Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
State Of A.P. Rep. By The Public ... vs Vellanki Krishna Rao @ Radha And Others on 28 February, 2014
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy, M.S.K.M.S.K. Jaiswal
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.M.S.K. JAISWAL
Criminal Appeal No.1024 of 2009 and batch
28-02-2014
State of A.P. rep. by the Public Prosecutor,High Court of A.P.,
Hyderabad..appellant
Vellanki Krishna Rao @ Radha and others..Respondents
Counsel for the appellant: Public Prosecutor
Sri Prabhunath Vasi Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents: Smt.C.Vasundhara Reddy
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
?Cases referred
1) (2010) 3 SCC 174
2) (1985) 1 SCC 505
3) (1999) 9 SCC 525
4) (2002) 1 SCC 351
5)(2004) 13 SCC 308
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL
Criminal Appeal No.1024 of 2009 &
Criminal R.C.No.736 of 2009
COMMON JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon'bie Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) In S.C.No.366 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, A-1 to A-6 were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 302, read with Section 149 I.P.C., alleging that they committed murder of Suryadevara Sambasiva Rao. A-2 and A-3 were separately charged for the offence punishable under Section 120-B I.P.C. The trial Court acquitted all the accused, through its judgment dated 26-12-2008, after undertaking full-fledged trial. While the State filed Criminal Appeal No.1024 of 2009, challenging the acquittal, the wife of the deceased, PW-1, filed Criminal R.C.No.736 of 2009.
The case of the prosecution was that the deceased- Sambasiva Rao, and all the accused were in the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) till 2004, and the deceased has joined in the Congress Party in that year. He is said to have been elected as a Councillor for the Tenali Municipality. A-1 is an Ex-Councillor; A-2 is a Civil Contractor; A-3 is the brother-in-law of A-2; A-4 and his son, A-5, are the active members of the TDP, and A-6 is cousin of A-3. While A-1 to A-5 are said to be the residents of Tenali, A-6 is stated to be from Jaggaiahpet of Krishna District. It was alleged that for some of the works entrusted by the Tenali Municipality, to A-2, extension of time for execution was sought and on account of strict opposition offered by the deceased, extension was not given, and thereby, A-2 was put to loss.
On 16-04-2007, the deceased was said to be proceeding on a motorcycle in Tenali town, and on the way, PW-3 is said to have joined him, as a pillion rider. It was also alleged that when the deceased and PW-3 reached Nehruniketan English Medium School, at Bose Road, Tenali, A-5 came from behind on a motorcycle and dashed the motorcycle on which, the deceased and PW-3 were travelling. PW-3 is said to have jumped aside.
The other accused were said to be waiting with weapons and attacked Sambasiva Rao, indiscriminately. The shop keepers, who tried to rescue the deceased thinking that it is an accident; are said to have been threatened by A-1 to A-6, and they fled away. A-3 is said to have hacked the deceased on the chest, and A-1 on his face; A-2 and A-4 on both the hands; A-5 on hands and throat, and A-6 on the back of the neck of the deceased, when the deceased and PW-3 tried to escape from the scene. It was stated that PW-3 tried to intervene, but on being threatened by the accused by pointing out knifes, he ran away from the scene and informed the incident to PW-1, the wife of the deceased, at her house.
PWs 1 and 2 are said to have rushed to the scene and found the deceased in a pool of blood. PW-1 is said to have gone to the Police Station at about 8:00 p.m., and given a report, Ex.P-1 to the Station House Officer, and Crime No.40 of 2007 was registered for the offences under Sections 302, 307 read with 34 of I.P.C. The dead body was shifted to the nearby Government Hospital, where the inquest and post-mortem were conducted.
Charge-sheet was filed, after conclusion of the investigation. The trial Court framed common charges against A-1 to A-6 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C., and A-2 and A-3 were separately charged for the offences under Section 120-B I.P.C. The trial Court acquitted the accused, observing that there are serious lapses in the prosecution and the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the charges against the accused.
