Allowed

Muragadas Balaji, Thiruvannamalai Dist. v. P.P., Hyd

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Mar 2024CRLA/319/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two judge bench allowed criminal appeal, quashing conviction under Sections 302, 201 and 380 IPC. Court held accused entitled to benefit of doubt due to lack of charge under Section 34 IPC, discrepancies in room occupancy evidence, and absence of eye witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted and set at liberty forthwith.

Muragadas Balaji, Thiruvannamalai Dist… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

KSR, J &BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.319 of 2015

¶3

APHC010360562015

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

[3474]

¶7

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶10

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.319 of 2015

¶11

Between:

¶12

Muragadas Balaji, Thiruvannamalai Dist., Tamil Nadu State ...APELLANT AND

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its. Public Prosecutor

¶14

...RESPODENT

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: Smt. A. Gayatri Reddy

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri S. Dusyantha Reddy,

¶17

Additional Public Prosecutor (AP)

¶18

The Court made the following:

¶19

¶20

KSR, J &BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.319 of 2015

¶21

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY

¶22

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

¶23

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.319 of 2015

¶24

JUDGMENT : ( Per Justice K. Suresh Reddy )

¶25

Accused No.1 in SC No.34 of 2010 on the file of the Court of V Additional Sessions Judge, FAC-VI Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Tirupati, is the appellant in the present criminal appeal. Originally, A.1 to A.5 were charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 380 read with 34 IPC. As Accused Nos.2 and 3 were absconding, the case against them was split up and the said case was numbered as SC No.220 of 2014. Consequently, A.1, A.4 and A.5 were tried by the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, FAC-VI Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, under three charges i.e., Section 302, 201, 380 IPC. After completion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A.1 and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for LIFE and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 302 IPC. He further convicted A.1 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of FIVE years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under Section 201 IPC. He further convicted A.1 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of THREE years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under Section 380 IPC. All the substantial

¶26

¶27

KSR, J &BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.319 of 2015

¶28

sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted A.4 and A.5 of all the three charges.

¶29

Substance of the charge is that, A.1, A.4 and A.5 along with A.2 and A.3 caused the death of Smt. M. Latha (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) in Garudadri Nagar Cottage (GNC), Room No.512-E, Tirumala at about 10.00 a.m. on 02.06.2008 by closing her mouth and pressing her neck and in the same process, they dragged the deceased to the hall from bath room to screen the evidence and committed theft of gold ornaments on the body of the deceased, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 380 IPC.

¶30

Factual matrix of the prosecution case is that, A.1 is the husband of A.4, A.2 is the husband of A.3 and they are residents of Tamilnadu. A.5 is a resident of Kuppam and she is the friend of A.1 to A.4. The deceased is a resident of Bangalore and she was in the habit of visiting Tirumala frequently lonely. A.1 to A.5 also used to visit Tirumala frequently to commit the offences.

¶31

i) On 01.06.2008 at about 7.15 p.m., all the accused along with their children went to Tirumala and they got accommodation in GNC Room No.512-E. On 02.06.2008, the deceased also went to Tirumala. At about 10.00 a.m., the deceased went to the room of the accused for the purpose of recharging her cell phone and she requested A.3 for permission to take bath in their bath room, for which the accused accepted. While the deceased was taking bath, all the accused hatched up a plan to steal the

¶32

¶33

KSR, J &BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.319 of 2015

¶34

gold ornaments of the deceased. Consequently, A.1 to A.4 sent A.5 along with their children out of the room to watch the movements outside the cottage. After finishing bath, the deceased came out and packed her used clothes in a newspaper and kept her belongings in her rexin bag. When A.3 was talking to the deceased, A.1 covered the face of the deceased with a bed sheet and tightened it and when the deceased resisted by raising alarm, A.1 closed her mouth and nose, A.2 pressed her neck with a kerchief, while A.3 and A.4 caught hold of her legs and hands. When the deceased fell unconscious, A.1 and A.3 removed all the gold ornaments from the body of the deceased along with cash of Rs.12,000/-. Sensing that the deceased is alive, A.1 and A.2 tied the neck of the deceased with the assistance of A.3 and A.4 and killed the deceased. Thereafter, all the accused left the room by locking it from outside.

