive on the part of the accused is substantiated by the evidence of the prosecution and the Sessions Court failed to give much credence to the evidence of Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy 7 (P.W.4), Sathi Aggi Reddy (P.W.5), Karri Satyanarayana Reddy @ Jamalapuram Babi (P.W.6) and Sathi Ramasubba Reddy (P.W.8) and thereby committed an error. The conduct of Sathi Aggi Reddy (P.W.5) and Karri Satyanarayana Reddy @ Jamalapuram Babi (P.W.6) was not properly considered and similarly the delay of six hours in submitting the original FIR to the Jurisdictional Magistrate is not fatal in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the Sessions Court based on the evidence of Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) and Sathi Ramasubba Reddy (P.W.8) ought to have convicted the accused, but committed a grave error in disbelieving the case of the prosecution and requested to set aside the calendar and judgment while finding the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and sentence them in accordance with law.
14. During hearing Sri C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/victim would contend that the evidence of Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) and Sathi Ramasubba Reddy (P.W.8) is consistent to the complicity of the accused for the grave charge under Section 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C and the reason assigned by the Sessions Court to discredit the testimony of Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) and Sathi Ramasubba Reddy (P.W.8) is improbable and illegal. Though Sathi Aggi Reddy (P.W.5) and Karri Satyanarayana Reddy @ Jamalapuram Babi (P.W.6) did not support the case, their conduct has to be taken into consideration besides the proved circumstances which are sufficient to draw an inference that the accused committed the grave offence of 8 murder of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased), but for one reason or the other, the Sessions Court did not consider the evidence in proper perspective and committed serious error in acquitting the accused finding them not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
15. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondents Sri A. Prabhakar Rao and N. Siva Reddy supported the judgment in all respects, requested to confirm the same, while dismissing the appeal, without raising any specific ground.
16. Considering rival contentions and perusing the material on record, the point for determination is:
Whether the evidence of Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) and Sathi Ramasubba Reddy (P.W.8) is worthy of credence to believe their witnessing the incident of murder directly, if so, whether the accused caused the death of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased) with an intention to kill him knowing that those injuries are sufficient to cause death in natural course of events, if so, whether the acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C under the calendar and judgment in Sessions Case No.460 of 2010 dated 30.09.2011 is liable to the set aside, finding the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C, if so, whether the accused are liable for sentence, if any?
17. Before deciding the points framed by this Court for determination, it is apposite to advert to the law laid down by the Apex Court as to the scope of jurisdiction of the appellate court in an 9 appeal against acquittal recorded by the Sessions Court. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka1 the Apex Court laid down five guidelines for deciding an appeal against acquittal. They are as follows:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." 1 (2007) 4 SCC 415 10
18. In Dwaraka Dass & Ors v. State of Haryana2 the Apex Court in Para No.2 held as follows:
While there cannot be any denial of the factum that the power and authority to appraise the evidence in an appeal, either against acquittal or conviction stands out to be very comprehensive and wide, but if two views are reasonably possible, on the state of evidence: one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction, then and in that event, the High Court would not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal, merely because it feels that it, sitting as a trial court, would have taken the other view. While reappreciating the evidence, the rule of prudence requires that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the views of the trial Judge. But if the judgment of the Sessions Judge was absolutely perverse, legally erroneous and based on a wrong appreciation of the evidence, then it would be just and proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise, there would be gross miscarriage of justice."
19. In Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh & Ors3, the Apex Court in para No.8 held that:
There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable 2 (2003) 1 SCC 204 3 (2004) 9 SCC 186 11 to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent.
Those principles are reiterated in the later judgment of Apex Court in Nallabothu Ramu alias Seetharamaiah and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh4. Keeping the above principles in mind, we wish to approach the present case and decide the points framed for determination as mentioned above.
20. The case of the prosecution is mostly based on direct evidence of Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4), Sathi Aggi Reddy (P.W.5), Karri Satyanarayana Reddy @ Jamalapuram Babi (P.W.6) and Sathi Ramasubba Reddy (P.W.8) who are claiming to be the eye witnesses to the incident. Besides the direct evidence, the prosecution also relied on the circumstantial evidence of motive and recovery of Patta Kathi (M.O.1 and M.O.2) based on the confession of the accused, leading to discovery.
