Allowed

Madduri Ramanjaneyulu, Prakasam Dt., v. State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Nov 2022CRLA/557/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal against conviction for murder under IPC 302. The court held that the evidence of key prosecution witnesses was inconsistent or unsupported, making the recovery of gold ornaments and the respective presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act doubtful, necessitating acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 404 IPC set aside; appellant acquitted and set at liberty; fine refunded.

Madduri Ramanjaneyulu, Prakasam Dt., Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

¶3

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.557 of 2015

¶4

JUDGMENT : ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)

¶5

1. Heard Sri Challa Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for

¶6

the appellant/Accused No.1 and Sri S.Dushyanth Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶7

Accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.370 of 2013 on

¶8

the file of the learned XII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, is the appellant herein. Originally, A1 and A2 were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [For short ‘I.P.C’.] for causing the death of one Godugu Sridevi on 18.07.2012 on the hillock at Ravvaram of Nujendla Mandal and dishonestly misappropriated gold chain from the body of the deceased, after her death. Vide Judgment, dated 04.05.2015, the learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting A2, convicted A1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C and

¶9

¶10

sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year. A1 was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 404 I.P.C and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/, in default of payment of fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Out of the fine amount collected from A1, a sum of Rs.40,000/was awarded as compensation to the mother of deceased (P.W.12) under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.

¶11

The facts as culled out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses are as under:-

¶12

(i) P.W.12 is the mother of the deceased, while P.W.10 is her son. P.W.11 is the father of the deceased. In other words, P.W.11 and P.W.12 are husband and wife and deceased is their daughter. Ten years prior to the date of giving evidence, the marriage of the deceased was performed with one Srinu. As her husband was HIV

¶13

¶14

positive patient, she divorced him and since then residing her her parents at Kakinada. As her sister by name Kumari is living in Chennai, the deceased used to visit Chennai to see her sister. It is said that during this period, the deceased developed acquaintance with A1 and on one day, she brought A1 to their house informing that she is interested in him. On that day, A1 had a lunch in their house and thereafter P.Ws.11 and 12, fixed the date of marriage. A1 requested three months time to marry the deceased, as he intends to secure money towards the marriage expenses. Accordingly, the marriage was fixed three months later and wedding cards to that effect were also printed.

¶15

(ii) It is said that on one occasion, A1 asked the deceased to come to Ongole, where he will be waiting for her at the railway station. On such invitation, the deceased left her house to go to Ongole to meet A1 and also to distribute wedding cards to her relatives at Ongole. Thereafter, the deceased did not return home. Then P.Ws.11 and 12 telephoned to A1, through their daughter,

¶16

¶17

who was staying at Chennai. As there was no response, P.Ws.10 and 11 went to police station and lodged a report, and thereafter returned to Kakinada.

¶18

(iii) The evidence of P.W.1, who is working as Village Revenue Officer of Puchanuthala village, shows that on 20.07.2012 at about 2.00 P.M., in the afternoon, when he was at Tahsildar’s office, Nuzendla, received information about a female dead body lying on hillock of Konda Gurunada Swamy temple. He proceeded to the said place and noticed the female dead body wearing Panjabi dress. He prepared a report and lodged the same before P.W.21 Sub-Inspector of Police, Bandlamotu Police Station, basing on which, a case in Crime No.39 of 2012 came to be registered. Ex.P30 is the First Information Report.

¶19

(iv) Further investigation in this case was taken up by P.W.25, who was working as in charge Inspector of Vinukonda Rural police station. His evidence shows that on 20.07.2022 at 8.00 P.M., after receipt of copy of First Information report, visited the scene of offence, observed the scene in the presence of mediators and prepared

¶20

¶21

Ex.P38 scene observation report. He also prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence, which is placed on record as Ex.P39. Thereafter, he got photographed the dead body. Ex.P16 are five positive photographs. Ex.P40 is the compact disc. He also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P2 is the inquest report. He examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and recorded their statements. Thereafter the dead body was sent for Post Mortem examination. It is to be noted here that at the scene of offence, broken gold colour bangle pieces (M.O.8), broken bangle pieces blue colour (M.O.9), white button (M.O.10), plastic hair pin (M.O.11), a pair of ladies cheppal (M.O.12), white colour bra (M.O.13), coffee colour underwear (M.O.14), anchor company wrist watch (M.O.15) were recovered under Exs.P7, P8 and P9, which are portions of Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.2 to 4.

