2020 Supreme(AP) 383

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, Ninala Jayasurya, JJ.
Seggasm Veera Brahmamaih, Nellore Dist Othrs - Appellant
Versus
P.P., Hyd - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 252 of 2015
Decided On : 27-07-2020

Mere delay in dispatching the report to the concerned Magistrate by itself is no ground to throw away the prosecution case in its entirety. Sending the report to the concerned Magistrate is a circumstance which provides a basis to raise suspicion that the F.I.R. is the result of consultation and deliberations and it was recorded much later than the date and time mentioned in it, and discloses that the investigation is not fair and forth right.

Headnote:

JUDGMENT M.Satyanarayana Murthy, J. - Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Sessions Case No.314 of 2010 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code (for short "Cr.P.C."), challenging the conviction and sentence passed in calendar and judgment dated 26.02.2015, whereby accused No.1 was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C."), convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 114 of I.P.C., convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days each.

Fact of the Case:

The marriage of Seggam Sampurna was performed with accused No.1 about 3 years prior to 28.11.2008 i.e. date of offence. At the time of marriage, the parents of Seggam Sampurna paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to accused No.1 as dowry. After marriage, she joined with accused No.1 to lead marital life. While so, the marriage of Omkar, brother of accused No.1 was performed. Since then, the accused started harassing Seggam Sampurna both physically and mentally, in the process of harassment, accused Nos.2 and 3 went to the extent of threatening Seggam Sampurna that they would perform the marriage of accused No.1 with another woman.

Finding of the Court:

The paramount consideration of the court should be to avoid miscarriage of justice. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from the acquittal of guilty is no less than the conviction of an innocent. (Vide: Alarakha K. Mansuri Vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 3 SCC 57 ") 82. Applying the principles laid down in the above judgments to the present facts of the case, the view favourable to the accused is to be accepted extending benefit of doubt. 83. In view of our foregoing discussion, we find that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, thereby the accused are liable to be acquitted finding accused No.1 not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and accused Nos.2 and 3 not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 114 of I.P.C.

Issues: 1) Whether accused No.1 caused injury with M.O.1 - Axe on the head of Seggam Sampurna with an intention to kill her knowing that such injury is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of events at the instigation of accused Nos.2 and 3? If not, whether the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against accused Nos.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 114 of I.P.C. is liable to be set aside?

Ratio Decidendi: The case of the prosecution, as narrated above, is that accused No.1, husband of deceased Seggam Sampurna hacked her with an axe while she was cleaning vessels in the front yard of house of the accused at the instigation of accused Nos.2 and 3. The same was witnessed by P.W.1 - A.Yedukondalu and P.W.2 - S.Dhanamma, mother of Seggam Sampurna (deceased) while they were preparing to proceed to their house after settling the disputes between accused No.1 and Seggam Sampurna.

Final Decision: In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed, conviction recorded and sentence imposed upon appellant-accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C., and against appellants - accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 114 of I.P.C. in Sessions Case No.314 of 2010 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, S.P.S.R.Nellore District, by judgment dated 26.02.2015, are set aside. The appellant-accused No.1 is acquitted finding him not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and accused Nos.2 and 3 are acquitted finding them not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 114 of I.P.C. and they shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the accused shall be refunded to the accused.