The learned Public Prosecutor for the State, and Sri Prabhunath Vasi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in the Criminal Revision Case, submit that it is a faction case, and the existence of common intention and motive of the accused in the crime is clearly evident, not only from the political affiliations, but also from the grievance in relation to the extension of time for execution of contracts. Learned counsel submit that though there are certain abnormalities and defects in the investigation, they cannot be treated as grounds, to acquit the accused, who have attacked and killed the deceased in a dastardly manner. They submit that PW-1 submitted a complaint, Ex.P-1, at the earliest point of time, and the delay, if any, that has taken place in forwarding the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate, cannot weaken the case. It is also their case that the absence of the names of the accused in the FIR or other minor discrepancies or inconsistencies cannot result in the acquittal of A-1 to A-6. They submit that the evidence on record is sufficient to establish that the accused have a common objective to do away with the life of deceased-Sambasiva Rao, they had assembled, according to a pre-meditated plan, and committed the murder. Reliance is placed upon several precedents, in support of their contentions.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Revision Case has also submitted written arguments.
Smt.C. Vasundhara Reddy, learned counsel for the accused, on the other hand, submits that there is not even a semblance of evidence to prove the charges against the accused and the entire case was knitted to gain political mileage. She submits that though PW-3 mentioned the presence of as many as 3 motorcycles:
viz., 1) the one, on which, himself and the deceased are said to have travelled, 2) another, on which A-5 is said to have come and dashed the vehicle of the deceased, and 3) the scooter is said to have been driven by A-3; the numbers of none of the vehicles were furnished, much fess they were recovered from the scene of offence. She contends that in case PW-3 was present along with the deceased, that too, when as many as six persons were attacking, there would have been semblance of attempt by him to protect the deceased, and his evidence discloses that he was just observing the scene as a spectator. It is also urged that the incident is said to have occurred at a very busy locality in Tenali, that too at 5:30 p.m., and none of the persons in the locality, or any shop keeper were examined to speak about the incident. She contends that it is just unimaginable as to how PW-3 did not receive even a scratch injury when he is said to have jumped from a motorcycle, proceeding on a fairly good speed, particularly if it was dashed by another.
Learned counsel further submits that there is a serious inconsistency as to the very submission of Ex.P-1, or the manner in which the Police have arrived at the scene. She submits that while according to the Investigating Officer, PW-12, the Sub-Inspector, PW-11, received information about the death of the deceased within minutes of the occurrence, reached the spot and recorded the statement of PW-1 on the spot. The version of PW-1 is that she went to the police station at 8:00 p.m., and submitted the complaint and police reached the place thereafter. Learned counsel further submits that the very fact that the statements of the so-called eye witnesses were recorded several days after the incident, discloses that they have all been planted to advance political gain over the accused.
The incident is said to have taken place on 16-04-2007 at 5:30 p.m. According to the prosecution, PW-3 was accompanying the deceased on a motorcycle. He is the person, who is said to have witnessed the entire occurrence and proceeded to inform PW-1 about it. Since this is the account of an alleged eye witness, it is felt necessary to reproduce the version presented by him in his chief- examination.
"...On 16.4.2007 at about 5.15 p.m. while I was returning from Sangamjagarlamudi and reached the Municipal Office, the deceased came on a motor cycle from the Municipal Office and stopped on seeing me. He asked me where I was going. I told him that I was going to my house. He asked me to get on his motor cycle and said that he would drop me at my house which is the same locality as that of the residence of the deceased. When the motorcycle of the deceased reached Nehru Nikethan on Bose road, some vehicle came from behind and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased.
