2020 Supreme(AP) 119
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, BATTU DEVANAND, JJ.
Bojjagani Durga Prasad – Petitioner
Versus
State of A.P. – Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 701 of 2015
Decided On : 01-05-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Dr. Challa Srinivasa Reddy.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 read with 34 IPC and 201 read with 34 – Offence of Murder – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Whether proved beyond reasonable doubt - held, it is clear that four witnesses examined by the prosecution i.e. PWs. 5 to 8, to depose on the circumstances relied upon by them namely motive and the accused being last seen in the company of the deceased, failed to support the case of the prosecution. These four witnesses did not support the prosecution case and all the suggestions given to them in the cross-examination, were denied. Therefore, in the absence of any legal evidence, it can be said that the two circumstances namely motive and the accused being last seen in the company of the deceased relied upon by the prosecution, are not proved, as such, we hold that it is a fit case where the prosecution failed to adduce evidence connecting the accused with the crime - Criminal Appeal is allowed
Facts of the Case:
while PW-1 Chinka Srilakshmi was at her office, Chattu Venkateswarulu (PW-2) and Matukoya Chitti Babu (LW-4) came to her and informed that they found a dead-body bundled in a thick cloth at a culvert leading from Thulluru to Amaravathi road. The culvert was underneath the road. She went to the culvert, saw the dead-body, immediately went to Thulluru police station and lodged a report with the Sub-Inspector of Police PW-10. Ex.P1 is the report given by PW-1, basing on which, a case in Crime No. 77 of 2013 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P15 is the FIR. PW-11 Circle Inspector of Police took up further investigation
Finding of the Court:
It is clear that four witnesses examined by the prosecution i.e. PWs. 5 to 8, to depose on the circumstances relied upon by them namely motive and the accused being last seen in the company of the deceased, failed to support the case of the prosecution. These four witnesses did not support the prosecution case and all the suggestions given to them in the cross-examination, were denied. Therefore, in the absence of any legal evidence, it can be said that the two circumstances namely motive and the accused being last seen in the company of the deceased relied upon by the prosecution, are not proved, as such, we hold that it is a fit case where the prosecution failed to adduce evidence connecting the accused with the crime
Result: Criminal Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Dr. Challa Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State through Video Conference operating through Blue-jeans App.
2. A1 and A2 in S.C. No. 489 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur, are the appellants herein. Both of them were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC and 201 read with 34 IPC. By its judgment dated 10.07.2015, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months each for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. They were also convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month each for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with 34 IPC. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The facts, as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, are as follows:
On 19.07.2013 at 04:00 p.m. while PW-1 Chinka Srilakshmi was at her office, Chattu Venkateswarulu (PW-2) and Matukoya Chitti Babu (LW-4) came to her and informed that they found a dead-body bundled in a thick cloth at a culvert leading from Thulluru to Amaravathi road. The culvert was underneath the road. She went to the culvert, saw the dead-body, immediately went to Thulluru police station and lodged a report with the Sub-Inspector of Police PW-10. Ex.P1 is the report given by PW-1, basing on which, a case in Crime No. 77 of 2013 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P15 is the FIR. PW-11 Circle Inspector of Police took up further investigation. He visited the scene of offence situated near Harichandrapuram village. At 05:30 p.m., the Sub-Inspector of Police along with PW-1 came to the scene of offence and handed over copy of the F.I.R. to PW-11. After perusing the copy of the F.I.R. PW-11 recorded the statement of PW-1, observed the scene of offence in the presence of PW-1 and one Budi Sambasiva Rao (LW-17 not examined) and prepared an observation report which is marked as Ex.P2. He also prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence which is placed on record as Ex.P16. PW-4, the photographer, took photographs of the deceased which are placed on record as Ex.P7. Though PW-11 enquired with the people, who were present there, none of them identified the dead-body. It is to be noted that the police, who arrived at the scene, opened the cloth bundle and examined the dead-body. They also noticed injuries on the body. Panchanama to that effect was prepared which is said to have been marked as Ex.P2. Before sending the body for post-mortem examination, PW-11 conducted inquest over the dead-body in the present of PW-1 and others. Ex.P3 is the inquest report. Thereafter, he sent the dead-body for conducting post-mortem examination. PW-9 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Amaravati conducted autopsy over the dead-body on 29.07.2013 between 04:00 P.M. and 06:00 P.M. and issued Ex.P14 -post-mortem report. According to the Doctor, the cause of death of the deceased was due to hypovolemic shock and excessive bleeding with multiple injuries. The time of death was between 7 and 10 days prior to the post-mortem examination. As nobody claimed the dead-body, PW-11 sent a requisition to the Gram Panchayat for its burial. He examined PWs. 2, 3 and others and recorded their statements. On 10.08.2013, while PW-11 was in the office, PW-5 Jasti Perma came to him and stated that the unknown dead-body of a male person is that of her foster son. He examined her and recorded the statement. When photographs were shown she identified the body as that of her foster son. Basing on the information furnished by PW-5, PW-11 went to Tadepalli and recorded the statements of PWs. 6, 7 and