Allowed

Sri Velladuli Govindaiah., v. State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Feb 2024CRLA/1014/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal against a murder conviction, the High Court set aside the Sessions Judge's judgment. The court found that the prosecution's investigation began prior to the FIR registration and that the FIR was drafted to implicate the accused based on discussions, rendering the evidence unreliable. Consequently, the accused was acquitted.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set-aside; appellant acquitted and set at liberty immediately; fine refunded.

Sri Velladuli Govindaiah., Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1014 OF 2015

¶7

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the Judgment passed by the X Additional Sessions Judge. Tirupathi, Chittoor District dated 2-5-2015 in SC.No.17 of 2015.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri„ „ Velladuli Govindaiah. S/o. Late V.Changaiah, age 55 years, caste: Pallegallu(OBC), Coolie, R/o. Saraswathipuram, KVB^Puram.

¶10

...Appellant/Accused

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of AP., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High^{CourtatAmaravathi}

¶13

...Respondent/Complainant

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant: Smt A Gayatri Reddy

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri S.Dushyanth Reddy,^{AdditionalPublic} Prosecutor

¶16

The Court made the following:

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶18

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶19

PRESENT:

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

¶21

AND

¶22

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

¶23

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1014 OF 2015

¶24

Between:

¶25

Velladuli Govindaiah, S/o. Late V.Changaiah, 55 years. Coolie, Saraswathipuram village, K.V.B.Puram Mandal.

¶26

... Appellant/Accused

¶27

And

¶28

State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶29

... Respondent/Complainant

¶30

Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Smt. A.Gayathri Reddy Counsel for the Respondent/State : Sri S.Dhushyanth Reddy Additional Public Prosecutor

¶31

This Court made the following:

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. V.L.N.Chakravarthi)

¶34

Heard Smt.A.Gayathri Reddy, learned counsel for the

¶35

appellant/accused and Sri S.Dhushyanth Reddy, learned

¶36

Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

¶37

Crl.A.No.1014 of 2015 KSR, J&BVLNC, J Dt: 22.02.2024 Page 2 of 12 2. The present Criminal Appeal is filed by the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 17 of 2015 on the file of the Court of X Additional District and Sessions Judge,^Chittoor at Tirupati. He was tried and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’). 3. The learned Sessions Judge vide Judgment, dated 02.05.2015 sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for ‘Life’ and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month. 4. The sum and substance of the charge levelled against the accused is that on 04.06.2014 at about 6.30 AM in the fields of one Annagi Krishnaiah of Oluru Village, the^accused committed murder by intentionally causing death of V.Jayamma, who is none other than his wife (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) by beating her on the head and chest with a stone. 5. The accused was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC alleging that the accused being

¶38

Crl.A.No.l014 of 2015 Dt: 22.02.2024

¶39

KSR, J&BVLNC, J

¶40

Page 3 of 12

¶41

addicted to alcohol, used to quarrel with the deceased^and beat her by suspecting her fidelity; On 04.06.2014 the accused and deceased left the home in the early hours; on the same day at about 5.00 PM, PW.l received information

¶42

that there was a dead body lying in the field; PW. 1 along with other villagers went to the field and noticed the dead body of the deceased with injuries on the face.

¶43

During trial, eleven (11) witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution as PWs.l to 11 and ten (10) documents were marked as Exs.Pl to PIO apart from MOs.l to 8.^After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC explaining the incriminating material found against the accused in the prosecution evidence. The accused denied the same,^butno evidence was let in.

¶44

The learned X Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, after heairing the prosecution and defence, found the^accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Challenging the judgment, the appellant/accused preferred present Criminal Appeal.

¶45

Crl.A.No.1014 of 2015 Dt: 22.02.2024

¶46

KSR, J&BVLNC, J

¶47

Page 4 of 12

¶48

Smt.A.Gayathri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the evidence of PWs.l, 2, 4, 5, 9 and 10 and Ex.Pl FIR would show that the police, after discussions, prepared the entire record. and later registered Ex.Pl FIR implicating the accused, for the reasons best known to them.