I jumped to the left side of the motor cycle. The deceased fell on the right side having lost balance of motor cycle. The motor cycle went a little head and fell down. By the time I got up and found A5 having left his vehicle with which he dashed our motor cycle. At that time a scooter came and stop. A3 was on that scooter. A3 parked the scooter and removed two knives from the foot mat. They are hunting sickles. M.0.7 are hunting sickles-6. Then I found A3&A5 going towards Sambasivarao who fell down. Al, A6, A4 and A2 were already there surrounding Sambasivarao who fell down. Sambasivarao was trying to get up. He fell down face upwards. A3 hacked Sambasivarao with hunting sickle on his chest twice. A6 hacked Sambasivarao with hunting sickle on the neck. Again Sambasivarao fell down facing up. I raised cries not to kill him. A6 came showed the hunting sickle and threatened me saying that if I raised cries he would kill me. Al hacked Sambasivarao with hunting sickle on his mouth. A5 hacked Sambasivarao on his throat. Sambasivarao raised his hands toward of the blows. A2 was on the left side of Sambasivarao. A4 was on the right side of Sambasivarao. They hacked Sambasivarao with the hunting knives shouting that he should die. A2 and A6 went away on the motorcycle of A5 after the incident. A3 went away on his scooter. Al , A4 and A5 went away by a lane. I went to the house of deceased Sambasivarao and informed P.W.1 as to what was occurred. P.W.1 crying took the assistance of neighbours and asked me to show the spot..."
PW-3 referred to the involvement of as many as three motorcycles: one driven by the deceased, the second driven by A-5, and the third one by A-3. Nowhere in the record, the numbers of the vehicles were indicated. He did not furnish the numbers of the vehicles. Even in her complaint, Ex.P-1, PW-1 did not mention the numbers of the vehicles. It is also important to note that the incident is said to have occurred at 5:30 p.m. on 16-04-2007, whereas the scene of offence report was prepared 13 hours thereafter, i.e. on 17-04-2007, at 6:30 hours. For the first time, the number of vehicle on which, the deceased and PW-3 were said to have travelled, is mentioned at this stage.
The deceased is a well-known political personality in Tenali. He was a prominent leader in Telugu Deasam Party and all the accused are said to be his followers. He switched over to Congress party and was elected as a Councillor. The news of the death of that person, whether natural or homicidal; is bound to spread quickly through out the town.
PW-1 is not an eye witness to the occurrence. She is said to have received the information about the death of her husband, only through PW-3. Even in her chief-examination, PW-1 stated that she was asked by the S.I. of Police, PW-11, to give a written complaint, and accordingly she got it prepared in the Police Station and gave it at 8:00 p.m on 16-04-2007. She is silent as to whether the Police reached the scene of occurrence by the time, she went to the spot. It was only in the cross-examination she admitted that she has seen the Police, controlling the mob, that gathered at the scene of occurrence. PW-1 denied the suggestion that she came to the spot only in the night with the Police escort. She admitted that there is no mention in Ex.P-1, about the time and place of occurrence, or the name of the person, who drafted it. Though in the chief-examination PW-1 stated that a case was registered, on a complaint submitted by her husband against A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5, alleging that they were making attempt to attack him, she pleaded ignorance about the details thereof. She admitted that the deceased and his brother were convicted for the offence of committing the murder of one Mr.Javvadi Narasimha Rao, but were acquitted by the High Court. She feigned ignorance to a question, whether her husband figured as an accused in a murder case. She pleaded ignorance about the details of the accused and denied the suggestion that Ex.P-1 was fabricated.
PW-3 was cross-examined extensively. He admitted that he was an agent for the deceased, when he contested in the Municipal Elections, and that himself filed nomination against A-3 from the 15th Ward, but has later on withdrawn it. He stated that he never contemplated of giving report to the Police about the death of the deceased. The time of arrival of Police is mentioned by him, as under:
"...Police arrived at the scene of offence in or about 10 or 15 minutes after myself and PW-1 reached the scene of offence along with others..."
However, PW-1 1, the S.I. of Police, who received the complaint from PW-1, stated that he received information about the death of the deceased, when he was on rounds, and soon thereafter, proceeded to the spot, without even registering the case. He stated, "...I have not observed if the wife of the deceased came to the scene of offence. I could not identify the wife of the deceased till she gave the report to me at 8 p.m. I immediately returned to the police station after the superior officers came to the scene of offence. By the time I came to the police station some people were drafting the report in connection with this incident. Both ladies and gents were present. I have not made any G.D. entry about what I have observed and the information received. PW.1 was also present in the police station by the time I came to police station and she was getting the report drafted. I have not observed to whose dictation Ex.P.1 was drafted, and by whom. Ex.P.18 col.No.15 is left blank..."
