Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
C. Praveen Kumar, B. Krishna Mohan, JJ.
Dadisetti Rambabu Ramu - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1163 of 2014
Decided On : 12-08-2021
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - CONVICTION - CHALLENGE - EYE WITNESSES - IDENTIFICATION OF SCENE OF OFFENCE - SEIZURE OF WEAPON - SHIFTING OF SCENE OF OFFENCE - SUPPRESSION OF STATEMENTS - DELAY IN RECORDING STATEMENTS - IDENTIFICATION OF ARTICLES SEIZED AT THE SCENE - FAILURE TO PRODUCE SEIZED ARTICLES BEFORE EYE WITNESSES FOR IDENTIFICATION - RELIABILITY OF EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE - HUMAN BEHAVIOUR - RELEVANCE OF CIRCUMSTANCES - CONFIRMATION OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for causing the death of one Kakarla Subba Rao on 06.05.2009. The prosecution's case was that the accused had a dispute with the deceased and PW1, and had lodged a case against them, which resulted in their conviction. On 06.05.2009, the accused attacked the deceased with a sickle, causing his death. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecution witnesses were planted, the scene of offence was shifted, and the statements of witnesses were suppressed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the eye witnesses, PW1 and PW2, was reliable and consistent. The court also found that the identification of the scene of offence was not in dispute, and that the seizure of the weapon used in the offence and the blood-stained shirt of the deceased was properly conducted. The court further found that there was no suppression of statements or delay in recording statements, and that the failure to produce the seized articles before the eye witnesses for identification was not of any relevance, given the strong evidence of the eye witnesses.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution witnesses were planted and their presence at the scene of offence was doubtful. 2. Whether the scene of offence was shifted. 3. Whether the statements of witnesses were suppressed. 4. Whether there was a delay in recording statements. 5. Whether the failure to produce the seized articles before the eye witnesses for identification affected the reliability of the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence of the eye witnesses, PW1 and PW2, was reliable and consistent, and there was no reason to disbelieve their testimony. 2. The court found that the identification of the scene of offence was not in dispute, and that the seizure of the weapon used in the offence and the blood-stained shirt of the deceased was properly conducted. 3. The court further found that there was no suppression of statements or delay in recording statements, and that the failure to produce the seized articles before the eye witnesses for identification was not of any relevance, given the strong evidence of the eye witnesses.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused in the judgment, dated 01.10.2014 in Sessions Case No. 317 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kovvur, West Godavari.
JUDGMENT
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)
Heard Sri. Challa Dhanamjaya, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Sri. S. Dushyanth Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, through Blue Jeans video conferencing APP and with their consent, the appeal is disposed of.
1. The sole accused in Sessions Case No. 317 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Kovvur, is the appellant herein. He was tried for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [‘I.P.C.’], for causing the death of one Kakarla Subba Rao [‘Deceased’] on 06.05.2009. By its Judgment, dated 01.10.2014, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months.
2. The case of the prosecution is as under:
ii) While things stood thus, on 06.05.2009 at about 11.00 A.M., PW1, PW2 and deceased went to the field of PW6 to take measurements of cut palmyrah trees. After taking measurements, they were returning from the said place and when they reached the land of PW5, the accused came in opposite direction on a bicycle. At that time, the deceased was walking ahead of PW1 and PW2. The accused saying “yera subbiga, entira vaaguthunnav, ninu champesthanu”, got down from the bicycle and hacked the deceased with a sickle on the left side of the neck. When the deceased raised his hand, the accused hacked on the hand resulting in a cut to his fingers. Thereafter, the accused hacked him with a sickle on the stomach, as a result of which the intestine of the deceased came out. When PW1 and PW2 intervened, the accused threatened them by brandishing the sickle. After the deceased fell down, the accused kicked him with his leg and left the place on his bicycle threatening PW1 and PW2 with his sickle. PW1 and PW2 tied a towel around the stomach of the deceased preventing the intestines from coming out and, thereafter, PW2 went to the village for an auto. It is said that, PW2 and PW3 came to the scene with a auto and took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Kovvur. As the condition of the deceased was serious, the doctor advised them to take the injured to Government Hospital, Rajahmundry. The deceased was shifted in 108 ambulance and was admitted in Apex Hospital. At 2.15 P.M., the doctor declared him dead. PW1 got Ex.P1 report prepared with the help of PW2 and PW4.
iii) On 06.05.2009, while PW12 Sub-Inspector of Police was present in the police station, he received hospital intimation from Apex Hospital, Rajahmundry, about the death of the deceased. Immediately, he proceeded to the hospital where PW1 presented a written report. Basing on the said report, PW12 registered a case in Crime No.80 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P9 is the hospital intimation and Ex.P11 is the printed First Information Report.
iv) PW13 the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation. After receiving a copy of Ex.P11 [F.I.R.], he visited Apex Hospital, Rajahmundry, and thereafter to Government Hospital, Rajahmundry. In the presence of panchayatdars, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased at 5.30 P.M. During the course of inquest, he examined PW1 to PW4 and others. After completing the inquest, he gave a requisition to the Superintendent of Government Hospital, Rajahmundry, for holding autopsy over the dead body of the deceased.
v) PW10 - the Ci
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