¶22

(v) P.W.22, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Vinukonda, conducted Post Mortem examination over the body of the deceased, which was marked as

¶23

¶24

Ex.P31. According to him, the cause of death was due to

¶25

‘Cardio respiratory arrest due to pressure on neck’.

¶26

(vi) Further investigation in this case took up by P.W.24, who was working as Inspector of Police, Vinukonda Rural circle at that time. He in his evidence deposed that on 22.07.2022, secured P.Ws.6 to 8 and recorded their statements. On 26.07.2022, proceeded to Vallagallu, Paspugallu village and Mundlamuru villages and distributed the pamphlets having photograph of the deceased. He also deposed that on 05.08.2012, the contents of Viscera were sent to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, through S.D.P.O., Narasaraopet. On 13.08.2012, the Post Mortem Report was received. On 17.08.2012, he contacted the Sub-Inspector of Police, Indrapalyam Police station of Kakinada Sub-Division about the girl missing case in Crime No.149 of 2012. He also contacted relatives of Sridevi. On 30.08.2012, the relatives of Sridevi viz., P.Ws.10, 11, 12, 14 and 23 came to the police station, where he examined them and recorded their statements. He claims to have shown clothes and golden

¶27

¶28

ornaments of the deceased to them, which were identified by them. On 01.09.2012, he proceeded to Vallagallu village, where he examined P.Ws. 17 and 18 and recorded their statements.

¶29

(vii) P.W.24 further deposed that on 10.09.2012, on information, he along with mediators, viz., P.W.1 and P.W.19 went to Vallagallu cross roads at 11.00 a.m., where they apprehended both the accused and on enquiry, they confessed about the commission of offence. He further deposed that A1 stated to him that he will show Chunni of the deceased, a wedding card of his marriage with deceased and the motor cycle used by him. Ex.P35 is admissible portion of confession statement of A1. On the basis of confession of A1, he along with mediators went to the house of A1 and seized a chunni with blood stains, a wedding card and Hero Honda motor cycle under Ex.P36. A1 led them to Muthoot Finance Company at Addani, from where the Investigating Officer seized a gold chain and documents which were pledged by A1. Later, he arrested both the accused and sent them to judicial custody. After

¶30

¶31

collecting all the documents and after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No.1 of 2013 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vinukonda.

¶32

On appearance of the accused, copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., came to be furnished. Since the case is triable by Sessions Court, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Basing on the material available on record, charge as referred to above came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶33

1. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1

¶34

to PW22 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P40, besides marking M.Os.1 to 15. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which they denied. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf

¶35

¶36

of accused, but got marked Exs.D1 to D3, which are portions of Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.10 & 20.

¶37

Basing on the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted A2, while convicting A1. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by appellant/A1.

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no material evidence on record to convict the accused and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved and even if proved, they do not form chain connecting the accused with the crime. He relied upon a recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, decided on 19.04.2022, in Venkatesh @ Chandra and another v. State of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal Nos.1476-1477 of 2018, in support of his plea.

¶39

On the other hand, Sri S.Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the same contending that though some of the circumstances are not proved, the crucial circumstance, namely recovery of gold ornaments of

¶40

¶41

the deceased at the instance of A1 and that too, after they were being pledged in Muthoot Finance, establish beyond doubt that it was the appellant alone, who was responsible for the death of the deceased.