¶35

ii) On 05.06.2008, as the room was continuously locked from 02.06.2008 onwards, PW.1-Superintendent of GNC, Tirumala entertained a suspicion and when he telephoned to the number given by the accused, it was found that the number was false. Immediately, he informed the same to his superiors and police. At about 11.00 a.m., he asked one of his attenders to climb the ladder and see into the ventilator of the bath room from outside. Accordingly, the said attender climbed the ladder and found bad smell emanating from the room.

¶36

iii) Having received the information from PW.1, PW.26-Inspector of Police, Law and Order PS, Tirumala reached GNC Room No.512-E and found

¶37

¶38

KSR, J &BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.319 of 2015

¶39

the dead body of the deceased lying in the bath room. He found the hands and legs were tied and cloth was inserted in the mouth of the deceased.

¶40

iv) At about 3.00 p.m., on 05.06.2008, PW.1 gave a report to the police. PW.25-Sub Inspector of Police, Tirumala II Town PS, received the report from PW.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.31 of 2008 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Ex.P.26 is the original FIR.

¶41

v) PW.26 secured the presence of mediators i.e., PW.18 and another, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 05.06.2008 between 04.00 p.m. and 06.30 p.m. Ex.P.18 is the inquest report. During the course of inquest, he recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 4. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination.

¶42

vi) PW.22-Assistant Professor, S.V. Medical College, Tirupati conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased between 11.30 a.m. and 01.30 p.m. He opined the cause of death was due to ligature strangulation. Ex.P.23 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him.

¶43

vii) PW.26 prepared observation report Ex.P.27 at the scene of offence. He also seized MOs.8 to 19 at the scene of offence. He also recorded the statements of PWs.5 to 8. He got the scene photographed through PW.8. Exs.P.7 to P.13 are the photos along with negatives. He also seized MOs.21 to 35 at the scene of offence. PW.26 telephoned to PW.15, who is the elder brother of the deceased and informed him about the death. Then PW.15 in turn telephoned to PW.11 requesting him to inform the incident to the husband (PW.9) and children of the deceased about the

¶44

¶45

KSR, J &BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.319 of 2015

¶46

death of the deceased and to come to Tirumala. Immediately, PW.11 along with PWs.9 and 10 went to Tirumala and identified the dead body. He also got verified the reception register. Further investigation was taken over by PW.27-Inspector of Police.

¶47

viii) On 19.07.2008, PW.27-Inspector of Police apprehended A.1 to A.3 at Tirupati in front of Tirumala Jewellers and seized MOs.3 to 5 from their possession under Ex.P.20. On their confession, he arrested A.4 and A.5 on the same day and seized MOs.6 and 7 from their possession under Exs.P.31 and P.32. Subsequently, test identification parade was conducted to identify A.1 to A.5. After completion of the investigation, his successor PW.28 filed the charge sheet.

¶48

In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 29 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.51 and also exhibited MOs.1 to 40. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Of course, the accused did not choose to examine any witness in defence. Accepting the evidence of the prosecution, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, convicted and sentenced A.1 and acquitted A.4 and A.5 as aforesaid.

¶49

Heard Smt. A. Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S. Dusyantha Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondentState. We have gone through the entire material on record.

¶50

¶51

KSR, J &BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.319 of 2015

¶52

Even according to the prosecution, though the accused have taken room No.512-E GNC at Tirumala on 01.06.2008, the TTD Authorities have not verified till 05.06.2008. According to the prosecution witnesses, the room was allotted to A.1 to A.5 only for a period of 24 hours and the TTD authorities have not granted any extension for another period of 24 hours. But the authorities at Tirumala have not taken any action for opening of the room till 05.06.2008, though 24 hours period was over long back. As there was bad small emanating from the said room, PW.1 gave a report to the police. It is only PW.4, who was working as an Attender of GNC, Tirumala stated that room was allotted to A.1 on 01.06.2008, but in the Reception register, the name of the occupant is shown as ‘Bhaskar’. Admittedly, the name of A.1 is ‘Murugadas Balaji’. There is nothing to show that A.1 to A.5 occupied the room No.512-E of GNC, Tirumala. Except the oral testimony of PW.4, there is nothing to show that A.1 to A.5 occupied the said room.

