Back
2017 Supreme(AP) 410
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SANJAY KUMAR, SHAMEEM AKTHER, JJ.
Konakala Ramakrishna @ Ramu and others - Appellants
Vs.
State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.246 OF 2011
Decided on : 22-09-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Headnote:
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1986 - Sections 3 & 4 - Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2007 - Offence of Murder – Appeal of Conviction - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 148, 302, 326, 324, 149, 427,307, 498A, 506, 161 and 354 – Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 374(2) and 161 - Appeal under Section is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Family Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge at in Sessions - By the said judgment the Sessions Court held guilty under Section were held guilty under Section IPC for the murder – Imprisonment for a period of one year for their conviction under Section were sentenced to imprisonment for life apart from paying a fine in default of which they were to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each, for their conviction under Section IPC in so far as the murder of was concerned were sentenced to imprisonment for life and payment of fine in default of which they were to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each for their conviction under Section IPC read with Section IPC for the murder of were sentenced to imprisonment for life and payment of a fine each in default of which they were to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each for their conviction under Section IPC for the murder were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each apart from payment of a fine in default of which they were to undergo imprisonment for two months each for their conviction under Section – Held, political intervention and the glaring inconsistencies in the prosecutions case, including registration and dispatch of the two FIRs, giving rise to a strong likelihood of manipulation of the case by the police, the version of the prosecution as put forth opens the door to doubt and suspicion. That apart, the prosecution failed to present the genesis and origin of the occurrence in its entirety - Court finds that the prosecutions case was fraught with inconsistencies and weaknesses the fundamental defect being its failure to present the origin and genesis of the occurrence in its full and true form. Further the eye-witness accounts of P.Ws.1 to 5 and 8 are shown to be unworthy of credibility on counts more than one - Benefit of doubt would therefore have to be extended to the accused as the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that they were responsible for the homicidal deaths - Brushing aside all these crucial aspects - Judgment passed by the learned Family Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam in Sessions holding to this effect is therefore set aside - Criminal appeal is allowed.
Sanjay Kumar, J.
1. This appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC is directed against the judgment dated 21.02.2011 passed by the learned Family Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam in Sessions Case No.560 of 2008. By the said judgment, the Sessions Court held A1 to A5 guilty under Section 148 IPC; A1 and A5 were held guilty under Section 302 IPC for the murder of M.Sheshulu (D1); A2 to A4 were also held guilty under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC for the murder of D1; A1 to A4 were found guilty under Section 302 IPC for the murder of M.Venkata Satyanarayana (D2), the son of D1; A3 and A5 were held guilty under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon to Mareedu Srinivasa Rao (P.W.8); A1, A2 and A4 were held guilty under Section 324 IPC read with Section 149 IPC for having caused hurt with a dangerous weapon to Mareedu Srinivasa Rao (P.W.8); and A5 was acquitted of the charge under Section 427 IPC. Pursuant to the aforestated convictions, the following sentences were imposed by the Sessions Court:
A1 to A5 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for their conviction under Section 148 IPC; A1 and A5 were sentenced to imprisonment for life apart from paying a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of which they were to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each, for their conviction under Section 302 IPC in so far as the murder of D1 was concerned; A2 to A4 were sentenced to imprisonment for life and payment of fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of which they were to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each, for their conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC for the murder of D1; A1 to A4 were sentenced to imprisonment for life and payment of a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of which they were to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each, for their conviction under Section 302 IPC for the murder of D2; A3 and A5 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each apart from payment of a fine of Rs.200/- each, in default of which they were to undergo imprisonment for two months each, for their conviction under Section 326 IPC; A1, A2 and A4 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year each for their conviction under Section 324 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. All the sentences were to run concurrently.
2. Aggrieved by the convictions and sentences visited upon them, A1 to A5 are in appeal.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, was as under:
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalluru Police Station (P.W.14), received Ex.P1 report from P.W.1 on 28.02.2007 at about 12.00 noon. He thereupon registered a case in Crime No.24 of 2007 under Sections 302 and 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. Ex.P30 is the printed FIR. He sent the injured to the Government Hospital, Sathupalli. The Circle Inspector of Police, Sathupalli (P.W.15), thereupon took up investigation. He examined and recorded the statement of P.W.1. He visited the scene of the offence and having secured the presence of mediators, P.W.9 and Venukonda Koteswar Rao (L.W.14), he observed the scene of the offence and drew up a rough sketch, in their presence. Ex.P2 is the Crime Details Form along with the sketch of the scene. He seized blood-stained earth and controlled earth from the scene of the offence and conducted an inquest over the body of D1 in the presence of P.W.9 and Venukonda Koteswar Rao (L.W.14) from 1.15 PM to 3.45 PM. During the inquest, he examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.2 to 5, Mareedu Venkatakrishna (L.W.6), P.W.6 and P.W.7. He then conducted an inquest over the body of D2 in the presence of P.W.9 and Venukonda Koteswar Rao (L.W.14). He got the scene of the offence and the dead bodies photographed by P.W.10. He also recorded the statement of P.W.10 to this effect. He then forwarded the bodies of D1 and D2 to Penuballi Government Hospital for post-mortem examination. He examined P.W.8, Anabothu Seethamma (L.W.10) and Naidu Krishn