¶49

The learned counsel for the appellant in support^ofher arguments, from the evidence of above witnesses, pointed out several circumstances relating to examination of the witnesses before registration of FIR. They will be discussed in detail later in the judgment. She further contends that as per RFSL report, the stone used for committing the offence is a small stone, but the evidence of Doctor who conducted autopsy disclose that the injuries found on the body^ofthe deceased are bigger in size, and they could be not caused with MOl. It would disclose that MO.l was planted in the case to implicate the accused to support theory of discovery of fact. as enunciated under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. She would further submit that the prosecution failed to connect the accused with the offence

¶50

Crl.A.No.1014 of 2015 Dt; 22.02.2024 KSR, J&BVLNC, J

¶51

Page 5 of 12

¶52

and the evidence on record is not sufficient to establish the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.

¶53

The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following decisions:-

¶54

In Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others Vs. State of Gujarati, the Honhle Apex Court laid down that the Circumstantial evidence should be complete and cogent and the guilt of accused should be unerringly establish, and any other inference, except the guilt of accused cannot be drawn from the circumstances. If the last seen theory is established, then the duration of the accused and the deceased last seen together and the recovery of dead body should be minimal, and then only the possibility of the accused being the author of the crime would be established. In the cases where there exists a long time gap for the establishment of the last seen theoiy, then the guilt of the accused cannot be concluded from it as it would be hazardous for the accused. She would also submit that the extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, as laid

¶55

AIR 2020 SC 180

¶56

Crl.A.No.l014 of 2015 Dt: 22.02.2024

¶57

KSR, J&BVLNC, J

¶58

Page 6 of 12

¶59

down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Sahadevan

¶60

Vs. State of Tamil Nadu^ and Jagroop Singh Vs. State^of

¶61

Punjab3.

¶62

Sri S.Dhushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that PWs. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are^allrustic villagers and they could not depose the date and time^with precision and, therefore, basing on the minor discrepancies regarding the date and time, the case of the prosecution^shall not be doubted. He would further submit that the evidence of PWs.l and 5 would establish that the deceased and accused left the home on the morning of 04.06.2014 and later,^the dead body of the deceased was found at the scene of offence in the evening and the accused did not explain anything^and the evidence of the Village Revenue Officer and other mediators with reference to recovery of MO.l basing^onthe fact disclosed by the accused would lead to conclusion^that the accused alone is responsible for the murder of the deceased and in that view of the matter, there are no

¶63

2 AIR 2012 2435

¶64

3 AIR 2012 SC 2600

¶65

Crl.A.No.l014 of 2015 Dt: 22.02.2024 Page 7 of 12

¶66

KSR, J&BVLNC, J

¶67

grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.

¶68

In the light of the above contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this Criminal Appeal^are:-

¶69

Whether the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt? and,

¶70

Whether the Judgment of the Trial Court is sustainable in law?

¶71

POINT N Os.l 8b 2: 13. The case of the prosecution is that Ex.Pl FIR was presented to the police by PW. 1 on 04-06-2014 at about^8.45 P.M. The Sub-Inspector of Police-PW.9 K.V.Puram Police Station registered the same as Ex.P7-FIR and visited the scene of offence at about 9.00 P.M. He posted Guard^atthe scene of offence and returned to the police station. The Inspector of Police-PW.lO received intimation about the registration of FIR. On 05.06.2014 he went to the scene^of offence, secured the presence of PWs.l, 2, 3 and others^and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased^and during inquest he examined PWs.l, 2 and 3, recorded

¶72

Crl.A.No.l014 of 2015 Dt: 22.02.2024 Page 8 of 12

¶73

KSR, J&BVLNC, J

¶74

statements and again on 06.06.2014 he secured the presence of PWs.4 and 5 and recorded their statements.

¶75

PW. 1 deposed in her evidence that on 04.06.2014 at about 5.00 PM she received a phone call from her uncle Prasad that her mother found dead in the fields located near Oluru village. She went to the scene by 7.00 PM and^atthat time there were two police officials also present.^Inhercross examination, PW.l deposed that her father used to quarrel with her mother suspecting her fidelity. On the date of incident, they went out around 6.00 AM and they did not come back to the home. In the evidence at about 5.00 PM one Prasad came to her and told that somebody informed that the dead body of her mother was lying in the fields,^and she was examined at the scene of offence.