21. POINT:-
The homicidal death of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased), scene of offence and the time of occurrence are not in dispute. The main contention of the prosecution is that due to enmity on account of failure of Accused No.1 to retransfer the land when there was a proposal for laying bye-pass road by the side of the land sold to the wife of Accused No.1 and registered in her name by Sathi 4 (2014) 12 SCC 261 12 Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased). Sale of Ac.0.98 cents by Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased) and its registration in the name of wife of Accused No.1 is not in dispute, but demands made by Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased) for retransfer, when there was a proposal for laying bye-pass road is not substantiated by any material. However Karri Subbi Reddy (P.W.1) spoke about sale of Ac.0.98 cents to Accused No.1 and its registration in the name of wife of Accused No.1, but he did not speak about insisting of Accused No.1 to retransfer the land by Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased).
Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased) is nephew of Karri Subbi Reddy (P.W.1). Similarly, Sathi Aruna Sri (P.W.2) who is wife of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased) though stated about homicidal death of her husband, her evidence is totally silent as to the sale of land, insistence of Accused No.1 to retransfer the land by Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased) etc. Therefore, there is absolutely no iota of evidence to establish the motive attributed to the accused to do away with the life of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased), as Accused No.1 did not agree for retransfer of the land.
22. Motive is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, but it is not substantiated by any piece of evidence. However, it is one of the circumstances to complete the links in the chain of circumstances. In the present facts of the case there is absolutely nothing to establish that the accused developed any motive.
23. Though the prosecution contended that Accused No.1 developed enmity, hatched a plan to do away with the life of Sathi 13 Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased), but none of the witnesses more particularly, Karri Subbi Reddy (P.W.1) and Sathi Arunasri (P.W.2), spoke nothing about the enmity. However, enmity may be a ground either to commit the offence or to implicate the accused falsely. Hence, enmity by itself is not a ground to draw any inference that the accused caused death of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased). Thus, on careful consideration of the evidence of Karri Subbi Reddy (P.W.1) and Sathi Arunasri (P.W.2) and other witnesses, we find no evidence to establish motive to commit the offence or enmity between Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased) and Accused No.1 to commit such offence. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the first circumstance.
24. The second circumstance relied on by the prosecution is recovery of Patta Kathi (M.O.1 and M.O.2) and Maruthi Car (M.O.8) in the presence of mediators. Even assuming for a moment that the prosecution established the sole circumstance of recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, that by itself is not a substantive piece of evidence to believe the case of the prosecution.
25. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is an exception to Sections 25 and 26. The conditions necessary for invoking the aid of the Section are as follows:
a) there must be a discovery of a fact albeit relevant fact in pursuance of an information received from a person in police custody;
b) the discovery of such fact must be deposed to ;
c) at the time of giving information the accused must be in police custody;14
Then the effect is that so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. What is allowed to be proved is the information or such part thereof as related distinctly to the fact thereby discovered.
26. Discovery evidence is not substantive evidence (vide Dinakar v. State5].
Similarly, in Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Vs. Balaprasanna6, the Apex Court held as follows:
"Law is well settled that the prosecution while relying upon the confessional statement leading to discovery of articles under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, has to prove through cogent evidence that the statement has been made voluntarily and leads to discovery of the relevant facts. The scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act had been stated and restated in several decisions of the Supreme Court. However, in almost all such decisions reference is made to the observations of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya vs. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67. At one time it was held that the expression 'fact discovered' in the second is restricted to a physical or material fact which can be perceived by the senses, and that it does not include a mental fact, now it is fairly settled that the expression 'fact discovered' includes not only the physical object produced, but also the place from which it is produced and the 5 AIR 1970 Bombay page 438 6 2009(1) ALD (Crl.)(SC) page 113 15 knowledge of the accused as to this, as noted in Pulukuri Kotayya's case. The various requirements of the section can be summed up as follows:-
1) The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue. It must be borne in mind that the provision has nothing to do with the question of relevancy.
The relevancy of the fact discovered must be established according to the prescriptions relating to relevancy of other evidence connecting it with the crime in order to make the fact discovered admissible.
2) The fact must have been discovered.
3) The discovery must have been in consequence of some information received from the accused and not by the accused's own act.
4) The person giving the information must be accused of any offence.
5) He must be in the custody of a police officer. 6) The discovery of a fact in consequence of information
received from an accused in custody must be deposed to.
7) Thereupon only that portion of the information which relates distinctly or strictly to the fact discovered can be proved. The rest is inadmissible."
In view of the principle laid down in the above decision, when a fact is discovered in pursuance of confession leading to discovery is only relevant piece of evidence, but it is not a substantive piece of evidence.
