2017 Supreme(AP) 301

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, M.S.K. JAISWAL, JJ.
Nakka Sreenivasa Rao @ Sreenu, Sanyasinaidu - Appellant
Vs.
State of A.P., reptd by Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.33 & 362 of 2011
Decided On : 04-07-2017

Mere confession which did not lead to discovery of a fact is not admissible in evidence.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 I.P.C. - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 27 - CONFESSION - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - MOTIVE - DELAY IN LODGING FIR - CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES - DYING DECLARATION - POST-MORTEM REPORT - SEIZURE - WITNESSES - Held, that the prosecution failed to establish the motive on the part of accused No.1 and also the identity of the person, who gave Ex.P-1 report to the Police; that there was a long delay of 8 hours in giving Ex.P-1-report to the Police, which gave scope for false implications by the investigating agency; that even as per the prosecution case, there were no eye-witnesses and that all the witnesses are either hearsay or circumstantial witnesses and their evidence is highly artificial.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased-Karri Mahalaxmi Naidu is the junior paternal uncle of accused No.3. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are the maternal uncles of accused No.3. The mother of the deceased was the actual Sarpanch of Kattubolu village. The deceased was acting as a de facto Sarpanch. The father of the deceased had Acs.30.00 of land at the time of the marriage of the mother of accused No.3 with Karri Ramu-the elder brother of the deceased. The deceased acquired certain lands on his own by doing real estate business. As Karri Ramu-the elder brother of the deceased, the father of accused No.3 and L.W.3-Rameswara Rao and another brother of the deceased, were not worldly wise, the deceased used to maintain the entire family. Due to family differences, accused No.3, his sister and their parents were residing separately in the same village for nine years and their maintenance was being looked after by the deceased. As the money given by the deceased was not sufficient for running the family of the parents of accused No.3, his maternal grandfather (father of accused Nos.1 and 2), used to support the family by providing rice, dal etc. In the year 2004, accused No.3 joined Indian Army. Two years prior to the date of occurrence, the mother of accused No.3 died due to her ill-health. The father of accused No.3 and the deceased did not look after the needs of the sister of accused No.3 and therefore, the father of accused Nos.1 and 2 took her to his house and later, he along with accused Nos.1 and 2 raised dispute demanding the deceased to allot shares in the landed property to accused No.3 and his sister. In connection with the same, P.W.3 held a panchayat, during which, the deceased at the first instance, agreed to give Acs.5.00 of land as share, but later, he went back by saying that all the properties were acquired with his own earnings. In the month of May, 2006, an altercation took place between the deceased and the father of accused Nos.1 and 2, during which, the deceased and his followers beat the father of accused Nos.1 and 2 and his family members with iron pipes and sticks and caused grievous injuries to them, for which, a case in Crime No.34 of 2006 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections- 147, 148, 326, 324 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C. against the deceased and his followers and the same is pending before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellamanchili as C.C.No.539 of 2006; that since the said incident, the father of accused Nos.1 and 2 became physically challenged with inability to walk; that during the said altercation, the deceased also chased accused No.1, who managed to escape and that since then, accused No.1 is residing with his wife at Yellamanchili due to the fear of the deceased. In the Sarpanch elections held on 02.08.2006, the mother of the deceased contested with the support of Telugu Desam party; that in that election, accused Nos.1 and 2 and their father supported the rival group of Congress-I party and both the parties tried to cause breach of peace and public tranquility in the village and in that connection, a case in Crime No.50 of 2006 was registered for the offence under Section-107 Cr.P.C. by arraigning the deceased as R-1 of A-party and the father of accused Nos.1 and 2 as R-6 of B-party, which is also pending in the Court of the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Rambilli, vide M.C.No.10 of 2006. In view of the afore-mentioned incidents, accused Nos.1 to 3 and the father of accused Nos.1 and 2 bore grudge against the deceased and openly proclaimed that they will do away with the life of the deceased. While so, accused No.3, who is working in Indian Army, came to the house of accused No.1 at Yellamanchili on thirty days annual leave from 20.02.2008. All the accused hatched a plan to do away with the life of the deceased and according to their plan, they waited for an opportunity during nights in the hut of one Agraharapu Ammannathalli situated by the side of mud road running from Kattubolu Village to the house of the deceased. On the day of the occurrence, i.e., on the evening of 27.02.2008, accused Nos.1 and 3 left Yellamanchili Village on their mother cycle, went to Kattubolu village, hid their motor cycle in the outskirts, both of them went to the house of accused No.2 and there, accused Nos.1 and 2 picked up knives and all the three accused lurked in the hut of Ammannathalli situated by the side of mud road running from Kattubolu Village to the house of the deceased.

Finding of the Court:

The prosecution failed to establish the motive on the part of accused No.1 and also the identity of the person, who gave Ex.P-1 report to the Police; that there was a long delay of 8 hours in giving Ex.P-1-report to the Police, which gave scope for false implications by the investigating agency; that even as per the prosecution case, there were no eye-witnesses and that all the witnesses are either hearsay or circumstantial witnesses and their evidence is highly artificial.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution has established the motive on the part of accused No.1 and the identity of the person, who gave Ex.P-1 report to the Police? 2. Whether there was a long delay of 8 hours in giving Ex.P-1-report to the Police, which gave scope for false implications by the investigating agency? 3. Whether there were any eye-witnesses and whether all the witnesses are either hearsay or circumstantial witnesses and their evidence is highly artificial?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The prosecution failed to establish the alleged dispute over partition as the motive for the accused to commit the offence. 2. The prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive for the accused to commit the offence. 3. The prosecution failed to establish with certainty as to the person who gave the first information to the Police about the alleged murder throws any amount of doubt on the creditability of the whole case of the prosecution. 4. The prosecution failed to explain the long delay of 8 hours in Ex.P-7-F.I.R. reaching the Court of the jurisdictional Magistrate, which might have given room for false implication of the accused. 5. The prosecution failed to explain the long delay in lodging Ex.P-1-report in the Police Station and Ex.P-7-F.I.R. reaching the Court of the jurisdictional Magistrate, which might have given room for false implication of the accused. 6. The prosecution failed to establish the links in the chain of circumstances, namely, motive and the participation of the accused in commission of the offence through the circumstantial evidence.

Final Decision: Criminal Appeal No.362 of 2011 (which is treated as Criminal Revision Case) is dismissed and Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2011 is allowed and the impugned judgment of the Court below to the extent of the conviction and sentence of accused No.1 is set aside.