Normally, the question of S.l of Police, PW-11, entering the scene, till the case is registered, does not arise. That occurred only at 8:00 p.m. If the death of a person occurs on account of homicide, it is only after preparing the scene of offence panchanama and causing the inquest, that the dead body must be shifted to the hospital for postmortem. In the instant case, however, the dead body was removed without complying with those formalities and were taken in such a hasty and surreptitious manner, that even PW-11, the S.I., was not aware as to when the dead body was taken to the hospital. He stated in his cross-examination, as under:
...I do not know when the dead body was shifted from the scene of offence..."
The FIR reached the concerned Magistrate, post midnight. The investigation Officer, PW-12 is said to have entered the scene of offence between 6:15 to 6:30 p.m., and he has taken cognizance of the matter without even ensuring that a case is registered or entry is made in G.D. The relevant portion of the deposition of PW-2 in the cross-examination reads:
...I do not know if P.W.11 have made any GD entry regarding the information received by him. I have ascertained from P.W.11 and the station GD about the G.D. entry regarding the information received. There was no entry made by P.W.11 and he disclosed that he was away from the station, when he received information and when he returned to the station Ex.P1 is received. I entered the scene of offence between 6-15 to 6-30 p.m. By the time I reached the scene of offence, I was aware of the name of the deceased who was hacked to death. I did not make any effort to enquire about any information regarding who has witnessed the occurrence of the incident. I have gone to the scene of offence and took cognizance of the same. I have not noticed whether the wife of the deceased came to the scene of offence by the time I went there. P.W.1 her brother and others were present. Then I asked them to give a report with regard to the occurrence of offence which is before 7 p.m. I sent a requisition to MRO around 7 p.m to proclaim 144 Cr.P.C proceedings. I got oral information about the presence of direct witnesses and I have summoned them to appear before me at the time of inquest. The witnesses on verification of part-I C.I states that the fact is not mentioned in part-I CD..."
PW-12 admitted that PWs 1 and 2 did not state before him, about the alleged participation of A-6 in the crime. He admitted that several submissions are not supported by the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. No reason is forthcoming as to why the dead body was shifted without conducting inquest, and without information to the S.I of Police, PW-11. While PW-1 stated that she submitted Ex.P-1 on being required by the S.I, PW-11, PW-12, the I.0, stated that he asked PW-1 to give a report about the occurrence. The charge-sheet did not ascribe any specific role to PWs 5 and 6, the so-called eye witnesses, nor their presence was spoken to by PW-3.
PW-5 stated that not only he has seen the deceased and PW-3 proceeding on a motorcycle, but also the attack upon the deceased by A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-6. It is important to note that this witness was examined by the Police only on 18-04-2007. It was elicited from him that his family has quite large number of business establishments, such as cable network, consultancy and real estate business, cool drinks shops and tea stall in the name of 'Surya Vamshi', and that they managed air conditioned business premises.
In his chief-examination PW-5 stated that when the murder of the deceased took place, he was present at the scene, in the process of selling coconuts on a pushcart. It is just unimaginable that a person, who maintains air conditioned business premises, that too in different fields of activity; would sell coconuts on a pushcart. If, in fact, PW-5 was at the scene of offence, either he would have volunteered to tell the Police, or the Police, which reached the spot immediately, would have verified from him. Though he feigned ignorance about his acquaintance with Ex-Chairman, Masthanamma, he admitted his photograph along with Masthanamma, in Ex.D-8 as true. The contradictions elicited from PW-5 are in considerable number.
PW-6 was cited as another eye witness. He too repeated the same thing, what PW-5 stated. The only difference is that PW-6 was said to be the person on the spot, as a customer of PW-5, to purchase a tender coconut. PW-6 stated that he was on the spot, but was pushed by the Police. His statement was recorded by Police on 19-04-2007, at his house. The manner in which PW-12 imagined the presence of PW-6 is a mystery. PW-6 admitted that he was working with cable network of PW-5, and the deceased was having share in the establishment. He has also stated that he did not disclose the registration numbers of the motor vehicles or the names of the persons, who are said to have committed the crime. Several inconsistencies were elicited from this witness. He admitted that no test identification was held for identifying the accused.