27. Therefore, proof of sole circumstance of recovery based on confession leading to discovery is insufficient to complete the links in the chain of circumstances so as to come to a definite conclusion that the accused are the persons who perpetrated murder of Sathi 16 Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased). Hence, the proved circumstance alone is not sufficient to record conviction. Therefore, the Sessions Court rightly did not accept the circumstantial evidence and even after reappraisal of the entire material on record, it is difficult to come to any other conclusion than the conclusion arrived by the Sessions Court.
28. The case of the prosecution though based on the evidence of four witnesses, Sathi Aggi Reddy (P.W.5) and Karri Satyanarayana Reddy @ Jamalapuram Babi (P.W.6) did not support the prosecution case and they turned hostile. Even they were cross examined by learned Additional Public Prosecutor after obtaining permission from the Sessions Court, he could elicit nothing in support of the prosecution case. Therefore, the evidence available on record supporting the case of the prosecution to some extent is the evidence of Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) and Sathi Ramasubba Reddy @ Babi (P.W.8). Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) is the brother-in-law of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased). According to his testimony on receipt of phone call from his brother-in-law on 19.12.2007 about proposed performance of pooja for "Irumudi" during night of the same day, he went to his sister's house at Pasalapudi village. At about 4:00 am on 20.12.2007, he went to Sivalayam with pooja articles i.e. rice and ghee etc., for arranging "Irumudi". Then Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased) was at the house and by then Sathi Ramasubba Reddy @ Babi (P.W.8) was at the temple. When Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) and Sathi Ramasubba Reddy @ Babi (P.W.8) were waiting for arrival of Sathi 17 Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased), at about 4:30 am they heard screams of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased) "baboi champestunnaru" (oh, they are killing me). Immediately Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) ran towards the house of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased) and there was an electrical pole and with the aid of glowing light hanging to the electrical pole, he noticed Accused No.1 holding knife about one feet in length and hacked Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased) on his neck, the other four persons also covered their faces with monkey caps and one of the four persons was holding a knife and on seeing them, all the accused fled away in a Blue colour Maruthi 800 Car.
29. Thus, Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) is a direct witness and upon hearing the cries, he came to the scene of offence and found the accused. But by the time he came to the scene of offence, Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased) already raised hue and cry which means that he was already hacked, otherwise the question of raising hue and cry by Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased) does not arise. Therefore, the question of witnessing the incident by Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) on his arrival at the scene of offence does not arise as none of the accused hacked on the neck of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased) except holding knives. But based on this evidence, the Court may come to a conclusion that they are the persons who caused injuries on the body of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased). However, the presence of Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) was not mentioned anywhere in the FIR and in fact the allegation is that Dwarampudi 18 Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) is the person allegedly witnessed the incident and informed the incident to others including the person who lodged report. When such information was received from Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) by Karri Subbi Reddy (P.W.1) who lodged complaint with the police about causing injuries on the body of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased) at least there must be a reference about receipt of information from Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) in the complaint (Ex.P1) which is the basis to set criminal law into motion. Obviously, for one reason or the other the name of Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) was not referred in the complaint (Ex.P1).
30. At the same time when Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) who directly witnessed the incident allegedly, ought not to have maintained silence, without informing the incident to anyone till lodging of complaint or till holding inquest over the dead body. For the first time witnessing the incident by Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) was brought into existence only when he was examined by the police under Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, maintenance of silence by Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4), though he is the brother-in-law and close relative of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased), creates any amount of suspicion as to his directly witnessing the incident. Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) also did not state anything in his examination by the police under Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C and the contradictions in the statement of Karri Subbi Reddy (P.W.1) and Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) are marked as Exs.D1 and D2 respectively. 19
31. On the other hand, in the third page of cross examination, Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) admitted as follows:
"I did not make any attempt to alert the neighbours soon after the incident, raising cries etc., I never made any attempt to take the help of neighbours. I did not make any attempt to apprehend the culprits and also Sathi Ramasubba Reddy @ Babi (P.W.8). I cannot say in which direction the accused spread away. I cannot say the number of the car. I did not inform the police about the incident by phone. I did not make any attempt to take him to a doctor since by then he died. It is true that I did not tell to police during inquest that I witnessed the incident. It is true that I did not tell to police that on 19th I received a phone call from deceased and that I took rice, ghee etc., to the temple".
These admissions are sufficient to discredit the testimony of Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4), since he is closely related to Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased) and when a ghostly incident of murder was witnessed by brother-in-law of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased), he ought not to have maintained silent without informing anything to anyone or making attempt to take help of neighbours to apprehend the accused. Therefore, the conduct of Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) is improbable to the natural circumstances and consequently the Sessions Court rightly disbelieved the presence of Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) at the temple and his witnessing the incident directly for the simple reason that he did not inform the incident to anyone even at the time when inquest was held over the dead body of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased).