¶42

1. The point that arises for consideration is:

¶43

“ whether the prosecution has proved each of the circumstances relied upon by it and whether the circumstances so proved, form a chain of events connecting the accused with the crime?

¶44

Before proceeding further, it is to be noted that P.Ws.2 to 9, 13, 15 to 19 did not support the prosecution case and were treated as hostile by the prosecution. Therefore, the entire case now rests on the evidence of P.Ws.10, 11, 12, 14 and the investigating agency.

¶45

As seen from the record, the prosecution relied upon seven circumstances to connect the accused with the crime. They were as under:

¶46

The death was due to homicide.

¶47

The deceased travelling to Chennai from Kakinada to meet her sister, during which time, she developed intimacy with A1.

¶48

¶49

A1 and deceased falling in love with each other and thereafter, both of them decided to get married.

¶50

After the marriage was fixed and wedding cards were printed, the deceased left Kakinada to Ongole on 17.07.2012, pursuant to a call from A1.

¶51

The deceased meeting A1 and A2 at Ongole railway station and A1 and deceased having breakfast on 18.07.2012 at the hotel of P.Ws. 17 and 18.

¶52

After arrest of the accused M.O.1, M.O.5 and M.O.15 being recovered at his instance.

¶53

The fact that it is a case of homicide is not in dispute. The fact that accused and deceased wanted to marry is also not in dispute. In view of the evidence of P.W.12, the circumstance of deceased leaving to Ongole to meet A1 also stands established. Since P.Ws.17 and 18 did not support the prosecution, the two circumstances namely deceased meeting A1 and A2 at railway station on 18.07.2009 and deceased and A1 having breakfast, could not be established by the prosecution.

¶54

¶55

The only circumstance which is strongly relied upon by the prosecution is the recovery of gold ornaments of the deceased at the instance of the accused from P.W.20 (Muthoot Finance Corporation).

¶56

It is to be noted here that the evidence on record establish that the deceased left the house on 17.07.2012 with wedding cards, to be distributed to her relatives in Ongole and thereafter, her whereabouts were not known. About a week or ten days later, P.Ws.11 and 12 claims to have lodged a report with the police. But the said report is not placed on record.

¶57

Be that as it may, the evidence of P.W.1, who is the Village Revenue Officer, shows that on 20.07.2012 i.e., much prior to P.Ws.11 and 12 going to police station, he was informed by Village Servant about a female dead body lying in a hillock. Pursuant to the said information, he lodged a report before P.W.21, which is placed on record as Ex.P1. P.W.21 in turn informed about the same to P.W.25, who took up investigation on 20.07.2012. As In-charge Inspector of Vinukonda Rural Police station, he conducted

¶58

¶59

inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 21.07.2012 apart from preparing scene observation report. At this stage, after conducting preliminary investigation, he handed over the investigation to P.W.24, who took up investigation on 21.07.2012.

¶60

At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence of P.W.20, as much reliance is placed on his evidence by the prosecution to prove recovery of gold ornaments of deceased from the accused. P.W.20 is none other than the Branch Manager of Muthoot Finance Company. According to him, from July, 2011 onwards, A1 used to pledge gold ornaments and borrow loans from Muthoot Finance of Addanki Branch. In July, 2012, A1 pledged gold chain and borrowed amount from their branch. On 10.09.2012, the Head constable of Inavolu Police station came to their branch and seized gold chain pledged by A1. Ex.P26 is the Photostat copy of a letter of indemnity, Ex.P27 is the copy of ‘Know your Customer’ form of A1, while Ex.P28 is the Photostat copy of undertaking-cum-sanction letter. On 11.09.2012, the

¶61

¶62

Inspector of Police, Vinukonda called P.W.20 to Inavolu Police Station, where he enquired and recorded the statement of P.W.20.

