Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V. Ramasubramanian and Challa Kodanda Ram, JJ.
Thipparam Chinna Ramulu
and Anr. —Appellants
versus
State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P., Hyderabad —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.97 of 2012
Decided on 30.12.2017
For the Appellants:Smt. C. Vasundhara Reddy and Mr. M. Chalapathi, Advocates
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor (Telangana)
IMPORTANT POINT
When the whole case is based on circumstantial evidence and it was not possible to identify the dead body, the prosecution had a duty to subject the remnants of the body recovered from the alleged scene of occurrence for proper identification by following the required procedure to conduct DNA test.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302, 379 and 201/34—Conviction for offences on circumstantial evidence—Deceased received a phone call and informed his wife PW1 that accused No. 1 wanted to meat him and PW1 later came to know that accused No. 1 and 2 and deceased had tea in a Hotel—Deceased did not return home—Accused 1 and 2 on being arrested confessed and pursuant to disclosure some bones were recovered and some articles like colour glasses, sweater, chappals were recovered—Accused also recovered one gold ring from a jewellar—Appeal against conviction—FIR was lodged after about six months of deceased having gone missing—No efforts were made by prosecution to identify bones as that of deceased—Though, phone call details were recovered but no investigation was made as to what was the telephone number of accused—Conviction could not be sustained. (Paras 7, 8 and 12 to 15)
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
V. Ramasubramanian, J.—Challenging the conviction for offences under Sections 302, 379 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 201 IPC, accused 1 and 2 have come up with the above appeal.
2. Heard Smt. C. Vasundhara Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor (Telangana).
3. The appellants, along with two other persons, were charged with the commission of offences under Sections 302, 379 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC in connection with the death of one Shirmishetty Venu. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses and marked 14 documents as exhibits. 13 objects were marked as material objects.
4. The facts based upon which the appellants were chargesheeted were that on 15-5-2008, one Smt. Shirmishetty Sujatha examined as P.W.1 lodged a complaint with the Sub Inspector of Police, Tadwai Police Station, alleging that on 08-12-2007 she along with her deceased husband were returning from Kamareddy village; that on the way he received a phone call and told the caller that he will come later; that immediately after the call he informed her that the person who called him was Thipparam Chinna Ramulu/accused No.1; that after reaching home, her husband left the house saying that accused No.1 wanted to meet him; that later she came to know that accused 1 and 2 and her husband had tea in a hotel belonging to Mangalapalli Shankar situate near Hanuman Temple; that all of them later left on a motorcycle towards Shanthaipet village; that later her husband did not return; that when she launched a search for her husband, his motorcycle bearing registration No.AP09AL-7929 was traced on the outskirts of Yendriyal village; that therefore she gave the photograph and physical features of her husband apart from the details of the clothes worn by him; that the said complaint was taken on record in Crime No.56 of 2008 and investigation was taken up; that the Police thereafter apprehended accused 1 and 2 and interrogated them in the presence of panchas and recorded their confessions; that the confessions lead to the recovery of a pelvic bone, femur bone, two more bone pieces, one white shirt having iron marks, red colour belt pieces, two stones, one Rayban black colour glasses, one Rayban glass frame, two black colour plastic chappals and one sweater; that they were seized under the cover of panchanama; that accused No.1 lead the Investigating Tem to the shop of one Annoju Venkata Swamy, Vani Jewellery Work Shop at Kamareddy and pointed out the person to whom he sold the gold ring for Rs.3,600/-; that the owner of the jewellery shop was examined in the presence of the panchas, then he confessed to the purchase of the gold ring about five months ago from accused No.1; and that on the basis of the confessions of accused 1 and 2, the provisions of law were altered from Section 174 Cr.P.C to Sections 302, 379 and 201 IPC and Section 411 read with Section 34 IPC; and that the Investigating Officer later seized a Nokia Cell Phone in the presence of panchas from Nagaraju Ramulu under a cover of panchanama on 27-4-2008; that thereafter accused No.3 was taken into custody and he also gave confession and that therefore a charge-sheet was being laid against all of them.
5. Before the Sessions Court, P.Ws.3, 4 and 8 turned hostile to the prosecution. P.W.1 was the de facto complainant and the wife of the deceased. P.W.2 was the brother of the deceased. P.W.5 was the Videographer who allegedly recorded the confession. P.Ws.8 and 9 are the panchas for confession and recovery. P.W.11 was the Sub Inspector of Police who registered the crime, P.W.12 was the Investigating Officer and P.W.13 was the Circle Inspector of Police who filed the charge-sheet.
6. The Sessions Court, believing the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2, came to the conclusion that the statements of P.Ws.3 and 4 stood reiterated through their evidence. P.W.1 claimed in her testimony that her husband received a phone call said to have been