20
32. Similarly, Sathi Ramasubba Reddy @ Babi (P.W.8) is no other than the close relative of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased). Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased) is his junior paternal uncle. At about 4:30 am on 20.12.2007 when he was standing at Sivalayam temple of their village, Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) also joined him later. In the meanwhile he heard cries "baboi champestunnaru", then he along with Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) rushed in that direction, noticed Accused No.1 removing knife from the neck after hacking and the other four persons covered their faces with monkey caps. One of the four persons was armed with knife and he noticed the incident from a distance of 100 to 150 feet and on seeing them the accused fled away in a Maruthi car and escaped from the scene of offence. In the cross examination Sathi Ramasubba Reddy @ Babi (P.W.8) admitted as follows:
"I was present when the police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. I told the police at the time of inquest that I witnessed the incident. I informed the police that along with the five culprits two other persons were also present and they spread along with the culprits. It is not true to say that I was not a witness".
Sathi Ramasubba Reddy @ Babi (P.W.8) also maintained silence like Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) and his conduct is unnatural to the normal circumstances, since he being the brother's son of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased) is not supposed to maintain silence, without informing the incident to anyone, till he was examined by the police.
21
33. Apart from that he admitted that he did not make any attempt to take the help of neighbours to apprehend the accused who were fled away on seeing them and not even raised cries. This unnatural conduct led the Sessions Court to disbelieve the presence of Sathi Ramasubba Reddy @ Babi (P.W.8) also along with Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) which is improbable to the natural circumstances. Therefore, the facts elicited in the cross examination with regard to their conduct of seeing the ghostly incident of murder of their close relative, discredited their testimony and therefore, they are not reliable witnesses.
34. Failure to refer the names of any of the witnesses to the incident either in the complaint (Ex.P1) or in the inquest report (Ex.P8) is another circumstance to discredit the testimony of Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) and Sathi Ramasubba Reddy @ Babi (P.W.8). Though the complaint (Ex.P1) is not required to contain minute details of the incident, at least when they witnessed the incident of causing injuries on the body of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased) by the accused, they would have disclosed the names of the culprits. The cumulative evidence of Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) and Sathi Ramasubba Reddy @ Babi (P.W.8) inspires no confidence and on the contrary improbable to the natural circumstances. Therefore, we find no ground to believe their presence at the scene of offence and witnessing the incident directly.
35. As discussed above, the prosecution failed to establish the links in the chain of circumstances to come to an unerring conclusion, 22 drawing inference from the proved circumstances that the accused are the persons who caused injuries on the body of Sathi Srimannarayana Reddy (deceased) who succumbed to those injuries.
36. Coming to the delay in submitting the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate, is also one of the circumstance to disbelieve the evidence of Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) and Sathi Ramasubba Reddy @ Babi (P.W.8). By the time the FIR was submitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate at Ramachandrapuram, inquest was completed and there is abnormal delay which creates cloud on the veracity of the prosecution case and possibility of planting the witnesses to establish the case of the prosecution cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the Sessions Court rightly disbelieved the evidence of Dwarampudi Venkata Ratna Reddy (P.W.4) and Sathi Ramasubba Reddy @ Babi (P.W.8) and more particularly, in the inquest report, the column meant for mentioning the names of direct witnesses was left blank, though inquest was held between 9:00am and 11:30 am on 20.12.2007, but the FIR reached the court by 2:00 pm on 20.12.2007. The distance between the police station and the court is 12 km and one can reach the court within a short time by vehicle, but the delay creates any amount of suspicion. Considering the effect of such delay in the judgment in detail with reference to law, the Sessions Court rightly concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by adducing cogent and satisfactory evidence which inspires the confidence of the court. Even after reappraisal of the entire evidence in the appeal by this Court, we find 23 no ground to come to any different conclusion other than the conclusion arrived by the Sessions Court.
37. In view of our foregoing discussion, we find no ground warranting interference with the finding of the Sessions Court to hold the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C by setting aside the calendar and judgment in Sessions Case No.460 of 2010 dated 30.09.2011. Consequently, we are bound to affirm the acquittal of the accused.
38. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the calendar and judgment in Sessions Case No.460 of 2010 dated 30.09.2011 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry.
39. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in the appeal, shall stand closed.
__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY _______________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN Dated 22.05.2020 RVK