¶76

PW.2 deposed that on 04.05.2014 at about 5.00 PM, he received a phone call from his uncle Prasad that dead body of his mother is lying in the fields near Oluru village. Then, he went to the scene of offence around 7.00 PM. There were two police officials present at that time. PW.l and villagers were also present there.

¶77

Crl.A.No.1014 of 2015 KSR, J&BVLNC, J Dt: 22.02.2024 Page 9 of 12

¶78

PW.3, relative of the accused and deceased, deposed that on that day at about 3.00 or 4.00 PM he was informed that an unidentified dead body was lying in the fields near Oluru village.

¶79

PW.4 deposed that when he reached the fields, he noticed the dead body of the deceased and he reached^the fields at about 4,00 PM. In the cross-examination, he deposed that police were present by the time he reached^the fields, and police examined him at about 9.00 PM.

¶80

PW.5 deposed that he came to know that dead body of the deceased was found in the fields and it was 7.00 AM in the morning and police examined him at 6.00 or 6.30^PM. 19. PW.9, Sub-Inspector of Police version is that on 04.06.2014 at about 8.45 PM, PW.l and others came to police station and presented report

¶81

The version of the Inspector of Police, PW.IO is that^he received intimation about registration of FIR at about^9.00 PM on 04.06.2014 and he went to the scene of offence on the next day morning.

¶82

Crl.A.No.l014 of 2015 Dt; 22.02.2024 KSR, BVLNC, J Page 10 of 12

¶83

Therefore, the above evidence would show that the version of PWs. 1, 2, 4 and 5 ISi that they reached the scene of offence in and around 4.00 or 5.00 PM in the evening on 04.06.2014 and by that time two police officials were already present there and they also recorded their statements at the scene of offence and later, PW. 1 went to police station at about 9.45 PM and presented Ex.P.l to PW.9.

¶84

Whereas, the version of PW.9 and PW. 10, PW9 did not conduct any investigation on that day i.e., on 04.06.2014 except posting the guard to protect the dead body. He also categorically deposed that no Police Officer had gone to the scene of offence before registration of FIR.

¶85

The evidence of Inspector of Police, who conducted the investigation in this case, is that he visited the scene of offence on 05.06.2014 and examined PW.5 on 06.06.2016.

¶86

Therefore, all these facts and ci circumstances are read together, it leads to only one conclusion that the material investigation was conducted before registration of FIR at the scene of offence on 04.06.2014 itself and later, Ex.Pl was

¶87

Crl.A.No.1014 of 2015 Dt; 22.02.2024 KSR, J&BVLNC, J Page 11 of 12

¶88

pressed into service as per deliberations and discussions took place earlier.

¶89

It is pertinent to note down that in the evidence of PW. 1 and PW.2 they deposed that they suspected that their father could be responsible for the death of the deceased. But, in the FIR, they stated that their father killed their mother. It indicates that on account of initial investigation on 04.06.2014 made by the police prior to registration of FIR, and on account of deliberations and discussions that took place, FIR was drafted confirming that accused committed the offence. Therefore, FIR was presented in such a manner to suite the case of the police. Accordingly, police prepared the investigation and laid the police report, conveniently implicating the accused on suspicion.

¶90

The trial Court did not consider above material aspect, and thereby came to an erroneous conclusion. Therefore , we are of the considered opinion that it is not safe to rely on the evidence of the above prosecution witnesses, to believe the case of the prosecution. Hence, the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be set-aside.

¶91

KSR, J&BVLNC, J

¶92

Crl.A.No.1014 of 2015 Dt: 22.02.2024 Page 12 of 12

¶93

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is Allowed. The Conviction and Sentence recorded against the Appellant/ Accused by Judgment, dated 02.05.2015 in Sessions Case No. 17 of 2015 on the file of the learned X Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is set-aside, and he is acquitted for the said^offence under Section 235 (1) of CrPC.

¶94

It is directed that the Appellant/Accused shall be^setat liberty forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in any other case or crime.

¶95

The fine amount, if any, paid by the Appellant/Accused shall be refunded.

¶96

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.

¶97

Sd /- S.V.S.R. MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR

¶98

//TRUE COPY//

¶99

To,