Back
2014 Supreme(AP) 1554
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
L. Narasimha Reddy and M.S.K. Jaiswal, JJ.
Poteti Yellaiah - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 326 and 916 of 2010
Decided on : 16-04-2014
For the Appellant :T. Bali Reddy for K. Suresh Reddy, Mrs. A. Gayatri Reddy, Advocate.
Headnote:
Criminal Law – Criminal Trial – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 394 – Offence of murder and robbery at a religious place – Prosecution was that, the deceased, by name, Mummalaneni Sambasiva Rao, became a religious personality, and with his own funds, he constructed a three storied building abutting the main road from Khammam to Suryapet in the Tallampadu Village. Lord Shiva temple existed on the second floor – Sambasiva Rao and his wife, PW.1, were residing in the first floor, and the facilities for devotees were provided in the ground floor. At around 11.00 p.m., on 09.09.2007 Sambasiva Rao is said to have woken up and opened the door to go to the ground floor to answer nature call, and at that time, three unknown persons came and gained entry into the premises. They are said to have dealt blows upon PW.1, and took Sambasiva Rao to the ground floor and caused his death – They are also said to have taken away DVD player, Mangalasutra and two ear studs of PW.1, and bolted the premises from outside by leaving her inside. The land telephone connection is said to have snapped away by the culprits – Held, a close perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record reveals that the accused in this case are habitual dacoits and robberies that the commission of offences vis-à-vis, the deceased, and PW.1 is established. It may be true that PW.1 stated that the persons, who entered their house, had masks on their faces. However, it would not be difficult for a person, who received the injuries in the hands of such persons, to identify them with reference to their broad features, such as height, the way in which, they talk, look, behave etc. PW.1 suffered injuries in the hands of the accused and her attention is bound to be focused on the persons, who caused injuries to her. Added to that, the recovery of the articles stolen from the accused leaves hardly any doubt in the matter. Therefore, the charge referable to Section 394 IPC can safely be said to have been proved –Accused were held guilty of charge punishable under Section 302 IPC also. We find some strength in the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that even PW.1 did not throw any light on this aspect, since she is said to have been bolted inside, and that no other independent evidence exists. A1 and A3 did not have any specific grievance or animosity against the deceased, and at the most, they may have dealt with him very roughly and in a violent manner, in the process of committing robbery, and that may have resulted in the death of the deceased. We are of the view that it is a case that it fits into Part–II of Section 304 IPC – Appeals partly allowed. (Paras 13 and 14)
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
These two appeals arise out of the judgment dated 08.02.2010 rendered by the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Khammam in S.C. No. 333 of 2009. All the three accused were put to trial with the charges of murder and robbery at a religious place in Thallampadu Village of Khammam District, on the intervening night of 9th/10th of September, 2007. The case against A2 is said to have been split up due to his non-availability. The trial Court convicted A1 and A3 for the offences alleged against them. Sentences of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each was imposed on both the accused, for the two offences, separately. The sentences, however, were directed to run concurrently. While A1 filed the Crl.A. No. 916 of 2010, A3 filed Crl.A. No. 326 of 2010.
2. The case of the prosecution was that, the deceased, by name, Mummalaneni Sambasiva Rao, became a religious personality, and with his own funds, he constructed a three storied building abutting the main road from Khammam to Suryapet in the Tallampadu Village. Lord Shiva temple existed on the second floor. Sambasiva Rao and his wife, PW.1, were residing in the first floor, and the facilities for devotees were provided in the ground floor. At around 11.00 p.m., on 09.09.2007 Sambasiva Rao is said to have woken up and opened the door to go to the ground floor to answer nature call, and at that time, three unknown persons came and gained entry into the premises. They are said to have dealt blows upon PW.1, and took Sambasiva Rao to the ground floor and caused his death. They are also said to have taken away DVD player, Mangalasutra and two ear studs of PW.1, and bolted the premises from outside by leaving her inside. The land telephone connection is said to have snapped away by the culprits.
3. PW.1 is said to have passed on information about the incident, to her brother, PW.4, who was working in the police station at Mudigonda of Khammam District. The poojari of temple, PW.2, is said to have come to the place in the morning, and opened the door of the premises in the first floor. He is also said to have noticed the dead body of Sambasiva Rao, and that, number of persons or devotees, have gathered.
4. A written complaint, Ex.P1, was submitted by PW.1 at 10.00 a.m., after the police reached the place of occurrence. The scene of offence panchanama was prepared, inquest on the body was conducted, and it was sent for postmortem examination. The statements of the persons, who are acquainted with the incident, were recorded.
5. In the course of investigation, the accused are said to have been arrested by PW.9 on 07.11.2007. A test identification parade was conducted in the presence of PW.11, and the stolen items are said to have been recovered under a panchanama. With this information, PW.9 filed a charge sheet. The trial Court framed the charges and on the accused pleading not guilty, the trial was conducted. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P1 to P20 were filed. MOs. 1 to 8 were also taken on record. A1 to A3 were convicted and sentenced.
6. Sri T. Bali Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for A3 and Smt A. Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel for A1, submit that the entire case depends upon the circumstantial evidence, and the one adduced by the prosecution, is not at all sufficient to link the accused to the unfortunate incident. They submit that PW.1 was not at all sure, as to the manner in which, Ex.P1 was presented, and a scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that the entire case was engineered by PW.4, the police official. They contend that according to PW.1, the faces of the assailants covered with masks, and it is just impossible for her to identify them in the test identification parade. They further submit that no evidence whatever, in relation to the charge referable to Section 302 IPC was proved, and still the trial Court held A1 and A3 guilty of that offence also.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the o