¶53

According to the prosecution, the deceased went to Tirumala on 02.06.2008 at about 10.00 a.m. The deceased went to the room No.512-E of GNC for the purpose of re-charging of her cell phone and also for the purpose of taking bath in their room. Curiously, in the inquest report Ex.P.18 at Column No.15, it is stated that A.1 to A.5 along with the deceased occupied the said room on 01.06.2008 itself. A further reading of Ex.P.18 shows that PW.4 was shown as one of the witnesses and blood relations at column No.I(b)4. It is stated in the inquest report Ex.P.18 that the deceased also came along with A.1 to A.5 on 01.06.2008, at about 7.15 p.m., which changes the entire version of the prosecution that the deceased

¶54

¶55

KSR, J &BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.319 of 2015

¶56

went to Room No.512-E of GNC, Tirumala on 02.06.2008 at about 10.00 a.m. for the purpose of recharging of her cell phone and for taking bath. As such, the case of the prosecution falls to the ground on the basis of the contents made in the inquest report Ex.P.18.

¶57

Coming to the actual attack on the deceased, there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the case rests on the circumstantial evidence. The only circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that PW.4 identified the person as A.1, who occupied the room No.512-E of GNC. Curiously in the reception register, as already stated, the name of the person who occupied the room is shown as ‘Bhaskar’.

¶58

Further the charge framed against A.1 is under Section 302 IPC simplicitor. According to the prosecution A.1 to A.5 were there in the Room No.512-E on the fateful day. As such, it is clear that there are five inmates, but there is no material to show which of the accused caused the death of the deceased. As there was no charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, the liability cannot be fixed on a single person, particularly, when the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted A.4 and A.5 of the very same charge. As such as the charge framed under Section 302 IPC simplicitor, this Court is not inclined to accept that A.1 alone committed murder of the deceased. In view of the benefit of doubt given to A.4 and A.5 by the trial Court on the basis of very same evidence, the appellant/A.1 is also entitled for the said benefit, as the charge framed under Section 302 simplictor and not under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.

¶59

¶60

KSR, J &BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.319 of 2015

¶61

For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the appellant/A.1 is also entitled for benefit of doubt and the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against him is liable to be set aside and he is entitled to be acquitted for the offences with which he was charged.

¶62

In the result, criminal appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, FAC-VI Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Tirupati against the appellant/A.1 in SC No.84 of 2010 dated 13.01.2015, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 380 IPC. Consequently, the appellant/A.1 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or crime.

¶63

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this criminal appeal, shall stand closed.

¶64

____________________ JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY_

¶65

_______________________________ JUSTIC E B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

¶66

Date: 22.03.2024 BSS

¶67

¶68

KSR, J &BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.319 of 2015

¶69

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY and HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶70

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.319 of 2015

¶71

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy)

¶72

112

¶73

Date: 22.03.2024

¶74

BSS

Muragadas Balaji, Thiruvannamalai Dist. v. P.P., Hyd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muragadas Balaji, Thiruvannamalai Dist. v. P.P., Hyd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Sivappa at Siva, Chittoor Dt and Anr., Vs the State, Rep Pp.

Kamireddy Suresh Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vadde Sree Ramulu Vs The State Andhra Pradesh

V.Ganga Raju at Raju, Karnataka State., Vs the State of Ap., Rep Pp.

N.Narsimhappa at Kaldi Narsimhappa, Mandakasira (M)., Vs the State, Rep by Public Prosectuor.

State Oif Ap., Rep. Pp. Hyd., Vs L.G.Gandhi, Pakala Mandal and 3 Othrs.