Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 371
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, Ninala Jayasurya, JJ.
T. Venkateshwarlu, Ongole Town - Appellant
Versus
Sho, Ongole Ii Town P S - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 811 of 2015
Decided On : 27-07-2020
V. Raghu, Advocate
Headnote:
The accused was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing the death of Challa Sambasiva Rao (deceased) while they were both on duty as night guards/attenders at the official residence of the Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole during the night of 24.03.2013. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including motive, theory of last seen together alive, false information about the cause of death over the phone, covering of the body of the deceased with a cloth, extra-judicial confession made before a Tahsildar, and recovery of an iron rod based on the confession leading to discovery. The accused appealed the conviction and sentence, arguing that the extra-judicial confession was inadmissible, the prosecution failed to prove that he was on duty on the date of the incident, and the alleged seizure of the iron rod was not believable. The High Court re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and found that the circumstances established by the prosecution were sufficient to complete the chain of circumstances and prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court held that the extra-judicial confession was not reliable and could not be used as a basis for conviction, but the other circumstances, including the accused's motive, the theory of last seen together alive, the false information about the cause of death, the covering of the body with a cloth, and the recovery of the iron rod, were sufficient to establish the accused's guilt. The Court also rejected the accused's contention that the prosecution failed to prove that he was on duty on the date of the incident, finding that the evidence of the Principal District Judge and another witness was sufficient to establish that the accused and the deceased were on duty as night guards/attenders at the time of the incident. The Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing the death of Challa Sambasiva Rao (deceased) while they were both on duty as night guards/attenders at the official residence of the Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole during the night of 24.03.2013. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including motive, theory of last seen together alive, false information about the cause of death over the phone, covering of the body of the deceased with a cloth, extra-judicial confession made before a Tahsildar, and recovery of an iron rod based on the confession leading to discovery.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and found that the circumstances established by the prosecution were sufficient to complete the chain of circumstances and prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court held that the extra-judicial confession was not reliable and could not be used as a basis for conviction, but the other circumstances, including the accused's motive, the theory of last seen together alive, the false information about the cause of death, the covering of the body with a cloth, and the recovery of the iron rod, were sufficient to establish the accused's guilt. The Court also rejected the accused's contention that the prosecution failed to prove that he was on duty on the date of the incident, finding that the evidence of the Principal District Judge and another witness was sufficient to establish that the accused and the deceased were on duty as night guards/attenders at the time of the incident.
Issues: 1. Whether the extra-judicial confession was admissible. 2. Whether the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was on duty on the date of the incident. 3. Whether the alleged seizure of the iron rod was believable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The extra-judicial confession was not reliable and could not be used as a basis for conviction because it was made to a person with whom the accused had no prior acquaintance and there was no corroboration of the confession from independent sources. 2. The prosecution proved that the accused was on duty on the date of the incident through the evidence of the Principal District Judge and another witness. 3. The seizure of the iron rod was believable because it was discovered in pursuance of a confession leading to discovery and there was no evidence to suggest that it was planted by a third party.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court.
JUDGMENT
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J. - The sole accused in S.C.No.182 of 2013 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, preferred this appeal under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C), challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him under the calendar and judgment in S.C.No.182 of 2013 dated 08.07.2015, finding him guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the accused and Gudipudi Kondala Rao (P.W.2) were attenders in Principal District Judge's residential bungalow, Ongole. On 25.03.2013 at about 4:50 am while Gudipudi Kondala Rao (P.W.2) was present at his house, the accused who was on night duty as guard/attender, at Principal District Judge's residential bungalow contacted him over phone bearing No.08592-324841, informed that Challa Sambasiva Rao who was on night duty as guard/attender at the residence of Principal District Judge's residential bungalow, on the relevant date was found in unconscious state due to electrical shock, the accused along with G. Chakaradhara Rao, Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole (P.W.1) were present outside the bungalow and 108 ambulance staff are not responding to his call, asked Gudipudi Kondala Rao (P.W.2) to come to the bungalow as instructed by G. Chakaradhara Rao, Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole (P.W.1). Later Gudipudi Kondala Rao (P.W.2) informed to 108 ambulance by his mobile number 9849423176. Gudipudi Kondala Rao (P.W.2) reached Principal District Judge's residential bungalow, riding his cycle, found one person lying covered with bed sheet. Gudipudi Kondala Rao (P.W.2) went to G. Chakaradhara Rao, Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole (P.W.1), informed that 108 ambulance was arrived as the accused informed him that Challa Sambasiva Rao was found in unconscious state due to electrical shock. Thereupon, G. Chakaradhara Rao, Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole (P.W.1) along with Maddumala Chiranjeevi (P.W.7) and Koppolu Prabhakara Rao (L.W.9) visited the scene of offence which is in the premises of residential bungalow of Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole, found bleeding injuries on the face of Challa Sambasiva Rao and he was declared dead. The accused was found absent at that time, though he was night guard/attender, therefore they prima facie concluded that the accused might have killed Challa Sambasiva Rao (deceased). On the instructions of G. Chakaradhara Rao, Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole (P.W.1), Gudipudi Kondala Rao (P.W.2) lodged report (Ex.P1) with the Inspector of Police, Ongole II town P.S. The same was registered as a case in Cr.No.77/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C, issued FIR (Ex.P9). On collection of FIR (Ex.P9), V. Suryanarayana, the then Inspector of Police, Ongole II town P.S (P.W.12) took up investigation, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence (Ex.P10), observed scene of offence in the presence of mediators, examined the witnesses, recorded their statements under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. The dead body of Challa Sambasiva Rao (deceased) was forwarded to postmortem examination and after conducting postmortem examination, Dr.Pamujula Suresh (P.W.10) issued postmortem certificate (Ex.P7), the scene of offence was also photographed. On 25.03.2013 the accused appeared before P.V Subba Rao, MRO (P.W.8), made confessional statement, the same was recorded and the accused was produced before V. Suryanarayana (P.W.12) along with the confession statement recorded by P.V Subba Rao, MRO (P.W.8), V. Suryanarayana (P.W.12) arrested the accused.
3. After arrest of the accused, he was interrogated in the presence of P.V Subba Rao, Tahsildar (P.W.8) and another witness, the accused in turn made confes
