Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 358
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
C. Praveen Kumar, B. Krishna Mohan, JJ.
Tatapudi Mohan Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1255 of 2012
Decided On : 13-08-2020
A. Gayatri Reddy, Advocate
The evidence of a single eyewitness is not sufficient to convict an accused person if the evidence is inconsistent with the evidence of other witnesses and the witness's own conduct is suspicious.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - SECTION 302 IPC - CONVICTION - SOLE WITNESS - RELIABILITY - INCONSISTENT EVIDENCE - DOUBTFUL CONDUCT - ACQUITTAL.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was found dead in a canal with injuries on his body. The prosecution relied on the evidence of a single eyewitness, P.W.3, who claimed to have witnessed the incident. The accused were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of P.W.3 was not reliable. The witness's evidence was inconsistent with the evidence of other witnesses and his own conduct was suspicious. The court also noted that the police had not been able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of P.W.3 was reliable. 2. Whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence of P.W.3 was not reliable because it was inconsistent with the evidence of other witnesses and his own conduct was suspicious. The court also noted that the police had not been able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused, and acquitted them.
JUDGMENT
C.Praveen Kumar, J. - Originally, appellants, who are A1 to A5, were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 149 and 201 I.P.C. for causing the death of one, Kotcherla Gopi on 19.11.2010 at Nellipudi by beating him with stems of drumstick tree, stones, hands and legs and thereafter, caused disappearance of the evidence. By its judgment dated 21.9.2012, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, convicted all the five accused and sentenced each one of them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.; convicted and sentenced each one of them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.100/- each, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one week for the offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C.; and convicted and sentenced each one of them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 149 I.P.C.
2. The facts as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are as under :
A1 is the maternal uncle of P.W.3, while P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased. The deceased was a Carpenter by profession and used to work in Dasakayalapalli and surrounding villages by name Jambupatnam and Korukonda. It is said that the deceased used to go out for work and return back after 2 or 3 days. The deceased is said to have developed illegal contact with one Nagu, who is a resident of Jambupatnam and the said issue was placed before the maternal uncle of P.W.2.
3. P.W.3 was examined as an eyewitness to the incident. According to him, about a year prior to giving evidence, he saw the deceased alive at Nellipudi centre when he went to his in-laws house. The deceased is said to have enquired P.W.3 about the availability of arrack. Later, P.W.3 parked the vehicle at the house of one Babu Rao (not examined) and then went to his in-laws house i.e., Yedila Saraswathi (not examined). It is said that P.W.3 also went to the arrack shop after parking the vehicle, consumed arrack and returned back to the house of Babu Rao. The deceased also came back to the house of A1, which is away to the house of A2, intervened by three houses. Later, P.W.3 claims to have gone to the house of one Jashuva, which was situated behind the house of A1. While the deceased and wife of A1 were discussing, A1 came to the house, by which time, A2, A3 and A4 were at the house of A1. At that time, A1 and the deceased quarreled. In the quarrel, A1 beat the deceased with hands, while the deceased abused A1 in filthy language. Later, the deceased was taken to the canal holding the filt of his shirt by A1 to A4. P.W.3 claims to have followed them to canal, where he noticed A1 beating the deceased with a stick on his shoulder and A2, A3 and A4 beating the deceased with drumstick tree stem and stones. Later, the accused removed clothes of the deceased, made him drown in the canal water. A1 to A4 are said to have threatened P.W.3 with dire consequences, if he discloses the incident to others. Immediately thereafter, he left the scene, went to the house of Saraswathi. He did not disclose the said fact to anybody due to fear of the accused.
4. On 20.11.2012, when P.W.8 went to the ground near the canal of Nellipudi, he noticed the dead body of the deceased in the canal. Immediately, he rushed to the house of P.W.1, the V.R.O., and informed the said fact. On receiving the said information, P.W.1, along with P.W.8, went to Nellipudi canal and found dead body of the male person without clothes in the water of canal with injuries on both the shoulders. Pursuant thereto, both of them went to Gangavaram Police Station and lodged a report with P.W.11, the S.I. of Police. Ex.P1 is the said report. Basing on which a case in crime No.64 of 2010 came to be registered under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. Information about the registration of a crime was i