PWs 7 and 8 are the panch witnesses, and PW-10 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, who conducted the postmortem.
A close scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence on record would disclose that there is any amount of uncertainty as to how the occurrence, leading to the death of the deceased, came to be noticed. The evidence of PW-3, the eye witness, cited at the beginning; is not trustworthy. If, in fact, he is travelling along with the deceased on a motorcycle and jumped from it, that too when it was dashed by another motorcycle, driven by some of the accused, one would expect, at least bruises on his body. Further, it was only on account of his friendship with the deceased, that he was given lift, as a pillion rider, on the way. If something serious occurs to a friend of that nature, one does not expect PW-3 to remain quiet. There were not even blood stains upon him, nor he was able to procure the others in the busy locality at 5:30 p.m. Instead, he is said to have proceeded to the house of the deceased, after the accused fled away and informed PW-1 about the incident. PW-3 is certainly an interested witness, so much so, he was an agent for the deceased in the Municipal Elections, and himself filed a nomination against one of the accused.
The time of arrival of police on the scene of occurrence is another unexplained fact. According to PW-1, the Police reached after she came to the spot, whereas the S.I of Police, PW-1 1 stated that he did not know the presence of PWs 1 and 3.
Shifting of the dead body, that too of an important political personality cannot take place except with the knowledge, if not permission of the wife and children, or other relations. PWs 1 and 2 did not mention as to when the dead body was shifted, and even the SI of Police, PW-11, feigned ignorance about it. Though PW-11 is said to have received information at about 6 '0' clock and rushed to the spot and the C.I of Police, PW-12 has taken cognizance of the case almost at 6 '0' clock. There was not even a G.D entry, let alone registration of crime till 8:00 p.m. Even PW-1 was not able to recollect as to who wrote the complaint, Ex.P-1, and PW-11 admitted that by the time he went to the Police Station, Ex.P-1 was being prepared. 2 1/2 hours time between the occurrence and preparation of Ex.P-1 is sufficient for one, to deliberate and meditate upon, to implicate the opponents, particularly when the death is the result of faction rivalry.
The timing at which, PWs 5 and 6 were examined, and the purport of their evidence totally rules out their presence at the scene of offence. The record also discloses that the deceased himself was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, albeit he was acquitted in an appeal.
There were not only political, but also faction rivalries, surrounding the deceased. It is only when the evidence is clear as to the cause of death, and the witnesses are trustworthy, that the Court can be persuaded to convict the persons, named as accused. Those elements are glaringly absent in the instant case.
Learned counsel for the complainant placed reliance upon certain precedents. In Sathyavir Singh v. State of U.P.', the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborated the principles of appreciation of evidence; the circumstances under which, benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused, and the circumstances under which, an acquittal can be interfered by an Appellate Court. The judgment in State of U.P v. M.K.Anthony2, is on the same lines. In Leela Ram v. State of Haryana3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the precautions, that are required to be taken for appreciating the evidence of related witnesses and the eye witnesses. In Munshi Prasad v. State of Bihar4, the Supreme Court
1) (2010) 3 SCC 174
2) (1985)1 SCC 505
3) (1999) 9 SCC 525
4) (2002) 1 SCC 351 explained the precautions, that are required to be taken, while appreciating the evidence of the witnesses of different categories.
In State of M.P v. Dharkole5, the manner in which, the medical evidence must be appreciated; is pointed out. Certain other judgments are also cited on the same lines.
We have examined the entire case, with reference to the well-established principles of criminal law, some of which, are described in the precedents, referred to above. We, however, do not find that the prosecution was able to establish that the accused have committed the murder of the deceased. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal as well as the revision.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in the appeal and revision shall also stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
M.S.K. JAISWAL, J.
Dt.28-02-2014.