Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(AP) 951

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Subba Reddy Satti, J.
Pati Srinivas Rao – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. By Its Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos. 4123, 4124, 4125 and 4171 of 2022
Decided On : 04-07-2022

Advocates appeared:
Ch S V Suraj, Advocate, for the Appellant; Public Prosecutor (AP), for the Respondent.

Confessional statements made by accused persons before a police officer after the investigation has started are inadmissible as evidence.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL BAIL - SECTION 438 CR.P.C. - SECTIONS 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 452, 436, 435, 188, 120(B), 353, 201 AND 109 READ WITH 149 IPC AND SECTION 32 OF POLICE ACT - SECTIONS 307, 120(B) 324, 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 152, 332, 336, 427, 188, 353, 506 READ WITH 149 IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF PDPP ACT AND 32 OF POLICE ACT - SECTIONS 307, 120(B), 341, 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 336, 435, 188, 506 READ WITH 149 OF IPC, SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF PDPP ACT AND 32 OF POLICE ACT, 1861 - SECTIONS 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 152, 332, 336, 427, 188, 353, 324, 435, 120(B), 109, 201 READ WITH 149 OF IPC, SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF PDPP ACT AND 32 OF POLICE ACT - UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY - RIOTING - ATTEMPT TO MURDER - CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS - BAIL - CONDITIONS - SUMMARY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES - COURT'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - KEY LEGAL PROVISIONS AND THEIR INTERPRETATIONS - MAIN LEGAL POINT.
Fact of the Case:

A large mob gathered in response to a call by JAC Konaseema Sadhana Committee to submit objections to the change of name of Konaseema District to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District. The mob pelted stones at police, damaged Collectorate Office and Ambedkar Bhavan, set fire to buses, and attacked the house of an MLA. The petitioner was named as an accused in four crime cases related to these incidents based on the confession of other accused.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no evidence of a common intention among the mob members to commit an offense punishable under Section 307 of IPC (attempt to murder). The court also noted that the petitioner's name was not mentioned in the complaints and that he was only implicated based on the confession of other accused, which is inadmissible as evidence. The court further observed that the petitioner was in his office at the time of the incident, as per the attendance register.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was part of an unlawful assembly and engaged in rioting. 2. Whether the petitioner had the common intention to commit an offense punishable under Section 307 of IPC. 3. Whether the confessional statements of other accused can be used against the petitioner. 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that there was no evidence to suggest that the petitioner was part of an unlawful assembly or engaged in rioting. The court relied on the principles laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors AIR 2011 SC 312 to determine whether bail should be granted. 2. The court found that there was no specific overt act attributed to the petitioner and that the prosecution failed to establish a common intention among the mob members to commit an offense punishable under Section 307 of IPC. 3. The court held that the confessional statements of other accused made before a police officer are inadmissible as evidence, as per the ruling in Bullu Das Vs. State of Bihar (1998) 8 SCC 130. 4. Considering the lack of evidence against the petitioner and the fact that he was in his office at the time of the incident, the court granted him pre-arrest bail subject to certain conditions.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal petitions and granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in all four crime cases. The petitioner was directed to execute a self-bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties for a like sum in each case. He was also required to appear before the Station House Officer once a week for eight weeks or till the filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier.

COMMON ORDER

1. These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with crime Nos.141, 138, 140 and 139 of 2022 of Amalapuram Town Police Station, East Godavari District.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as A29, A33, A33 and A29respectively in the above crimes.

3. Crime No.141 of 2022 is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 452, 436, 435, 188, 120(B), 353, 201 and 109 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Section 32 of Police Act.

4. Crime No.138 of 2022 is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 120(b) 324, 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 152, 332, 336, 427, 188, 353, 506 read with 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of PDPP Act and 32 of Police Act.

5. Crime No.140 of 2022 is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 120(B), 341, 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 336, 435, 188, 506 read with 149 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of PDPP Act and 32 of Police Act, 1861.

6. Crime No.139 of 2022 is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 151, 152, 332, 336, 427, 188, 353, 324, 435, 120(B), 109, 201 read with 149 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of PDPP Act and 32 of Police Act.

7. The above crimes were registered basing on the reports lodged by Ponnada Venkata Narayana Kumar cousin of Ponnada Venkata Satish, MLA of Mummidhivaram; Subrahmanyam Vasamsetti, Home Guard-268; Naga Venkata Ratna Giri Babu, Driver of RTC Bus; Koppisetti Venkata Ganesh, VRO, respectively, with regard to the incident that took place on 24.05.2022 pursuant to the notification issued by the Government by changing the name of Konaseema District as Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District.

8. The facts of above crime are inter-linked. Therefore, they are considered and decided by this common order.

The facts of the case in brief are:

9. On 24.05.2022 at about 4:00 P.M., on a call given by JAC of Konaseema Sadhana Committee, huge number of people gathered together for submitting objections pursuant to issuance of Gazette notification with regard to change of name of Konaseema District by violating the proceedings issued under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. and Section 30 of the Police Act. The mob started rally at Kalasam Centre, Amalapuram Town and proceeded to Clock Tower Centre and in the meanwhile various groups of public came from four corners to the clock tower centre and formed into a huge mob.

10. Thereafter the mob moved to Collectorate and on the way to Collectorate when the Police were discharging their duties, the mob pelted stones on the Police and burnt BVC collage bus which was used as transport vehicle for the Police.

11. Further when Police tried to control the mob at Collectorate, the mob pelted stones on Police personnel due to which some of the Police sustained injuries, damaged the glasses of Collectorate Office and Ambedkar Bhavan.

12. Thereafter, the mob proceeded to Red Bridge (Erra Vanthena), intercepted two RTC buses, damaged them and set fire to the buses.

13. The mob further moved towards the house of MLA and pelted stoned on the house due to which glasses were damage. When cousin of MLA tried to pacify the matter and while he was taking video of the situation, the mob poured petrol on him, but he managed to escape. Then the mob entered into the house of MLA, set fire to the motorcycles and entire furniture in the house including house.

14. The petitioner is arrayed as one of the accused in the above crimes basing on the complaints lodged by respective persons referred to supra.

15. Heard Sri Ch. S.V.Suraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-state.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he is no way connected with the alleged offence. He submits that basing on the confession of other accused