¶63

P.W.20 was cross examined at length. In the cross examination, he admits that there are no identification marks on the gold chain pledged by A1 to show that the chain belongs to a particular person. It was further elicited that A1 pledged gold ornaments three or four times and borrowed gold loans from their branch and that he handed over gold chain pledged by A1 to the police as per the directions of Inspector of Police, Vinukonda.

¶64

A reading of entire evidence of P.W.20 coupled with the cross examination would show that M.O.5 gold chain, which was alleged to have been seized pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the appellant, was not put up for identification in Court to P.W.20, leave alone conducting Test Identification Parade. Meaning thereby, P.W.20 was never asked to identify the gold chain said to have been given by him to the police on 11.09.2012. Things would have been different had there been only

¶65

¶66

transaction with P.W.20, but since the accused took gold loans by pledging gold from the branch of P.W.20 number of times, a doubt arises as to whether really the gold chain pledged, is the gold chain which was alleged to have been seized after the arrest of the accused, pursuant to his disclosure statement.

¶67

In order to test the veracity of P.W.20 and the alleged recovery made from P.W.20, we intend to refer to the evidence of P.Ws.10, 11 and 12, who are the family members of the deceased.

¶68

20). P.W.10 is none other than the brother of the deceased. He, in his evidence, states that on receiving information from Vinukonda Police station, they went to the police station, where they were shown photographs of the deceased. They were also shown rose colour chunny (M.O.1), rose colour Panjabi dress top (M.O.2), rose colour Panjabi dress pant (M.O.3) and also love mark gold locket of the deceased (M.O.4), gold chain of the sister of the deceased (M.O.5), a pair of gold ear studs with hangings (M.O.6) and pair of silver anklets (M.O.7). It is to be noted

¶69

¶70

here that the said ornaments came to be shown at Vinukonda Police Station, when the family members of the deceased went to Vinukonda Police Station, on an information about tracing of the dead body of the deceased, which was on 30.08.2012. Therefore, the ornaments and dress of the deceased, which were alleged to have been seized pursuant to the arrest of accused in the month of September, 2012, were already there with the police, when P.W.10 went to police in August 2012.

¶71

Apart from that P.W.12, who is the mother of the deceased, in her evidence categorically deposed that as they came to know about publishing a photo of female in newspaper, they went to Vinukonda police station, where positive photographs of the deceased were shown to them. The police have also shown gold and silver ornaments of the deceased, which are placed on record as M.Os.4 to 7. It was further stated that M.Os.4 to 7 are the gold and silver ornaments of the deceased. Therefore, much prior to the arrest of the accused, which was on 10.09.2012, these ornaments were shown to the family members of the

¶72

¶73

deceased. As seen from the above, the evidence of P.W.11

¶74

is also on the same lines as that of P.W.12.

¶75

Coming to the evidence of P.W.14, who is none other

¶76

than the father-in-law of P.W.10, he, in his evidence deposed that in the year 2012, on one day, his son-in-law came to their house and informed him about missing of the deceased. On the next day morning, himself and his sonin-law together went to police station at Vinukonda, where they were shown positive photographs of a female dead body and ornaments found on the dead body which were identified by P.W.10 as that of the deceased.

¶77

23). Therefore, as held by us earlier, there is any amount of doubt with regard to the recovery made pursuant to the arrest and confession made by the accused, more particularly the gold ornaments and the Chunni of the deceased. It is also to be noted here that P.W.19-panch witnesses, who was examined by police at the time of arrest of the accused, did not support the prosecution case. For all aforesaid reasons, the recovery becomes doubtful.

¶78

¶79

As the sole circumstance relied upon by the prosecution, by raising a presumption under Section 114 is not proved beyond doubt, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court is liable to be set-aside.

¶80

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/A1 in the Judgment dated 04.05.2015 on the file of the Court of XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 404 I.P.C, is set aside and he is acquitted for the said offences. Consequently, the appellant/A1 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or crime. The find amount, if any paid by the appellant/A1 shall be refunded to him.

¶81

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶82

_______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶83

___________________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

Date :10.11.2022 MP

202