IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, JJ.
B. Ramakrishna Palabba Abba – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.618 of 2016
Decided on : 25-01-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Offence of Murder - Charged - P.W.1 is the wife of deceased while P.W.2 is mother-in-law of P.W.1 - Other witnesses are residents of said village and they were known to accused and deceased - One, is said to be the wife of accused - She was residing three houses away after house of P.W.1 - It is said that since seven years prior to incident, said was having illicit intimacy with husband of P.W.1. P.W.1 claims to have advised deceased not to indulge in said affair, but to no avail. About one year prior to incident, said came to house of P.W.1 armed with a knife, to kill deceased - But, neighbours prevented her from doing so and sent her away - Two days later, accused brought assailants from to kill her husband - P.W.1 took her husband to her parents' house and stayed there for ten days - Thereafter, matter was reported before caste elders, who chastised accused - Whether prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? - Whether all these were possible within fifteen minutes? - Held, in Court view also appears to be quite doubtful, for reason that according to her, she received information about incident from one at 9.30 P.M. while she was in house, from there she goes to scene of offence, meets P.Ws.4, 5 and 8 and thereafter goes to house of P.W.6, who reduced oral report given by P.W.1 into writing and thereafter, claims to have gone to Police Station which is at a distance of 5 KMs. from house of P.W.6 and lodges a report - Even assuming that she has lodged a report at 10.15 P.M, as spoken to by P.W.13, learned counsel for appellant would contend that entire exercise could not have been done within forty five minutes - Argument of earned counsel for appellant that a report was prepared subsequently by ante-dating it, as a result of which, it reached Court on next day evening at 5.45 P.M. cannot be brushed aside - Probably, to overcome laches in report given on the previous day night, a story is sought to be introduced by her by stating that she also lodged a report at 12.00 noon - Said report obviously was prepared after inquest projecting P.Ws.4 and 5 as eye witnesses to incident - Viewed from any angle, Court feel that prosecution has not been proved case beyond reasonable doubt - Criminal Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
C. Praveen Kumar, J.
1. The sole accused, who is the appellant herein was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short, “I.P.C.”], for causing the death of one M. Devarajulu on 22.04.2014 at about 9.30 P.M.
2. Vide Judgment dated 17.06.2016, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chittoor convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- [Rupees Five Hundred only], in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for Two Months.
3. The facts, in issue, are as under:-
(a) P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased while P.W.2 is the mother-in-law of P.W.1. The other witnesses are residents of the said village and they were known to the accused and the deceased. One Anjali, is said to be the wife of the accused. She was residing three houses away after the house of P.W.1. It is said that since seven years prior to the incident, the said Anjali was having illicit intimacy with the husband of P.W.1. P.W.1 claims to have advised the deceased not to indulge in the said affair, but to no avail. About one year prior to the incident, the said Anjali came to the house of P.W.1 armed with a knife, to kill the deceased. But, the neighbours prevented her from doing so and sent her away.
(b) Two days later, the accused brought the assailants from Gudiyatham to kill her husband. Then, P.W.1 took her husband to her parents’ house and stayed there for ten days. Thereafter, the matter was reported before the caste elders, who chastised the accused.
(c) While things stood thus, on 22.04.2014 at about 7.00 P.M. one Kumar of Pathapeta Village, requested the deceased to come to Eswara Temple at the village to attend TDP Party meeting. Her husband went there. At about 9.30 P.M. her neighbour/Govindamma informed that her husband was hacked by the accused at Eswara Temple. P.W.1 went to the said temple and saw her husband lying in a pool of blood. By that time her husband was dead. She observed hack injury on the right jaw and head and left side of the chin. The people gathered there namely P.Ws.3, 4 and 8, who claimed to have informed P.W.1 that the accused hacked her husband and killed him. She then narrated the incident to one G.Ashok/P.W.6 in Tamil language, who reduced the same in Telugu language and then he read over the contents in Tamil. P.W.1 handed over the said report at Baireddipalle Police Station. Ex.P1 is the Report which bears the signature of P.W.1 and also that of P.W.6. Basing on the said report, P.W.12/Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.51 of 2014 under Section 302 I.P.C. and issued Ex.P18-First Information Report. Further, investigation in this case was taken up by P.W.13.
(d) According to P.W.13/Inspector of Police, at about 10.15 P.M. he received a phone call from the Sub- Inspector of Police, Baireddipalle with regard to crime. He then left his office and proceeded to scene of offence at 11.00 P.M., received a copy of F.I.R and took up investigation. Later, he along with Sub- Inspector of Police proceeded to scene of offence and found the dead body in pool of blood with severe injuries, in front of Eswara Temple. He examined the dead body under the street lines and got photographed the scene. Anticipating law and order problem, he shifted the body to the Government Hospital, Palamaner and posted a guard at the scene and mortuary.
(e) On 23.04.2014, P.W.13 visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of mediators P.Ws.7 and 9 and prepared a scene observation report which is placed on record as Ex.P5. He also got prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence, which is marked as Ex.P19. He then left the scene of offence, visited Government Hospital, Palamaner and conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.Ws.9, 10 and L.W.16-S. Rajesh. Ex.P6 is the inquest report. During the inquest, he seized blood stained clothes of the deceased under M.Os.1 to 4. During i
As the attack is an outcome of the said incident, which took place immediately prior to the incident, we feel that it is a fit case where the nature of offence has to be scaled down from Section 302 ....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence led to the appellant's acquittal.
Merely because, some superficial burn injuries were present on the fingers of the accused, it does not lead to any irresistible conclusion that he made efforts to put off the flames.
In order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the gui....
The court established that sudden provocation can reduce a murder charge to manslaughter, particularly in domestic disputes.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.