Back
2015 Supreme(AP) 838
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Nooty Ramamohana Rao and Anis, JJ.
Rajamoori Ram Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of A.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 806 and 909 of 2010
Decided On : 29-10-2015
For the Appellant :V. Manohar Rao and K. Pradeep Reedy, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor (TG).
Headnote:
Criminal Law – Criminal Trial – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with 34 – Offence of Murder – Appeal against conviction – Complainant and deceased, his brother-in-law, went out to consult a lawyer, who is prosecuting one of cases, in which the deceased was interested. Around 9.45 p.m. after the consultation work with the advocate was over, they were returning via clock tower area. It is PW1, who was riding the motorcycle, while the deceased was riding as a pillion – Deceased seems to have suggested to PW1 to stop the motorcycle and go to nearby chips shop to buy the same. Accordingly, PW1 stopped his motor cycle, went to a nearby shop, purchased chips and while returning from a distance of 10 feet, he has seen his brother-in-law, the deceased, has been attacked by five or six people with hunting sickles and other deadly weapons – Because of hue and cry raised by him, the accused persons ran away from the scene and though PW1 tried to catch hold of them, he could not succeed. By the time, he returned, his brother-in-law has collapsed on the road – Held, No reason for not investigating as to the possible linkage of A1, A2 & A3 to A4. In the absence of any material for suspecting the role of accused for commission of the offence, it becomes very difficult for us to believe that it is A1, A2 & A3, who alone have committed the crime. To cover up, PW1 has improved the case, by attributing motive for the offence to A1 & A2. Thus, the original theory of hired killers, as mentioned in Ex.P1 was changed to that of direct action for a motive – Nobody expressed suspicion against A1 to A3 when I enquired about the offence – Except the confession of A1 to A3 there is no material to connect A1 to A3 with the death of the deceased – It is no doubt true that it was further added that the accused were covered while showing them before the media, but, still the fact remains that if the accused persons were already presented before public media, the subsequent identification parade that is carried out on 19th April, 2008 loses much of its credibility – Hence court not willing to attach any significance to the identification parade carried out and the identity established during such a parade – Prosecution has failed to establish that it is A1 to A3, who have committed the offence charged against them and hence, they are entitled to be acquitted – Appeals are allowed. (Paras 19 to 24)
Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.
1. Since both these appeals are directed against the judgment and sentence rendered by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar, in Sessions Case No.7 of 2009, dated 16.06.2010, we heard them together.
2. Crl. A.No.806 of 2010 was preferred by accused No.2, while Crl.A.No.909 of 2010 was preferred by accused Nos. 1 and 3.
3. The case of the prosecution is that PW1, the complainant and the deceased, his brother-in-law, went out to consult a lawyer, who is prosecuting one of the cases, in which the deceased was interested. Around 9.45 p.m. after the consultation work with the advocate was over, they were returning via clock tower area. It is PW1, who was riding the motorcycle, while the deceased was riding as a pillion. The deceased seems to have suggested to PW1 to stop the motorcycle and go to nearby chips shop to buy the same. Accordingly, PW1 stopped his motor cycle, went to a nearby shop, purchased chips and while returning from a distance of 10 feet, he has seen his brother-in-law, the deceased, has been attacked by five or six people with hunting sickles and other deadly weapons. Because of the hue and cry raised by him, the accused persons ran away from the scene and though PW1 tried to catch hold of them, he could not succeed. By the time, he returned, his brother-in-law has collapsed on the road. It is the specific case of the prosecution that it is PW1 along with some others, shifted the deceased to the local Government Hospital and then he went to the police station and lodged the complaint-Ex.P1. After investigation, accused Nos. 1 to 3 have been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
4. In support of the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P1 to P17 have been got marked. Six material objects, of which Mos.1 to 3 are the hunting sickles allegedly used by the accused for accomplishing the crime, are also got marked. Mos.4 to 6 are the apparel worn by the deceased. The Sessions Court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and accordingly, sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-.
5. Entire case hinges upon the version spoken to by PW1. PW1 is a young man of around 28 years. He has set out that his sister was given in marriage to the deceased and their son by name Hari Teja was studying 10th Class and with a view to help him, get proper schooling, the deceased seems to have hired a premises in Mahabubnagar Town. To look after his son, the deceased used to frequent Mahabubnagar from his village Marikal. On 12.03.2008 at about 2.00 p.m. the deceased was stated to have gone to Mahahubnagar Town from Marikal Village. Around 8.30 p.m. while PW1 was staying at his house, the deceased came there and suggested PW1 to accompany him to have a consultation with his lawyer. In as much as one Srinivas Goud, a Journalist has got published a news item describing the deceased as a rowdy sheeter, the deceased has filed a criminal case for defamation against the said Srinivas Goud, the Journalist. The said case appears to have been posted to 14.03.2008. Hence, the visit to lawyer's office was undertaken. It is stated by PW1 that after the consultation was over around 9.45 p.m., they were returning and that PW1 was riding the motorcycle while the deceased was the pillion rider. Upon a request made by the deceased, PW1 appears to have stopped the motor cycle near Ocean Lodge and went to buy chips leaving the motor cycle and the deceased behind. After purchasing the chips when he was returning, he observed the accused attacking the deceased with hunting sickles. He has clearly deposed that he has observed the attack from a distance of 10 feet and he has observed the attackers hacking on the neck and head of the deceased. Upon the hue and cry raised by him, the accused party ran away from the scene of offence and though he tried to catch hold
